Former President Joe Biden speaks after receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute’s 10th Anniversary Celebration, on October 26, 2025, in Boston.
| Photo Credit: AP

Former White House national security adviser John Bolton arrives at U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, in Greenbelt, Maryland, U.S.,
| Photo Credit: Reuters

I began practicing psychotherapy during the Reagan administration. Thirty years went by before distress about politics became a clinical issue for any of my clients.

I remember the moment it first happened: There was a long voicemail from a distraught woman requesting therapy for anxiety and depression in reaction to the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump. I listened twice to make sure I hadn’t missed something. I hadn’t. There were no other issues. This woman wanted therapy for political distress.

That was a new one for me and every therapist I knew. But now I see no sign of this clinical challenge abating.

Political polarization in the U.S. is at the highest level ever measured. Growing majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say they consider members of the other party to be unintelligent, dishonest and immoral.

What I’m calling political distress is a bipartisan mental health problem. It is based on a belief that, because the country is in the hands of bad leaders, awful things might happen. Many people experience intense fear about what the other side might do. Both Republicans and Democrats have experienced this anguish, but it peaks at different times for the two parties, depending on who won the last election.

We psychotherapists like to base our interventions on research-based strategies that have been vetted in clinical trials or, if not that, at least strategies grounded in the clinical expertise of master therapists who wrote classic books. There’s none of that for how to deal with political distress.

But therapists cannot tell a client in distress that future research is needed before we can help. Instead, we pull from what is known about how best to handle related issues. Here’s the advice I’m sharing with my clients who are upset about the way the world is going.

Taking a longer view

Information about American history is relevant to political distress because, psychologically, people evaluate their situations by comparing them with anchors or norms. You compare current dangers and threats with what you’ve faced and survived in the past.

A Democrat comparing today’s United States with the country a decade ago may feel gloomy. But broader comparisons can produce a more grounded, calming perspective.

The U.S. has faced major trials and tribulations over the course of its history. The country has proven itself to be a resilient democracy. Basic information about the Civil War, the Great Depression and World War II yields a sense that the present political moment is not the only perilous time our republic has ever faced.

The Serenity Prayer is an effective summary of research on coping. As I discuss in my book “Finding Goldilocks,” the well-known invocation identifies two basic strategies and tells you when to use which one. People need the strength to change what can be changed and the serenity to accept what cannot. Political distress, like many stressors, calls for a combination of both tactics.

Doing what you can means funneling political anxiety into political actions, including voting, volunteering, donating money and serving as a poll worker. Can one person’s actions make a difference? They can make one person’s worth of difference. You can’t do everything, but you can do something.

In addition, taking action about a problem, even if it does not produce a solution, often reduces distress, especially if it brings you together with like-minded people.

Once you’ve done what you can, it’s important to acknowledge how much is beyond your control: The whole world doesn’t rest on your shoulders alone. Then you can in good conscience turn your attention to the good things in your own personal life.

It helps to limit your consumption of political news; past a certain point, you’re not learning anything new and just fueling your agitation.

The best things in life aren’t political

One basic tool of cognitive therapy for anxiety is asking the question, “What is the worst thing that could plausibly happen?” The purpose of this question is not to get anxious people thinking about worst-case scenarios – they’re doing that already – but to move their thought process forward to a picture of how they could survive their worst fear. This is a strangely effective form of reassurance.

Democrats believe Donald Trump’s second administration will hurt people. But with important exceptions – such as undocumented immigrants who could be deported – when many people try to picture exactly how their lives will be damaged in specific, concrete, serious ways, they usually do not come up with much.

This does not mean nothing bad will happen. It does mean you likely can cope with whatever does. While Trump’s policies might be unfortunate and even infuriating for those on the other side of the aisle, they are unlikely to be disastrous on an immediate, day-to-day level for large groups of people.

A very broad perspective will remind you that democracy is a rarity in world history. For most of civilization, people have lived in monarchies or tyrannies of some sort, and most of them managed to be OK.

I’m not suggesting that people disengage from the political world. I believe it’s important to stand up for what you believe is right. My advice is not to put on your rose-colored glasses and withdraw into your own safe space, the rest of the world be damned.

But the main sources of human well-being are family, friends, meaningful work, hobbies, the arts, nature, spirituality and acts of kindness. None of these depend on political systems. We can cope with political distress by falling back on the best things in life.

Jeremy P. Shapiro is an adjunct Assistant Professor of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University. This article is republished from The Conversation.

Washington:

Facing questions about an alleged sexual assault and medieval-themed tattoos linked to extremist groups, Donald Trump’s defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth would struggle to be confirmed for the job under normal circumstances.

