Donald Trump needs to choose a running mate for the 2024 election, and rumour has it he’s treating it like his old TV show: The Apprentice.
After a rather high-profile falling out with Mike Pence, the Republican nominee is deciding who could be his next vice president.
He is expected to reveal his choice at the Republican National Convention next month.
Let’s take a look at who the candidates are… and why each of one might hear those famous words: “You’re hired!”.
Doug Burgum
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum hoped his small-town values would appeal to Republican voters enough to choose him as the presidential nominee. It didn’t work, but does it make him an appealing pick for VP?
The 67-year-old former software company executive has stressed his humble origins and previously said the next US president should be “someone who’s held jobs where you shower at the end of the day, not at the beginning”.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
You’re hired: Burgum might be a safe pair of hands due to his experience in the worlds of politics and business, and his independent wealth (north of $100m) could be useful campaign funds.
You’re fired:North Dakota is as red as they come, so picking Burgum doesn’t come with the advantage of moving the dial in a swing state.
Advertisement
Marco Rubio
One of Florida’s two Republican senators, Marco Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants who fled to Miami during the Batista dictatorship.
He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 but dropped out after losing the Florida primary to Trump, who relentlessly mocked him as “Little Marco”.
You’re hired: He brings strong foreign policy credentials, having served on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, and has a track record of attracting Latino voters.
You’re fired: Rubio has drawn criticism from the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement in the past for his immigration reform legislation which could pose a problem for him, even though he has since renounced his own deal. There’s also the wrinkle that the US constitution appears to possibly prohibit Electoral College electors from voting for inhabitants of their states for both president and vice president.
JD Vance
A US Marines veteran, JD Vance rose to become senator for Ohio after growing up in poverty.
He once described himself as a “never Trumper” but has since U-turned into being a reliable supporter of The Donald, even attending court in New York to support him at his hush money trial.
You’re hired: Vance aligns with Trump’s populist mindset and would likely be palatable to the MAGA base – perhaps even as a potential successor one day.
You’re fired: Ohio hasn’t voted Democrat since 2012 so appointing Vance likely doesn’t give Trump a second-in-command pick who could help get him over the line in a swing state.
Tim Scott
The only black Republican US senator, Tim Scott launched a bid to become the Republican presidential nominee but later withdrew from the race.
He has since been name-dropped by Trump himself as a possible vice presidential pick.
Scott has accused President Joe Biden and “the radical left” of “attacking every rung of the ladder that helped me climb”.
You’re hired: Scott is seen as a potential asset to Trump both on a policy front and in helping to cut Democratic margins, particularly with Black and Hispanic male voters.
You’re fired: Scott has been outspoken about his support for a federal abortion ban in the aftermath of the fall of Roe v Wade, whereas Trump has said the decision should be left to individual states.
Byron Donalds
In terms of having a similar name to Trump, Byron Donalds certainly has the edge over the other potential VP candidates.
Donalds, 45, is a congressman from Florida who has been a supporter of the former president since he entered Congress. He voted against the certification of electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania and is a 2020 election denier.
You’re hired: Donalds is a strong debater with experience on TV who could help the Trump campaign reach out to black voters.
You’re fired: Donalds has a limited national profile and could face a similar constitutional predicament as Marco Rubio as he also lives in Florida.
Elise Stefanik
A Republican congresswoman from New York, Elise Stefanik’s profile has been on the rise in the GOP (Grand Old Party) for years.
She shot to fame after her questioning of university presidents about antisemitism led to a huge outcry and fallout. In May, she addressed the Knesset in Israel and lambasted the Biden administration’s approach to its ally.
You’re hired: One of the few women thought to be on the VP shortlist, Stefanik could help shore up Trump’s support among female and suburban voters as well as bring youth to the ticket.
You’re fired: Stefanik hails from New York, a solidly blue state, so her inclusion on the ticket is unlikely to help bring more Electoral College votes to Trump’s side.
Ben Carson
Ben Carson, 72, served in Trump’s administration last time around as secretary for housing and urban development.
His time in government came after he briefly ran for the Republican nomination in 2016 before eventually pulling out of the race and endorsing Trump.
You’re hired: Carson hails from Michigan, a battleground state that is likely to be among the most crucial races to watch on election night.
