WASHINGTON — Republicans on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee used a hearing Wednesday to continue voicing opposition to transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, which the top Democrat on the panel called a distraction from cost-of-living issues voters are more concerned about.

Republicans, vying to defend their majority in the House and Senate in the midterm elections less than six weeks away, have pursued a broad anti-trans agenda alongside President Donald Trump’s administration. Republicans on  Wednesday framed the issue as protecting women’s sports. 

“Biological women should not be asked to accommodate men who, for reasons of identity or otherwise, choose to compete in (the) women’s category instead of (the) men’s or co-ed category,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, chair of the Judiciary panel. 

“Women were last to get the vote, to participate in professions, to serve on juries, get credit cards in their own names and so much more,” the Iowa Republican said. “Women should not again be asked to cede their opportunities just to make men comfortable.” 

The GOP-led panel brought in advocates, who spoke out against transgender athletes’ participation in sports that align with their gender identity. 

Dems absent

Democrats on the panel largely sat the hearing out, drawing the ire of GOP members.

In the only statement by a Democrat during the hearing, the panel’s ranking member, Sen. Dick Durbin, used his opening remarks to question his GOP counterparts’ priorities amid Americans’ affordability concerns. 

“If you ask the American people, ‘What are the priority issues you hope Congress will address as soon as possible?’ the issue of this hearing would not be in the top 10, maybe not the top 20,” the Illinois Democrat said. 

“People are concerned about the cost of living, they’re concerned about the ability to pay for the college education of their kids, they’re concerned about their utility bills, they’re concerned about their grocery bills — they want to know what we’re doing about it,” he added. 

Republicans on the panel noted Democrats’ absence.

“Not one member on the other side of the aisle has had the respect for women to come in here and ask questions, to figure out how we get this right, how we stand up for fairness, for safety, for an opportunity for young women across the country,” GOP Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama said at the hearing. “It’s absolutely absurd.”

But Durbin pointed to a similar 2024 hearing that saw NCAA President Charlie Baker tell senators that of the more than half-million total athletes in NCAA schools, he knew of fewer than 10 who were transgender. 

“We can all agree that we want to be fair and safe in women’s athletics, but this vendetta against a small number of people in the trans community affects everyone, including cisgender girls who can be subject to inappropriate gender verification checks,” Durbin said. 

At a press conference after the hearing, GOP Sens. Ashley Moody of Florida, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Darline Graham of South Carolina and Britt, along with several athletes and advocates, continued to blast the inclusion of trans athletes on women’s sports teams. 

“It shouldn’t be complicated,” Moody said. “Men do not belong in women’s sports. Women’s sports exist for a reason, and if we’re going to have women’s sports, we must protect women’s sports.”

Hot topic

The issue has been the subject of intense debate in recent years.

The House passed a bill in January 2025 that would bar trans students’ participation in women’s school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. 

But Senate Democrats blocked an effort in March of that year aimed at imposing such a ban and codifying Trump’s 2025 executive order on the issue. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld state laws banning transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams.

The court’s decision — which has no impact on states without such bans — marked a major setback for transgender rights across the nation. 

Meanwhile, a major bipartisan bill to regulate college athletes’ compensation and establish additional protections for women’s and Olympic sports continues to advance in the Senate.

Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Republicans have made clear that the bill would not preempt state laws regarding the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports.

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 — President Donald Trump faces a “big decision” to make a deal with Iran or “annihilate” the country, he told the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. 

During a 37-minute speech to his international counterparts including Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in New York City, Trump asked, “Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?

“Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly … Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” he said.

Speaking at the annual gathering aimed at promoting multilateral discussion among 193 member nations, Trump suggested Iranian leaders were waiting to see the results of the approaching midterm elections for control of Congress before any major negotiating decision.

“I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election because it doesn’t make sense for them not to,” he said. “They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don’t realize is that I’m not running.”

Iran tied to GOP midterm woes

Republicans running to maintain the majority in Congress in November face a difficult task amid sinking public support for Trump’s costly, months-long war in Iran. 

