Mystery over source of Ebola infection in Nigeria fuels concern about spread of virus Switzerland says patient is wife of Swiss diplomat and believed to have contracted virus while travelling in UgandaHealth officials across Africa are racing to determine how Nigeria's first Ebola patient in more than a decade became infected, amid fears the outbreak could spread further after reaching a fourth African country.The Swiss foreign ministry said on Friday the patient in Nigeria, the Ugandan-born wife of a Swiss diplomat based in Abuja, had not travelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the outbreak was first detected in mid-May before spreading to Uganda, Kenya and now Nigeria. The woman was believed to have contracted Ebola while travelling with her husband in Uganda, the ministry added. Continue reading...
41-year-old set on 'dream to be able to race in Africa'
Rwanda to host despite criticism of human rights record
Lewis Hamilton has said he hopes to remain racing in Formula One until he can take part in the African Grand Prix which is set to take place in Rwanda in the 2030s. The seven-time world champion believes it is right that F1 is to hold a race there despite criticism of the country's human rights record.Last week F1 confirmed Rwanda was to host the African Grand Prix having concluded a 10-year agreement for the meeting on a purpose-built circuit, with the first race set for the early 2030s. It is lined up to be held on a circuit in Bugesera, 25 miles south of the capital, Kigali, which has yet to be constructed and marks a return to the African continent for the first time since it last held a race at Kyalami, South Africa in 1993. Continue reading...
Controversial US-backed vaccine trial in African newborns halted Hepatitis B study in Guinea-Bissau that was to be funded by CDC and that drew global backlash 'will not move forward'The US-backed hepatitis B vaccine trial in African newborns that drew global backlash was halted, the lead researcher said on Wednesday.It was "now clear" that the study "will not move forward in Guinea-Bissau", Frederik Schaltz-Buchholzer, a Danish researcher, wrote on LinkedIn, adding, "we were not given the necessary governmental approval." Continue reading...
Relatives of gravely ill detainees at two Floridaimmigration jails say authorities are about to deport their loved ones to unknown countries in Africa despite worsening medical conditions.Flights are scheduled as early as Wednesday, according to the families and the immigration advocacy group the Workers Circle, which has been monitoring conditions and speaking with detainees inside two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in south Florida. Continue reading...
Nigeria confirms Ebola case as outbreak spreads into western Africa Case in Africa's most populous country was detected in a woman who had travelled from UgandaNigeria has confirmed an Ebola case in its capital, Abuja, after a woman who arrived from Uganda tested positive for the virus, the health ministry said.The woman began showing symptoms on 7 October and was admitted to a hospital in Abuja four days later, where she was later diagnosed with Ebola. It is unclear when she arrived in Nigeria, Africa's most populous country. Continue reading...
Brazil runoff live updates: ballot count resumes after two-hour voting extension Polls officially close after Brazilian supreme court ordered the extension Sunday as Flávio Bolsonaro and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva await resultsThe local electoral court ordered the immediate restoration of 100% of the bus fleet and ordered the arrest of the municipal transport secretary, Pablo Souza, on suspicion of an electoral offence and disobeying court orders. The arrest warrant could not be carried out, however, because he is in Paris on what the city government described as an "official mission", and is not expected to return to Brazil until Monday.Late in the afternoon, Flávio Bolsonaro also filed requests for voting to be extended by two hours in cities in the states of São Paulo, Paraná and Santa Catarina, but because of heavy rain that he said had prevented voters from turning out. Continue reading...
