A St. Louis judge issued an arrest warrant for three-time Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein after she failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing involving allegations that she assaulted a police officer during a 2024 protest at Washington University.

The warrant was withdrawn later the same day after Stein’s attorney appeared in court, but the judge made clear that another missed appearance could have immediate consequences.

Stein, 76, faces one count of first-degree trespassing and one count of fourth-degree assault stemming from the April 27, 2024 demonstration.

The protest unfolded on Washington University’s Danforth Campus, where demonstrators protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza entered the campus, erected tents and locked arms while chanting “Hold the line” after police issued orders to disperse.

More than 100 people were arrested as officers moved to clear the encampment.

Stein was among them.

According to court documents and police accounts, Stein allegedly grabbed the bicycle of an approaching police officer, causing the bike to strike another officer—identified as Officer Moore—in the forearm.

Authorities further allege that while Moore held the bicycle up, Stein kicked him multiple times in the right leg near the groin.

The officer later sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with a strained left forearm and leg as well as testicular contusions, according to the account of the case.

Stein’s campaign manager and deputy were also arrested during the demonstration.

The case returned to the spotlight when St. Louis Associate Circuit Judge Karma Johnson issued a failure-to-appear warrant after neither Stein nor her attorney, Joseph Welch, appeared for a scheduled 9 a.m. hearing.

The court had ordered the parties and their attorneys to appear in person.

Prosecutors were present and reportedly told the court they were not requesting an arrest warrant.

Judge Johnson issued one anyway.

“There will be a failure to appear warrant for Ms. Stein,” the judge stated from the bench.

The order called for Stein to be arrested and held without bond.

Hours later, Welch appeared in court and asked the judge to quash the warrant.

Johnson granted the request, withdrawing the warrant and continuing Stein’s case to Sept. 14.

But the new court filing included an unmistakable warning:

“Warrant to issue if Defendant fails to appear.”

Stein has been ordered to appear in person at the next hearing.

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Melissa Price Smith previously stressed that the criminal case concerns Stein’s alleged conduct during the demonstration—not her political views or right to protest.

“These misdemeanor criminal charges are not a statement about the freedoms of speech or assembly, which we honor and uphold as part of our Constitution,” Smith said when the charges were announced.

“They are not a statement about the subject of the protest… These charges merely reflect our professional judgment that we have the evidence to prove these particular criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” she added.

Despite more than 100 arrests during the demonstration, Stein and one other individual ultimately faced formal criminal charges, according to the original account.

Stein has been one of the country’s most recognizable Green Party political figures for more than a decade.

She was the party’s presidential nominee in 2012, 2016 and again in 2024.

Her 2016 candidacy became particularly controversial after some Democrats argued that votes cast for Stein in closely contested states contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.

During the 2024 election cycle, Stein made opposition to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza a prominent part of her candidacy and repeatedly described Israel’s actions as “genocide.”

The criminal case, however, is not about those political positions.

It centers on what prosecutors allege Stein personally did when police attempted to clear the Washington University encampment.

Stein has not been convicted of either charge, and the allegations against her remain to be adjudicated.

The brief arrest warrant added another complication to the case—but it ultimately lasted only hours.

What happens if Stein misses court again is considerably less ambiguous.

Her next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 14, and Judge Johnson’s order explicitly warns:

“Warrant to issue if Defendant fails to appear.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris unleashed an expletive while attacking President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom plans in a video that has resurfaced and is once again drawing attention online.

“Are you f***ing kidding me?” Harris said as she criticized the project during an October 2025 interview with comedian Jon Stewart.

The exchange came during an appearance on Stewart’s “The Weekly Show” podcast and centered on a broader argument over Washington’s priorities amid a federal funding dispute.

The footage is not new.

Harris made the remarks in October 2025, although an article published Sept. 18, 2026, highlighted the clip after it began circulating again on X.

At the time of the original interview, Harris was discussing uncertainty surrounding funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides food assistance to millions of Americans.

She used Trump’s proposed White House ballroom as a stark contrast to the possibility that families could temporarily lose access to food benefits.

“Are you f***ing kidding me?” she said as she turned her attention to the construction project.

Harris argued that Washington was discussing a ballroom that could host wealthy and powerful guests while families dependent on federal food assistance faced uncertainty.

She warned that babies could go hungry if benefits stopped in the hours following the 2025 conversation.

That warning was tied to the funding situation existing when Harris gave the interview. It was not a new announcement about SNAP benefits ending in October 2026.

Harris’s language grew increasingly pointed as she questioned whether a major White House construction project offered any meaningful help to Americans struggling with everyday expenses.

The broader discussion began when Stewart asked whether Democrats could learn anything from Trump’s willingness to disrupt the federal government and political establishment.

Harris responded that disruption itself could have value but argued that disruption should not become destruction.

She then used the ballroom controversy to illustrate her point.

Her argument was that Democrats should concentrate on tangible solutions to problems affecting Americans’ daily lives rather than political spectacle.

Trump and supporters of the ballroom project have presented a different rationale, including the need for a controlled venue capable of accommodating major White House events and addressing security concerns surrounding large gatherings.