The Pentagon has confirmed 19 U.S. troops have died in the conflict, though The Washington Post has reported a more accurate count is either 22 or 23. Roughly 830 service members have been injured.

And the war has spiked the price of fuel to record levels.

Trump’s approval rating hit a record low of 32%, according to the latest polling figures published Monday by Reuters/Ipsos.

Diesel hit a new high Tuesday, reaching a national average of $6.52 per gallon, according to AAA. Gasoline hovered at $4.47 a gallon. 

The cost of energy commodities and services, a main driver of current inflation, is up 16.3% over last year, according to the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index.

Iran maintains its stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz, a major global petroleum trade passageway, amid a U.S. naval blockade. And Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen are now targeting the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a chokepoint for Saudi Arabian oil exports.

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on yet another War Powers Resolution this week aimed at curbing Trump’s military actions in Iran. Seven House Republicans joined Democrats Sept. 16 in passing a measure to stop Trump’s unilateral decision-making in Iran.

‘They want to talk’

Trump told reporters just before 2 p.m. Eastern that U.S. officials had met with Iranian leaders after his speech for what he described as “a very good meeting.” He did not provide further detail, according to reporters who traveled with him to New York City.

Speaking to reporters just before 1 p.m. Eastern, Trump said he believed “a settlement is going to be reached.” 

“They want to talk to us,” Trump said. “They have been talking to us even today. They’ve been talking to us. The relationship is developing, I’d say. But we can’t let them (have a nuclear weapon). They understand that. … And there’s a price to pay for that.”

White House pool

Trump’s trip to New York City also comes as major U.S. media organizations refused to distribute video, audio or photos of the president after he banned CNN, MS Now and Politico from the White House. The three organizations have sued on First Amendment grounds.

He told reporters Tuesday he has a right “to clean out fake news,” which he also described as “dangerous.”

When pressed by a reporter on how the media outlets are “dangerous,” Trump responded: “When they make statements about the war, when they make false statements, false stories, and they don’t have sources but they say they do, it’s very dangerous for our country.”

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the UN did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. An email address listed for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs appeared to be inoperable.

Upon arrival at the United Nations this week, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi criticized what he called a “cowardly” war launched by the U.S. in conjunction with Israel on Feb. 28, according to a translation posted on his ministry’s website.

“This year, after the war that took place, it is natural that this rostrum will be a place to express the oppression of the Iranian people, the martyrs of Iran, the martyrs of Minab School, and at the head of them, our martyred leader and leader,” Abbas Araqchi said, referring to early strikes during the war that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his family members and over 100 elementary school children. 

Iranian security forces killed thousands of Iranians in January as part of a crackdown on protests against the current government, according to Human Rights Watch and other advocates and observers.

Threat repeated

Trump’s speech Tuesday was not the first time he’s threatened a choice between striking peace with or heavily attacking Iran. 

Just before a short-lived ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. took effect in April, Trump threatened “a whole civilization will die” if Iran did not cooperate with U.S. demands.

The comment drummed up vocal opposition from some Republicans. 

Speaking about another military conflict, Trump said his Board of Peace was working to stabilize the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip following three years of bombardment by the Israeli government. When listing the countries involved in that effort, he twice mispronounced Kazakhstan.

The board claimed in a statement in July it reached an agreement for the “COMPLETE DISARMAMENT” of Hamas, the militant organization that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, though the conflict remains ongoing.

Trump highlighted in his Tuesday remarks to global leaders the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and claimed the U.S. “is stronger today than ever before.” He repeated familiar refrains on domestic policies, including his immigration agenda and crime statistics in the nation’s capital. 

He also briefly mentioned he would require federal documents to use the term “super intelligence” in place of “artificial intelligence.” Trump has ardently defended the use of AI without guardrails in recent weeks after tech leaders issued a warning to slow its development.

The White House pointed States Newsroom to Trump’s comments to the press following the speech.

WASHINGTON — A coalition of civil rights groups and union organizations Friday sued the Trump administration to prevent the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations during November’s midterm elections.

The suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the second this month, following comments from top Trump officials citing a federal policy to allow ICE officers to enter polling locations in certain circumstances to conduct immigration enforcement.

The groups argue the policy violates the federal law that prohibits “armed men” at election sites, and also causes voter intimidation, which is barred under the Voting Rights Act.

Under federal law, “troops” or “armed men” are allowed at polling locations only if “such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” And the section of the Voting Rights Act the groups cite prohibits “intimidation,” “threats,” or “coercion” against a person for voting or attempting to vote.

“The result is predictable: voters across the country—particularly Black, Latino, and Asian voters, naturalized citizens, and members of mixed-status families—are afraid to vote, help others vote, and participate in civic life,” according to the suit. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin earlier this month noted that agents could conduct immigration enforcement at polling places. And before U.S. senators this week, FBI Director Kash Patel did not rule out sending FBI agents to polling locations, but said officers would “follow the law.”

The Department of Justice dismissed the idea that officers would be sent to polling locations. 

“The DOJ has never said it would send federal law enforcement to polling locations,” a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom. “Any suggestion otherwise is fearmongering.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said those “who are here legally and are not breaking other laws have nothing to fear.”

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson said. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

The DHS spokesperson added that ICE was not planning any operations that targeted polling locations. 

NAACP among groups suing

“We reject this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent,” Kristen Clarke, the NAACP’s general counsel, said in a statement. 

NAACP is one of nine groups that filed suit. The rest are Mi Familia en Accion, Asian Pacific American Advocates, the National Urban League, Minnesota 8, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the International Union of Painters and the United Food and Commercial Workers International.

“Turning the fundamental right of exercising our vote into a high-stakes encounter with the militarized strong arm of the current administration isn’t protection and it isn’t oversight; it’s disenfranchisement, period,” Clarke said. “The NAACP calls on the court to reject this blatant attempt by federal officials to obstruct our elections through tactics pulled straight from the Jim Crow playbook.” 

The nine groups are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the National Immigration Law Center, Protect Democracy and the Democracy Defenders Fund. 

Voting rights groups and Democratic officials are looking to defend against what they see as possible election interference from the Trump administration ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, now that they’ve won a major battle over mail ballots.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, announced a “voter protection” campaign Thursday that would place thousands of volunteers at polling sites in 25 states.

The initiative is designed to counter potential administration moves to intimidate voters, such as ordering troops or law enforcement officers to polling places.

The Democratic Party is also upping its voter protection efforts, launching its own initiative this week to deploy 10,000 volunteers to assist voters at polling locations in all 50 states plus seven U.S. territories.

Both efforts are described as preemptive efforts to head off any possible attempts by President Donald Trump to skew election results. Trump for years has alleged, without evidence, U.S. elections are beset by myriad attempts at fraud.

He has used that pretext in attempts to enact policies to restrict voting, including the order limiting vote-by-mail that the U.S. Supreme Court blocked for this election. 

‘Breathing down our neck’

Voting rights advocates say they are preparing for more efforts to dissuade voters from casting ballots. 

Voters are “facing aggressive and deliberate threats from this administration and anti-voter forces that are tied to this administration,” Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said. “Whether it be voter intimidation at the polls, the attacks on mail-in voting or attempts to collect your personal data, the barriers that voters are facing right now … are not only real, they are urgent. And they are intentionally designed to make everyday Americans give up.”

The Democratic plan, led by the Association of State Democratic Conferences, a coalition of the 57 state and territorial party leaders, was also in part a reaction to Trump, ASDC Chair Jane Kleeb said in an interview.

“We had to react to the threat that was breathing down our neck,” Kleeb, who is also the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said in an interview.

Trump has broadly accused Democrats of trying to cheat, and has placed particular focus on the possibility of noncitizens voting.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis wrote in a Thursday email that the administration would continue to guard against that possibility.

“Despite extreme Democrats and the media claiming it never happens, the evidence of non-citizens registering and voting in our elections continues to pile up,” Bis wrote. “Any non-citizens found registering and voting in our elections will be arrested and held accountable. Only Americans should be electing American leaders.”