How the conservative Supreme Court has reshaped this year's midterms How the conservative Supreme Court has reshaped this year's midtermsDemonstrators hold signs in support of minority voting rights outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2025. - Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty ImagesVoters will pick the winners ofnext month's midterm elections, but it is the conservative Supreme Court that has set the rules.Long before early voting got underway to decide control of Congress, the court exerted an unusually profound impact on the election with a series of decisions that have reshaped redistricting, campaign finance regulations, efforts to identify noncitizen voters and mail voting - frequently in a way that has benefited Republicans.Some of those decisions received little attention,like the court's ruling this month that cleared the way for political parties - and particularly, Republicans - to pour millions more into television advertising in tight races. Others were more notable, like the 6-3 ruling in April that effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act's power to protect minority voters, and prompted a new round of redistricting in Republican-led states.Various rulings haveexposed tensions among the justices that spilled into public view."The court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works and has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should," Justice Elena Kagan said at an event on Tuesday in a remarkably frank critique of the court's actions.Not all of the court's decisions have backed the Republican position. Both conservative and liberal justices have been skeptical of efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to alter mail ballot systems, for instance.Despite Trump's evidence-free claims of widespread voter fraud, the court in September notably rejected the president's push to give the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. In June, a 5-4 majority upheld state laws that permit mail ballots to be received a few days after Election Day. Even as he has fixated on alleged problems with mail voting, Trump himself has frequently cast a ballot by mail.Trump nominated three of the court's nine justices during his first term. None of the three dissented from the court's USPS decision."Justice Kagan is wildly off base, as are claims that the Supreme Court's recent record in election cases has favored Republicans," Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told CNN. "Her claims that the court has somehow undermined democracy are little more than political spin."If polls indicating that Democrats are poised for a victory next month are correct, then many of the Supreme Court's recent election rulings may have only a negligible impact on the bottom line. But those following the long game say the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions over the past year will be felt far beyond November."It's critical to look beyond the partisan implications of the court's decisions related to voting rights and to focus on how the court has undermined the very foundations of our multi-racial democracy," said Samuel Spital, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. "In a series of decisions over the last 13 years … a majority of unelected judges on the Supreme Court have dismantled the heart of the Voting Rights Act and put our multi-racial democracy in serious danger."What Snead described as "wildly off base," Spital called "clear eyed."
Kagan's rare criticism of fellow justices
The timing of Kagan's warning, just two weeks before the November 3 election, was notable."The people of America look around at this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare," Kagan said at the Catholic University law event last week. "And they're right."Named to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama more than 16 years ago, Kagan is often viewed as the member of its three-justice liberal wing who is most receptive to compromise with her conservative colleagues. That often manifests in subtle ways, such as her decision not to join particularly pointed dissents written by the court's other two liberals.But when it comes to election disputes, Kagan has been unsparing both in her dissents and in public appearances.Earlier this year, it was Kagan who wrote the dissent in the hugely important 6-3 decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, warning that the consequences would be "far-reaching and grave." Asked last year about her favorite opinion she has authored, Kagan pointed to her dissent in another high-profile redistricting case from seven years ago.US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan delivers opening remarks during a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on July 14. - Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty ImagesSpeaking at Princeton University in early 2025, Kagan used similarly stark terms to describe that case, in which the court's 5-4 decision took federal courts out of the business of deciding challenges to partisan gerrymanders. In that decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court concluded even extreme line drawing for political advantage is "beyond the reach of the federal courts.""What the court did in that case, I thought, was just a real mistake," Kagan told her alma mater last year. "The foundation of our democracy is voting, and if the voting rights aren't equal then how does a system of democracy work?"Kagan noted then that she had written "a lot of voting rights dissents" and that it is "an area that I really care about."
