President Donald Trump’s House GOP critics are ripping the administration’s operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., was the first to criticize the Trump administration’s operation in Venezuela, again breaking from the majority of his party and butting heads with the commander-in-chief.

Massie, a longtime critic of U.S. foreign intervention, appeared to question the legality of the federal government’s Venezuela strikes.

‘If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law,’ Massie posted to X on Saturday morning.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed a four-count indictment against Maduro after Trump confirmed the U.S. took custody of the Venezuelan leader and his wife following strikes in the capital of Caracas.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement those charges were ‘Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.’

It’s not immediately clear what Maduro’s wife, Celia Flores, has been charged with.

In a follow-up posted on the charges, Massie said, ’25-page indictment but no mention of fentanyl or stolen oil. Search it for yourself.’

Trump said on Fox News that Maduro and Flores were being flown to the U.S.S. Iwo Jima, which will bring them to the U.S. where they will face criminal proceedings led by the Southern District of New York.

Massie’s criticism was followed by scathing comments by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., another Trump critic who is retiring from Congress early next week before finishing her term.

‘If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs, then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels? And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority, then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America?’ part of Greene’s statement read.

‘The next obvious observation is that by removing Maduro this is a clear move for control over Venezuelan oil supplies that will ensure stability for the next obvious regime change war in Iran. And of course, why is it ok for America to militarily invade, bomb, and arrest a foreign leader, but Russia is evil for invading Ukraine and China is bad for aggression against Taiwan? Is it only ok if we do it? (I’m not endorsing Russia or China).’

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., praised the operation itself but expressed concerns about what precedent is being set.

‘My main concern now is that Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan,’ Bacon said in a statement. ‘Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.’

Bacon is also retiring from Congress, but unlike Greene, he is serving out his full term.

The vast majority of Republican lawmakers unequivocally backed the operation, as expected. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., both said they expected congressional briefings from the Trump administration in the coming days when lawmakers return from a two-week recess. 

President Donald Trump said the United States is ‘going to run the country’ in Venezuela until what he described as a safe, proper and judicious transition can take place.

Trump framed the role as temporary but necessary, saying the U.S. does not want to allow ‘somebody else get in’ before conditions are stable. He said the goal is peace, liberty and justice for Venezuelans, including those who have fled to the United States and hope to return home.

‘We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,’ Trump said. 

He also warned the U.S. is prepared to escalate further if needed, saying, ‘We are ready to stage a second and much larger attack,’ and that American forces remain in position. ‘We’re there now, and we’re going to stay until such time as the proper transition can take place,’ Trump said.

Trump spoke during a news conference Saturday hours after U.S. special forces bombed Caracas and captured dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, taking them to New York to face drug trafficking charges. 

Trump said the U.S. plans to directly manage Venezuela alongside partners while rebuilding the country’s oil sector. ‘We’re going to be running it with a group, and we’re going to make sure it’s run properly,’ Trump said. ‘We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure, which will cost billions of dollars. It’ll be paid for by the oil companies directly… and we’re going to get the oil flowing the way it should be.’ He said the U.S. would ensure Venezuelans are ‘taken care of,’ including those ‘forced out of Venezuela by this thug.’

Pressed on whether U.S. forces would remain inside the country, Trump did not rule out a sustained troop presence. ‘They always say boots on the ground — so we’re not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to,’ he said, confirming U.S. troops were already involved ‘at a very high level’ during the operation. 

Trump repeated that the U.S. intends to stay and retain control, saying, ‘We’re there now. We’re ready to go again if we have to. We’re going to run the country… very judiciously, very fairly.’ He added that the U.S. was prepared to launch another attack if necessary and accused Venezuela’s former leadership of stealing American-built oil infrastructure, saying, ‘We’re late, but we did something about it.’

Asked whether the U.S. would back opposition leader María Corina Machado or work with Venezuela’s newly sworn-in vice president, Trump signaled flexibility. He noted the vice president had been ‘picked by Maduro,’ but said U.S. officials were already engaging with her. ‘She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great,’ Trump said, adding that the issue was being handled directly by his team.