But these are not normal times in Washington.

Hegseth, a Fox News host, was picked by Trump on Tuesday in one of several nominations that wrong-footed even some in his remodeled Republican Party and threw down a challenge to the Senate.

To take up the position as head of the Pentagon and oversee 3.4 million employees, Hegseth will require confirmation from the upper house — and Trump is publicly pressuring lawmakers to show loyalty to his agenda.

Read | Who Is Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s Pentagon Pick For Secretary Of Defense

Revelations in recent days about the 44-year-old have made his path to power more difficult, including that the thrice-married former soldier was investigated for sexual assault in California in 2017.

No charges were filed over an encounter in a Monterey hotel that saw an unnamed accuser lodge a police report, but the claim has led to questions about the vetting process for the former soldier.

According to the Washington Post, Hegseth paid an undisclosed sum to the woman several years later as part of a nondisclosure agreement, though he maintained that their encounter was consensual.

Medieval

His tattoos have also raised questions, leading to him being stood down by his Army National Guard unit when it was called up for the inauguration of President Joe Biden in 2020.

Speaking on a podcast with fellow veteran Shawn Ryan earlier this month, he revealed that one of his fellow soldiers had flagged him as a possible white nationalist because of his body art.

He claimed it was because of the medieval Jerusalem Cross on his chest, but he also has the words “Deus Vult” on his bicep — a phrase meaning “God wills it” that was used by anti-Muslim crusaders in the Middle Ages.

Read | Don’t Believe In Germs, Not Washed Hands In 10 Years, Jokes Fox News Host

European medieval imagery and slogans have been widely adopted by white supremacists and neo-Nazis in recent years, but Hegseth says his tattoos simply reflect his faith.

“It’s a Christian symbol,” the author of a 2020 book entitled “American Crusade” said of the Jerusalem Cross.

His handling of medieval weaponry has gone viral in recent days after a video re-emerged of him taking part in a televised axe-throwing contest which saw him miss the target and strike a bystander, who narrowly escaped serious injury.

Trump favourite

His CV includes combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and he rose to the rank of major in the National Guard — a lowly status compared to the generals and admirals he would oversee at the Pentagon. Hegseth boasts degrees from elite US universities, including an undergraduate from Princeton and a master’s from Harvard.

Square-jawed and outspoken, he came to Trump’s attention on the “Fox & Friends Weekend” show that he co-hosts.

“You know the military better than anyone,” Trump told him during an appearance in early June, adding that he often thought about putting him in charge of the Pentagon.

A former Republican operative who vetted Hegseth when Trump was considering him for the more junior veterans affairs secretary in 2016 wrote this week that he remained unqualified and an “empty vessel.”

Lacking major experience in foreign affairs or congressional politics, Hegseth’s only civilian management credential was being CEO of a small non-profit, the former operative Justin Higgins wrote for MSNBC.

“It’s not hard to imagine that he would do and say whatever Trump wants,” he added.

Hegseth’s main policy focus in his books and media appearances is tackling what he calls “woke shit” in the armed forces — and he has expressed support for purging the top brass.

He told Ryan on his podcast that his experiences taught him that “the bigotry we saw on the outside (of the army) should not be tolerated inside the military” but that progressive efforts to tackle racism and sexism had gone too far.

“The army that I enlisted in, that I swore an oath to in 2001 and was commissioned in 2003 looks a lot different than the army of today because we’re focused on a lot of the wrong things,” he said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Israel:

Top US diplomat Antony Blinken was due to travel to Egypt on Tuesday for talks on a Gaza ceasefire after saying Israel had accepted a US “bridging proposal” for a deal and urging Hamas to do the same.

Blinken, on his ninth visit to the Middle East since the Palestinian operative group’s October 7 attack triggered the war with Israel, was scheduled to fly from Tel Aviv to El Alamein, the Mediterranean city famous for a World War II battle in 1942, to speak to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at his summer palace.

Afterwards, he will head to a meeting with Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, in Doha, the scene of ceasefire talks last week.

Both Egypt and Qatar are working alongside the United States to broker a truce in the 10-month Gaza conflict.

Washington put forward the latest proposal last week after the talks in Doha.

Blinken said Monday he had “a very constructive meeting” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who “confirmed to me that Israel accepts the bridging proposal”.

Ahead of those talks, Hamas called on the mediators to implement the framework set out by US President Joe Biden in late May, rather than hold more negotiations.

The movement said on Sunday that the current US proposal “responds to Netanyahu’s conditions” and leaves him “fully responsible for thwarting the efforts of the mediators”.