Mapmaking, noncitizens and money
The court's most significant election decision this year came in April in a case called Louisiana v. Callais.With the conservatives aligned against the liberals, the court held that Louisiana's decision to draw a second Black and Democratic district into the state's overwhelmingly Republican delegation amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.That decision set off a series of subsequent emergency rulings in which the court allowed both Louisiana and Alabama to quickly redraw their maps for this election in a way that targeted Democratic-held seats. Those decisions boosted Trump's unprecedented mid-decade redistricting drive. When the dust settled, Republicans had gained an advantage in nine seats.When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, suggested in May that the court was rolling over its "principles" in pursuit of influencing the November election, conservative Justice Samuel Alito called the insinuation "insulting.""What principle has the court violated?" Alito wrote. "The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?"Not all of the redistricting decisions went Republicans' way. The court three times rejected an effort by Missouri Republicans to draw a Democratic congressman out of his seat. And back in February, with no noted dissent, the court allowed California to use a Democrat-friendly map for this year's election.Some of the court's other election decisions have drawn less fire but will nevertheless have an impact.Over a dissent from the three liberal justices, the court last month allowed the Department of Homeland Security to provide citizenship verification to states based on a database critics say is riddled with errors. Trump has fixated on unfounded claims of widespread voting by noncitizens. The administration's latest litigation on that front, challenging votes cast by some 20,000 Californians the administration believes could be noncitizens, is potentially on a path to Supreme Court review before the election.And the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed New Hampshire officials to limit when voters may use a student ID to receive a ballot, agreeing that a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of the policy was too close to Election Day. A recent CNN poll found that Democrats enjoy a 31-point advantage over Republicans among younger adults.The court last week backed a Republican effort to lower television campaign ad rates for political parties, rejecting an appeals court decision that would have subjected the Federal Communications Commission to faster judicial review of its decision making. In a related decision in June, the court erased limits on how much political parties could coordinate with federal candidates.Together, the decisions likely incentivized a move this week by the Republican National Committee to unload over $50 million to help midterm candidates. Kagan blasted the decision in June, noting in dissent that it overruled a 2001 precedent and predicting it would flood more money into campaigns."For those who think there is too much of it in this country - for those who would prefer even more money to be pumped even more easily into politics despite the danger of corruption," she wrote, "this overruling is for you."For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.comThis article originally appeared on CNN at https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/25/politics/supreme-court-midterm-rules
Trump says he's weighing deal with Iran against action to 'finish them off' Trump says he's weighing deal with Iran against action to 'finish them off'(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said it's "getting to be decision time" on whether he will make a deal with Tehran or resume attacks as Iranian and Houthi threats against Americans in the Middle East continue to grow.Most Read from Bloomberg
"I have a decision to make: Do I finish it off, which would be very easy to do, or do I make a deal? That's all," Trump said in an interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures. "We don't play games."Trump has suggested that US strikes on Iran could resume after the Nov. 3 midterm elections and he has sent additional forces, including a third aircraft carrier group, toward the Persian Gulf.Officials warn the period between the election and the new Congress taking office could be particularly dangerous, with a negotiated deal seen as the most likely way to end the conflict.The US is reducing diplomatic and military staffing in parts of the Middle East amid growing threats from Iran and the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen. The State Department had initially acknowledged departures only from Saudi Arabia, but an American official told Bloomberg News Friday that staffing changes are taking place more broadly as Iran intensifies attacks on ships near the Strait of Hormuz.Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