You’re fired: Though well-known, if Trump is looking for an attack dog VP then Carson might not be the right candidate. He’s not considered to be the most outspoken or charismatic pick.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:44
David Cameron can ‘kiss my a**’
Less likely – Marjorie Taylor-Greene
A Republican congresswoman known for her embrace of conspiracy theories and fierce support for Trump, Marjorie Taylor-Greene nonetheless could make sense as a running mate for her political hero.
However, she is not believed to be on the list of candidates being vetted by the Trump campaign.
She was elected to Congress in 2020 and quickly became a powerful – and vocal – player in the Republican Party.
If he’s still in post after a hypothetical Trump/MTG win, it would be an awkward appointment for the UK foreign secretary, Lord Cameron, whom Taylor-Greene had choice words for…
You’re hired: Taylor-Greene is staunchly loyal to Trump and popular among the MAGA right-wing of the Republican Party.
You’re fired: She’s a divisive figure nationwide and has been criticised for her – sometimes bizarre – outbursts, including talk of “Jewish space lasers”.
Less likely – Kristi Noem
The current governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem also has experience as a former member of Congress.
Her profile grew during the COVID-19 pandemic when she declined to close businesses and public spaces in her state to limit the spread of the virus. But it was in 2024 when she became even more well-known… after describing an incident of killing her dog in her own memoir.
As time has gone on she appears to be an increasingly unlikely choice for VP.
You’re hired: Noem brings experience as a state governor and fits in with Trump’s MAGA crowd.
You’re fired: She has been a supporter of the abortion restrictions in her state, where there is a near-total ban except when necessary to save the life of the mother. This hardline stance could make her a liability in a general election where public support for abortion access is high.
Already ruled out – Nikki Haley
Nikki Haley ran against Trump in the contest to secure the Republican nomination earlier this year. She weathered a string of defeats in various states before eventually suspending her campaign.
Nonetheless, she demonstrated that a significant proportion of Republican voters prefer her to Trump’s band of MAGA politics, perhaps setting the stage for a return in 2028 and beyond.
Trump has already ruled her out, and she’d be unlikely to accept even if he hadn’t. But just for fun:
You’re hired: She’s a strong politician with a track record of winning elections, and appeals to more moderate Republicans who might be nervous about another Trump presidency. But…
You’re fired: Haley is a critic of Trump, who she described as “unhinged” and too chaotic and divisive to be an effective president.
YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul has defeated one of the greatest-ever fighters, former heavyweight world champion Mike Tyson, who is more than twice his age.
Paul, 27, won the bout via a unanimous points decision at the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas – home of the Dallas Cowboys and the biggest NFL stadium in the US.
The fight was already controversial but then arguably failed to live up to the hype. Boos were heard from the crowd in the final two rounds, after a perceived lack of action.
Afterwards, the pair heaped praise on each other. Paul said: “This man is an icon and it’s just an honour to be able to fight him. And he’s obviously the toughest, baddest man on the planet.”
Tyson, 58, described Paul as a “good fighter” but dismissed the suggestion he was out to prove something.
“I didn’t prove nothing to anybody, only to myself,” he said.
Boxing careers compared
More on Jake Paul
Related Topics:
This was not Paul’s first professional fight. The American YouTube star made his debut in 2020, and his most high-profile clash was last year against Tyson Fury’s brother Tommy Fury, which he lost by a split decision.
The so-called “Problem Child” has since defeated former UFC contender Nate Diaz, professional boxer Andre August, former Gold Gloves champion Ryan Bourland and most recently MMA fighter Mike Perry.
Advertisement
In contrast, “Iron Mike” Tyson was ranked among the best heavyweight boxers of all time.
During his career, he knocked out 44 opponents – retiring from professional boxing in 2005 after defeat against Kevin McBride.
He returned to the ring in 2020 for a bout against fellow boxing icon Roy Jones, which ended in an unofficial draw.
‘Someone’s getting put to sleep’
Earlier this week, Paul said he believed the bout would not go the distance. “No, someone’s getting put to sleep,” he said. “It’s going to be a war, and we’re both heavy hitters. It’s not going the full 16 minutes.”
Tyson said: “I’ve been through so many ups and downs since my last fight with Kevin McBride.
“I’ve been in rehab. I’ve been in prison, been locked up. Never in a million years did I believe I’d be doing this.”
