'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' FactChecking Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ Interview

In a lengthy “60 Minutes” interview, President Donald Trump made false and questionable claims about nuclear weapons testing, inflation, and military strikes in the Caribbean Sea. He also repeated numerous misleading claims he has made before on a range of topics.

• Trump justified telling the Pentagon “to start testing” U.S. nuclear weapons by saying that “other countries are testing.” Russia recently tested two nuclear-capable weapons, but North Korea is the only country to do a nuclear weapon test explosion this century.
• Trump falsely claimed, “We don’t have inflation. It’s at 2%.” The Consumer Price Index was up 3% for the 12 months ending in September, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
• He also wrongly said that grocery prices are “going down.” The CPI for “food-at-home” increased by 1.4% from January to September.
• Trump claimed that every boat the U.S. military has blown up in the Caribbean Sea since early September “kills 25,000 Americans” with illegal drugs. With nine boat strikes, that would be well over the total U.S. drug overdose deaths in 2023 and 2024. The administration hasn’t provided details on the boats’ cargo.
• In talking about the reasons for the boat strikes, Trump repeated his unsupported claim that Venezuela emptied “their prisons” and “mental institutions” into the U.S. through illegal immigration. Experts, including in Venezuela, told us there’s no evidence for that.

The president touched on the Insurrection Act, ending wars, federal indictments, the autopen, aid to Ukraine, and the 2020 election in making claims we have written about before.

CBS News posted an extended version of correspondent Norah O’Donnell’s interview with Trump that ran over an hour. A shorter version of the program aired on Nov. 2. The full transcript is also available.

Democrats and Republicans Clash Over SNAP Contingency Funds

Republicans say funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits — formerly known as food stamps — will run out on Nov. 1 due to the federal government shutdown, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Democrats say there’s a contingency fund that could and should continue to fund regular SNAP benefits.

And, in fact, that was the Republican plan up until at least a few weeks ago. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, says it can’t legally tap the contingency fund for that purpose.

“There has to be a preexisting appropriation for the contingency fund to be used, and Democrats blocked that appropriation when they rejected the clean continuing resolution,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a press conference on Oct. 27. “The best way for SNAP benefits to be paid on time is for the Democrats to end their shutdown.”

We can’t say whether the USDA is barred from tapping the contingency funds for regular SNAP benefits — ultimately, that may be a decision for the courts — but the USDA position that Johnson cited has apparently changed in the past month. When the Trump administration’s USDA issued a “Lapse of Funding Plan” on Sept. 30, it stated that the contingency fund, estimated to be more than $5 billion, can and should be used to fund SNAP payments in the event of a shutdown.

“In addition, Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” the document states. “These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

That document has since been scrubbed from the USDA website, but it’s still available via the Wayback Machine archives.

“It’s also important to note that the money currently exists within the Trump administration, including $5 billion in a contingency fund, specifically, for this kind of circumstance, to continue providing SNAP benefits to the American people, including 16 million children who might otherwise go hungry, if Donald Trump successfully withholds these SNAP benefits,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on CNN on Oct. 29. “The Trump administration doesn’t need Congress to act in order to continue providing nutritional and food assistance to everyday Americans.”

OP-ED: Merrick Garland and the Collapse of Justice — Why History Will Remember Him as the Weakest Attorney General in Modern Times

When President Joe Biden nominated Merrick Garland in 2021, the intent was clear: restore confidence, depoliticize the Justice Department, and return integrity to a bruised institution.

Instead, four years later, the Garland era stands as a case study in how bureaucratic caution, selective enforcement, and misplaced faith in neutrality can destroy public trust in the rule of law.

Once seen as a symbol of judicial integrity, Garland’s Justice Department has become the embodiment of drift — hesitant, inconsistent, and politically tone-deaf. The nation needed an Attorney General capable of moral courage; instead, it got a technocrat trapped in process.

Merrick Garland: The Most Ineffective Attorney General in Modern U.S. History — and What Went Wrong at the DOJ

Once hailed as a stabilizing figure, Merrick Garland’s tenure as Attorney General is now widely viewed as a period of hesitation, inconsistency, and institutional decline that weakened public trust in the Department of Justice.