A strange twist in Alaska's Senate race has Trump's DOJ fighting to block results A strange twist in Alaska's Senate race has Trump's DOJ fighting to block resultsAttorney General Todd Blanche on Sunday defended the Justice Department's newly filed lawsuit to prevent Alaska state officials from certifying election results if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses in November.In an at-times contentious interview with CNN's "State of the Union," Blanche pointed out that according to the Constitution, Congress can create laws at any time to regulate elections. But when host Dana Bash asked what crime the administration was arguing was being committed, Blanche replied, "It depends.""There could be a crime," said Blanche. "But the real wrong here is that Alaskans are going to be confused and will not have their vote heard. So an Alaskan intends to vote for one candidate, but is confused because of a second candidate with exactly the same name who has voted Democrat his entire life, who donated money to the other Democrat opponent, is running."Bash pressed Blanche on how it is illegal for two candidates with the same name to be on a ballot at the same time."It is an obligation of the states to avoid confusion, among other things, confusion in the minds of voters in the election process," Blanche replied. "So the question is whether Alaska, by allowing this to happen, is violating the law and the federal law and the constitution by allowing confusion in the ballot."The Alaskan Supreme Court in June ruled that both Sullivans may remain on the ballot as the incumbent faces off in a tight reelection battle with former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola. The four-person Senate ranked-choice ballot for the general election specifies that Dan S. Sullivan is a "Registered Republican" and the "incumbent" - no information is listed after Dan J. Sullivan Jr's name.Regardless, in the suit filed Thursday, DOJ argued that Dan J. Sullivan Jr.'s name on the ballot constitutes a purposeful effort to mislead voters.Still, it's unclear how much the court can do about the Justice Department's lawsuit. With ballots secret, it is virtually impossible for the Justice Department to identify specific voters and clarify which Sullivan candidate they meant to vote for.Blanche, though, seemed unconcerned about that hurdle."There are a number of scenarios where it could be obvious that a voter was confused by the way they wrote down candidates," said Blanche.Republican groups have worked to differentiate between the two Sullivans.President Donald Trump on Friday said the legal challenge was his idea, though Blanche on Sunday declined to state whether the president had directed him to file the suit."I will never talk about any communications I have with the president of the United States," he said.Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is not up for reelection this year, said Friday that the lawsuit is unnecessary."Alaskans don't need any help voting for their preferred candidates, and the State of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year's ballot," Murkowski said in a post on X. "The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit."Her comments drew the ire of Trump, who on Saturday called Murkowski "Republicans' Worst Senator, by far," in a post to Truth Social.Trump said that Alaska's ranked choice voting system is "a TOTAL DEMOCRAT SCAM meant to confuse the Voter, so that Senator Dan Sullivan will lose Votes to a man who has never participated in Politics before, named Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.""He is only there because the Democrats want to steal the Election, and Murkowski probably wants that to happen, which is why she is against the DOJ filing a Lawsuit in order to stop this impending crime and tragedy," Trump added. "I have delivered for Alaska at Historic Levels, nobody has ever seen anything like it, and all I'm asking for is a FAIR AND HONEST SENATORIAL ELECTION! Lisa Murkowski is a DISGRACE to Alaska and our Country. You just don't get any worse!"Democratic leaders have also widely condemned the lawsuit, arguing the president is attempting to lay the foundation to overturn the midterm election results if their candidates win critical elections - something Bash asked Blanche about on Sunday."One of the big questions is whether or not the president is laying the groundwork for a scenario where, whether it's Alaska or somewhere else, there is, in your words a couple of days ago, a 'doomsday scenario' and we could be in a situation where President Trump tries to overturn the election and the result of that could be, god forbid, what we saw after January 6th," Bash said.Blanche quickly fired back: "Oh stop it. You gotta stop it with that. You're not being a real person. You set me up. You're saying, "'Mr. Attorney General, because the president of the United States wants to stop fraud and confusion in Alaska, is he going to do something crazy?' That is not a real question."Bash replied that she did not think it was an unfair question, but Blanche argued that the premise of the question was untrue."Instead of focusing on how we can address that and how we can remedy that, you're talking about January 6th," he said. "That's so embarrassing to this network that that's what you're talking about.""Oh, come on," Bash said."Don't "oh, come on" me," replied Blanche. "There's literally confusion."It wasn't the only tense interview Blanche had Sunday.In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Blanche accused host Margaret Brennan of lying over the wording of the Justice Department's lawsuit."The Alaska Supreme Court did take on this matter," Brennan began, referring to the court's June decision."No, they didn't. That's a state law," interrupted Blanche."In this country, the states administer the elections. This is how the state came up with the issue and how to handle any confusion," Brennan said as the Alaskan ballot was shown on the screen."You're not telling the truth," said Blanche.Brennan asked why identifying Sullivan as the incumbent is insufficient for the administration."Well, listen, I don't know if it's sufficient," said Blanche. "But I can tell you this: that the director of the Alaska election system has said that it will likely cause confusion."Brennan pointed out that the ballots are already circulating, and voting may already be underway, as many vote by mail in Alaska. She then pressed Blanche on Trump claiming responsibility for the lawsuit, to which Blanche reiterated that he will not share his communications