WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration appeared to disappoint senators from both political parties Thursday with how she answered questions about medication abortion access during her confirmation hearing. 

Dr. Heidi Overton also faced skepticism from committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, about her work on vaccine policy during the current administration, indicating she may not have the support needed to secure the job. 

“You’re a medical doctor. Of course, that resonates with me. You’ve seen patients. You have a deep understanding of the healthcare system and health policy, but I have concerns,” he said. “You were behind the president in the Oval Office when he signed an executive order to break up the vaccine schedule into more doses, completely ignoring the reality of families today struggling to make life affordable.”

Cassidy said that executive order was “based on zero scientific evidence” and would require parents to spend more time and more money taking their children to medical appointments to receive vaccine shots. 

Overton, he said, needed to convince him and others on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that if confirmed by the full Senate, she would be “radically honest.” 

“You’ll also need to ensure that uninformed ideologies do not influence FDA’s decisions on whether to approve individual products, even if the president is pressuring you,” Casidy said. 

In response to a question from Cassidy about the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, Overton said she believed it as well as “every vaccine on the U.S. market right now” is safe and effective. 

She added the MMR vaccine remains “our best tool right now in the public health response to the measles outbreak” and that it is “97% effective in stopping transmission of the virus after two doses.” 

Questions on medication abortion

In addition to several questions about vaccine and food safety, senators pressed Overton about her personal views on mifepristone, one of two prescription pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. 

Senate confirmation would place Overton as the head of the agency conducting a safety review of the drug, though she declined to say how she would handle that process.

“Mifepristone was approved by the FDA as having met its safety and efficacy standard,” she said in response to a question from Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.

The senator then referenced a policy brief that Overton wrote with Matias Perttula for the America First Policy Institute that was published in February 2023. 

The co-authors began by writing that “Abortion is corrosive to children, women, and society broadly because it devalues and extinguishes innocent human life.” They later added that medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation, had become “the most common method of terminating a pregnancy” and that it “deserve(d) greater medical scrutiny.”

Overton declined to answer a question from Murray about whether an IUD counts as an abortifacient, saying that if confirmed she would be “fully briefed on all their prior decisions and make determinations according to the standards of safety and efficacy.”

Hawley presses on FDA position

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley also questioned Overton on her statements during the hearing about mifepristone, saying they didn’t match what the Trump administration was arguing in ongoing legal cases. 

“I want to get to the bottom of this. I want to be sure that the FDA is not changing its position. I think this could be news to the court,” Hawley said. “So, are you saying that the FDA’s position is now that the drug is safe and effective and appropriately labeled?”

Overton replied that the current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, which changed during the Biden administration to allow for it to be prescribed via telehealth appointments and shipped to patients, is under FDA review. 

“That safety study is ongoing and very important. Women’s health and women’s safety is a critical piece of this. So there is no change in position,” she said. “The FDA does need to do that safety study to look at the internal data that has not been looked at since a REMS change was made.”

The FDA wrote in a statement to States Newsroom that “Due to active litigation, the FDA and HHS cannot comment” on the safety review.

Murkwoski sees ‘political pressure’

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t ask Overton any questions about mifepristone, but said she believes there was “political pressure” on FDA officials to “revisit the approval status of certain products.”

“We’re going to be in a very challenging position in a very rural state like Alaska if in fact the move to require in-person dispensing of the medication as opposed to telehealth appointments is the direction,” Murkowski said. “You have effectively taken about … 80% of the communities in the state, and put them in a very challenging position in terms of access to providers, access to this FDA-approved drug.”

Murkowski added that she didn’t ask Overton a specific question on the issue since it appeared she would “go down this same rabbit trail and probably get the exact same very specific technical responses that you have provided the committee.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly indicated during a Wednesday hearing he may order the Trump administration to reinstate White House press passes for reporters from three news organizations who had their credentials revoked this weekend. 

Kelly, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said at the beginning of a 45-minute hearing that he is largely bound by circuit court rulings that ensure journalists with White House press passes have due process rights before their access to the complex could be rescinded. 

“The government says those cases … were wrongly decided,” Kelly said. “Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. But certainly as a district judge I have to apply them and I think it is fair to say that the processes that the Circuit Court laid out in those two cases … (weren’t) followed here.”

Kelly said at the end of the hearing he will release his ruling as soon as he can, though he did not give any more details about how soon that might be. 

President Donald Trump nominated Kelly during his first term and the Senate confirmed him following a broadly bipartisan vote in September 2017. 

This case began Monday when CNN, MS Now and Politico sued the Trump administration for barring their reporters from entering the White House grounds. 

The news organizations asked the district court to grant them either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction that would require the White House to return the press passes, allowing the journalists to work from the complex once again. 

‘Very essence of the First Amendment’

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner at Gibson Dunn who represented the news organizations, said the president’s decision to revoke the press passes of 78 journalists represented an “unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishment.”  

“What the government is objecting to … is that very essence of the First Amendment,” he said.  

Boutrous said claims from the White House the president’s decision was based on national security concerns only came after the lawsuit was filed, not when the decision was announced Friday, or over the weekend when it was implemented. 

Trump said Friday in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office that his ban wasn’t in response to any specific story but “really just cumulative stories over the last two years.”

“They’re smart people, but they purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,” he said. “And honestly, we’ve done a fantastic job. Look at the numbers, look at the economic numbers. We have more money coming into our country today than ever before.”

Boutrous argued during the hearing that while the president holds the right to criticize reporters and news organizations as much as he wants, the administration cannot “use the power of the government to punish them for their expression.” 

In response to questions from the judge about whether there would ever be a circumstance where the White House could revoke a press pass, Boutrous said if someone was a spy, represented a physical threat, or a national security threat, “there would of course be authority by the White House to deal with that.”

But he also referenced the Pentagon Papers, and said he didn’t believe that type of reporting on national security issues would justify revoking a reporter’s White House press pass.

The White House’s decision to revoke press passes for reporters from those three news organizations has led the major television networks that rotate daily coverage of the president to stop doing so. The decision has limited what videos of the president are released through that television pool system. 

DOJ argues access ‘a privilege, not a right’

Michael Velchik, senior counsel in the civil division of the Justice Department, said the Trump administration would oppose a ruling  requiring the White House to return the press passes and allow reporters from those news organizations to resume coverage there. 

“Access to the White House is a privilege not a right,” he said. 

Velchik seemed to suggest that if the judge were to require the White House to reinstate the press passes, it shouldn’t happen during the next few days, when Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled to be in Washington, D.C., to meet with the president.

The White House, he said, had also sent letters to CNN, MS Now and Politico on Tuesday, informing them why their press passes were revoked and giving them the chance to reply by Friday evening. 

