Apr. 16, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

President Donald Trump was impeached in December 2019, charged by the House of Representatives with abusing his office to gain leverage over Joe Biden in the upcoming presidential election. This week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard rebooted that scandal with the release of a handful of newly declassified documents that question the beginning of the impeachment investigation — in hopes of discrediting everything that followed.

MS NOW confirmed Wednesday that Gabbard’s office has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for the whistleblower whose concern over a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy launched the impeachment inquiry and the former inspector general who fielded their complaint. The referrals were first reported by Fox News.

Gabbard’s new disclosures mirror a well-worn playbook used by Trump’s loyalists to investigate his investigators. But in every instance, including this latest endeavor, the evidence gathered of wrongdoing on Trump’s part has far outweighed proof of misconduct from his investigators.

In Gabbard’s telling, as she posted on Xthe process was an inherently corrupt conspiracy where “deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people.” Michael Atkinson, former inspector general for the Intelligence Community, is painted in a press release accompanying the new materials as a rogue actor who spun a secondhand tale into an attempted coup.

The materials posted Monday do provide an interesting window into the chain of events eventually leading to Trump’s first impeachment. Among them are official records from the preliminary 14-day investigation Atkinson undertook to determine that the whistleblower’s initial complaint was of “urgent concern” and needed to be reported to Congress. Also included are transcripts from Atkinson’s two closed-door interviews with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, one before the White House released the transcript of the Zelenskyy call and one after the impeachment inquiry was underway.

But despite Gabbard’s breathless claims of a “coordinated effort … to manufacture a conspiracy,” nothing among the materials contradicts anything uncovered later. If anything, the initial interviews with the whistleblower, conducted in late August 2019, line up neatly with the fuller story that would be revealed over the coming weeks in the press and during the House’s impeachment inquiry. Both the whistleblower and a corroborating witness were extremely forthcoming about exactly what they did and did not know about the call, and why they were deeply concerned by Trump’s repeating conspiracy theories and pressing Zelenskyy to resume an investigation into Biden.

Gabbard’s cries of “politicization” from Atkinson are likewise overblown. Her claim is based on a section in the IG’s interview process where subjects were asked if they have anything in their background that might reveal any biases that could be used against them. The responses given suggest a certain hesitation to speak out for fear their words would be spun into right-wing attacks but was overridden by the necessity to speak out. Atkinson transparently mentioned in a letter to then-acting DNI Joseph Maguire that there was an “indicia of an arguable political bias” from the complainant, but that it didn’t alter his determination that their information was credible.

Maguire initially prevented Atkinson from providing the complaint to Congress, claiming that the Justice Department ruled it was outside of the IG’s remit. Atkinson disagreed and told lawmakers an “urgent concern” existed, as he believed the law required him, but did not provide the whistleblower’s complaint. Instead, it was only after media reports of the investigation and the White House’s subsequent release of the so-called perfect call with Zelenskyy that Atkinson was able to speak to Congress about the complaint directly.

All of this, in Gabbard’s telling, amounted to a “weaponization” of the process.

Several things stand out at this point. First is how ill-equipped Gabbard is to be leading America’s intelligence community. Her emphasis on how the first people to come forward about Trump’s scheme didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the call would be laughable if it weren’t so inept. It is literally the job of the intelligence community to consume partial information as it is received and work that raw data into a complete analysis. What Gabbard is essentially saying is that someone who only saw a single piece of the puzzle, at first, cannot be trusted to put together a picture in their head once more pieces have come together.

Second is how blatantly she has copied the failed formula of the GOP’s efforts to discredit the Russia investigation during Trump’s first term. For years now, through numerous investigations from the House and an independent counsel alike, Republicans have tried to claim wrongdoing from the FBI and other supposed “deep state” figures when first investigating hints of Russian interference in the 2016 election. But John Durham’s four-year-long probe came up empty, and despite Trump’s demands for revenge, there have been no criminal charges filed against anyone involved in the case.

Finally, it’s worth remembering Gabbard’s position when she was serving as a U.S. representative from Hawaii during Trump’s first impeachment. By the time the House voted on the articles of impeachment, she was already running a longshot bid for president. Accordingly, she was attempting to position herself as not beholden to the left wing, but still a viable candidate to be the Democratic nominee.

Gabbard was the only Democrat in the House to vote “present” on the articles. But she made clear in a statement afterward that she believed “President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.” Her vote, or nonvote rather, was cast because, in her view, “removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.” The centrism by way of cowardice branding that brought her to prominence has fully given way — she now simply yields to the rightward pressures she finds herself under as part of Trump’s cabinet.

In his first interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on IntelligenceAtkinson described himself as a first responder, one who may not have had the full picture, but who had heard a fire alarm ringing and chose to act. “I don’t know whether it is just smoke, don’t know whether it is a small fire,” he told lawmakers as he refused to reveal what he’d learned from his preliminary findings. “All I know is that there was a time when … another first responder was not getting information about an alleged fire.”