with the president."The president of the United States said this on camera," Brennan replied. "He said, "I told them to do it." Did he tell that to you?""He didn't say that on camera," argued Blanche, before adding Trump had been looking at the situation for "months and months and months." He later added that he had "no idea" who Trump was referring to, and even if he did, he would "most certainly not" talk about it.Brennan then pivoted to read several lines from DOJ's lawsuit, including that the suit defined voter confusion as Sen. Sullivan not winning the election and that had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast for the incumbent then he would have won.As she spoke, Blanche interrupted again."That's not what it says," he said."I'm quoting from it," Brennan replied, holding up a printed version of the suit. "You are telling them not to certify it. What right does the federal government have telling a state not to certify or how to certify?"After a moment of crosstalk, Blanche stated: "If you talk the whole time you're not going to get answers out of me. If you let me answer your question I can address your question." He then said the suit does not call for officials to avoid certifying the election."All we're doing is trying to put guardrails in place so that if that happens there's a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way so we can determine whether there was confusion," he explained.In his interview with CNN, Blanche denied any political motivations were behind the Justice Department's lawsuit."It's important the American people understand that we are not - President Trump is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form," he said. "What we're trying to do is make it clear that if it is obvious after the election, that confusion led to an improper and illegal result that the Alaskan system should be able to address that."In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) argued the administration has no standing to bring the Alaska lawsuit, and he lambasted Blanche for leading a "disgraceful campaign.""This suit has no chance of succeeding," said Schiff. "But the fact that Todd Blanche and the Justice Department are willing to go along with it, they're willing to put their name on it, is an indication of how far they will go after this election is over to try to challenge the results."This article originally appeared on Politico at https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/25/blanche-alaska-lawsuit-could-be-crime-01134861
Serbia's veteran ruler concedes defeat to student-led movement in snap election Serbia's veteran ruler concedes defeat to student-led movement in snap electionVucic is a relentless campaigner (SASA DJORDJEVIC)The dominant force in Serbian politics for over 14 years, Aleksandar Vucic, who conceded defeat in a snap parliamentary poll on Sunday, rose from the wreckage of strongman Slobodan Milosevic's cabinet to the centre of power using his brand of populist nationalism.For supporters, the 56-year-old represented stability, development and patriotism in a country scarred by the bloody wars of the 1990s and ensuing international isolation.But opponents saw him as an increasingly authoritarian figure, twisting between the Kremlin and Brussels and leading a government accused of endemic corruption.Vucic conceded his party had lost after voters cast ballots in record numbers in Sunday's vote, defeated by a new political force that emerged from a years-long protest movement."Based on a stratified sample, it is clear that we lost these elections," Vucic told supporters at his party headquarters in Belgrade. - Political turnaround - Vucic rose to prominence in the 1990s as an ultra-nationalist ally of Milosevic, serving as his information minister in 1998.After protests ousted the Yugoslav strongman in 2000, Vucic became a senior figure in the far-right Serbian Radical Party.He was then a vocal supporter of Bosnian Serb political and military leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, both later sentenced to life for genocide and other crimes committed during the Bosnian war. But Vucic underwent a dramatic rebrand in 2008, co-founding the conservative, pro-European Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), which won parliamentary elections in 2012 and has dominated Serbian politics since.He served as deputy prime minister, defence minister and prime minister before becoming president in 2017.Even after polishing his image, Vucic has been reluctant to distance himself from nationalist leanings and far-right associates.He has stopped short of condemning Serbs convicted of atrocities during the 1990s conflicts and looked the other way as pro-government media and political allies openly praised war criminals.Despite trying to deny state involvement in a large funeral gathering for Mladic in the Serbian capital last month, several of his ministers attended, drawing sharp criticism from Brussels. - 'Land of cranes' - A relentless campaigner, he maintained a near-constant presence on pro-government television channels, embracing locals in tiny rural villages and chastising critics during lengthy news conferences.He has cultivated the image of a tireless leader criss-crossing Serbia, attracting investment and creating jobs.At the same time, he has juggled the competing interests of European Union aspirations and Serbia's close ties to Russia.Supporters praised him as a brave defender of Serbian sovereignty, spending billions of euros on defence -- as he warned of foreign influence and pressure from NATO-member neighbours.He often cited Serbia's infrastructure and improved living standards as proof of his success, once pledging to make the country a "land of cranes".From the gleaming waterfront district