Democrat sees ban as part of pattern

U.S. House Administration Committee ranking member Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said during a separate virtual press briefing on Wednesday that he believes the ban of the news outlets was part of a pattern of Trump misusing government power to attack perceived opponents.

“The Trump administration has flagrantly abused the immense power of the federal government against organizations and institutions whose work, whose clients or viewpoints it disagrees with,” he said. “We don’t need to look any further than this outrageous attempt by the president to silence CNN, MS Now, Politico and others.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats believe they could pick up as many as six seats following this November’s midterm elections, despite Republicans having better fundraising numbers and break-even polling in several states. 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand said during a sit-down interview Tuesday that the president’s low approval ratings and the ongoing war in Iran remind her of the 2006 election cycle, when the party flipped both chambers of Congress.

“We may be outspent in all the races, but we will not be outworked,” she said. “Our candidates are better and they are stronger and they are on-message to what voters actually care about.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee holds a slim fundraising advantage over the DSCC, with $176 million to $163 million in contributions this cycle as of Aug. 31, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

But the Republican National Committee has a nine-digit cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee. And Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC has more than $400 million ready to spend.

Gillibrand, of New York, said she was confident Democrats will be able to keep Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire, while possibly flipping seats in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. 

“All six are viable. All six we can win. And so we’re excited about all of them,” she said. “And on top of those six, there’s other races that we continue to watch.”

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates seats held by Republicans in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Texas as tossup races, with North Carolina leaning toward Democrats. 

The forecaster lists seats Democrats are defending in Michigan and New Hampshire as tossups, with Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff a slight favorite to win reelection.

Control at stake

Democrats need a net gain of four seats to flip the Senate from Republican to Democratic control. A 50-50 split would leave the GOP with the majority since the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote in that chamber of Congress. 

Gillibrand said during the interview with States Newsroom and a dozen other reporters in the Regional Reporters Association that Americans are frustrated with what Republicans have done during their two years with unified control of Washington. 

She expects many Americans who voted for a Republican during the 2024 presidential election will decide to vote for a Democratic candidate this fall. 

“I think it’s going to be a groundswell,” Gillibrand said. “I think it’s a lot like 2006.”

Two decades ago, following the second midterm election of a Republican president involved in an unpopular Middle East war, Democrats went from holding 45 Senate seats to 51. In the House of Representatives, Democrats went from 202 seats to 233. 

The six states Democrats are focused on flipping, Gillibrand said, are largely in play because of actions by President Donald Trump as well as his Republican allies in Congress. 

“Republicans’ roster of corruption and candidates who have been a rubber stamp to Trump is very much affecting their campaigns,” she said. “And our focus on just the issues that are affecting voters where they are — cost of groceries, cost of housing, cost of healthcare, along with fraud and corruption — it’s resonating, pretty much everywhere.”

WASHINGTON — The three news organizations that President Donald Trump has barred from entering the White House filed a lawsuit against the administration on Monday.

CNN, MS Now and Politico wrote in a joint statement the suit is intended “to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.”

“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the statement continued. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Trump announced last week on social media that he intended to bar journalists from those three news organizations, airing a years-running grievance that he doesn’t believe their reporting is accurate.

“I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS!” he wrote. “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

First Amendment cited

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argued the “ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.” 

The lawsuit says White House reporters from those news organizations had their press passes, which must be scanned to get through a Secret Service screening, deactivated. 

The news organizations say the ban violates the due process clause, “retaliates against protected newsgathering and speech in violation of the First Amendment” and that it bars journalists “from a nonpublic forum for unlawful reasons.”

The president’s decision to exclude those reporters from the White House “inflicts irreparable harm to these news organizations,” according to the lawsuit.

“The organizations, whose very purpose is to report national news, depend on individual reporters to gather information firsthand at the White House,” it states. “As a result of the ban, they have lost the ability to perform essential newsgathering at the seat of the Executive Branch, where critically important newsworthy events occur every day. 

“The ban irreparably curtails the organizations’ speech—preventing them from being able to publish stories they otherwise would—each day it remains in effect. The ban also impermissibly chills the speech of other news organizations and journalists, who must now balance conducting their constitutionally protected and vitally important work of reporting on the White House against the risk that coverage the President ‘dislike[s]’ will condemn them to the same fate.” 

The case was assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was nominated by Trump during his first term and confirmed by the Senate in September 2017 following a vote of 94-2.

Kelly scheduled a videoconference hearing for Wednesday to hear arguments over whether to issue a temporary restraining order in the case. 

TV network coverage of Trump

Trump wrote on social media on Monday morning that the “White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish.” 

“It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America,” he wrote. “It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Major television networks don’t plan to fill in for CNN as the television pool covering Trump on Monday, according to an email the network obtained from Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton, who chairs the TV pool.

“This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties,” Boughton wrote, according to the CNN article. “There will be no replacement pool put in place.”

The White House pool rotation includes reporters from the country’s major news organizations, who attend the president’s public events as well as other events that administration staff restrict to only journalists in the pool. 

The television pool provides video footage of those events, while the print pooler’s reports about the president’s comments are emailed to reporters at newspapers and online news outlets. 

The limited number of reporters from within the White House press corps who participate in the pool are able to ask the president questions during Oval Office events or other restricted appearances. 

States Newsroom’s Washington, D.C. Bureau participates in the print pool rotation as part of its membership in the Regional Reporters Association, which represents local news outlets covering the nation’s capital.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House departed Wednesday for a seven-week campaign break after spending less than two weeks in session during August and September.

The extended “district work period” is intended to give incumbents from both political parties time to meet with constituents and fundraise back home before voting in this year’s midterm elections ends on Nov. 3. 

House Republican leaders hope that more time campaigning will help some of their most vulnerable members secure reelection, allowing the party to hold onto its majority for another two years. 

Less time on Capitol Hill also means less time voting on potentially divisive issues. Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, would have been able to force a vote to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday had leaders not sent lawmakers home a day early.

Despite the somewhat limited time in session, Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he believes Republicans have accomplished much during their nearly two years with unified control of government. But he brushed aside requests to keep the chamber in town to address warnings from several executives about artificial intelligence.

The Louisiana Republican pointed to a bipartisan task force that issued a 273-page report in December 2024, saying those recommendations meant lawmakers would not be “caught flat-footed here.” 

“We’ve been working on this for years and we’re right there where we need to be,” Johnson said.

Moments later, however, he added Congress cannot apply those recommendations to draft legislation to regulate AI because “nobody in the room knows yet what that should look like.”

“Why? Because we don’t have the latest information,” Johnson said. “We are not in the … frontier labs who have taken this technology many steps further than even when our own report was published.” 