Atkinson did what he thought was right and in accordance with the law by telling Congress that a complaint existed. The whistleblower did the same, despite the potential reprisals they’d face from a vengeful White House. Gabbard is now targeting them specifically for doing so, even as it is her job to be the early warning system against the nation’s greatest threats. It’s disturbing then to think what alarm bells she would prefer to silence, what risks she would take with America’s safety, rather than risk upsetting Trump.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House.

Apr. 16, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

A progressive activist and a Republican mayor will be on the ballot on Thursday when voters head to the polls for a special election to fill the U.S. House seat vacated by New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, D.

Democrats are strongly favored to keep the seat in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, but the race has exposed ideological divisions within the party and has become a test for Republican efforts to compete in a district that has trended blue in recent years.

Democrat Analilia Mejia, a progressive organizer and former national political director for Sen. Bernie Sanders’, I-Vt., presidential campaign will face Republican Randolph Township Mayor Joe Hathaway, who ran unopposed in his party’s primary. Alan Bond is running as an independent candidate.

A special election was called when Sherrill resigned in November after winning the governorship. Party primaries were held in February.

The Democratic primary drew an unusually large and diverse field, with more than a dozencandidates competing across ideological lines.  Among the most prominent contenders was former U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski. The contest quickly became a proxy battle between the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and more centrist establishment figures, drawing millions of dollarsin outside spending. A heavy spending push by AIPAC to attack moderate-leaning Malinowski appeared to backfire, with some Democratic strategists arguing the group’s intervention galvanized progressive voters and ultimately helped propel Mejia.

Mejia prevailedby a narrow margin, defeating Malinowski after a late surge in Election Day voting overcame his early lead from mail-in ballots. Her victory was seen by many as a sign of growing progressive energy within Democratic primaries, particularly in suburban districts that have shifted left in recent election cycles.

Thursday’s contest is being closely watched as an early indicator of Democratic voter sentiment heading into the 2026 midterm elections. The winner will serve the remainder of the current congressional term and is expected to run again in November for a full term.

“Mejia is much more progressive than Sherrill, so it’s like, okay, can she win in those kinds of suburban districts?” said Fanny Lauby, a political science professor who specializes in American politics at Montclair State University, which sits in the 11th district.

Despite the contentious primary, Democrats appear as a clear favorite in the 11th District, which includes parts of Essex, Morris and Passaic counties. The district has moved away from its Republican roots over the past decade, with Democratic presidential and congressional candidates winning comfortably in recent cycles.

Sherrill captured about 56% of the votein her 2024 re-election. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, wonthe district over Donald Trump with 53% of the vote in 2024.

“We are fed up with the chaos coming out of Washington — from rising prices to attacks on our democracy,” Mejia said in a statement to MS NOW. “This is our chance to reject MAGA extremism, fight for an economy that works for everyone, and elect someone who is truly unbought and unbossed.”

Mejia, the daughter of Colombian and Dominican immigrants, has embraced a policy platform that includes support for abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcementand replacing it with a system that prioritizes humanitarian immigration enforcement and due process. She has advocated for policies including expanding workers’ rights, raising the federal minimum wage and advancing universal health care.

“I think these are now kind of part of the national progressive Democratic platform. I think that’s definitely a message that resonates with a lot more Democratic voters than it would have maybe five or 10 years ago,” Lauby said.

Mejia has also been a strong critic of the war in Gaza and has accused Israel of committing genocide in its effort to take out Hamas. Notably, she gained a boostfrom a prominent progressive pro-Israel advocacy group after J Street PAC, which endorsed her on Friday. She also secured the backing from several prominent Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Sen. Cory Booker and D-NJ, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

A GBAO poll conducted in Marchshowed Mejia with a sizable lead over Hathaway, 53% to 36% respectively. Mejia also significantly outraisedHathaway in the lead-up to the special election, building roughly a 2-to-1 fundraising advantage that has helped fuel her campaign’s visibility across the district.

Still, some Republicans view Hathaway’s candidacy as an opportunity to test messaging that could resonate in suburban districts nationwide. The New Jersey Republican has sought to carve out an independent lane in the race by occasionally breaking with President Donald Trump, a notable stance in a party still largely aligned with the president.

Hathaway’s campaign has been backed by a coalition of Morris County GOP leaders, including local mayors and state senators. Hathaway has emphasized a pragmatic approach, at times signaling disagreement with Trump’s rhetoric and positioning himself as a candidate willing to challenge party orthodoxy. Hathaway criticized Trump’s decision last year to cancel billions in federal funding for the Gateway Program, which would build a new rail tunnel linking New Jersey and New York. He has also repeatedly vowed he won’t be “rubber stamp” for Trump.

His strategy reflects an effort to appeal to moderate and independent voters, where Republican candidates have struggled in recent years amid shifting suburban dynamics.

“For me, it’s about my district, not the party, not the president,” Hathaway told MS NOW on Monday. “If I can call balls and strikes as a Republican, then I think I can earn the vote of a whole lot of people in NJ-11.”

Lauby emphasized that it’s a risky tactic for Republican candidates to oppose party leadership, specifically Trump.