The resurfaced exchange therefore captured two very different arguments being made about the project.

Harris portrayed the ballroom as a symbol of misplaced priorities at a moment when food-assistance funding was uncertain.

Trump has cited the need for an appropriate venue for major White House functions, including the security considerations involved in hosting large numbers of officials and guests.

The SNAP fight itself was also considerably broader than Harris’s viral remark.

According to the original report, Republicans accused Democrats of blocking funding efforts during the larger negotiations, while Democrats opposed immigration-enforcement provisions they considered unacceptable.

Ultimately, Congress—not either side’s political messaging—controlled the legislative terms of the funding dispute.

The resurfacing of Harris’s comments nearly a year later also creates an important distinction.

The clip documents what Harris said during the October 2025 funding fight. It does not represent a new October 2026 warning that SNAP benefits are about to disappear.

Nor does Harris’s profane reaction by itself establish the ballroom’s ultimate cost, financing structure or effect on federal spending.

What the footage does capture unmistakably is how aggressively the former vice president chose to frame the controversy.

Harris presented the choice in stark terms: families potentially struggling to obtain food on one side and a new White House ballroom on the other.

That framing immediately generated reaction from critics online.

One commenter challenged Harris’s suggestion that people could go hungry during an interruption in benefits, pointing to food banks, churches and soup kitchens as alternative sources of assistance.

Those programs can provide food assistance, although their existence alone does not establish whether they could replace federal SNAP benefits for affected recipients.

Another commenter responded by attacking Harris over abortion rather than addressing the SNAP funding or White House construction disputes themselves.

The reaction demonstrated why the clip has proved so easy to revive.

A complicated congressional funding battle can involve appropriations, negotiations and competing legislative provisions.

But four words from a former vice president travel considerably faster.

“Are you f***ing kidding me?”

Nearly a year after Harris said them, those words have put an old political fight back into the spotlight.

Newly reported private messages are shedding light on what Kimberly Guilfoyle allegedly said about the woman who would eventually marry Donald Trump Jr. as Guilfoyle’s own relationship with the president’s eldest son was coming apart.

Guilfoyle, 57, a former Fox News host and longtime Trump ally, allegedly unleashed on Palm Beach socialite Bettina Anderson in messages revealed in an Oct. 8 report by The Daily Beast.

Anderson, now 39, became romantically involved with Don Jr. while questions were swirling about the status of his engagement to Guilfoyle.

The alleged messages show just how heated the situation may have become behind the scenes.

“I was having a expletive] great time Saturday and we had a [expletive] amazing time when we got home Saturday night that’s a nonsense,” Guilfoyle allegedly texted Eric Deters, a former Republican congressional candidate from Kentucky.

She then allegedly turned her attention to Anderson.

“That’s his ex-wife’s friend. It’s all lies, but she’s a cloud chasing horror that plays the story in the daily mail to get attention.”

Deters confirmed to The Daily Beast that the messages were referring to Anderson.

The outlet noted that the messages contained apparent spelling errors and suggested that Guilfoyle’s reference to “cloud chasing” may have been intended to mean “clout chasing.”

The Daily Beast also suggested the reference to Don Jr.’s ex-wife may have been about Vanessa Trump, whom he divorced in 2018.

The reported exchange adds another layer to the intense public speculation that surrounded Don Jr.’s personal life in 2024.

In September of that year, the Daily Mail published photographs reportedly showing Don Jr. kissing Anderson during an August brunch in Palm Beach.

At the time, Don Jr. and Guilfoyle were still publicly considered engaged, immediately raising questions about when their relationship had actually ended and when his relationship with Anderson began.

Neither Guilfoyle nor Don Jr. has publicly provided an exact timeline of their breakup.

The alleged messages reported by The Daily Beast are also part of a much larger dispute involving Deters and Guilfoyle.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Deters provided approximately 150 pages of material that allegedly included screenshots, correspondence, social-media material and other documents connected to Guilfoyle.

Deters has accused Guilfoyle of offering to use her connections to the Trump family to help him with personal legal and tax problems in exchange for financial assistance.

He has also alleged that Guilfoyle once asked him to cover a $100,000 American Express bill.

Those allegations are disputed.

Guilfoyle’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, has challenged the authenticity of the messages, casting doubt on the claims being made about his client.

That dispute is significant because the most explosive details—including Guilfoyle’s alleged comments about Anderson—come from material whose authenticity Guilfoyle’s legal representative has questioned.

Guilfoyle and Don Jr. have since moved on with their lives.

The former Fox News personality and conservative fundraiser now serves as the U.S. ambassador to Greece.

Don Jr., meanwhile, went on to marry Anderson—the same woman Guilfoyle allegedly criticized in the newly reported messages.

The result is a striking glimpse into the personal drama that allegedly unfolded as one high-profile relationship was ending and another was beginning.

And while the exact timeline surrounding Don Jr.’s breakup with Guilfoyle has never been publicly detailed, the newly reported messages suggest tensions surrounding his relationship with Anderson may have been running considerably higher behind the scenes than was publicly known at the time.