Trump continued, ‘She was quite gracious, but she really doesn’t have a choice. We’re going to have this done right. We’re not going to just do this when they leave like everybody else, leave and say, you know, let it go to hell. If we just left, it has zero chance of ever coming back. We’ll run it properly. We’ll run it professionally. We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions and billions of dollars and take out money. Use that money in Venezuela. And the biggest beneficiary are going to be the people of Venezuela.’

Trump was asked by another reporter, ‘Why is running a country in South America ‘America first’?’

Trump replied: ‘We want to surround ourselves with good neighbors. We want to surround ourselves with stability. We want to surround ourselves with energy. We have tremendous energy in that country. It’s very important that we protect it.’

U.S. efforts to run or oversee political transitions in foreign countries have frequently encountered setbacks in recent years, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s approach to Venezuela.

The last time the U.S. intervened militarily to remove a leader in Latin America was Panama in 1989, when American forces ousted dictator Manuel Noriega. While the operation succeeded quickly, it was followed by long-term challenges in stabilizing governance.

While the invasion quickly removed Manuel Noriega, it resulted in significant civilian harm. Estimates of civilian deaths vary widely, and entire neighborhoods — most notably El Chorrillo in Panama City — were heavily damaged, leaving thousands homeless. This complicated post-invasion stabilization and fueled lingering resentment among parts of the population.

But after years of soaring hyperinflation that wiped out savings, hollowed out wages and fueled mass migration, some U.S. officials — and many Venezuelans — believe virtually anyone who comes to power would be better than Nicolás Maduro. Venezuelans inside the country and those who fled to the United States were seen celebrating in the streets during moments of heightened U.S. pressure, according to videos that circulated widely on social media.

Venezuelan opposition leaders Edmundo González Urrutia and his running mate Machado have positioned themselves as the alternative to President Nicolás Maduro, insisting they won last year’s presidential election despite the government’s declaration of Maduro as the victor.

Machado, who was barred from holding office by the Maduro-appointed high court, threw her support behind González as a unity candidate, while the opposition and several international observers rejected the official results as fraudulent.

González has since left Venezuela amid pressure from the Maduro government, while Machado’s present whereabouts is unknown, urging continued domestic and international pressure to force a political transition.

After the capture, Machado called on Venezuela’s armed forces to recognize opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia as the country’s ‘legitimate president’ and commander-in-chief, while declaring the opposition is prepared to ‘assert our mandate and take power.’ In a defiant statement, she said ‘the hour of freedom has arrived,’ argued President Nicolás Maduro now faces international justice, and urged Venezuelans at home and abroad to mobilize as what she described as the final phase of a democratic transition.

Asked about the U.S.’s track record of ousting dictators, Trump replied: ‘That’s when we had different presidents … That’s not with me. We’ve had a perfect track record of winning. We win a lot and we win. If you look at Soleimani, you look at al-Baghdadi, you look at the Midnight Hammer, Midnight Hammer was incredible … So, with me, you’ve had a lot of a lot of victory. You’ve had only victories, you’ve had no losses yet.’

January 2026 marks one year into President Donald Trump’s second term, and there can be no honest conversation without acknowledging that he is one of the most consequential presidents in American history. Love him or loathe him, Trump remains the fixed star around which our politics has revolved for the better part of a decade. Every debate, whether on leadership, law, legacy or lack thereof, turns on the outsized presence of one man. His shadow looms across every institution sacred to America, from colleges to the church to the Capitol, forcing each to declare with whom it stands and why. 

Trump has not simply challenged institutions; he has recharted their course. He has created a political environment where presence, leverage and speed prevail — conditions future leaders will inherit whether they admire his legacy or admonish it. What matters now is not merely what Trump disrupted, but what he set in motion. Among other things, Trump reminds us how quickly and how personally a single executive can impact law, markets and society, for better or worse. 