He argued that instead of Congress debating legislation, the executives of AI companies should instead “self-police” and “self-regulate.”

“They don’t need the government to tell them to slow it down,” Johnson said. “If they want to slow it down, they should.”

‘Nothing’ done, Dem leader says

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries sharply disagreed with Johnson and Republicans’ approach, saying Wednesday that there was considerable work left to do, despite the planned recess. 

“They have decided to cancel votes and run out of town without providing any relief to hard-working American taxpayers,” he said. 

“Republicans have done nothing to lower the high cost of groceries,” he continued. “Nothing to make healthcare more affordable, nothing to end the reckless war of choice in Iran, nothing to lower gas prices, nothing to stop the violent mass deportation machine, nothing to hold the Trump administration accountable for the unprecedented corruption unleashed on the American people.” 

Jeffries questioned why Republicans haven’t been able to improve the economy and lower prices for everyday Americans, despite having made it a central campaign promise during the last election cycle. 

“For two years, Americans have been wondering — were MAGA Republicans lying, indifferent, or are they just incompetent?” he said. “We now have an answer: It’s all of the above.”

Long lame duck

The House will return after the election for two weeks in November and three weeks in December. That will give lawmakers a total of 27 weeks in session this year, though those are rarely the type of five-day weeks most Americans are used to. 

House lawmakers often take their first vote of the week on Monday evenings around 6:30 p.m. and their last vote of the week on Thursday morning, before many walk down the steps of the Capitol to cars waiting to take them to the airport. 

Some weeks are shorter, giving House lawmakers a total of 72 days in session so far with 20 more days of voting on Capitol Hill scheduled before the end of the year. 

An American with four weeks of time off a year spends about 48 weeks or 240 days at work, significantly more than the United States House of Representatives dedicated to debating and voting.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that Americans in the private sector with more than 20 years of experience get, on average, four weeks of paid vacation a year. 

WASHINGTON — Voters are much more likely to support U.S. Senate candidates in the November midterm elections if they have a plan to avoid an automatic cut to Social Security benefits in 2032, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

“Senators elected this fall will be in office in 2032 when Social Security recipients will face immediate 22% cuts, so all candidates should be putting forth solutions in this campaign to prevent this catastrophic result,” said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation. “The good news indicated by this survey is that voters want this problem addressed, and there is strong bipartisan support for many available solutions that would sustain this essential program.” 

Ninety-one percent of those surveyed said they support changes to Social Security “to prevent automatic benefit cuts,” while 85% said “it is more important than ever for lawmakers to fix” the program, given the sharp increase in the cost of living.

The poll focused on voters in the swing states of Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, elevating Social Security as a campaign issue with less than two months until voting ends on Nov. 3. 

Seventy-two percent of those in the poll said they would support Congress instituting a 1% tax on income above $184,500 to bolster funding for Social Security. The law currently requires people to pay a 6.2% tax up to that annual income level but no Social Security taxes after. 

About two-thirds said they would support lawmakers placing a $100,000 limit on annual Social Security benefits for a retired couple. 

Gradually increasing the retirement age wasn’t nearly as popular, with 52% of those surveyed opposed to the possibility that lawmakers would “phase in a small gradual increase in the retirement age for younger Americans.”

Sixty-eight percent of those polled didn’t support the idea that Congress could borrow more to offset the upcoming benefit cut.

The online poll, conducted by Global Strategy Group and North Star Opinion Research, surveyed 2,500 registered voters between Aug. 20 and Aug. 27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — The cost of U.S. military operations in Iran has exceeded $40 billion and the war will continue to cost taxpayers between $2 billion and $3 billion per month, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 

The ongoing bombing campaign, which President Donald Trump launched alongside the Israeli government in February, has also significantly reduced American military weapons stockpiles, according to the analysis.

CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote in a letter accompanying the report that “the main opportunity cost of the conflict thus far has been the large expenditure of missile defense interceptors, which will leave the United States with a reduced inventory of interceptors for several years. 

“The shortfall would become especially problematic if a conflict arose with an opponent whose arsenal included large numbers of ballistic and cruise missiles.”

Swagel noted in the letter that because the Defense Department “did not respond to CBO’s requests for information” the report “relied on government databases and public reports.”

“As a result, CBO’s estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty,” he wrote.

In addition to the direct costs, CBO expects the war to increase inflation in the first quarter of 2027 by 0.5 percentage points due to the rise in energy prices, predominantly caused by increased danger and difficulty navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

“CBO’s analysis does not assign financial costs to U.S. military personnel killed or injured in the conflict, nor does it include longer-term costs associated with future increases in outlays for veterans’ health care and disability compensation,” Swagel wrote. “It also does not include costs that could emerge in the future if ships, aircraft, and other equipment need repairs or additional maintenance as a result of their use in the conflict.”

Boyle request for numbers

The analysis stems from a request House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle submitted to CBO in March. 

The Pennsylvania Democrat wrote in a statement released Tuesday that the “disastrous war in Iran has already taken the lives of brave American servicemembers and left others wounded.”

“Beyond that human toll, this nonpartisan CBO report makes clear that the war has also cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and counting, while continuing to drive up costs,” Boyle added. “Donald Trump and Republicans have spent years telling Americans that we cannot afford to help families here at home, but apparently they can find tens of billions of dollars, and potentially much more, for a reckless war that is leaving Americans to pay the price.”

Inspectors general report

The CBO report differs somewhat from a report released earlier this week by inspectors general from the departments of Defense and State as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

That report estimated the war cost at $33.4 billion through June 29, though it didn’t include any costs since then. 

Neither report includes the cost of damaged military infrastructure, with Swagel writing it was “unable to estimate the cost of damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the Middle East for two reasons. 

“First, DoD has not provided CBO with information about the value of damaged or destroyed equipment and property. Second, the extent of repairs or rebuilding that DoD plans to undertake is unclear. And even if the bases were fully repaired or rebuilt, a portion of the costs of doing so could be paid by host nations.”

The inspectors general wrote their report “did not include the cost of military construction for damaged infrastructure in its estimate because the DoW has not determined what its future posture will be in the region, how it will construct its bases, and what percentage of the construction costs Allies and partners will contribute.”

Administration pleads for more war funding

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in July that without extra money from Congress, the department would “face critical shortfalls that threaten” its ability to “pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.”

The Trump administration asked Congress in June to provide $87.6 billion in emergency funding for the war as well as other expenses not covered in annual government spending bills. 

That supplemental request proposed $67.15 billion for the Defense Department, $3.36 billion for the State Department, $2.03 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, $40.26 million for the FBI, $36.18 million for the Treasury Department’s office of terrorism and financial intelligence and $13.1 million for the Homeland Security Department’s operations and support account that was part of a “classified request.”