The Justice Department has charged a handful of voter fraud cases of foreign nationals in recent months. 

The administration has also argued a software glitch in New Jersey that registered 6,600 noncitizens showed why tighter regulations on voting are needed.

“There continues to be a narrative and a concern that noncitizens are voting,” Ari Mittleman, the executive director of the civic education group Keep Our Republic, said, adding that examples like the New Jersey glitch kept the issue “on the minds of many.”

Troops at the polls?

Common Cause officials and Kleeb highlighted the possibility of federal troops or law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at polling places as a strong concern.

“We don’t know exactly what Donald Trump is going to do,” Kleeb, whose interview was conducted before the Supreme Court’s mail voting decision on Sept. 14, said. “But if we take him at his word, he will disrupt the vote-by-mail process, and he will have people outside of polling locations to intimidate voters.”

Administration officials have dismissed the idea of sending federal agents to the polls, but have not completely ruled it out. 

FBI Director Kash Patel repeatedly dodged the question during a U.S. Senate hearing Wednesday.

At a press conference this month, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said ICE would not have a sizable presence at election sites, but could deploy as part of the agency’s routine duties.

“ICE isn’t there to patrol the polling places,” Mullin said. “We’re there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places: Because there is a threat to that polling place or we are serving a warrant on someone we are actively tracking down.”

And then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called a question about sending ICE agents to the polls “disingenuous” at a February press briefing.

“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,” she said. “But what I can tell you is I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations.”

Disinformation, distrust

Trump’s relentless focus on election regulations has contributed to a distrust of elections. Only 34% of adults in a AP-NORC and USAFacts poll this month said they trust government certifications of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

Solomon said on the Thursday press call announcing the voter protection drive that the administration and its allies were seeking to sow distrust in the election.

The program, which the group said was the country’s largest nonpartisan election protection effort, hopes to counter that narrative by installing voter advocates at polling stations.

Volunteers will receive about an hour to 90 minutes of training on their state’s voting laws and how to help voters. ASDC volunteers will also receive about an hour of training. 

“They are trained to check for things like signage, polling place accessibility, long lines,” Common Cause Director of Policy Carol Evans said. “They are trained to be a positive and joyful presence at the polls to make the experience better for voters. And importantly, they are our eyes and ears on the ground to alert us to serious issues.”

In another voter education initiative, Keep Our Republic has launched a series of town hall-style events in the five states in which it operates — Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to give election officials a platform to speak to voters and increase trust in the election process, Mittleman said.

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.

The Trump administration will comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s order this week blocking new restrictions on mail voting for this year’s elections, but President Donald Trump was right to attack the ruling, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said during a wide-ranging White House press conference Tuesday.

Concerns about the dangers of artificial intelligence are overstated, military action in Iran is not a war and the justices wrongly decided the case in which the Justice Department argued in defense of a U.S. Postal Service rule overhauling vote-by-mail requirements before the election, Blanche told reporters during a roughly half-hour briefing in the White House Rose Garden.

Blanche, who was Trump’s personal attorney before joining the government, began the press conference praising federal prosecutions of terrorism and election fraud suspects. 

But he quickly transitioned into a broad defense of recent Trump actions and administration policies.

The Trump administration will continue prioritizing “election security” ahead of this year’s midterms, despite its setback at the Supreme Court on the proposed mail voting regulation, he said. 

“Of course we’re going to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, as we always do,” he said. 

“That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to do everything in this administration that we can to make sure that there are free and fair elections,” he added. “There’s this constant pressure and this effort by the media and mostly by Democrats that somehow doing that is a bad thing. Everybody should want that.”

Trump’s morning Truth Social post articulating regret over nominating some Supreme Court justices who have ruled against him was “what a democracy is about,” Blanche added.

“As far as President Trump’s Truth about about the justices, he is very frustrated, and … he has every right, and, indeed, he should communicate his concerns with the Supreme Court whenever he has them,” Blanche said. 