Long after the rallies fade and the indictments recede, Trump’s imprint will continue to shape American life. A remade Supreme Court of hand-picked justices has altered constitutional doctrine for generations to come. Capital markets have come to treat presidential volatility as a warning sign and tradable risk. Tariffs, trade and industrial policy have been recast as blunt instruments of executive will, designed to serve voters as much as economists. Even the once-fringe world of digital assets and crypto has been reframed from libertarian experiment to strategic asset class challenging sovereignty, regulation and power. 

In many other ways, Trump has altered expectations as much as outcomes. He mandated institutions to move faster and challenged political actors to think bigger. That inheritance will not be easily unwound. History’s students of power understand that consequence is measured not only by outcomes, but by what follows, and few made that point more clearly than Henry Kissinger. ‘Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.’

More than anyone else, Trump recognizes that power today flows not only from institutions but from attention. From the time he entered the arena, Trump has perfected one principle: never surrender the stage. Pundits once mocked his early bid for office as self-promotion. It became a populist revolt instead. His blunt voice pierces decades of polite debate. While Washington was accustomed to civility, his words are often raw, sometimes reckless, but always real. Trump’s mastery of attention strains conventional guardrails and has exposed institutional rot long ignored. He leverages disruption to push the boundaries of trust and normalize chaos, conflict and controversy. 

The Trump presidency breaks precedent almost daily — so often it is futile to flag and hard to keep score. He confronts China’s mercantilism with tariffs when others fear retaliation. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, upending decades of diplomatic orthodoxy. He stepped across the DMZ to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and rolled out the red carpet for Russian President Vladimir Putin. He bombs Venezuelan speed boats presumed to carry contraband and dares the reigning despot to respond, let alone retaliate. And he brusquely deports the undocumented with steely bravado. All of which would have been derided or thought folly not long ago, but now is political reality.  

Supporters see courage; opponents see chaos. Two things can be true. Trump leads by instinct, improvising his own score to the established symphony of power. Policy wonks measure process; his allies measure presence. Rallies replaced town halls. Tweets replaced press conferences. Identity replaced ideology. To millions who felt unseen, he proved they exist. He showed up, stood up and spoke up in a way American presidents never have, and may never again.

Every scandal was forecast as fatal. None has been. Each prosecution, revelation and rebuke only deepened the myth. His mug shot became merchandise, his trials became theater, his adversaries became amplifiers. History honors endurance as much as elegance, if not more. Trump embodies that fact. Cast down, counted out and condemned by critics, his ascendance reflects the character of a long ignored American electorate — disruptive, defiant, determined to be seen.  

Grave legal and ethical questions have dogged the president to be sure. But the paradox persists: efforts to diminish Trump through lawfare have mostly enlarged and emboldened him politically and prompted questions as to whether prosecution has advanced justice or accelerated division. 

Washington still misunderstands the Trump phenomenon. He thrives on friction, force and fear. Attention is both fuel and fortress. While pundits count approval ratings, he commandeers airtime. Flooding the zone is more than a football play; it is a governing philosophy for Trump, who understands that in today’s politics, silence equals extinction. The simple act of tagging opponents with amusingly accurate nicknames bespeaks both instinct and popular appeal; at the same time brilliant and brutal.

Populism in America is cyclical. President Andrew Jackson fought banks; politician William Jennings Bryan fought barons; Louisiana Gov. and then Sen. Huey Long fought inequality; Trump fights systems of every stripe. His crusade is part grievance and part gospel, speaking to a republic that distrusts its own elite institutions and their caretakers. Trump excels at stretching politics into follow-through performance. After all, who else would dare prepend his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts and the U.S. Institute of Peace in real time. 

Foreign-policy mandarins dismiss his unorthodox diplomacy, yet the Abraham Accords reordered alliances few believed possible. Energy independence became a reality under his watch. Europe, once warned about Russian gas dependency, now concedes he was right. NATO member states shoulder greater — though not altogether equitable — burdens. Even critics grudgingly credit him for forcing movement on issues long considered intractable, thus the Nobel nominations. 