Congress has not yet approved the additional spending and isn’t likely to this month before both chambers return to the campaign trail ahead of November’s midterm elections. 

The inspectors general wrote in their report that because lawmakers have not provided dedicated funding for the Iran war that the Defense Department has “used base budget funds that otherwise would be used for standard operational activities, such as planned training and maintenance activities.”

WASHINGTON — Both chambers of Congress return to Capitol Hill this week for a brief session before heading back to the campaign trail until mid-November. 

The House will be in for one week and the Senate for three, giving Republicans little time to enact any laws or confirm nominees before voters decide whether to give them another two years in power. 

Lawmakers have already agreed to fund the government through Dec. 11, pushing off any need to reach bipartisan agreement on the dozen annual appropriations bills or risk a government shutdown. 

But they haven’t reached compromise on several other measures and are unlikely to do so until at least the lame-duck session, which spans five weeks in November and December. 

Left undone

Congress has so far opted not to approve legislation that could provide tens of billions in additional funding for the Defense Department amid the war in Iran. 

The two chambers haven’t brokered compromise on the different versions of the annual defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. 

There’s no sign of significant progress on the years-delayed farm bill that is supposed to authorize agriculture and food aid programs. 

Republicans had discussed approving a third party-line package through the complex reconciliation process they used to enact their “big, beautiful” law and three years of funding for immigration enforcement. 

But the Senate needs to adopt a budget resolution before that process could begin and that doesn’t appear to be on the horizon this September. 

President Donald Trump’s insistence lawmakers approve nationwide voter registration and identification requirements is also not expected to become law, lacking the votes in the Senate to advance. 

AI stalemate

Lawmakers aren’t expected to make any progress on how to place guardrails on artificial intelligence amid increasingly dire warnings the technology could “kill us all” before the end of the decade.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash” that he wanted tech company executives to work with lawmakers on striking the right balance. 

“We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overlap us, and that’s the challenge,” he said. “It’s national security balanced with the immediate security of making sure the models are safe.”

Johnson said he and others in Congress understood the possible ramifications of letting AI run as it is now, but added that “the people who are creating these models have to have to ensure that their products are safe.” 

“But we also at the same time have to resist Congress jumping in and imposing some sort of emergency moratorium,” he said. “It’s got to be done right, safely, wisely.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had a different take on AI, writing in a statement released Monday that administration officials should brief senators in a classified setting. 

“The American people deserve better from their government at such a consequential moment. I have long argued that we must keep the U.S. as the global leader in AI innovation and security. But that innovation must be coupled with serious guardrails that earn the trust of the American public,” Schumer said. 

“Warning bells are ringing louder than they ever have – and the Trump administration is looking the other way. Well, if they won’t hold themselves accountable, we will. And if Trump does not act, Congress must.”

Nominees on tap

The Senate does have several pending nominees on its list that it could push through in the coming weeks, including Keith Sonderling for labor secretary, Sean Kaufman for assistant secretary for preparedness and response, and numerous judges. 

How much Congress accomplishes following the midterm elections will likely depend on what those results show. 

Democrats are unlikely to negotiate major policy or spending bills with Republicans if voters give them control of both chambers come January. 

A mixed result, possibly Democrats regaining the House but Republicans keeping control of the Senate, could lead to some deal-making later this year. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump tried to maintain power following his loss in the 2020 election by exerting pressure on state election officials to, in some cases, “find” the votes.

Loyalist Republicans in Congress then attempted to deny Joe Biden the Oval Office when lawmakers gathered to certify the Electoral College, bringing to light loopholes and deficiencies in the law that could have denied voters their choice. 

Similar flaws exist for U.S. House elections. 

With concern mounting among GOP lawmakers they may lose control of that chamber following November’s midterm elections, it is not a stretch to imagine state officials could, once again, receive calls from the White House or powerful Republicans in Congress.

What’s less understood is that the House itself has the ability to investigate and potentially overturn the results of any of its 435 races. In a House narrowly controlled by one party or the other, disputes over a handful of seats could become significant. 

“The House and the Senate, they are the final judge of their own elections,” explained John C. Fortier, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

“So, in theory, if a state went through a process and counted all the votes and certified the votes and sent in the results, it still could be questioned by Congress,” he added. “The House has done this in the past. It is much less common today. There was a time in the 19th century where it became extremely common.”

Experts and officials interviewed by States Newsroom pointed to several circumstances that could occur.

State officials could hold back an election certificate, a member-elect could seek to block another member-elect from taking the oath, or legitimate challenges could occur under a federal law dealing with contested elections.

States act first

The first step after votes are counted, or in some cases recounted, is for a state’s top election official, typically a secretary of state, to certify the results and send the certificates of election to the U.S. House clerk. 

But that doesn’t always happen.

New York state election officials held back Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney’s ability to join the House following the 2020 elections amid a legal battle in an extremely close race.

It wasn’t until a state Supreme Court justice ruled in Tenney’s favor that she took her oath of office in February 2021, more than three months after the election.

Fortier detailed another particularly messy example of a disputed House race in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District following the 2018 election.

The state board of elections opted not to quickly certify either Democrat Dan McCready or Republican Mark Harris as the winner given concerns about mail-in ballots. 

It took until late February, nearly four months after Election Day, for the board to call for a new election after Harris testified during a hearing that “his political operative orchestrated a fraudulent absentee ballot scheme,” according to an article from NC Newsline. 

That September, Republican Rep. Dan Bishop won a special election over McCready.

And while the House didn’t step in at the time, it could have. “They essentially deferred and kind of waited it out,” Fortier said. 

Neither of those holdups determined control of the House, but a few state officials deciding not to send certificates to the clerk later this year could have an impact come January.

State officials are not exempt from political influence from Washington, something that was on full display beginning in 2025 when Trump and Republicans in Congress called on state legislatures to redistrict to give them an advantage in this fall’s elections. The results have rolled out even through September.

House members can try blocking members-elect

Another potential roadblock emerges on the first day of a new Congress when any member-elect can try to block another member-elect from being sworn in. 

That happened in 2021 when Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy objected to lawmakers from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin taking their oaths. The Democratic-controlled House voted 371-2 to approve a resolution directing the speaker to swear in everyone. 

The House has two additional options should a member-elect challenge another member-elect taking the oath. 

The first is to “provisionally or conditionally” seat that person and refer the case to the House Administration Committee for investigation. The second is to vote to not seat anyone and refer the dispute to the panel to determine who is entitled to it, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The report notes that “it would be under only the most exceptional circumstances for the House to refuse to seat, even provisionally, a Member holding valid election credentials from the state, and it appears that this third option has happened since 1933 only two times on the first day of the new Congress, and once during the Congress concerning a special election.”