to the numerous projects unfolding in preparation for Expo 2027, his party's slogan "United Serbia" is plastered on billboards across the capital. - Rail station tragedy - But when a concrete canopy collapsed at a newly renovated train station in 2024 killing 16 people, the accusations of corruption which had dogged many of his signature projects caused an outpouring of anger.Student-led demonstrations calling for transparent investigations drew hundreds of thousands to the streets in the largest protests since the Milosevic era.As demands grew into calls for snap elections, Vucic and his supporters pushed back.Students manning university blockades were labelled tools of foreign powers.In September, nearly two years into the protests, Vucic finally called snap elections for October, citing "major turbulence on the domestic political scene", thus meeting a key student demand."All of this will end on October 25," Vucic said, referring to the protests, at a major pre-election rally in Novi Sad, the city where the canopy had collapsed.oz/al/yad/jjThis article originally appeared on AFP at https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/aleksandar-vucic-serbias-veteran-ruler-212043564.html
Cornell fraternity member seeks dismissal from Jane Doe's sexual assault lawsuit Cornell fraternity member seeks dismissal from Jane Doe's sexual assault lawsuitThe Chi Phi fraternity house in Ithaca, N.Y. (Heather Ainsworth for NBC News)One of the men sued by a former Cornell University student identified as Jane Doe has asked a judge to dismiss the claims against him,arguing that her allegations do not support her broader accusations of rape and sexual assault.Diego Sarabia filed the motion Friday seeking dismissal of all claims against him in the lawsuit Doe filed Sept. 16 in New York state court. Sarabia, who was a member of the Chi Phi fraternity, was one of seven men originally sued by Doe for allegedly participating in a gang rape at the Chi Phi house from Oct. 19 to 20, 2024.Sarabia denies the allegations against him, according to the filing. His attorneys argue that even if the complaint's factual allegations are accepted as true for the purposes of the motion, the claims against him were filed too late, are legally insufficient, or both.James C. Knox, an attorney for Sarabia, wrote in the motion that as far as the allegations against his client, "this is essentially a lawsuit about a forced kiss." Knox argued that the conduct Doe attributed to Sarabia did not qualify for the extended statute of limitations she cited for certain sexual offenses.Doe accused Sarabia of grabbing her face, kissing her and snorting ketamine off her body with other fraternity members during a drug- and alcohol-fueled encounter in what was known as the "alumni room" of the fraternity house."Throughout a sprawling complaint approaching 600 paragraphs, plaintiff repeatedly, collectively and without differentiation accuses seven student defendants of 'sexual assault and rape,'" Knox wrote in his filing. "Those legally conclusory statements do not substitute for pleaded facts."Knox argued that the complaint did not allege that Sarabia "supplied her with drugs or alcohol, participated in any of the alleged sexual encounters described elsewhere in the complaint, or was even present for most of the conduct that forms the basis of plaintiff's broader allegations."The attorney said that the assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations and the allegations against Sarabia did not qualify for extensions cited in the complaint.Doe's attorney Thomas Giuffra declined to comment on Sunday. Giuffra previously agreed to withdraw claims against the acting president of the fraternity's chapter at the time.Protesters rally in support of Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on Oct. 13. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty)The lawsuit inspired calls for a reckoning at the Ivy League institution, where past and current students and community members have accused the administration of not doing enough to protect women from sexual assault.Cornell's Board of Trustees hired former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates"to lead a comprehensive independent review of how the University prevents and responds to sexual harassment, sexual assault and related misconduct on campus."Doe's allegations were investigated by Cornell University Police. An internal civil rights investigation led to the expulsion of two students and disciplinary action against others. Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten declined to bring charges in November 2024 based on a six-page statement in which Doe described some of the sexual conduct that night as consensual.Van Houten declined to evaluate other investigative materials that had been gathered by investigators, including other witness statements.Gov. Kathy Hochul called the evaluation inadequate and recently appointed state Attorney General Letitia James as special prosecutor to investigate the allegations. James' office has started that process. The attorney general is expected to hire outside investigators to assist with the effort.Two of the accused men are seeking to disqualify James from overseeing the investigation based on a comment she made on social media about the case before she was tapped to run the probe. They argued the state's top law enforcement official had prejudged the case. Both challenges are still pending.James has deflected calls to step down from the case and has said she is "committed to leading a comprehensive investigation they can trust, guided only by the facts, the evidence, and the law."This article was originally published on NBCNews.comThis article originally appeared on NBC News at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cornell-fraternity-diego-sarabia-jane-doe-rcna605519