American politics has long relished showmanship and public performance, from Jefferson’s pamphlets to Lincoln’s debates. Trump is the latest iteration of that tradition, and the most complete legacy of the social media age. He channels a culture that values performance as proof of conviction. As such, he reflects some of our own national contradictions: moral yet mercenary, religious yet rebellious, democratic yet drawn to dominance.

Scholars will debate Trump’s impact for decades, but his ubiquity is unquestionable. He imbues every poll, every platform, every party calculus. Democrats campaign against him; Republicans campaign around him. He remains bolder and busier than ever. Trump did not just reform the GOP; he broke the mold and recast it as Trump, MAGA and America First. 

Every scandal was forecast as fatal. None has been. Each prosecution, revelation and rebuke only deepened the myth. His mug shot became merchandise, his trials became theater, his adversaries became amplifiers.

Trump’s evangelical supporters remind us that the great men of old were seldom polished and never perfect. Moses killed, yet led his people to freedom. David sinned, yet ruled with vision. Paul persecuted, yet became the greatest apostle. Scripture teaches that imperfection often precedes purpose, and greatness is rarely graceful. The Christian faithful rely on these proverbial lessons when explaining their loyal and unapologetic allegiance to such a coarse Christian. Unlike Elijah, it will be impossible to take up his mantle.

While canonizing Trump would be a stretch, dismissing him would be dishonest. From TV ownership to tariffs to trade and beyond, Trump compels America to confront convention and contradiction at the same time. He challenges America’s heritage of confidence and doubt, conviction and compassion, strength and restraint. And challenges us to rethink long-held axioms. 

Sports analysts often speak of exceptionally gifted athletes as ‘generational talent’ — those who have the extraordinary ability to change the game. That is Trump.

For those hoping to walk in his shoes, there is no blueprint for replication. He ushered in a unique political reality that history must acknowledge even if it cannot be repeated. As the most consequential political figure of this century thus far, Donald Trump offers history a compelling study in transformational leadership. He is implacable, irreplaceable and impossible to ignore. There has never been, nor will there ever be, another like him. 

Foremost and finally, Trump embodies a new political maxim for today’s America. If you dare to lead, you do not have to be perfect, but you must be present. 

‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.’ That question, posed by Juliet in Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ seems to now occupy much of Washington. At a Christmas party with many media from Washington, the question was put to me more succinctly and repeatedly as ‘can they do that?’ The ‘that’ was the renaming of the Kennedy Center as the Trump-Kennedy Center. Soon, courts may have to face this quintessentially Shakespearean question, ‘for never was a story of more woe.’ 

Around Christmas, Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex-officio member of the board, announced her lawsuit over the name change.  

As a threshold matter, I will address the legal rather than policy basis for the change. Many of us chafed at the renaming of the center, which was a memorial to an assassinated president. However, what people want to know is whether the change can be challenged. The answer is yes, but it will not necessarily be easy or certain in its outcome. 

The center was originally built as the National Cultural Center in a 1958 law. It was renamed the John F. Kennedy Center by an act of Congress in 1964 as a living memorial.

The key issue is how that designation was made. It was contained in a statute passed by Congress. Titled John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 20 U.S.C. 3, states that ‘no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.’ 

There are exceptions in sections 2 and 3 of the provision: 

‘(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to—

(A) any plaque acknowledging a gift from a foreign country; 

(B) any plaque on a theater chair or a theater box acknowledging the gift of such chair or box; and 

(C) any inscription on the marble walls in the north or south galleries, the Hall of States, or the Hall of Nations acknowledging a major contribution; …

(3) For purposes of this subsection, testimonials and benefit performances shall not be construed to be memorials.’ 

The language supports a congressional intent to insulate the memorial from any changes or dilutions. The specificity of the exceptions to plaques for donors suggests that other major changes, such as a name change, are barred under federal law. Moreover, the center is named by an act of Congress. It is hard to find any authority of the board that would undo or delegate that power. 