Earlier on Monday, the US secretary of state had said: “This is a decisive moment — probably the best, maybe the last, opportunity to get the hostages home, to get a ceasefire and to put everyone on a better path to enduring peace and security”.

Months of on-off negotiations with US, Qatari and Egyptian mediators have failed to produce an agreement.

Israel and Hamas have blamed each other for delays in reaching an accord that diplomats say would help avert a wider conflagration in the Middle East that could draw in Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

“There is, I think, a real sense of urgency here, across the region, on the need to get this over the finish line and to do it as soon as possible,” Blinken said.

The Biden administration is under domestic pressure over Gaza, with pro-Palestinian protests taking place outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Monday.

Biden said in his farewell speech to the convention that the protesters “have a point”, adding that “a lot of innocent people are being killed, on both sides”.

Permanent ceasefire

Israel and Hamas have traded blame for delays in reaching a truce deal.

Hamas insisted on “a permanent ceasefire and a comprehensive (Israeli) withdrawal from the Gaza Strip”, saying Netanyahu wanted to keep Israeli forces at several strategic locations within the territory.

Western ally Jordan, hostage supporters who protested in Tel Aviv during Blinken’s visit, and Hamas itself have called for pressure on Netanyahu in order for an agreement to be reached.

Far-right members crucial to the prime minister’s governing coalition oppose any truce.

The October 7 attack on southern Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,198 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.

Israel’s retaliatory offensive in Gaza has killed at least 40,139 people, according to the territory’s health ministry, which does not give details of civilian and operative deaths.

Out of 251 hostages seized during Hamas’s attack, 111 are still held in Gaza, including 39 the military says are dead.

The Biden framework would freeze fighting for an initial six weeks while Israeli hostages are exchanged for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and humanitarian aid enters Gaza.

Netanyahu said on Monday that negotiators were aiming to “release a maximum number of living hostages” in the first phase of any ceasefire.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

U.S. President Joe Biden addresses at an election fundraising event hosted by Indian American billionaire and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla at his residence, in Washington on May 11, 2024.
| Photo Credit: PTI

Taking a dig at his predecessor, U.S. President Joe Biden has said that Donald Trump should have injected himself with a little bleach, for suggesting during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic that a disinfectant “injection inside” could help protect against the deadly virus.

Mr. Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive candidate for the presidential elections in November, made the remarks during an election fundraiser hosted by prominent Indian-American billionaire and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla on May 10.

During the fundraiser, the 81-year-old leader made several jokes about his 77-year-old Republican Party rival Mr. Trump, asserting that the former president “is in trouble, and he knows it”.

“Remember him saying the best thing to do is to inject a little bleach into your arm… I wish he had done it a little bit himself,” Mr. Biden said, in an apparent jibe about Mr. Trump’s comment during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.

Editorial | Square one: On the 2024 U.S. Presidential election as a Biden-Trump rematch

Mr. Trump, President at that time, had said during a White House coronavirus task force briefing, “…I see the disinfectant where it knocks it (the virus) out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it’d be interesting to check that.”

“We’ll never forget about the pandemic. He knew (it) was serious, and he acknowledged it … but wanted to not — just keep everybody from responding to it,” Mr. Biden said during the fundraiser.

He joked further and said, “Not everyone is feeling the enthusiasm these days. The other day this guy walked up, and said ‘I’m in real trouble, short on cash, I don’t know what to do’. I said ‘Donald I can’t help you’.” Asserting that chaos is nothing new for Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden said that Mr. Trump’s four-year presidency from 2017 was chaos.

“Trump is trying to make the country forget how dark things — and unsettling they were as he left the office. But we’re not going to forget,” he said.

Mr. Biden is set to face Mr. Trump in the November 5, 2024, presidential election, a rematch between them since their 2020 clash.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy was voted out of the job Tuesday in an extraordinary showdown, a first in U.S. history that was forced by a contingent of hard-right conservatives and threw the House and its Republican leadership into chaos.

McCarthy’s chief rival, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, forced the vote on the “motion to vacate,” drawing together more than a handful of conservative Republican critics of the speaker and many Democrats who say he is unworthy of leadership.

Next steps are uncertain, but there is no obvious successor to lead the House Republican majority.

Stillness fell as the presiding officer gavelled the vote closed, 216-210, saying the office of the speaker “is hereby declared vacant.”

Moments later, a top McCarthy ally, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., took the gavel and, according to House rules, was named speaker pro tempore, to serve in the office until a new speaker is chosen.

The House then briskly recessed so lawmakers could meet and discuss the path forward.