The House voting not to seat anyone “would effectively nullify a certificate of election that was previously issued by the executive authority of the state,” according to CRS. 

How the House can probe election results

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 provides another avenue for lawmakers on the House Administration Committee to investigate any election once a complaint is filed, typically by the losing party. 

This has happened dozens of times throughout the decades, including in December 2020, when Iowa Democratic candidate Rita Hart asked the House to decide whether Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks actually won the race, triggering a months-long investigation. 

The FCEA allows the committee to “impound records, ballots, tally sheets, ballot stubs, poll books, ballot boxes, voting machines or other electronic voting systems, and irregular or defective paper and absentee ballots,” according to CRS. 

The committee has the option to use the vote count sent by the state or “conduct its own recount and make its own determinations and findings,” the CRS report states.

House members conducting a probe can even instruct states how to handle ballots.

“Where state law requires destruction of ballots after an election, the committee may notify the state election officials to preserve the ballots despite the state law,” the report says. 

The panel would eventually make a recommendation and the House would decide by a simple majority vote which candidate to seat or whether to declare the seat vacant. 

That vote is the final decision “regardless of whether or not the Member-elect had been sworn in on the first day of the new Congress,” says the report.

Decisions about how to decide any contested elections would be made by the new House that will convene in early January, not the one that will return to Capitol Hill during the lame-duck session that’s set to last several weeks in November and December. 

“It’s not as if the outgoing Congress could just make a decision as to who’s contested and who won the election,” Fortier said. “It’s the new Congress that would do that.”

But not just anyone can file a contest with the House. 

The person who challenges the results “must show that but for the voting irregularities or acts of fraud, the results of the election would have been different and the contestant would have prevailed,” according to CRS. 

Those investigations typically take months. The Iowa case of Hart v. Miller-Meeks began in December 2020 when Hart, the Democrat, filed her contest. 

The Administration Committee held a hearing in March 2021 after Miller-Meeks tried to dismiss the case. Then-Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., argued against those efforts, saying “the American people deserve to know who actually won this election. And the people of Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District deserve to be represented by that person.”

The case ended several weeks later after Hart withdrew her challenge. 

‘As far as someone’s willing to burn it’ 

Casey Burgat, legislative affairs program director and associate professor at George Washington University, said while any member-elect can challenge another member-elect’s ability to take the oath on the first day of the new Congress, it is somewhat unlikely a genuine attempt is made to do that next year.

But that comes with a caveat.

“I think the prospect for the tit-for-tat or the brinkmanship goes up exponentially if it is a close majority,” he said. “That just creates an opportunity for parties to see majority status and find reasons to not seat the other side.”

Whether any potential challenge is taken seriously would likely be determined by who makes it. 

“If it’s just a flamethrower, a Chip Roy-type person, I think that’ll be discounted more than if it’s led by someone like a Mike Johnson or someone in leadership or Steve Scalise,” Burgat said. “I’ve had conversations with a lot of these members and staff of like, how far can this go. And my response to them is often, as far as someone’s willing to burn it.” 

Sarah A. Binder, senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings, said it’s unlikely that any Republican could successfully challenge a Democratic member-elect taking the oath if Democrats have a true majority and have elected their speaker.

“There have been some years where the member-elect whose seat is being challenged is prior to that told to sit down, not to stand when the rest are to be sworn in,” she said. “But other times they actually swear in everybody because your winning seat could still be contested after the swearing in.”

Then there’s the rogue clerk theory

In addition to the possibility a state official holds back an election certificate, a member-elect seeks to block another member-elect from taking the oath and legitimate challenges occur under the Federal Contested Elections Act, some Democrats have raised concerns about the clerk of the House.

The nonpartisan official’s office assembles the list of members-elect once they receive a certificate of election from a state official. And that list determines who votes for speaker, which takes place on the first day of the new Congress before any of the 435 members are actually sworn in. 

The House cannot move on to any other business until a speaker is elected. 

AEI’s Fortier said the clerk’s authority is ministerial and that whoever holds that office doesn’t really have discretion over who to add to the member-elect list once the state sends in the certificate of election. 

The clerk going rogue during the vote for speaker also is highly improbable, he said. 

“I think it is not a very likely scenario, even though I think people are thinking about it. I am not even sure it’s realistic,” Fortier said. “I think this is very difficult to imagine.”

Burgat from GWU had a similar assessment that the House clerk doesn’t hold the authority to disregard election certificates once they arrive or to try to meddle in who can vote for speaker. 

“The minute that the secretary of state or its equivalent certifies the election and transmits to the clerk, a nonpartisan position, it goes on the roll,” he said. “The politics comes in after that fact.”

The clerk’s office wrote in a statement that it “receives and verifies Certificates of Election from every state, placing on the Roll of Representatives‑elect only those individuals whose credentials show they were regularly elected.”

President Donald Trump and Republicans wrapped up their two-day midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, on Thursday night, urging voters to ensure the party has another two years with unified control of government. 

Speakers, many vying for seats in Congress, insisted Democrats regaining power would be disastrous for the country, some going as far as implying they’d lead to the nation’s downfall. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the results of the elections “will determine the fate of our Republic and the future for our children and our grandchildren.”

He argued that the GOP maintaining control of both chambers represents the best way to address border security, crime, defense and economic concerns, though he didn’t detail any specific bills he’d try to enact during the next two years. 

Johnson didn’t bring up the war in Iran or rising gas prices during his speech, but did say he doesn’t intend to let Democrats flip the House from red to blue next year. 

“We cannot and will not allow them to take the majority of the Congress,” he said. “We’re not going to do it.”

RFK Jr.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke at length about his family’s history as Democratic leaders and how the party has evolved since the 1960s. 

Standing in front of an electronic backdrop displaying a farm field and the “Make America Healthy Again” slogan, Kennedy’s speech focused predominantly on his experiences and Trump. 

The vast majority of his 25-minute speech didn’t address the campaigns for Congress, with Kennedy only mentioning the fight for control of the House and Senate in two sentences at the end. 

“We need to elect a Republican Congress to keep this momentum going,” he said. “Let’s go out and do that.”

Vice President JD Vance spoke just before Trump arrived on stage.

‘I am on the ballot’

Trump closed out the convention with his second speech in two days, urging Republicans to vote in the midterm elections so the party could make additional changes to immigration and implement nationwide changes to voter identification requirements. 

“On Election Day, Nov. 3, you got to do me a favor, you got to get out and vote,” he said. “And you’re going to pretend I’m on the ballot because, in a way, I am on the ballot.”