Poll finds Democrats still boosted by voters' economic concerns Poll finds Democrats still boosted by voters' economic concernsCall it the "avoidance" election, with many on each side more motivated by trying to prevent or stop things than by what they'll gain.Against a backdrop of continued concern about inflation and the economy, Democrats maintain their lead in a bid for a House majority. They're currently on pace for 229 seats in our CBS News House model estimate, which translates voters' congressional preferences into seats. The potential range of outcomes could reach into the 230s in our model, but Republicans do still have a very narrow path to hold the majority, too.While that Democratic lead has been durable over recent weeks, it hasn't expanded, either. In other words, there isn't a growing wave, at least not as of today. If anything, the still undecided or uncertain voters tend to profile as more Republican. Whether they decide to show up is perhaps the key question of 2026.Either way, voters describe a dynamic in which they're more motivated in opposition to things they think might happen. For instance:More think gas prices will go up if Republicans win than if Democrats do.(Though they don't think Democrats will make gas prices go down.)Most voters don't think Democrats have a plan and won't make people financially better off, either...But more voters think they'll be worse off if Republicans win.The president remains a central factor. It would be a high number voting either to support or oppose a president in a midterm if this sentiment holds through Election Day. Most of the Democrats' voters are trying to oppose either President Trump or Republicans, even more than to help Democrats. (Whether that rationale ultimately limits Democrats' gains or not is another key question.)But he's motivating for most Republicans, especially MAGA.Some of this lead is attributed to more Democrats saying they'll either definitely vote, or have already voted early.But this is not over: The voters who describe themselves as only "probably" or "maybe" going to vote are more Republican. If they become motivated, this can all change.
So, what happens if either party wins?
Few voters think gas prices will go down no matter who wins. But the GOP is now relatively more associated in voters' minds with rising gas prices: More think they'll go up if Republicans win than if Democrats do.Most voters don't think they'll be better off financially, no matter who wins. That cynicism does permeate the electorate. But as a choice, relatively more think they'll do better with Democrats.Most voters think there will be more corruption in government if Republicans maintain control of Congress.Both Democrats and Republicans - at about similar large majorities - see government corruption as a factor in their votes.
The Trump factor: A motivator for both sides, but more so for Democrats
Mr. Trump looms large over the midterms, particularly for Democrats. More than seven in 10 voting for Democrats say their vote for Congress is to oppose him. Mr. Trump is also a factor for those backing Republicans. Most say their vote is to support him, but to a lesser extent than Democrats are voting to oppose him. For most who are backing Democrats, their motivation is more about stopping Mr. Trump and GOP policies than advancing the Democrats' own policies. Here's how prevalent opposition to either party is as a motivating force this year.Neither Democrats nor Republicans are perceived by a majority of voters as having a clear plan, should either win control of Congress.There are four in 10 voters supporting Democrats who don't believe the party has a clear plan, should they win. They say opposition to Mr. Trump is the main motivator for them. Meanwhile, there are four in 10 voting Republican who say their vote isn't about the president. They're less likely to consider themselves MAGA, tend to just "somewhat," rather than "strongly," approve of Mr. Trump. But a big majority of them have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party - so they remain in the Republican camp.
Other issues
Many voters feel a win by the other side is a threat to their way of life. Democrats think a Republican win would be a threat to theirs.MAGA Republicans in particular, more so than non-MAGA, think the Democrats would be a threat. Although the issue ranks behind others as a factor in voters' decisions, Republicans lead Democrats among those who consider transgender issues a major factor in their vote.
Immigration
There are a third of voters who think the Democratic Party puts the interests of recent immigrants ahead of those of U.S. citizens, and voters who hold this view are backing Republicans in big numbers.(Another third does think the Democratic Party prioritizes both groups, and these voters are supporting Democrats.)
Trump and finances
Americans' overall ratings of the economy continue to be negative, as they have been for years. They've even dipped a bit lower now, to where they were last spring.And most likely voters feel the president's policies are making them financially worse off.The economy and inflation remain top concerns. Those calling inflation a very important issue mostly back Democrats, as do those who feel prices have been difficult or a hardship.Against that backdrop, voters voice broader concern about whose financial interests they think the president prioritizes.More feel he prioritizes his own financial interests and those of his family over the financial interests of the people in the country. And those who hold this view are backing Democrats.Republicans mostly feel Mr. Trump prioritizes the financial interests of people in the country over his own.
