The Harris campaign had explored the possibility of appearing on Rogan’s podcast in an attempt to increase her support among male voters, Reuters reported on Oct. 15. Rogan, on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” said he accepted the “restrictions,” but made it clear that there would be no editing of the interview.

WATCH:

“There was a few restrictions of things they didn’t want to talk about, but I said, ‘I don’t give a fuck.’ I go, ‘Get her in here, like whatever you want to talk about.’ And they want to know if I edit,” Rogan said. “I’m like, ‘There’s not going to be any editing, there’s no editing. We’re not going to edit.’”

“Yeah, that’s the same thing they asked us. ‘Is there an edit?’” fellow podcast host Theo Von responded.

Rogan posted on X on Oct. 29 that the Harris campaign had wanted him to “travel to her” to record an interview, but that he deeply believed it would be better for the vice president to appear in his Austin, Texas studio. He also said on an Oct. 30 episode of his podcast that he extended an “open invitation” to the Harris campaign while she was in Texas for an Oct. 25 rally, but that she did not take him up on it.

“She had an opportunity to come … You could look at this and you could say, ‘Oh, you’re being a diva,’ but she had an opportunity to come here when she was in Texas. And I literally gave them an open invitation,” he asserted at the time. “I said, ‘Anytime.’ I said, ‘If she’s done at 10:00, we’ll come back here at 10:00.’ I go, ‘I’ll do it at 9:00 in the morning, I’ll do it at 10:00 p.m., I’ll do it at midnight if she’s up, she wants to, you know, drink a Red Bull and fuckin’ party on.’”

President-elect Donald Trump appeared on Rogan’s podcast on Oct. 25, recording a three-hour episode that has amassed over 47 million views on YouTube as of Friday.

“I just wanted to talk … I feel like you give someone a couple of hours and you start talking about anything, I’m [going to] see the pattern of the way you think,” Rogan said Friday. “I’m gonna see the way you process ideas. I’m gonna see whether or not you’re calculated or whether you’re just free. Or are you comfortable with you or are you projecting things?”

The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A migrant caravan heading for the U.S.-Mexico border has shrunk to roughly half its size as members accepted the fact that Trump would be re-taking the reins at the White House, according to a report from Reuters. An official from Mexico’s National Migration Institute told the outlet that the caravan dwindled to under 1,600 migrants, a sharp drop from its original size of 3,000 when it embarked on its northward journey on Tuesday in the southern Mexican city of Tapachula.

The official added that more than 100 individuals had asked for assistance from authorities on returning to Tapachula, but it’s not entirely clear where the rest of the caravan deserters are headed.

“I had hoped [Vice President Kamala Harris] would win, but that didn’t happen,” said Venezuelan migrant Valerie Andrade, according to Reuters.

Other migrants expressed hopelessness at Trump’s election victory, and even disdain at the historic levels of Latino support the Republican amassed in his landslide win.

“This is the end of my dream of getting out of Cuba,” said Felipe, a Cuban migrant, according to Newsweek.

“They forgot about when they were on the other side,” Mahily Paz, another Venezuelan migrant, said about Latinos who voted for Trump, according to Newsweek. The statement erroneously suggests that most or all Latino Americans are a product of illegal immigration.

Trump emerged victorious early Wednesday morning in the U.S. presidential election, securing more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. As of Thursday, the president-elect has also remained ahead in the popular vote count, making him the first Republican candidate to win the popular vote since former President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004.

Trump, who made border enforcement a hallmark of his first presidential term, has promised a return to a hawkish immigration policy. The president-elect has vowed to conduct the “largest deportation operation in American history,” a completion of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and a slate of other crackdowns.

While Harris attempted to rebrand herself as more of a hawk on border security on the campaign trail, she could not shake off the perception from voters and would-be illegal migrants that she was the weaker candidate when it came to immigration enforcement.

Trump’s landslide victory on Election Day was driven in large part by growing Latino support, exit polls revealed.

The president-elect won roughly 45% of the Latino vote, marking a dramatic increase from the 32% Latino support he garnered in the 2020 presidential election, according to USA Today. He also won Latino men outright, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to do so in U.S. history.

As of Thursday afternoon, Trump had so far amassed 295 electoral votes and nearly 73 million votes from American citizens.