There is a legitimate question whether a name change is an ‘additional memorial or plaque,’ but it would seem to be so. If a simple plaque to donors had to be expressly exempted, giant letters dedicating the center to an additional person would seem to fall within the congressional intent.

Still, the Trump administration could quote the servant Sampson from ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and tell a court to ‘take it in what sense thou wilt,’ but the statute does not expressly say that name changes are a memorial. 

Challengers could argue that, under the board’s interpretation, any memorial established by Congress, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Kennedy Presidential Library, could be renamed or hyphenated.  

If a court agrees that the statute reflects a clear congressional intent to bar any change to the memorial, the question is how it can be challenged.

In any legal challenge, the advantage would likely rest with the challengers if they can meet the standing requirements.

Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and sister of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced that, ‘Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder. Are you in? Applying for my carpenter’s card today, so it’ll be a union job!!!’ 

I would not recommend that approach. Most attorneys strive to keep their clients from falling from great heights.  

The question is, who has standing to challenge the change. Are Kennedy family members injured in a concrete way to satisfy standing? Associational standing from historical preservation groups can be tricky. However, some may soon test those waters. 

The most obvious way to address the issue is for Congress to be heard. It can either ratify the board decision, or it could expressly declare the change to be invalid and clarify that ‘additional memorial’ encompasses any name change. Either resolution may prove difficult with the heavily divided Congress. Soon a judge may join Romeo in his lament: ‘O, teach me how I should forget to think!’

In any legal challenge, the advantage would likely rest with the challengers if they can meet the standing requirements. Otherwise, the name could remain by default … or until another administration decides to make another change to the center previously known as the Kennedy Center. 

Of course, today Juliet might resolve the naming problem in a similar fashion with a hyphenated marital name of Juliet Capulet-Montague, though it clearly would have gone over as poorly as the Trump-Kennedy name. It clearly does not smell as sweet to many.

I expect both court and congressional action to follow. Absent a quick resolution by Congress (which seems unlikely), this could result in years of litigation. 

However, both sides might be wise to heed Shakespeare’s warning in another play that, ‘where two raging fires meet together, they do consume the thing that feeds their fury.’ 

With margins tight in both chambers, control of Congress in 2026 is expected to hinge on a small group of competitive Senate contests and House districts sensitive to national trends. As America plunges into a new year, here are the races that are most likely to define the midterm races.

Senate majority-making or majority-breaking races to watch

Senate Republicans are looking to maintain their razor-thin majority after flipping the upper chamber in 2024. There are 33 seats in-cycle in the forthcoming midterms, which often act as a check on an incumbent president’s performance.

The GOP is hoping to replicate the Election Day successes that helped preserve its majority at the midpoint of President Donald Trump’s first term, entering 2026 with what many analysts consider a favorable map.

Georgia

 Georgia is the top prize of Senate Republicans and their campaign arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is vulnerable in his first attempt at re-election to the Senate and will be met with the full weight of the NRSC’s campaign war chest. 

Before the general election, Republicans will first have to let the dust settle on a bloody, four-way primary fight among Reps. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., Mike Collins, R-Ga., former University of Tennessee head football coach Derek Dooley and horse trainer Reagan Box. Republicans’ prized candidate, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, opted not to enter the contest, leaving a wide open playing field for the GOP to fight over. 

North Carolina

In the heat of the Senate advancing Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced his retirement. What would likely have been a gimme race for the GOP has now turned into a wide open contest for an open seat. 

Democrats believe they can flip the seat for the first time since 2008 and hope that former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper will carry them to victory and provide a crucial win to tip the balance of power. Republicans scored their preferred candidate, too, in former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley. He will have a primary challenge though from Michele Morrow. 

Michigan

 Similar to North Carolina, Democrats lost their incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., to retirement. Both parties are now gunning for the open seat, but Democrats’ have a tangled primary to survive first before their true candidate emerges. 

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and physician Abdul El-Sayed, are all in on the Democratic side, while Trump and Republicans have coalesced behind former Rep. Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin last year. 