Several states would not allow the bout to go ahead, and the Texas Athletic Commission only agreed to the fight if there were changes, due to Tyson’s age.
It limited the contest to eight rounds lasting a maximum of two minutes instead of three. Both boxers were also required to wear heavier gloves, designed to lessen the force of punches.
The fight was initially scheduled for 20 July, but was postponed when Tyson suffered an ulcer flareup.
Taylor defends title
Meanwhile, among the undercard fights, Irish boxer Katie Taylor successfully defended her super lightweight world title against Puerto Rico’s Amanda Serrano.
But it was tight. Taylor claimed the rematch 95-94 for all three judges in an epic battle.
The bout came two and a half years after the pair fought at Madison Square Garden, which Taylor won on a split decision.
Bout suffered from buffering
Earlier in the evening thousands of Netflix users in the US reported problems with the coverage, with some posting on social media about buffering.
At one point, more than 98,000 people had reported issues according to Downdetector, which tracks outages.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson has said he will “strongly request” a report into allegations of sex trafficking against Matt Gaetz, who is the president-elect’s choice of attorney general, should not be released.
Mr Johnson said he was against publishing the House Ethics Committee report on Mr Gaetz, 42, who if approved by the Senate will become the nation’s top prosecutor once Donald Trump is sworn in as president on 20 January.
That’s despite Mr Gaetz having previously faced a nearly three-year Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving a 17-year-old girl. He denies the allegations and has not faced criminal charges.
Mr Gaetz has also never worked as a prosecutor and has only worked in law for a few years at a local level.
He stepped down from Congress after Mr Trump announced him as his attorney general pick.
His resignation brought the investigation by the House Ethics Committee to an end – two days before it had been expected to release its report into the trafficking claims.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:27
Why is Matt Gaetz a controversial pick?
House Speaker Mr Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said of the probe: “I’m going to strongly request that the Ethics Committee not issue the report, because that is not the way we do things in the House.”
Politicians of both parties on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they want to see the report on Mr Gaetz, as part of a Senate confirmation process for cabinet nominees that would start next year with public hearings.
Democrats have described the MAGA loyalist as “a gonzo agent of chaos” and his appointment a “red alert moment for our democracy”, while some Republican senators have also raised doubts about his suitability for the role.
Mr Johnson said he planned to urge House Ethics Committee chairman Michael Guest not to provide the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The rules of the House have always been that a former member is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” said Mr Johnson, who returned on Friday morning from meeting Mr Trump at the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
“I think it’s a terrible breach of protocol and tradition and the spirit of the rule,” he added. “I think that would be a terrible precedent to set.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
A $100m (£79m) lawsuit has been brought against the CIA, FBI and New York Police Department (NYPD) who are accused of being involved in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader Malcolm X.
The case, which has been filed in a federal court in Manhattan, New York, alleges that the agencies were aware of the assassination, they were involved in the plot and failed to stop the killing.
The legal action has been brought by Malcolm X’s three daughters along with his estate.
The NYPD and CIA have not yet responded to the claims while the FBI said it was “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.
Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the US Department of Justice, which is also included in the lawsuit, declined to respond.
Malcolm X was 39 when he was shot dead on 21 February 1965 on stage by three gunmen as he prepared to speak at the Audubon Ballroom in Manhattan.
At a news conference in New York on Friday, to announce the details of the lawsuit, attorney Benjamin Crump said: “The government fingerprints are all over the assassination of Malcolm X.
“We believe we have the evidence to prove it.”
For decades, questions have arisen over who was behind his murder.
Advertisement
Malcolm X rose to prominence as the national spokesman of the Nation of Islam, an African-American Muslim group which supported black separatism.
He broke away from the group in 1964 and moderated some of his earlier views on racial separation, which angered Nation of Islam members and resulted in death threats.
Three men were convicted of his murder but two of them were cleared in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case. They concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
Malcolm X’s family speaking in February 2023 when the plans for the lawsuit were initially announced
In the lawsuit, which began its process in 2023, it is alleged the NYPD coordinated with federal law enforcement agencies to arrest the activist’s security guards days before the assassination.
It also claims police were intentionally removed from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed and that federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, at the site but failed to protect him.
The lawsuit goes on to allege a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers… which was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents”.
Referring to Malcolm X’s family, the lawsuit states: “They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered up their role.”