It was a stunning moment for the battle-tested Mr. McCarthy, a punishment fuelled by growing grievances but sparked by his weekend decision to work with Democrats to keep the federal government open rather than risk a shutdown.

An earlier vote was 218-208 against tabling the motion, with 11 Republicans allowing it to advance.

The House then opened a floor debate, unseen in modern times, ahead of the next round of voting.

Mr. McCarthy, of California, insisted he would not cut a deal with Democrats to remain in power — not that he could have relied on their help even if he had asked.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a letter to colleagues that he wants to work with Republicans, but he was unwilling to provide the votes needed to save Mr. McCarthy.

“It is now the responsibility of the GOP members to end the House Republican Civil War,” Mr. Jeffries said, announcing the Democratic leadership would vote for the motion to oust the speaker.

As the House fell silent, Gaetz, a top ally of Donald Trump, rose to offer his motion. Gaetz is a leader of the hard-right Republicans who fought in January against Mr. McCarthy in his prolonged battle to gain the gavel.

“It’s a sad day,” Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said as debate got underway, urging his colleagues not to plunge the House Republican majority “into chaos.”

But Gaetz shot back during the debate, “Chaos is Speaker McCarthy.”

Mr. McCarthy’s fate was deeply uncertain as the fiery debate unfolded, with much of the complaints against the speaker revolving around his truthfulness and his ability to keep the promises he has made since January to win the gavel.

But a long line of Mr. McCarthy supporters, including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a founding leader of the conservative Freedom Caucus, stood up for him: “I think he has kept his word.” And some did so passionately. Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., waved his cellphone, saying it was “disgusting” that hard-right colleagues were fundraising off the move in text messages seeking donations.

At the Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats met privately ahead of the historic afternoon vote.

Behind closed doors, Mr. McCarthy told fellow Republicans: Let’s get on with it.

“If I counted how many times someone wanted to knock me out, I would have been gone a long time ago,” Mr. McCarthy said at the Capitol after the morning meeting.

Mr. McCarthy insisted he had not reached across the aisle to the Democratic leader Jeffries for help with votes to stay in the job, nor had they demanded anything in return.

During the hourlong meeting in the Capitol basement, Mr. McCarthy invoked Republican Speaker Joseph Cannon, who more than 100 years ago confronted his critics head-on by calling their bluff and setting the vote himself on his ouster. Cannon survived that takedown attempt, which was the first time the House had actually voted to consider removing its speaker. A more recent threat, in 2015, didn’t make it to a vote.

Mr. McCarthy received three standing ovations during the private meeting — one when he came to the microphone to speak, again during his remarks and finally when he was done, according a Republican at the meeting who was granted anonymity to discuss it.

At one point, there was a show of hands in support of Mr. McCarthy and it was “overwhelming,” said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

Gaetz was in attendance, but he did not address the room.

Across the way in the Capitol, Democrats lined up for a long discussion and unified around one common point: Mr. McCarthy cannot be trusted, several lawmakers in the room said.

“I think it’s safe to say there’s not a lot of good will in that room for Kevin McCarthy,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.

“At the end of the day, the country needs a speaker that can be relied upon,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “We don’t trust him. Their members don’t trust him. And you need a certain degree of trust to be the speaker.”

Removing the speaker launches the House Republicans into chaos, as they try to find a new leader. It took Mr. McCarthy himself 15 rounds in January over multiple days of voting before he secured the support from his colleagues to gain the gavel. There is no obvious GOP successor.

Mr. Trump, the former president who is the Republican front-runner in the 2024 race to challenge Biden, weighed in to complain about the chaos. “Why is it that Republicans are always fighting among themselves,” he asked on social media.

One key Mr. McCarthy ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., took to social media urging support for “our speaker” and an end to the chaos that has roiled the Republican majority.

Republicans were upset that Mr. McCarthy relied on Democratic votes Saturday to approve the temporary measure to keep the government running until Nov. 17. Some would have preferred a government shutdown as they fight for deeper spending cuts.

But Democrats were also upset with Mr. McCarthy for walking away from the debt deal that he made with Biden earlier this year that already set federal spending levels, as he emboldened his right flank to push for steep spending reductions.

The special grand jury that investigated efforts by Donald Trump and others to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results recommended indictments against twice as many people as the 19 ultimately charged by prosecutors, leaving South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham among those not indicted.

The grand jurors’ report released Friday showed they recommended charges against 39 people, including Graham, former U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Released at the request of the special grand jury, the report provides insight into one of the most expansive investigations into Mr. Trump, who is also facing two federal indictments along with unrelated state charges in New York City. While critics have accused Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis of launching an unwieldy, overly broad case, the report suggests she used her discretion to streamline the case.