Maine

 Incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is Senate Democrats’ top target in the midterms. Collins, who is looking to score a sixth term in the Senate, could face a formidable opponent in the general election with the full backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., or an upstart progressive candidate that’s looking to throw a wrench into Democrats’ plans. 

There are several local candidates that have jumped in on both sides of the race, but the main contenders are Collins, popular Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and oyster farmer Graham Platner, who has rubbed shoulders with progressive heavyweights Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. 

Ohio

 Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, who was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance earlier this year, will look to finish out the remaining two years of his predecessor’s term. But he’ll face a tough opponent in former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who narrowly lost last year.  

Schumer and Democrats scored their best chance at picking up a seat in Ohio, again trying to turn the state purple after Brown’s loss to Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio. And there will be eye-popping amounts of money thrown at this contest. 

New Hampshire

 Democrats took yet another hit from the retirement train when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., announced she’d leave Congress at the end of her term. That has opened up the field to several familiar Republican names jumping into the contest in the hopes of turning part of the Granite State red. 

Republicans have two prime candidates, former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., and former Rep. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who also served as an ambassador for Trump, to pick from. Meanwhile, Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., is the likely heir apparent on the Democratic side. 

House races that will decide the majority

Control of the House is likely to hinge on fewer than two dozen districts nationwide, as both parties focus their resources on a small set of competitive seats that could decide the chamber. The battlegrounds span suburbs, rural communities and diverse metro areas, underscoring how varied the path to a majority has become.

Colorado’s 8th District, Northern Denver suburbs and Greeley

 With GOP Rep. Gabe Evans defending the seat, Colorado’s 8th District remains one of the most competitive House districts in the country. Drawn as a true swing seat after redistricting, it has flipped parties in back-to-back cycles and is often decided by slim margins.

Whether Latino and working-class voters break decisively toward one party and whether the race is decided by a narrow margin. A comfortable win here typically signals momentum heading into other battleground House races.

Iowa’s 1st District, Eastern Iowa

With a history of close results, Iowa’s 1st District is once again a top battleground as Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks seeks re-election.

The district spans college towns, rural counties and small manufacturing hubs, creating an electorate that frequently splits its ticket. Even as Iowa trends red at the presidential level, the seat continues to hover in toss-up territory and is often among the last House races decided on election night.

New Jersey’s 7th District, North Jersey suburbs

Held by GOP Rep. Tom Kean Jr., New Jersey’s 7th is a high-income, college-educated suburban district that has repeatedly swung with the national political climate and historically punished incumbents during unfavorable cycles.

Whether suburban voters continue drifting away from Republicans or stabilize in a midterm environment. A shift here would offer an early read on how educated suburbs are responding to the party in power.

New York’s 17th District, Hudson Valley and NYC’s northern suburbs

New York’s 17th District, which previously backed former President Joe Biden, is represented by GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and is expected to play an outsized role in determining House control.

Whether Democrats can effectively harness heavy national spending and messaging in a district expected to draw intense attention.

Pennsylvania’s 7th District, Lehigh Valley and Allentown

Held by Republican Rep. Chris Mackenzie, Pennsylvania’s 7th is a true purple district in a must-win swing state. This area is made up of a politically diverse electorate that has previously mirrored statewide results.

Economic pressures and immigration debates are expected to shape how working-class and Latino voters approach the race.

California’s 22nd District, Central Valley

California’s 22nd, represented by GOP Rep. David Valadao, has remained a perennial battleground for more than a decade, shaped by its agricultural economy and a large Latino electorate sensitive to turnout swings.

Whether Democrats can boost turnout enough to flip the seat, and whether Central Valley races help offset Republican gains elsewhere in the country.

President Donald Trump kicked off 2026 by claiming that White House doctors gave him another clean bill of health.

‘The White House Doctors have just reported that I am in ‘PERFECT HEALTH,’ and that I ‘ACED’ (meaning, was correct on 100% of the questions asked!), for the third straight time, my Cognitive Examination, something which no other President, or previous Vice President, was willing to take,’ Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday.

