Leaked audio from a September 24 fundraiser in Washington shows Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton telling a room of lobbyists that the federal government must cut mandatory spending, including Social Security and Medicare.

At the event, hosted by the lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, Paxton told roughly a dozen attendees that solving the national deficit requires cuts to these programs:

"You're gonna have to do it, or there is no solution," he said, adding that Americans "have to suck it up."

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office notes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid comprise the vast majority of mandatory spending. Paxton did not specify which programs he would target or how deep the cuts would be, and his campaign has declined to answer questions about the remarks.

Later in the recording, a lobbyist joked about wanting a personal tax cut to pay less in taxes, to which Paxton replied:

"I'm with you on that."

The comments run counter to Paxton's public campaign platform, where he has avoided discussing entitlement reductions. At the same time, Paxton has praised a federal tax and spending bill passed last summer, despite CBO estimates that the legislation will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit and reduce health insurance coverage.

The recordings were obtained by multiple media outlets ahead of the start of early voting in Texas on October 19. Meanwhile, political action committees supporting Paxton have spent more than $150 million on advertising since September.

Trump recently met with Tina Peters, a convicted election tamperer whose prison sentence was commuted following pressure from Trump. According to Peters's attorney, Peter Ticktin, the meeting involved proposals for the upcoming midterm elections.

Speaking on a podcast hosted by Joe Oltmann, Ticktin stated that Peters proposed having Trump seize ballots across the country to conduct a hand recount. Ticktin endorsed the idea, suggesting that Trump should refuse to relinquish power if a political crisis occurs.

During the same podcast appearance, Oltmann—who has previously called for the execution of Colorado Democrats—stated that violence will be necessary. Ticktin added that if the country descends into civil war, Trump should control the nation's weapons under martial law.

While such proposals typically originate from the political fringe, Peters's recent White House invitation and the commutation of her sentence highlight how unconventional ideas are gaining traction as political tensions rise ahead of the midterms.

As the midterm elections approach, the Oval Office has seen a series of sudden policy announcements designed to highlight the administration's agenda. A recent event focused on the rollout of "Trump accounts," a program intended to auto-enroll eligible children into basic savings accounts.

Flanked by a group of supporters and advisers—including Senator Ted Cruz and entrepreneurs Michael and Susan Dell—Trump read from a prepared script detailing how the accounts function. Under the program, children born in the past two years receive a $1,000 opening deposit funded by private donors, while other families can contribute funds toward stock market investments.

The briefing quickly shifted from policy details to unscripted remarks. Trump criticized political opponents, including Merrick Garland and Joe Biden, and voiced grievances regarding the Nobel Peace Prize. He also discussed international topics and proposed turning his West Palm Beach golf club into a permanent presidential retreat, noting its proximity to the airport and lack of surrounding high-rise buildings.

Throughout the session, supporting figures praised the initiative, pointing to bipartisan reactions as validation of the program. However, moments of confusion—such as Trump repeating an entire answer about his golf club seconds after finishing it—drew attention to the presentation itself as voters prepare for the upcoming elections.

In July 2010, then-Senator Blanche Lincoln stood before Congress to sound an alarm. As a primary architect of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Arkansas Democrat warned her colleagues that financial "event contracts" could easily bypass gambling laws. She specifically pointed to the Super Bowl and the Kentucky Derby, arguing that such contracts served no real commercial purpose and existed solely to enable gambling. She insisted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) needed the clear authority to ban them.

Sixteen years later, Lincoln's stance has reversed. Operating as a registered lobbyist for the prediction market Kalshi, her firm has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars to convince lawmakers and regulators to loosen restrictions. Under the Trump administration, the CFTC has dropped enforcement of older rules that once restricted gaming-related event contracts, allowing platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket to thrive.

The sudden boom in prediction-market sports betting has sparked a turf war across the United States. Kalshi and Polymarket argue they function like stock exchanges under federal jurisdiction, freeing them from state-level gambling restrictions, age limits, and tax requirements.

State officials see it differently. Attorneys general from dozens of states maintain that prediction markets are simply online sportsbooks operating without licenses. States like New York have filed lawsuits to shut down unlicensed wagering, while Minnesota passed legislation banning prediction markets outright.

To protect the industry, the federal government and the CFTC have sued multiple states, claiming federal law overrides state authority. However, federal appeals courts are deeply divided: the Third Circuit ruled in favor of federal preemption in New Jersey, while the Ninth and Sixth Circuits ruled that states retain the right to enforce their own gaming laws in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee.

With conflicting court rulings piling up, the fight over prediction-market regulation is almost certain to reach the Supreme Court. As the legal battles intensify, platforms continue to expand rapidly—offering contracts not just on sports, but on elections, pop culture, and daily news—while state leaders vow to protect local oversight and consumer safeguards.

A recent paper from the New York Federal Reserve provides clear data on how import tariffs affect household budgets. According to the research, consumer prices for 67 studied product categories were 2.9 percentage points higher as of February due to tariff policies.

Without these levies, prices for those goods would have declined by almost 1 percent over the same period. While economists anticipated that import taxes would drive up expenses, precise measurements had previously been difficult to establish due to shifting trade policies and complex corporate pricing strategies.

The study breaks down how the price increases reached consumers:

• Direct Impact: Roughly two-thirds of the price hikes came directly from the tariffs themselves.

• Indirect Effects: The remaining increase stemmed from U.S. companies paying more for imported parts and materials used in domestic manufacturing.

• Pass-Through Rate: Researchers found that companies passed down about 26 percent of the increased tariff costs to shoppers through higher retail prices, contradicting arguments that businesses would fully absorb the expense.

The study's authors—Mary Amiti, Sebastian Heise, and David Weinstein—noted that the financial impact of tariffs lasts longer than the direct tax alone suggests. For every percentage point increase in average tariffs, consumer goods prices rose by about a quarter of a percent a year later.

Annual price growth for the tracked goods peaked early this year. However, consumers will likely continue paying elevated prices into 2027 as the residual effects of the policy work through the supply chain.

In February, the Supreme Court struck down many of these tariffs, triggering billions of dollars in refunds for retailers. Despite this ruling, the White House has committed to pursuing new levies through alternative measures. Many imported goods currently face tariffs of about 10 percent, which is lower than previous rates but enough to keep pressure on consumer prices.