While many migrants expressed their dismay at the election outcome and chose to turn around, others have chosen to keep gunning for the U.S. border.

“With God’s favor, I’ll get that appointment,” a Venezuelan migrant named Jeilimar said to Reuters, speaking about her appointment to request asylum with U.S. immigration officials via the CBP One app.

Biden administration officials and other immigration workers are bracing for the possibility that Trump’s election victory will spark a rush at the border before he takes office in January, with migrants hoping to make it into the U.S. before an expected border crackdown begins.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Rogan’s plans to conduct a one-on-one interview with Harris on his popular podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” fell apart after Rogan denied the Harris campaign’s request for him to travel out to the vice president and only interview her for the duration of one hour, the podcaster said on X. Khanna said Harris made a campaign mistake by not appearing on the podcast to make her platform known to Rogan’s millions of listeners.

“I’m confident we’re gonna rebuild in 2026 and we’ll win back the White House in 2028 and we gotta listen, we gotta go on some of these podcasts, I was just on “All In [with Chris Hayes] saying we should’ve done, in my view, Joe Rogan, go on all the podcasts and listen to what we need to know and and have a compelling economic message,” Khanna told MSNBC’s Jen Psaki. “But I’m still very hopeful about the party and our future.”

An undecided voter ultimately chose to support Trump over Harris because she did not appear on Rogan’s podcast, MSNBC correspondent Gadi Schwartz said Tuesday. Rogan’s show has over 14 million Spotify followers and 18.3 million YouTube subscribers, and has an audience of 80% male viewers, with 51% falling between the ages of 18-34, according to Edison Research.

President-elect Donald Trump appeared on the podcast for an Oct. 26 interview spanning nearly 3 hours, which garnered over 46.7 million views as of Thursday. Rogan endorsed Trump on Monday, just one day before the election.

The president-elect defeated Harris early Wednesday and currently holds 295 electoral votes, with Arizona and Nevada yet to be called.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Trump gained support among both black and Hispanic voters in pre-election polling, largely due to the economy and immigration, securing the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency early Wednesday morning. Kornacki said that Trump assembled a “diverse blue-collar coalition” to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris, using Pennsylvania as an example.

“First of all, you talk about the suburbs, we’ve spent so much time talking about the suburbs in the Trump era, how they’ve become more Democratic, especially suburbs with high concentrations of college degrees, with higher incomes, the collar counties around Philadelphia,” Kornacki said. “Actually, I want to show you Montgomery County… this is the biggest of the Philadelphia collar counties, it fits the demographic description I was just giving you. This is a place where Democrats have been driving up bigger and bigger margins and they came into tonight thinking and banking that that would continue.”

“Biden won Montgomery by 26 points. Harris wins it tonight, the margin comes down by four points,” Kornacki continued. “Again, Democrats were looking at this saying it’s going to go north, maybe it’ll get close to 30%, something like that. We saw this in Montgomery, we saw this in Chester, we saw this in Delaware County, other collar counties. We saw this in other states. These big suburban areas, that got bluer and bluer, generally stayed blue. They didn’t get bluer this time around. Trump stopped the slide in places like that.”

While Vice President Kamala Harris regained some support from Hispanic voters in pre-election polling since replacing Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, she still lagged behind Biden’s numbers in the 2020 election. In Texas, Trump won a county that was 97% Hispanic that voted for Democrats for over 120 years with 57% of the vote, according to the New York Post.

“Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, something else, too, I’ve been saying, I think the coalition Trump assembled here, the winning coalition, it’s a blue-collar coalition, we talk about that, we’ve been talking about that … last night, it became a much more diverse blue-collar coalition,” Kornacki said. “So, what am I talking about there? We’re talking about a place like Luzerne County, this is where Wilkes-Barre is, this is where Hazelton, Pennsylvania is, Hazelton has one of the fastest growing Hispanic populations in the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At the turn of the century Hazelton was 5% Hispanic, now it’s 70% Hispanic, largely Dominican-American, Trump carried the city of Hazelton.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Trump leads Vice President Kamala Harris by 16 points among men, while Harris holds a 16-point advantage among women across all the battleground states, according to a Sunday New York Times/Siena College poll. The voters, featured on journalist Mark Halperin’s “The Morning Meeting,” expressed surprise at backing Trump, saying they no longer trust the media’s portrayal of him.