He then had everyone in the stadium raise their right hand to recite a pledge to vote that included comments about cheating. He then said anyone who didn’t vote would go to hell. 

Trump didn’t mention specific candidates much during his speech but did recognize Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is seeking the state’s U.S. Senate seat. 

Trump said he didn’t like the way Paxton dresses, talks, or looks, but urged Republicans in the state to vote for him during the general election. 

“I don’t know if he’s going to ever speak to me again, but you know I don’t care as long as he wins,” he said. “I really don’t. I don’t know. I don’t have to speak to him. He’s going to vote the way we would vote, so I don’t have to speak to him. I don’t care. You got to vote for him.” 

After speaking for about 25 minutes, Trump introduced opera singer Christopher Macchio to perform “America the Beautiful” and “All I Ask of You” from “Phantom of the Opera” as balloons fell from the ceiling. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said earlier this year he’d “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections” this fall, declining to rule out sending the National Guard or federal law enforcement officers to polling locations throughout the country.

Those comments came a few months after Trump casually and briefly mentioned canceling the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

Any such actions would lie outside the bounds of presidential power and the law, according to experts interviewed by States Newsroom. Nonetheless, one Democratic U.S. senator is sending letters to numerous members of the administration asking for commitments troops won’t be sent to the polls, and state officials are readying plans to keep voting secure.

“The president can say whatever he wants, but his powers are extraordinarily limited in this way,” said Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. 

With two months until voting ends on Nov. 3, the administration’s only publicly disclosed plan to monitor elections is a decades-old Justice Department program that sends federal workers throughout the country.

Michigan Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said there are strict rules for the people who participate, including that they can only observe if state election officials allow it or if a court orders it. 

Edevbie said his state will allow DOJ monitors during this fall’s elections to observe but not to interfere. 

“Their job is not to interrogate individual voters,” he said. “Now outside of the polling location, outside of the 100 feet, if they want to talk to a voter, they absolutely can. But if those interactions tip over into actions that we deem to be actions of intimidation, we will revoke our permission for them to be here.”

The Department of Justice declined an interview request from States Newsroom, writing in a statement the administration hopes “to have the largest monitoring effort in the Department’s history,” totaling around 1,000.

DOJ election observers have been dispatched to monitor primary elections throughout the year without much fanfare, though Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon said in late August that their behavior in his state was “a bit aggressive.” 

“It just was irregular, and I have asked the attorney general to start looking into, you know, kind of the nature of the visits and all that sort of stuff,” Gordon said, according to reporting from WyoFile, an independent nonprofit newsroom.

Will ICE be sent to the polls?

White House staff have sent somewhat mixed messages on what else the president may try to do. A White House spokesperson wrote in an email they wouldn’t “engage in hypotheticals,” adding that “Anyone breaking the law will be held accountable.”

The spokesperson pointed to comments former press secretary Karoline Leavitt made in February when she said she hadn’t heard the president say he would consider sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations. 

Trump has repeatedly raised concerns that noncitizens may try to vote in the elections, despite it being illegal. There, however, isn’t much evidence of that having happened, with the Bipartisan Policy Center writing, “there is no evidence that noncitizen voting has ever been significant enough to impact an election’s outcome.”

Leavitt added, “I can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November. I mean, that’s frankly a very silly hypothetical question. But what I can tell you is I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations. It’s a disingenuous question.”

A few months later, Trump was asked whether he would rule out sending the National Guard or ICE officers to polling locations. He did not answer the question directly. 

“I’d do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections. We have to have honest elections,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly raised grievances about the outcome of the 2020 election without providing any evidence of fraud significant enough to change the outcome. He hasn’t expressed doubts about election integrity in 2016 or 2024 — the years he won despite a Democratic president running the country at the time. 

This year, Trump has said he believes Democrats can only win if they cheat without releasing any proof of fraud or plans for sabotage. At the same time, he’s acknowledged that, historically speaking, Republicans are likely to lose seats in Congress during the November midterm elections.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said during a press conference in early September that ICE officers “will be where we need to be” when serving warrants. He did not rule out an ICE presence under some circumstances.

“ICE isn’t there to patrol the polling places. We’re there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places, if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” he said. “ICE’s job is immigration (and) custom enforcement. That’s their job and so if we’re doing something, we’re doing that specifically.”

‘Egregious history’ 

Federal law enforcement officers cannot enter polling places under most circumstances, according to Steve Huefner, the C. William O’Neill professor in Law and Judicial Administration at Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University.

“There’s this really egregious history of uniformed police officers intimidating Black voters in the Jim Crow era, and so today we have laws that prohibit uniformed officers from being observers at the polling place,” he said.

Additionally, there’s a federal law from the Civil War era that bars any federal official with a weapon from showing up at polling locations, unless that “force is necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

Those prohibitions apply at the polling site and usually within 100 feet of that location, sometimes more. But there could be a loophole beyond that radius, Huefner said. 

“If they just happen to be very close to a polling place, but not within 100 feet, it probably gets much trickier to figure out whether the president can have military troops in that kind of circumstance,” he said. 

Any attempt to place either federal law enforcement, the National Guard or military members at or near polling locations would likely end up in the court system, which Huefner said would in many ways be “uncharted territory.”

“It’s being characterized as an effort to help states, but states aren’t asking for this help,” he said. “States don’t feel like they need this help. States feel perfectly adequate to run safe, free, fair elections. And so it’s uncharted in the sense that we’ve never seen this kind of tension between states and the federal government. And this worry that what’s happening is an effort to intimidate voters on the part of the federal government.”

Slotkin letters

Members of Congress have also raised concerns the president may try to send members of the military or National Guard to polling locations. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin sent letters to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine in August, asking they provide assurances the government wouldn’t “send Federal troops to the polls or to seize election materials of any kind.”

Slotkin requested the two “confirm that deploying the military to polling places for political purposes would undermine the integrity of our free and fair elections, pose an existential threat to our democracy, and taint the military as a politicized institution.”

Caine replied in a letter released by Slotkin’s office that the joint forces had and would continue to act ”in accordance with the Constitution and the law.”

“Election administration and security remain the fundamental responsibility of state and local officials,” he wrote. “The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections. Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material.”

Hegseth hadn’t responded as of early September and a Pentagon spokesperson wrote in a statement that as “with all Congressional correspondence, the Department will respond directly to the member.”

States make plans

Bellows, the Maine Secretary of State, said she and other elected officials are planning for several scenarios that could come up during election season, building on past experiences. 

“We have run free, fair and secure elections through pandemics, through heightened threats in 2024. In Maine, for example, there were six swatting incidences at polling locations and voting continued uninterrupted,” she said. 

