The primary aim for candidates in a vice-presidential debate is to do no harm to the name at the top of the ticket. Both JD Vance and Tim Walz passed that test with flying colours.
It felt like a flashback to a pre-Trump debate era when candidates were allowed to be civil and, shock-horror, even briefly agree with those at the opposite lectern.
Image: The debate between Vance (L) and Waltz was much friendlier than that between Trump and Harris.
Pic: AP
Vance is the most interviewed of any of the four presidential candidates or running mates this year, regularly appearing on cable television in the US, and in the early exchanges it was telling.
He was slick and commanding, in contrast with Walz who betrayed early signs of nerves, stumbling over his words.
More on Jd Vance
Related Topics:
In Walz’s first answer about the Middle East crisis, he appeared to confuse Israel and Iran twice, at one point referring to “Israel and its proxies”.
But the man from Minnesota – as he so often reminded the viewer – soon found his way, peppering his answers with appeals to “folks” at home. He stared down the camera while delivering the everyman schtick which was the main reason Kamala Harris picked him as a running mate.
Advertisement
“I misspoke,” Walz said when challenged on his inaccurate statement about being in Hong Kong teaching when the Tiananmen Square massacre happened (newspaper records indicate he was, in fact, in Nebraska).
“I’m a knucklehead at times,” he added as if to say – you and I are just the same, you forget your keys in the car, and I forget that I was in the Midwest and not in the midst of one of the most notorious events in recent memory.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:16
‘Still saying he didn’t lose election’
Team Walz may have been expecting Vance to assume his “attack dog” persona but this was a more mellow, balanced, and even likeable performance from Trump’s understudy, specifically designed to appeal to the independent voter.
He began with a thank you to the broadcaster CBS for hosting the debate and to the viewers “caring enough about this country” to tune in.
He expressed concern for the 17-year-old son of Tim Walz, who had witnessed a shooting while playing volleyball. “I didn’t realise your son had witnessed a shooting,” he said, “that’s awful.”
Even on abortion – one of the thorniest issues for Republicans – he made a decent stab at appearing moderate.
“This is about health care,” he said. I just want to “make it easier for mums to afford to have babies,” he insisted while stating he has never called for a federal abortion ban.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:29
Vance and Walz debate abortion
In fact, Vance has in the past expressed his support for a bill which would ban abortion nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Walz spotted his moment to seize upon the reproductive rights debate, one of the loudest rallying cries for the Democratic Party.
He retold the tragic story of Amber Thurman, a woman who died because she could not access legal abortions and timely medical care owing to Georgia’s abortion ban.
It is an incredibly powerful, distressing story and one the Democrats are using on the campaign trail to shine a light on Donald Trump’s role in overturning Roe v Wade, which gave women the constitutional right to choose.
There were no knockout blows for either candidate and as with all vice-presidential debates, it is unlikely to shift the dial on polling or alter the momentum of the election race.
But the fact that JD Vance did so well on the undercard may just entice Donald Trump to accept the offer of another bout against Kamala Harris because – as we well know – he does not like being outshone.
The US federal government’s longest-ever shutdown is to come to an end after Congress finally voted through a funding deal.
The shutdown, which started on 1 October, has disrupted the lives of millions of Americans as all non-essential parts of government have been frozen.
It came after Democrats and Republicans refused to budge in their stand-off over healthcare spending, causing the first shutdown in almost seven years as the parties failed to agree on a government funding bill.
But on Wednesday night in Washington DC, the House of Representatives voted through a deal to reopen the government after the Senate – the upper chamber of Congress – reached a deal on Monday.
It will now go to the desk of President Donald Trump, who the White House has said will sign it tonight. It will fund the government through to 30 January.
Image: The standoff was largely over healthcare differences. Pic: AP
The Democrats had refused to support a Republican budget plan unless tax credits that made medical insurance cheaper for millions of people were renewed.
The willingness of eight moderate Democrats to break the Senate deadlock without that guarantee has provoked fury among many in the party.
While it will restore funding to federal agencies that have gone without since 1 October, and also prevent any further layoffs until 30 January, many voters will be left to count the cost of higher costs for their healthcare.
What’s a federal government shutdown?
A shutdown of the federal government means that all non-essential functions of government are frozen, affecting everything from social security to air travel to national park access.
Federal agencies are dependent on funding being approved by Congress to allow the president to sign budget legislation for the fiscal year ahead.
If they cannot approve funding (because of political differences – and America is bitterly divided) then those agencies are forced to shut down.
This means that workers cannot do their jobs and are not paid.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
A series of emails between disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and others which feature the name of Donald Trump have been released.
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee who put out the messages claim the correspondence “raises questions about Trump and Epstein’s relationship, Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s crimes” and the president’s relationship to Epstein’s victims.
But White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, says the “selectively leaked emails” are an attempt to “create a fake narrative to smear President Trump“.
The messages are dated between 2011 and 2019 and some are between Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and others between Epstein and author Michael Wolff.
The US president has consistently denied any involvement or knowledge about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.