“For the Republicans, it’s like a big test case of like, okay, does waffling work? Like, does avoiding the T(rump)-word work?,” Lauby said. “But if you go counter to the president, then you expose yourself to attacks from both parties.”

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Apr. 16, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Next month President Donald Trump is scheduled to make what will be the first trip by a U.S. president to China in eight years. It’s going to be a high-stakes visit, during which he’s likely to discuss trade, fentanyl trafficking, and Iran policy with Chinese President Xi Jinping. And for some reason he’s bringing along his son Eric Trump.

Eric Trump is not a member of his father’s administration. He’s the executive vice president of the Trump Organization, whose holdings include real estate properties and blockchain. A Trump Organization spokeswoman told Reuters this week that Eric Trump will be joining his father in a “personal capacity as a supportive son.” She added that Eric Trump “does not have business ventures in China nor plans on doing business in China” and “will not be participating in private meetings.”

None of that is consolation to anyone concerned about the conflicts of interest that would come with Eric Trump’s attendance: This trip creates all kinds of possibilities for deal-making that could undermine the public interest. And we know Trump knows this, too — if for no other reason than his obsession with slamming the Biden family for Hunter Biden accompanying then-Vice President Joe Biden to China.

In 2019, Donald Trump called for China to investigate the Biden family based on the appearance that Hunter Biden was engaged in inappropriate business dealings during that  2013 trip. Less than two weeks after that trip, Biden’s son secured funding from the government-owned Bank of China for a private equity fund he helped launch as founding board member. Hunter Biden said that during his father’s official trip he met investment banker Jonathan Li for a “cup of coffee.” After the trip, Li became chief executive of the fund and Hunter Biden became a board member. While his position was initially unpaid, afterwards, in 2017, he acquired a 10% stake in the fund.

There’s no evidence Joe Biden used his power as vice president to help his son negotiate that business deal, and there’s no evidence that any law was broken. And unsurprisingly, as he inveighed against Hunter Biden, President Trump made a host of unsubstantiated claims about how much Biden’s son made and how he made it.

But setting aside Donald Trump’s misinformation and bad faith intentions, it’s a legitimate observation that there was something that appeared unseemly about Hunter Biden’s business in China. There’s no way to rule out the possibility  Hunter Biden was trading on his surname or his seat on Air Force Two during that trip as he angled for investment from China; indeed, that was inextricable from the entire dynamic. Nor is there any way to rule out that Hunter Biden privately offered or insinuated quid pro quos to Chinese authorities in exchange for its government providing capital for his fund. This is why public officials and their families must avoid potential conflicts of interest as rigorously as possible — because the appearance of possible impropriety allows corruption to thrive. (Hunter Biden later denied any impropriety, but said, “I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father.”)

But legitimate concerns about Hunter Biden’s behavior don’t excuse Eric Trump visiting China with his father; it makes the trip less excusable. At minimum, critics should hold themselves to the standards they demand of others. The Trump Organizations says Eric Trump is not taking private meetings and not there to do business, but there’s no way to hold him to his word, nor is there any way to prevent Chinese government officials or businessmen from privately approaching him with potential deals.

One of Eric Trump’s many business interests that could obviously pose a conflict of interest is American Bitcoin, the bitcoin mining company he co-owns, which works closely with the Chinese company Bitmain, a manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has lobbied the Trump administration to look into the ways Bitmain could pose national security risks to U.S. infrastructure. This all means that the Trump family has a financial incentive to downplay national security questions surrounding this company in order to, for example, secure a more profitable partnership.

Even if Eric Trump does not make any concrete business plans immediately, there’s no way to rule out the possibility of future deals or deals through third parties that are harder to trace. Recall, for example, the remarkable ability of the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner to attract a huge amount of Saudi investment to his unimpressive fledgling private equity fund after he left office during Trump’s first term. It certainly seemed like Kushner was cashing in on the friendship he formed with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman when he worked in the Trump administration. (Kushner and the fund have said they have complied with all laws and requirements.)

In fact, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where Chinese government officials aren’t thinking about how to use a relationship with Eric Trump to influence his father’s policy decisions. Donald Trump has made his second term unfathomably corrupt, and he has brazenly profited off his presidency. Trump has a media companyseveral cryptocurrency businessesand opaque merchandise businesses. He has reportedly insinuated to oil executives that his policies are for sale. He has secured money from legal settlements that look more like tributes to a king than reasonable financial or legal agreements. The New York Times estimates that Trump has made at least $1.4 billion using the presidency, while The New Yorker estimates that Trump’s family has made at least $4 billion by leveraging his position as president. (The Times notes that “the Trumps and their business partners have disputed some of these estimates.”)

In light of this reality, Eric Trump’s decision to accompany his father doesn’t just look inappropriate, it looks like a signal for investors. Why else bring Eric Trump along on a state visit? He could always visit on his own, privately. But then there would be less opportunity to further blur the line between private and public interests, and less opportunity for Trump’s family members to line their pockets.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.