WATCH:

“I can’t believe I’m voting for Trump,” a law school student named Lauren said, telling Halperin she has only voted for Democrats in past elections. “It started with COVID things … For me, this election is like a referendum on the elites way more than it is anything about Trump or Harris. specifically. And I recognize, like I live in D.C., I’m about to be a lawyer. It doesn’t matter.”

“After years of being yelled at about misinformation and disinformation and conspiracy theories, and after, like, for this past, year actually doing my research on what Trump did, not just what he said, but what he did in his first term and realizing the media’s lies and then seeing the media’s lies this past year, I mean the amount of work that you have to do as someone who’s not surrounded by a conservative bubble to actually figure out like the nuanced truth of what’s going on is insane,” she added.

Lauren also said she is backing Trump because of Israel, criticizing Harris and President Joe Biden for their handling of antisemitism. She also said she was “really inspired” by the team Trump has assembled during his 2024 campaign.

Halperin asked Lauren later if she is “pro-choice” and she said she was, but added she favors “keeping abortion to the states,” which Trump supports.

“I feel like a lot of his positions are pretty moderate and I think that moderate positions are best for the country right now,” she added.

WATCH:

“I think I’m supporting Trump, which is crazy for me. I very much resonate with what Lauren said earlier,” a California voter named Megan said, adding that the people she knows who are around her age of mid-twenties to early thirties appear to be supporting Trump.

“I think that COVID had a huge impact on how I view the media … it really led me to question a lot of what the media was saying, which sort of, you know, led me to look into a lot of other things. And I sort of had always bought into the media narrative around Trump, which I now disagree with,” she added. “I don’t agree with Trump on a lot of things and I’m very pro-choice, but there are certain issues that I really think that he is right on about.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a campaign memo that stated: “Democrats are facing a massive turnout deficit.”

“In every single battleground state, we see President Trump and Republicans outperforming elections past in absentee ballots and early votes cast,” the memo claimed.

“Democrats are facing a precipitous decline in urban turnout according to their own ‘data experts’ and we are tracking an uptick in rural turnout.”

The Trump campaign published numbers from Tom Bonier from TargetSmart, which the party described as a “Democrat data expert.” […]

— Read More: www.theblaze.com

The ruling came as a recent Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll forecast Vice President Kamala Harris leading in Iowa by three points over former President Donald Trump, while other polling organizations estimate that Trump is still ahead in what has been a safely Republican state in recent years.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa filed a lawsuit on behalf of four naturalized citizens on Oct. 30, alleging that Pate’s directive to check registered voters’ citizenship status violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On Oct. 22, Pate directed Iowa county auditors to challenge the ballots of voters who had previously identified themselves as noncitizens to the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT).

In its lawsuit, the ACLU argued that Pate’s list of voters whose ballots would be challenged was based on outdated DOT records, and that many of those listed have already been proven to be citizens.

It alleged that the secretary’s directive places “severe burdens” on the voting rights of the affected voters by keeping the list secret, which it said could undermine their ability to resolve their eligibility.

Pate responded that voters will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot instead, which will be counted if they can prove their citizenship.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher declined to grant a preliminary injunction, citing the finding that “some portion” of the registered voter names on Pate’s list have indeed been confirmed to be non-citizens.

“This portion appears to be relatively small—no more than 12 percent—but, still, the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs effectively would force local election officials to permit those individuals to vote,” Locher stated in a Nov. 3 ruling.

The plaintiffs had argued that Pate’s directive violates the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires that states complete any program for removing ineligible voters within 90 days before an election.

However, Locher ruled that the NVRA was not implicated in this case because the state had not removed any voters from the voter rolls, and was only requiring them to cast provisional ballots.

“Secretary Pate’s letter is likely to impose a modest additional burden on at least some voters who should not have to bear that burden. All the same, those voters are still permitted to vote and have their ballots counted. The harm is therefore not irreparable,” the judge stated.

Pate last week had blamed the federal government for blocking his office from meeting the 90-day rule, saying that the audit was delayed to October by a lack of cooperation by the Department of Transport, which did not grant access to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database for confirming citizenship.

In a statement, Pate hailed the court’s ruling as a “win for Iowa’s election integrity,” emphasizing the importance of ensuring that only eligible voters can participate in Iowa’s election process.