WASHINGTON | Merrick Garland entered the Department of Justice with a reputation as a calm, principled jurist who would restore stability after the political storms of the Trump years. Nearly four years later, critics across the political spectrum — from progressives to conservatives — argue that his cautious leadership and reluctance to act boldly have instead left the DOJ weakened, divided, and mistrusted.

Garland’s tenure, once defined by promises of restoring the rule of law, is now increasingly defined by hesitation in enforcement, politically inconsistent prosecutions, and a perception of institutional paralysis.

Analysts, legal scholars, and former prosecutors have begun referring to his DOJ as “the quietest during one of the loudest moments in American history.”

Competing Claims on Who Benefits from ACA Subsidies

In the shutdown standoff over expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, Democrats emphasize thousand-dollar premium increases for middle- or “working-class” Americans, while Republicans say people who are well-off unfairly benefit from the subsidies. Some higher-income earners could qualify for subsidies if they live in areas with high insurance premiums, but about 95% of those receiving subsidies in 2024 earned less than 400% of the poverty level.

And while there are cases where out-of-pocket costs are set to increase by $1,000 or $2,000 a month if the expanded tax credits are allowed to expire as scheduled, the average increase is $1,016 for the year —a 114% rise —according to estimates from the health policy research organization KFF.

(KFF’s estimate includes a median 18% increase in premiums by insurers, who have cited rising health care costs and government policies for the increase, including the expiration of the expanded subsidies, which is expected to cause some healthier enrollees to drop their coverage, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. Having fewer healthier enrollees in a risk pool results in higher rates for the remaining policyholders.)

(PICTURED RIGHT: The homepage of HealthCare.gov, the federal government’s health insurance exchange website, as seen on a laptop computer. Photo by Tada Images – stock.adobe.com)

The impact of the expiration can vary greatly, depending on age, income, family size, and location. Those earning above 400% of poverty (that’s above $84,600 for a couple, $128,600 for a family of four) would experience the high-dollar increases in out-of-pocket costs, because they wouldn’t get any tax credits if the expanded subsidies expire. And the increase would be particularly high for older enrollees, whose premiums can be three times those of younger enrollees.

Assessing the Facts and Legal Questions About the U.S. Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats

At least 61 people have been killed in 14 U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early September. President Donald Trump has said he is targeting “narcoterrorists” who threaten American lives with lethal substances, and the administration has told Congress the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels operating in South America.

But Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona called the strikes “sanctioned murder.” And without any evidence from the administration for its claims about the cargo or the identities and affiliations of the people on the boats, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said the strikes are “extrajudicial killings.”

Some legal experts, meanwhile, have said the U.S. actions were “not lawful.”

Here, we will address what is known about the targets of the strikes, the trafficking of illicit substances from South and Central America to the U.S., and what experts are saying about the legality of the Trump administration’s escalation of the war on drugs.

America on Edge: New Poll Finds Majority Expect Surge in Political Violence — and 1 in 4 Say It’s Sometimes Justified

A POLITICO–Public First survey reveals deep anxiety about political violence as experts warn the U.S. has entered an era of “violent populism,” with growing acceptance of extremism across generations.

WASHINGTON | A chilling new POLITICO–Public First poll finds that a majority of Americans now believe political violence will increase, and more than half fear a political assassination within the next five years. The data paint a sobering picture of a nation gripped by distrust, division, and rising extremism — with 24 percent of Americans saying political violence is sometimes justified.

The survey underscores the degree to which recent attacks — from the 2024 attempts on Donald Trump’s life to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier this year — have shaken public confidence in America’s ability to resolve political disputes peacefully.

According to the poll, 55 percent of Americans expect political violence to worsen, while 64 percent still insist it is never justified. Yet nearly a quarter of the country, particularly younger adults, now view violence as a legitimate response “in some cases.”