Despite the president’s comments throughout the year, Bellows said the Constitution and law “are crystal clear that federal law enforcement, ICE or otherwise, are strictly prohibited at polling places.”

Maine law also makes it illegal to interfere with anyone’s voting rights, which Bellows said she and others in state government will be watching closely this fall. 

“If any federal armed officer were interfering with a citizen’s right to vote on Election Day, we would take every available legal action to disrupt and prosecute that because that is criminal and prohibited,” she said. 

Director of Elections for Washington state Stuart Holmes said the Constitution and court rulings have made it clear that only state legislatures and Congress have the ability to regulate elections. 

“And until either of those act, it’s business as usual,” he said. 

The Department of Justice could send election observers to Washington state this fall, Holmes said, but those people wouldn’t have any more authority or access than the regular citizens who are also allowed to observe certain aspects of the election. 

“They can come in and they can watch and observe the process,” he said. “But the county auditor or elections director in that county is the administrator of that process and can set the rules based on the safety and operations of their facility.”

It is illegal for anyone to interfere with a voter’s ability to cast a ballot, regardless of whether they’re near or inside a polling location. That would include an observer asking voters to show their identification, Holmes said. 

“Doing something like that could be seen as intimidating or interfering with their ability to cast their vote freely,” he said. 

Despite the speculation around what Trump may or may not do, Holmes said he and other officials in Washington state are preparing much like they would for any other midterm elections. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved a short-term government funding bill Tuesday that would avoid a shutdown this fall once President Donald Trump signs it. 

The 370-48 vote showed neither Republicans nor Democrats want a repeat of the funding lapse that took place last year when disagreement over enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits led to a historic 43-day shutdown. 

The stopgap spending bill, which the Senate approved in early August, would provide mostly flat funding for federal departments and agencies to keep up and running from the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 through Dec. 11. 

The short-term funding patch is supposed to give Congress more time to reach bipartisan agreement on the dozen annual appropriations bills. Absent that, lawmakers can pass a series of stopgap spending bills or force another government shutdown. 

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said during floor debate the bill doesn’t include any “poison pills” or “partisan riders.”

“The bill before us is a clean, narrowly tailored continuing resolution that keeps the government open and operating. Nothing more. Nothing less,” he said. “It gives the nation and our constituents certainty.”

The measure, Cole said, would “allow Congress time to get past the November elections and allow us time to assess and move forward with further appropriations measures in November and December.” 

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the committee, said the bill doesn’t include any additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and would block the administration from moving any of the money to the Border Patrol. 

Republicans in Congress approved a $70 billion package earlier this year intended to fund ICE and the Border Patrol for the next three years. That funding was on top of the roughly $170 billion for immigration enforcement included in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law.

“We will not support a single cent in further funding without substantial reforms to protect our communities from abuse,” DeLauro said during debate. 

The stopgap spending bill, she said, “is in no way a substitute for the full-year funding process. It is merely a means to complete this important work while averting a lapse in government funding.”

Senate action

Senators voted 96-0 to approve the spending measure in early August after making changes to a bill the House passed in late July. 

The White House indicated last month that Trump plans to sign the bill when it reaches his desk, writing in a Statement of Administration Policy that the president “strongly opposes another futile Government shutdown.”

“Every Member of Congress should support passage of this CR to keep the Government open as discussions on full-year appropriations continue,” it said.

The current version of the legislation “closes the loophole that would have allowed the Trump administration to transfer funding for other programs to Border Patrol” and “extends authorizations of important health, veterans, infrastructure, and other programs,” according to a summary from Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.

Rule on grantmaking blocked

The bill also blocks the White House budget office from moving forward during the next few months with a rule that would give political appointees more influence over grants.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote in a letter released in early July that “rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients that would harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

Democrats in Congress also oppose the proposed rule, arguing it “will make it impossible for grant recipients to faithfully carry out the funding priorities that Congress establishes in statute, and would turn federal grants into a new cudgel for the President to unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.”

WASHINGTON — Voters throughout much of the country will cast ballots for their U.S. senator this fall, but just nine states hold the power to determine control of the chamber — setting the course for which presidential nominees can secure confirmation and what bills advance during the next two years. 

The Senate races, as well as the campaigns for every House seat, will serve as a test of Republican policies after two years of unified control of Congress. The outcome of this year’s midterm elections will also have a substantial impact on the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term. 

Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, requiring Democratic candidates to win over voters in at least four states that previously chose a GOP lawmaker.

Zachary Peskowitz, political science professor at Emory University, said Republicans have a bit of an advantage this year, but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll keep their majority. 

“I think that the Senate is a tougher map for the Democrats than the House is,” he said. “But given Trump’s approval ratings, obviously it is certainly possible that Democrats win, even in these tougher states.”

Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas could be won by either candidate, according to a top elections forecaster, giving Democrats several paths to regain the Senate. That marks an improvement in the party’s chances, though they may also need to secure wins in competitive races in Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire.

A 50-50 split would keep Republicans in charge of the Senate with the vice president casting the tie-breaking vote.

While each Senate candidate has a different message and variations in their policy goals, big-picture issues like the war in Iran, immigration enforcement tactics and the rising cost of living are at the top of voters’ minds. That’s been clear on the campaign trail.

Immigration enforcement key in Maine

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, seeking her sixth term against Democratic challenger Troy Jackson, has faced several questions about immigration funding and federal officers’ actions. 

As chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Collins was central to negotiations earlier this year over whether Congress should place new guardrails on immigration enforcement after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota.

She told reporters during the launch of her bus tour in mid-August that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents involved in enforcement in Maine will now have to wear body cameras. Her comments came about a month after federal officers shot and killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford. 

“I think what happened is too many of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents were sent out there without proper vetting and without proper training,” she said. 

Collins also defended her decades-long strategy after a reporter asked about her voting record and criticism from Democrats that she often aligns with Trump.

“My approach has not changed in any way,” she said. “I have worked with five presidents. I’ve supported them when I think they’re right. I have not hesitated to oppose them when I think that they’re wrong.”

Affordability concerns amid Iran war 

North Carolina Democratic candidate Roy Cooper told supporters at a campaign rally in Henderson that healthcare should remain at the forefront, noting that changes to Medicaid included in Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law won’t take effect until after the election. 

“As we say back home on the farm, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” he said. “That’s why we need to send leaders there, to make sure that we are paying attention to those who have been left behind. Making sure that people have quality healthcare.”

The former governor and state attorney general spoke about concerns military families have experienced since Trump coordinated with the Israeli government to launch a war against Iran, which drags on despite the president’s initial claims it would only take about four to six weeks.