In the first exchange of emails, between Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, dated 2 April 2011, Epstein wrote:
i want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.. [REDACTED NAME] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there
Maxwell responded:
I have been thinking about that…
In the second exchange of emails, between Epstein and Michael Wolff, a journalist who has written several books about the Trump administration, dated 31 January 2019, Epstein wrote:
[REDACTED NAME] mara lago. [REDACTED] . trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. . of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop
The third email exchange, between Epstein and Wolff, dated between 15 and 16 December 2015 shows that Wolff wrote:
I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you–either on air or in scrum afterwards.
Epstein replied:
if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?
Wolff responded:
I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
The White House and Republicans on the committee have said that the redacted name in one of the emails was Virginia Giuffre, a prominent Epstein survivor who died in April and had never accused Mr Trump of wrongdoing.
Ms Giuffre made allegations of three sexual encounters with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was stripped of his prince title, in her autobiography which was released last month – allegations Andrew has denied.
Sky News’s US news partner NBC News has reached out to lawyers for Michael Wolff, Maxwell and the family of Virginia Giuffre for comment.
The top Democrat on the House committee, Robert Garcia of California, said in a statement that the released emails “raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President”.
The Oversight Committee Democrats say the email strike “a blow against the White House’s Epstein cover-up”.
But White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: “The Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.
“The ‘unnamed victim’ referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and ‘couldn’t have been friendlier’ to her in their limited interactions.”
Mr Trump’s legal team has accused the BBC of using “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements”.
BBC Chair Samir Shah has apologised for an “error of judgment” over the way the speech was edited, while director-general, Tim Davie, and CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, have both announced their resignations.
But this is not the first time Mr Trump has taken on the media – and is in fact the latest in a recent spate of legal battles with the press.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:00
BBC will consider settling with Trump says legal correspondent
Trump vs CNN
If past examples are anything to go by, Mr Trump’s legal threat is not an empty one.
He previously filed a $475m (£360m) defamation suit against CNN, alleging it had compared him to Adolf Hitler.
It came after CNN referred to Mr Trump’s unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him as the “Big Lie” – an expression also used by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
But the case was thrown out after US district judge Raag Singhal ruled that the term “does not give rise to a plausible inference that Trump advocates the persecution and genocide of Jews”.
Image: Letter from Alejandro Brito, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers who is based in Florida, to the BBC
Election campaign lawsuit
His election campaign in 2020 also sued the New York Times and the Washington Post over opinion pieces alleging ties between with Russia.
These cases were dismissed in 2021 and 2023, respectively.
Yet, Mr Trump has had more success in recent years.
ABC settlement
In 2024, Trump sued American broadcaster ABC and its news host George Stephanopoulos, after the anchor falsely referred to the president being found “liable for rape” in an interview.
Image: Donald Trump on stage with George Stephanopoulos. Pic: Reuters
In the civil case in question, he was actually found liable for sexual abuse and defamation – a verdict which Trump is appealing.
Given the high bar for proving defamation against public figures, experts were sceptical that he could win the lawsuit.
George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center told CBS at the time: “I don’t know of any president who successfully sued a media company for defamation.”
Yet ABC, which is owned by Disney, agreed to settle, paying $15m (£11.4m) to Trump for his future presidential library, and a further $1m (£760,000) towards his legal fees.
Battle with CBS
In another lawsuit, the president demanded $20bn (£15.2bn) from CBS over an interview with his election rival Kamala Harris broadcast on 60 Minutes.
Image: Results pour in on election night during an event for Kamala Harris at Howard University, Washington. Photo: AP
His team accused the broadcaster of “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” with its editing of the interview, saying it intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in the contest.
First Amendment attorney Charles Tobin of the law firm Ballard Spahr told CNN at the time: “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”
Yet they too settled out of court, with CBS’ parent company, Paramount Global, paying $16m (£12.1m) to end the legal dispute – again towards Trump’s future presidential library.
Trump vs Meta
Image: Pic: REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, also settled with the president to the tune of $25m (£19m).
That lawsuit came after he sued over the suspension of his accounts in the wake of the 6 January riots.
Why the recent spate?
While Mr Trump has made several threats to media organisations in recent years, it is not the first time he has done so.
According to Columbia Journalism Review, he threatened to sue a journalist at New York’s Village Voice as far back as 1979, and actually sued the Chicago Tribune in 1984.
That 1984 lawsuit, which came after Mr Trump took umbrage at a column by the paper’s award-winning architecture columnist criticising his plans for a huge tower block in New York City, was thrown out as an opinion by a judge.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
However, the number of lawsuits, and the size of his compensation demands, have increased of late. So what has changed?
“As president, Trump’s leverage has increased exponentially,” wrote media reporter Paul Farhi in Vanity Fair.
“It’s no coincidence that Disney and Meta have settled since Election Day, and Paramount has come to the table.”
Now that he’s turning his ire on the BBC, what will the outcome be?
Mr Freeman called his threat to the broadcaster “totally meaningless”, noting that he “has a long record of unsuccessful libel suits” intended to “threaten and scare media he doesn’t like”.
Can the BBC rely on that assessment?
With a deadline set for Friday, 10pm UK time, we may be about to find out.