House Bipartisan Quartet Unveils “Statement of Principles” to Extend Obamacare Subsidies Amid Government Shutdown

Reps. Bacon, Hurd, Suozzi, and Gottheimer propose a two-year extension of enhanced ACA tax credits with an income cap and fraud safeguards, offering a possible breakthrough in the 33-day funding impasse.

WASHINGTON | In the first significant health-care policy move since the federal government shutdown entered its 33rd day, a bipartisan group of U.S. House members released a set of guiding principles Monday aimed at extending the enhanced subsidy regime under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

The framework, authored by Republican Reps. Don Bacon (Nebraska) and Jeff Hurd (Colorado) alongside Democratic Reps. Tom Suozzi (New York) and Josh Gottheimer (New Jersey), proposes a two-year extension of the enhanced premium tax credits (PTCs) under the ACA, paired with a phased income cap on eligibility ranging between $200,000 and $400,000 for individuals. 

How Democrats Can Learn From the Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department Debacle — A Critical Book Review

Pulitzer-Prize reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis expose Merrick Garland’s missteps at the U.S. Department of Justice—and offer five hard-earned lessons for Democrats planning accountability in the post-Trump era.

In their new book Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department, Pulitzer-Prize winners Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis deliver an unflinching portrait of how the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to act decisively at a critical political juncture. 

For Democrats that will someday hold power again, this is more than history — it is a cautionary blueprint packed with lessons on how not to execute legal accountability.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, Architect of Post-9/11 Power Presidency, Dies at 84

Dick Cheney’s death marks the end of an era in American geopolitics — the hard-charging strategist whose “Cheney Doctrine” reshaped U.S. foreign-policy posture and restored executive-branch muscle has passed away at 84 due to pneumonia and cardiac/vascular complications.

WASHINGTON | Dick Cheney, the 46th vice president of the United States and a defining figure in America’s war-on-terror era, has died at the age of 84. His family confirmed in a statement on Tuesday that Cheney passed on November 3, 2025, surrounded by loved ones, due to complications from pneumonia as well as cardiac and vascular disease. 

Cheney’s career spanned four decades and several key roles in national security and government. He served as White House Chief of Staff under President Gerald Ford, was a long-time congressman from Wyoming, became U.S. Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, and ultimately served as vice president under President George W. Bush from 2001-2009. 

From the outset of his vice presidency, Cheney held the view that the executive branch needed to reclaim power after being constrained in the post-Vietnam era. He often viewed the presidency as requiring decisive, even preemptive, action in global hotspots. That worldview crystallised in what came to be called the “Cheney Doctrine” or “One Percent Doctrine” — the idea that if there is even a one-percent chance of a threat, the U.S. must treat it as a certainty and act accordingly.

Tricare to Raise Pharmacy Copays in 2026 While Expanding Coverage for Cancer, Heart Disease, and Pain Treatments

Starting Jan. 1, 2026, military beneficiaries will face higher retail and mail-order prescription costs but gain access to expanded benefits — including new cancer therapies, heart screening procedures, and chronic pain relief technologies.

WASHINGTON | Military service members, retirees, and their families will see higher out-of-pocket pharmacy costs in 2026 under Tricare’s latest update — but they’ll also gain access to expanded medical coverage for cancer, cardiac, and chronic pain treatments, according to a notice published Tuesday in the Federal Register.

The Department of Defense’s Tricare Pharmacy Program will raise copayments for prescriptions filled outside military treatment facilities beginning Jan. 1, 2026, while continuing to provide free prescriptions at on-base hospitals and clinics.

Under the new schedule, 30-day retail prescriptions will remain at $16 for generic medications but will climb to $48 for brand-name drugs. Mail-order prescriptions will cost $14 for generics and $44 for branded medications, while non-formulary drugs will rise to $85 for both retail and mail-order fills.

This marks a 12% to 15.8% increase compared to current copay levels set in early 2024 — part of a broader Congress-approved initiative (2018) requiring patients to gradually shoulder a higher portion of Tricare’s costs.

“The goal is to modernize cost-sharing while improving access to evidence-based treatments for chronic and life-threatening conditions,” a Defense Health Agency (DHA) spokesperson said Tuesday.