There are many reasons Willis might have chosen not to charge all those recommended, including immunity deals with some, federal protections for others or insufficient evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The special grand jury included Mr. Graham’s name in a section about “the national effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” which Mr. Trump, the incumbent Republican, lost to Democrat Joe Biden. The South Carolina senator, who was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger shortly after the November election, and Mr. Raffensperger has said Mr. Graham asked him whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots.

Mr. Perdue and Mr. Loeffler were sitting U.S. senators who had failed to win enough votes in the November 2020 general election and were forced into a January 2021 runoff, which they both ultimately lost to Democratic challengers. In the weeks after the election, they were vocal in their criticism of Mr. Raffensperger, going so far as to call for his resignation.

In an interview on a right-wing cable news channel in mid-December 2020, Mr. Flynn said Mr. Trump “could take military capabilities” and place them in swing states and “basically rerun an election in each of those states.” He also traveled to the South Carolina home of conservative lawyer Lin Wood in November 2020, where Mr. Wood has said meetings were held to discuss possible ways to influence the election results in Georgia and elsewhere. The special grand jury also recommended charges for Wood.

Mr. Trump, the early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, blasted the report on his Truth Social site, saying, “They wanted to indict anybody who happened to be breathing at the time.”

Mr. Graham, who has denied any wrongdoing, said, “It should never be a crime for a federal elected official, particularly the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will have to vote to certify a presidential election, to question and ensure the integrity of that election.”

Mr. Loeffler, who has stayed involved in politics by founding and funding a Republican-aligned group called Greater Georgia, said she was speaking up for people who felt disenfranchised in the 2020 election. “Trying to jail your party’s leading political opponent ahead of 2024 is election interference. Speaking out in defense of election integrity is not,” she said on social media website X (formerly Twitter).

Mr. Flynn pointed to his lawyer Jesse Binnall’s post on X: “General Michael Flynn will continue to fight for the truth, for America First principles, and for Donald Trump’s return to The White House in 2024.”

Mr. Wood, who spoke before the special grand jury after receiving a subpoena, said he did nothing wrong: “It seems unfair to me that I get smeared as someone that is recommended for indictment when the people with the power to look at the evidence and indict did not indict me.”

Representatives for Mr. Perdue didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The special grand jury foreperson, Emily Kohrs, spoke of her experience in an interview with The Associated Press in February that was followed by interviews in other print and television news outlets. She said the panel recommended multiple people be indicted but declined to name names, citing a judge’s decision not to release the full report at that time.

While Mr. Kohrs’ whirlwind media tour was attacked by Mr. Trump’s lawyers at the time and raised fears among some Mr. Trump critics that it could jeopardize the investigation, the judge overseeing the special grand jury made clear that grand jurors are free to talk about anything but their deliberations.

The panel spent seven months hearing from some 75 witnesses before completing a report in December with recommendations for Mr. Willis on charges.

The release of the identities of people recommended for indictment is a departure from ordinary grand jury protocol, which dictates that prosecutors do not disclose the names of individuals investigated but not charged so as to prevent potentially innocent subjects from being unduly maligned.

Special grand juries in Georgia are relatively uncommon and are essentially an investigative tool. They can subpoena witnesses and evidence but do not have the power to bring an indictment. Instead, they can produce a report with recommendations that are not binding on a district attorney, who can then seek an indictment from a regular grand jury.

The special grand jury’s report is based on the testimony of the witnesses prosecutors called and the evidence they presented over about seven months last year. In their report, the grand jurors made clear that the panel “contained no election law experts or criminal lawyers.”

Of the 19 people ultimately indicted, only one was not included in the special grand jury’s recommendations. A former White House aide who served as the director of Trump’s Election Day operations, Michael Roman, was involved in efforts to put forth a set of fake electors after the 2020 election.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the partial release of the report in February but declined to immediately release the panel’s recommendations on who should or should not be prosecuted. The judge said at the time that he wanted to protect people’s due process rights.

Mr. McBurney said in a new order filed Aug. 28 that the due process concerns were moot since a regular grand jury had indicted Trump and 18 other people under the state’s anti-racketeering law. All have pleaded not guilty.

Many of those indicted — including former New York Mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows — are known to have testified before the special grand jury. Mr. Trump was never called.

The parts of the report previously released in February included its conclusions, as well as a section with the grand jurors expressing concerns that one or more witnesses may have lied under oath and urging prosecutors to seek charges for perjury.