He said that his office would continue to seek clarity on the citizenship status of voters who had previously self-reported to be noncitizens, while urging the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office to allow the Iowa field office to release information about those voters.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird stated on X that the ruling ensured that Iowans’ votes will not be canceled out by illegal votes.

“I was glad to lead the fight in court to defend Iowa’s long-standing election integrity laws. Only American citizens can vote in Iowa elections,” she said in a statement.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the ACLU for comment but did not hear back by publication time.

The unidentified fan was sitting in the front row for the Bills’ victory over the Miami Dolphins, with a navy shirt that says ‘Trump 2024’ along with the slogan ‘Keep America First!’

The security guard states the rule he is enforcing comes from NFL policy and is not an anti-Trump measure, but it is for any political clothing.

The man in the Trump shirt and those around him question the policy and ask where can they find it to fact check the security guard’s message. The request to remove the man’s Trump shirt comes two days before the Presidential election.

It appears the security guard enforced Highmark Stadium’s policies correctly. Per the Bills’ stadium guide under ‘prohibited items’, it says ‘Clothing or material with profane language or obscene graphics or anything political in nature’ are banned. […]

WIDE LEFT!

Buffalo Bills security telling a fan he can’t wear a Trump T-shirt at the game? What a joke!

If anyone knows this proud Trump supporter, send us a message – we’d love to hook him up with some Trump gear! pic.twitter.com/CK6nWyfL48

— Erie County GOP (@ErieCountyGOP) November 3, 2024

— Read More: www.dailymail.co.uk

First came the mammoth $430 billion plan birthed before the ’22 midterms that made the student loans of 40 million borrowers eligible for cancellation.

That died the following spring at the Supreme Court only to be succeeded by the “Saving on a Valuable Education” plan, which drastically reduced the income borrowers must contribute toward repaying their loans at an estimated 10-year cost of $475 billion.

SAVE, which two Democrat-appointed judges enjoined in April, was then followed by four related rules canceling the debts of borrowers who have spent a long time in repayment without actually repaying their loans.

The latest proposal is another example of the administration’s ingrained reflex to respond to its own unpopularity with spending. Although the general objections to it are familiar, still, specific features of the latest plan are worth examining, especially because of their timing.

At this stage, the proposed rules would not be finalized until 2025. Moreover, the rules’ stated pretension is to provide an avenue for debt cancellation for “student loan borrowers for generations to come.”

The rules create two new paths for cancellation: a one-time automatic cancellation initiated by the secretary of education for loans at risk of default and an ongoing option that borrowers can access by application that “holistically” demonstrates the borrower’s hardship.

Purportedly, these address borrower needs not “sufficiently” covered in the preceding rounds of rulemaking or by readily available loan deferrals. That may be the closest the administration gets to acknowledging the redundancy of its plan that layers forgiveness atop forgiveness.

Much like the previous efforts, there’s a good deal of dissonance in how the administration presents the rule to different audiences. The Department of Education heralds the rules publicly as a courageous achievement, power procured through a righteous fight to provide “hope to millions of struggling Americans,” something no other administration has done before.

At least that last bit is true. But the rules themselves attempt to speak softly and modestly to a mostly legal audience, insisting that they are not the creation of some strange new power, but only a specification of how the secretary intends to apply the discretion that he has always had.

And though the rule is supposed to help “millions,” the secretary assures would-be critics that he will exercise his discretion only in “relatively rare” circumstances where “the costs of enforcing the full amount of the debt are not justified by the expected benefits.”

So, rest assured, dear taxpayer, these rules will save you money despite all appearances that your money is being given away.

Officious paternalism works tolerably well as a description of the rules’ tenor. The administration promises to anticipate and address borrower needs before they even arise by authorizing the Department of Education to cancel loans automatically if the department deems them at risk of defaulting.

How does the department make that determination? By consulting a “non-exhaustive” 17-factor list, of course. How else?

The borrowers the administration hopes to assist are evidently so distressed that they have not even bothered to apply for relief. Perhaps after years of COVID-19-based transfer payments and the gratuitous benefits of previous loan pauses and cancellations, borrowers are just accustomed to receiving without asking.

But then it falls to the rest of us to ask: Does any other segment of the population receive this much financial solicitude from the federal government?