‘P.S., I strongly believe that anyone running for President, or Vice President, should be mandatorily forced to take a strong, meaningful, and proven Cognitive Examination,’ he added. ‘Our great Country cannot be run by ‘STUPID’ or INCOMPETENT PEOPLE!’

Trump, who will turn 80 on June 14, 2026, has faced growing scrutiny over his health, something that was the focus of his recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. He told the newspaper that he regretted undergoing advanced imaging in October, saying it gave way to increased questions about his health.

‘In retrospect, it’s too bad I took it because it gave them a little ammunition,’ Trump told the Journal. ‘I would have been a lot better off if they didn’t, because the fact that I took it said, ‘Oh gee, is something wrong?’ Well, nothing’s wrong.’

In October, Trump had a cardiovascular and abdominal scan, something that Navy Capt. Sean P. Barbabella, the physician to the president, noted in a memorandum to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

In his report, Barbabella stated that the evaluation, which he described as being part of the president’s ‘ongoing health maintenance plan,’ included advanced imaging, lab tests and preventative health assessments. Barbabella stated that ‘Trump continues to demonstrate excellent overall health’ and noted that the president ‘continues to maintain a demanding daily schedule without restriction.’

Leavitt read Barbabella’s report during a press briefing on Dec. 1. The summary that Leavitt read clarified that, ‘Advanced imaging was performed because men in his age group benefit from a thorough evaluation of cardiovascular and abdominal health.’ The summary noted that the imaging was done as a preventative measure ‘to identify any issues early, confirm overall health and ensure the president maintains long term vitality and function.’

The summary noted that Trump’s cardiovascular and abdominal imaging were ‘perfectly normal.’ Additionally, it said that ‘all major organs appear very healthy.’

While Trump maintained that scrutiny and speculation about his health were unwarranted, the Journal reported that those close to the president said they had to speak loudly in meetings because he struggles to hear. The outlet also noted that the president has been criticized for seeming to fall asleep during recent White House events, something Trump denies.

Trump told the Journal that he didn’t fall asleep at recent events, saying that he likes to close his eyes because he finds it ‘very relaxing.’ He also blamed some of the incidents on photo timing, saying that, ‘Sometimes they’ll take a picture of me blinking, blinking, and they’ll catch me with the blink.’

The president also denied that he struggles with his hearing. The Journal reported that ‘Trump grew sarcastic’ when asked about it, saying ‘I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you. I can’t hear a word you’re saying.’ He then said that he sometimes has trouble hearing ‘when there’s a lot of people talking.’

Health was a central issue of the 2024 presidential race, particularly before then-President Joe Biden dropped out. Trump has often accused Biden of concealing the true extent of his health issues with the public. 

Speculation about Biden’s struggles were fueled by his lack of interactions with the press and reluctance to take part in unscripted exchanges. The 46th president’s apparent cognitive issues became increasingly clear when he struggled during a debate with Trump in June 2024. During the debate, Biden appeared to lose his train of thought and stumbled over words.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

President Donald Trump revealed he had received a CT scan, and not an MRI scan, during a medical checkup in October that the president and his administration have repeatedly underscored showed normal and healthy results. 

‘It wasn’t an MRI,’ Trump told the Wall Street Journal in an article published New Year’s Day. ‘It was less than that. It was a scan.’

Trump’s health has drawn fresh scrutiny in recent months, including after reports said he underwent an MRI during an October visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland. The October checkup was Trump’s second of 2025, after an April visit in which the White House physician, Navy Capt. Sean P. Barbabella, said the president ‘remains in exceptional health.’

Trump’s CT clarification comes as Democrats and liberal media outlets question his fitness, citing his 79 years of age, bruising on his hands and reports of swollen ankles. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he regrets taking the scan.

‘In retrospect, it’s too bad I took it because it gave them a little ammunition. I would have been a lot better off if they didn’t, because the fact that I took it said, ‘Oh gee, is something wrong?’ Well, nothing’s wrong,’ Trump said.