Trump on the trail: Is he helping or hurting?
The president's numerous appearances on the campaign trail may help to rally the base behind Republican candidates, but those events may not have as much impact with the rest of the party. Most MAGA Republicans say that when they see Trump campaigning for political candidates, it makes them more likely to vote for Republicans. For many non-MAGA Republicans, these campaign events do not do that.
The voting process
Most voters express at least some confidence in their own local and county elections administration to conduct the election process, including determining eligibility and correctly counting ballots. In turn, most tend to voice confidence that their own vote will be recorded and counted accurately in this election. On both of these measures, more Democrats than Republicans are very confident.Republicans are far more likely to believe that illegal voting by non-citizens happens in federal elections. This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,355 U.S. adults interviewed between October 21-23, 2026. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error for the total sample is ±2.6 points, it is ± 2.9 points for the sample of registered voters, and ± 3.0 points for likely voters.The estimated numbers of Republican and Democratic seats come from a statistical model developed by CBS News and YouGov which includes data from this poll, past vote and other district-level characteristics, demographics and historical patterns. These estimates are subject to statistical error. We simulate many elections, with the error calibrated to include historical polling accuracy, to obtain a range of seat estimates. We report 95% confidence intervals from the simulations. These estimates describe which party is ahead today and may change as additional data are collected closer to the election.This article originally appeared on CBS News at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-house-estimate-midterm-elections-2026/
Some of this lead is attributed to more Democrats saying they'll either definitely vote, or have already voted early.
But this is not over: The voters who describe themselves as only "probably" or "maybe" going to vote are more Republican. If they become motivated, this can all change.
Most voters don't think they'll be better off financially, no matter who wins. That cynicism does permeate the electorate. But as a choice, relatively more think they'll do better with Democrats.
Most voters think there will be more corruption in government if Republicans maintain control of Congress.Both Democrats and Republicans - at about similar large majorities - see government corruption as a factor in their votes.
For most who are backing Democrats, their motivation is more about stopping Mr. Trump and GOP policies than advancing the Democrats' own policies. 
Here's how prevalent opposition to either party is as a motivating force this year.Neither Democrats nor Republicans are perceived by a majority of voters as having a clear plan, should either win control of Congress.
There are four in 10 voters supporting Democrats who don't believe the party has a clear plan, should they win. They say opposition to Mr. Trump is the main motivator for them. Meanwhile, there are four in 10 voting Republican who say their vote isn't about the president. They're less likely to consider themselves MAGA, tend to just "somewhat," rather than "strongly," approve of Mr. Trump. But a big majority of them have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party - so they remain in the Republican camp.
Although the issue ranks behind others as a factor in voters' decisions, Republicans lead Democrats among those who consider transgender issues a major factor in their vote.
The economy and inflation remain top concerns. Those calling inflation a very important issue mostly back Democrats, as do those who feel prices have been difficult or a hardship.
Against that backdrop, voters voice broader concern about whose financial interests they think the president prioritizes.More feel he prioritizes his own financial interests and those of his family over the financial interests of the people in the country. And those who hold this view are backing Democrats.Republicans mostly feel Mr. Trump prioritizes the financial interests of people in the country over his own.
This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,355 U.S. adults interviewed between October 21-23, 2026. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error for the total sample is ±2.6 points, it is ± 2.9 points for the sample of registered voters, and ± 3.0 points for likely voters.The estimated numbers of Republican and Democratic seats come from a statistical model developed by CBS News and YouGov which includes data from this poll, past vote and other district-level characteristics, demographics and historical patterns. These estimates are subject to statistical error. We simulate many elections, with the error calibrated to include historical polling accuracy, to obtain a range of seat estimates. We report 95% confidence intervals from the simulations. These estimates describe which party is ahead today and may change as additional data are collected closer to the election.This article originally appeared on CBS News at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-house-estimate-midterm-elections-2026/