“We know this war in Iran has no strategy and we know that it is sending prices soaring at home,” he said. “Everybody at Fort Bragg obviously is on pins and needles worrying about their deployed loved ones who are out there. But also having to face the brunt of the rising prices in their own military families.” 

Cooper then criticized his opponent, former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley, for his comments on the economy, saying he hadn’t accepted how challenging the cost of living has become for Americans.

“People are struggling and looking up at the middle class and thinking, ‘Am I ever going to get there? Is the American dream dead?’ And so many people in the middle class who are just barely hanging on, not knowing what to do next,” he said. 

The issues highlighted during those two events are reflected in nearly every Senate campaign, with each candidate positioning themselves as the best solution to Americans’ struggles. 

GOP holds ‘slimmest of advantages’ 

So far, polling and analysis haven’t indicated a clear outcome to this fall’s elections. 

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Texas as toss-up races. Campaigns for Senate seats in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire currently lean toward Democrats. 

Iowa and Texas had been in the lean Republican category but CPR changed that in late August, with Senate and Governors Editor Jessica Taylor writing “we see the overall battle for the Senate as a toss up, but one in which Republicans may still hold the slimmest of advantages.”

“Even though, on paper, it should be extraordinarily difficult for Democrats to flip seats that President Donald Trump won by more than 13 points, it’s increasingly hard to ignore both public and private polling showing both races to be more competitive than the Lean category reflects,” she added. 

Ratings could continue to fluctuate, possibly several times, before voting ends on Nov. 3, but the top concerns aren’t likely to change much during the next couple of months. 

A Pew Research Center poll released in late July shows voters consistently want politicians to talk about the economy, with 29% saying it’s an important issue, followed by 9% focused on ethics and reform, 7% on immigration, 5% on healthcare, 4% on foreign policy and 4% on the president. 

Democrats held a slight advantage at the time of the poll, with 43% of those surveyed saying they would vote for a candidate from that party while 37% said they were likely to support a Republican. The remaining 20% said they hadn’t decided or would vote for someone else. 

The poll showed that while voters agreed more with Republicans on crime and immigration, Democrats held an advantage on education, healthcare and environmental policy. 

Neither party outpaced the other on economic issues, with 37% saying they agree with Democrats, 36% saying they believe Republicans handle that issue better and 25% saying neither. 

Dems have enthusiasm edge

Emory University’s Peskowitz said many people will cast ballots based on party affiliation, though swing voters will decide based on the specifics of each candidate. And this year, that will likely be their economic policies. 

“What voters often do if they have negative perceptions of the economy or don’t feel great about the economy, they punish the incumbent presidential party,” he said. “The other important thing to keep in mind is enthusiasm of partisans and whether they’re willing to turn out to vote or not.” 

That trend may favor Democrats, since Republicans have held the House, Senate and White House for two years. And midterm elections almost always see the president’s party lose seats in Congress. 

Michael Traugott, a research professor emeritus at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, said the primary elections during the last several months have shown somewhat more enthusiasm among Democrats than Republicans based on turnout.

“And we’ll have to see how much of this, you know, carries over to the fall,” he said. 

What the president says about Republican candidates in toss-up states and whether Trump decides to endorse those candidates could also become a factor, Traugott said. 

“This is not necessarily the positive advantage that it’s been in past elections because he has historically low approval ratings,” he said. 

“Mike Rogers is going to have to think a fair amount about whether or not he brings Donald Trump into the state of Michigan to campaign with him. And I think that this could be true in other states,” Traugott added. “I’m not sure that Susan Collins would like to have Donald Trump come in to campaign with her.”

Rogers, a former GOP congressman who ran unsuccessfully for a Senate seat two years ago, and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, former executive director of the Detroit Health Department, are both slated to appear on the ballot after winning their primaries. 

Democratic candidates will spend the next few months trying to sway voters frustrated or disillusioned with their party’s current focus, despite that being an uphill climb, Traugott said. 

“I think the pull of party identification is still very strong. So if there are people who voted for Trump in ‘24, say, and are unhappy with what’s happened since, I don’t think they’re going to switch to Democrats. It’s more likely they won’t vote for Senate,” he said. “Depending upon other things going on in their state, they could even stay home. So the consequence would be more in terms of turnout or not marking the ballot for the Senate race than it would be voting for a Democrat.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration will face challenges securing Senate confirmation after the committee chairman in charge of that process expressed doubts. 

That, however, hasn’t deterred White House officials from pressing for Dr. Heidi Overton, arguing she has the experience needed and that her policy goals align with the president’s. 

“As Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, Dr. Heidi Overton has spent the last year and a half coordinating an interagency policymaking process with senior officials across HHS, FDA, CDC, USDA, and other agencies to deliver on President Trump’s MAHA agenda,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Thursday.

“Dr. Overton has been integral to ensuring that the Administration’s policies are correct, consistent, and grounded in Gold Standard Science, and will play a similar role at the FDA as its next Commissioner,” Desai added. “The White House looks forward to her swift confirmation by the Senate.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy wrote in a social media post on Wednesday that while he respects Overton’s “experience as a physician,” he isn’t convinced she’s the right person to lead the FDA, highlighting her role in a Health and Human Services Department executive order that would weaken vaccine requirements. 

“Her lack of managerial experience does not prepare her well for leading a large organization that is already dealing with staffing and morale issues,” Cassidy wrote. “Additionally, Dr. Overton’s active role in last week’s nonsensical vaccine executive order calls into question her commitment to standing up for sound science and protecting children’s health. That alone is almost disqualifying.”

Cassidy, as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has control over whether to schedule a confirmation hearing or a committee vote on Overton’s nomination. 

It wasn’t immediately clear whether Cassidy was open to changing his mind on Overton’s nomination. He expressed doubts about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Erica Schwartz before voting to confirm both of those nominees. 

But the White House did have to withdraw surgeon general nominee Dr. Casey Means after it became clear she didn’t have the votes to advance out of committee. And Trump had to rescind Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination for surgeon general.  

The president wrote in a social media post on Wednesday that he would nominate Overton “to ensure that the U.S. remains the WORLD LEADER for Scientific Discovery and CURES.”

“Dr. Overton was a prestigious White House Fellow in my First Term, is a Board-Certified Physician in Public Health and General Preventive Medicine, and holds a Ph.D. in Clinical Investigations from the Johns Hopkins University,” he wrote. “She is SMART and RESPECTED by all! Dr. Heidi will work with Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz to RAPIDLY deliver on my priorities of FASTER Cures, INCREASED American Innovation, MAJOR Clinical Trial Reforms, LOWER Drug Prices, and even more MAHA WINS!”