MRI and CT scans are both imaging tests, with CT scans using X-rays to create internal cross-section images, while MRI scans use magnet technology and radio waves to capture similar internal images. MRI scans typically gather more detailed images, while CT scans are more frequently used in emergency situations or a patient’s initial evaluations as they produce faster results than MRIs. 

Trump has repeatedly battled concern over his mental and physical fitness, including Friday morning, when he reported that he had ‘aced’ his third cognitive exam. 

‘The White House Doctors have just reported that I am in ‘PERFECT HEALTH,’ and that I ‘ACED’ (Meaning, was correct on 100% of the questions asked!), for the third straight time, my Cognitive Examination, something which no other President, or previous Vice President, was willing to take,’ Trump posted to Truth Social Friday. 

He added that he ‘strongly’ supports a mandatory cognitive exam for any politician running for vice president or president, citing the U.S. can’t be run by ”STUPID’ or INCOMPETENT PEOPLE!’

Barbabella told Fox News Digital in a statement Friday that doctors had initially told Trump that they would perform either an MRI or a CT scan on him during the October visit, and yielded ‘perfectly normal’ results. 

‘In order to make the most of the president’s time at the hospital, we recommended he undergo another routine physical evaluation to ensure continued optimal health,’ Barbabella said. ‘As part of that examination, we asked the president if he would undergo advanced imaging — either an MRI or CT Scan — to definitively rule out any cardiovascular issues. The president agreed, and our team of consultants performed a CT Scan. As we revealed in the post-examination report, the advanced imaging was perfectly normal and revealed absolutely no abnormalities.’

Barbabella added that Trump’s overall examinations show that his health is that of a man 14 years younger than his 79 years of age. 

‘President Trump’s medical evaluations and laboratory results continue to show excellent metabolic health, and have revealed his cardiovascular health puts him 14 years younger than his age. Overall, the President remains in exceptional health and perfectly suited to execute his duties as Commander in Chief,’ Barbabella told Fox News Digital. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News Digital Friday that the additional details on Trump’s October scan continues his vow to be a transparent leader ‘and has nothing to hide, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, who hid from the press and lied about his clear physical and mental decline,’ the New York Post reported. 

Trump’s health and age has sparked mounting criticism among media outlets and Democrats on social media, swollen legs in July while attending a soccer game, as well as other photos that showed him with bruises on his hands, and others that allegedly show him nodding off during public events. Outlets such as The New York Times have reported that Trump is allegedly ‘facing the realities of aging’ while in office.

Leavitt said in July that Trump’s swollen legs were part of a ‘benign and common condition’ for individuals older than age 70, while the bruising on his hands was attributable to ‘frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.’

Trump said during his Wall Street Journal interview that he historically has taken more aspirin than doctors recommend, citing that he doesn’t want to change his decadeslong routine as he’s ‘a little superstitious’ 

‘They say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood, and I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart,’ Trump told the outlet. ‘I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense?’

Trump also hit back against claims he falls asleep during meetings and other public events, saying photos promoted by critics allegedly showing him falling asleep are simply moments that capture him blinking. 

‘Sometimes they’ll take a picture of me blinking, blinking, and they’ll catch me with the blink,’ Trump said. 

The focus on Trump’s health follows the media’s relative silence over concerns regarding former President Joe Biden’s mental acuity, which conservatives had cited as a cause for concern ahead of the 2020 election. Biden did not face an outpouring of criticism from both the left and right of the political spectrum until June 2024, however, when the federal election was at a fever pitch, and Biden delivered a failed debate performance that showcased him tripping over his words, appearing to lose his train of thought and other missteps. 

The Trump administration has pointed to the media’s previous presidential health coverage as evidence that journalists have a bias and selectively choose what to report. 

‘No one believes the failing legacy media’s disingenuous obsession about President Trump’s health because we all just watched them actively cover up Joe Biden’s severe mental health decline for the past four years,’ White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital in December when asked about Trump’s scan.