The proposal’s most audacious quality is not its indulgent attitude toward borrowers, but its insouciance toward the matter of legal authority.

Since it took office, the Biden-Harris administration has combed the statutes for the few stray words they could morph into transformational debt-cancelling authority.

To date, they’re still searching for a rationale that would satisfy a judge. But the fact is, they are out of plausible alternatives, so they are recycling the same tortured reading of the Higher Education Act used to justify two of the preceding attempts.

Courts have already previewed the merits of this argument: Two Democrat-appointed judges have found that opponents of the rules are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their legal challenges. But that has in no way dissuaded the administration from this fourth attempt because the administration refuses to take the hint.

In the twilight of Biden-Harris administration, its policy approach resembles a movie studio that has misunderstood its audience and run out of ideas to keep them engaged.

These rules are sequels that appeal only to the most niche audience—the coalition of organizations dedicated to the abolition of student debt and their enablers within the Department of Education.

With the broader American audience, the approach is a liability. A poll conducted by University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy found that 40% of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the Biden-Harris administration’s repeated intrigues to transfer student debt to taxpayers. Another poll from the libertarian Cato Institute found that roughly 70% of Americans disapprove of student-loan cancellation when apprised of its effects on taxes and inflation.

Nevertheless, the administration persists in offering the same non-cure for the student-debt ailment. Despite the administration’s professed interest in addressing “root causes,” these rules, like their predecessors, barely acknowledge, let alone address, the variables that have made higher education such a debt-intensive undertaking or the variables that make the American economy one in which it is difficult for borrowers to repay the burdens they have assumed.

Instead, it cues up another installment of bourgeois socialism, a redistribution of monies to those who have spent too much money to attain fewer privileges than they would like.

Berman played an edited, trimmed down clip of Trump saying he will protect women “whether they like it or not” in reference to many women falling victim to rape and murder as a result of the border crisis. Donalds said the clip is “grossly inaccurate” and out of context, stating that Trump is promising to protect women from the various tragedies that have taken place as a result of the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“John, that is grossly inaccurate what you just played. Play the full clip. Play it in its context,” Donalds said. “He’s talking about the tragedy at our southern border that led to the death of Jocelyn Nungaray. Jocelyn’s mother endorsed Donald Trump because she fully believes that if Donald Trump was president, her daughter would be alive. And so what he was talking about, I’m gonna protect women, I’m gonna protect children,’ and he was really telling a joke about how some of the staff said ‘no, no, don’t say you’ll protect women because they’ll take it out of context.’ Obviously, what CNN is doing right now, is taking it out of context.”

“No, no, no, you have the exact right context here, congressman,” Berman replied. “Congressman, you just explained the exact right context was with Donald Trump’s story was telling people how people close to him, his advisers were telling him not to use that type of language to say ‘I’m going to be your protector.’”

The CNN host pointed to former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley criticizing the Trump campaign for appealing to male voters and not sending a message that will win over women.

“John, you need to stop,” Donalds said.

“So you’re telling me there’s no concern from Nikki Haley or as clearly as Donald Trump said, from people close to him in his campaign, about the type of language that he’s using,” Berman said.

Donalds then named 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley and 37-year-old Rachel Morin, who all mercilessly died at the hands of illegal immigrants under the Biden-Harris administration.

“Donald Trump is going to protect women in our country. He is going to protect children in our country,” the congressman said. Under Kamala Harris, we have lost 350,000 children in the United States. We’ve lost them, John, talk about that. What I will tell you is once again, you’re gonna clip 5 seconds out of an hour speech and not provide context. This is why the American people frankly are frustrated with media because you guys play games, you take things out of context, you don’t explain them clearly, and you want to get caught up in some antics.

“The heart of what Donald Trump said, very clearly is, he’s gonna protect the women of our country because Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have refused to protect the women of our country and a president should protect women and all Americans and that’s what he’s gonna do,” Donalds continued.

The former president said during a Wednesday rally in Wisconsin that his advisers believed women would not like him promising that he would protect them, leading him to say at the rally that he will protect women anyways if he is reelected.

Federal immigration law under the Biden-Harris administration allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “parole” migrants instead of detaining them for “humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” which has been challenged by many Republican-led states. Illegal encounters exceeded 2 million in the 2022, 2023 and 2024 fiscal years, largely surpassing encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Trump administration, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.