“I am also upset about the Supreme Court decision. But the idea that President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to communicate to the American people his frustration, I don’t share that.”

While opining on a host of issues, Blanche declined to comment on potential criminal investigations, including when asked about Minnesota Democratic U.S. Rep Ilhan Omar and longtime public health official Anthony Fauci.

AI as campaign issue

Anxiety about artificial intelligence “conveniently became a flashpoint this week,” Blanche said, suggesting Democrats sought to ramp up discontent ahead of Nov. 3 midterm elections to determine control of Congress.

Asked about how AI should be regulated and if development should be slowed, Blanche said the Department of Justice’s mission is to prosecute, not regulate. 

But he echoed Trump’s comments this week that U.S. companies should press forward with the technology to remain competitive with China.

Political figures from both parties have commented on AI policy following a call by the chief executives of top companies for a development slowdown amid disclosures the technology could pose an existential threat to humanity.

“When the leaders of the top AI companies are sounding the alarm about the potential for imminent threats, we need to take them seriously,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said Tuesday. 

“This is an emergency, and we need to treat it like an emergency. If the risk of AI is anywhere near the level that it has been characterized to be, then we have an obligation to act on a bipartisan basis immediately.”

In the Rose Garden, Blanche questioned whether Democrats were raising the issue in good faith or for an electoral advantage.

“Every Democrat senator suddenly races to a microphone to talk about AI after being eerily silent for months and months and months,” he said. “So to talk about the timing of this as being nothing but an effort to to influence the midterms, I shouldn’t have to say that out loud. Of course, that’s what it is. And that shouldn’t be what drives the decisions that we’re making around AI. We can’t lose the AI race to China, right?”

Hegseth ‘phenomenal’

Asked about the articles of impeachment Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced Tuesday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, objecting to continued military action in Iran even after the House passed a resolution calling for an end to the war, Blanche said Hegseth was doing “a phenomenal job.”

The Justice Department ensures that all Defense Department activity is lawful, Blanche said. 

He added that the conflict should not be categorized as a war.

“You called it a war,” he told the reporter who asked about the impeachment. “I disagree with that characterization, as does most of Congress.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel sidestepped questions about FBI agents at polling places in the midterm elections at a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that also featured a tense exchange between GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey.

With the November midterm elections fast approaching and the parties jockeying for control of Congress, several Democratic senators wanted assurance from Patel, under oath, that the FBI would not send agents into polling places.

“Do you pledge that you will not, in any way, interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls in November?” Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, asked.

“I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies,” Patel told Welch.

Patel in addition faced questions during the five-hour hearing from members of the Judiciary Committee about recent changes to the agency’s hiring requirements, an ongoing probe into 2020 election ballots seized in Georgia, and how the FBI plans to handle crimes committed by AI agents. 

‘We have a lackey here’

A boiling point came when Booker spoke beyond his allotted time and name-called Patel a “thug” who “wouldn’t qualify” to be an FBI special agent. 

Booker accused Patel of not answering questions about whether the agency was improperly targeting journalists. The FBI subpoenaed multiple New York Times reporters in July after the outlet published accounts of security deficiencies on President Donald Trump’s new Qatari-donated jet now used as Air Force One. The DOJ dropped the subpoenas later that month after a federal judge pressured the agency.

“My concluding remark is we don’t have an FBI director. We have a lackey here who is using government, and frankly, he’s not even a good lackey. He’s an incompetent lackey. He’s like an 18-year-old kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends,” Booker said, before continuing the exchange for roughly four minutes more.

“Are you ready to shut up?” Grassley, of Iowa, asked Booker with a raised voice.

 

 

Patel brushed off Grassley’s offer during the exchange to respond to Booker.

“I don’t have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It’s kind of ironic. He’s running for president of the United States. He just got his 20-second ad campaign,” Patel said. “Next.”

Booker told NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” in March that he’s “definitely not ruling out” a presidential run in 2028.

Grassley thanked Patel for “putting up with what you had to put up with.”

“And I’m sorry I couldn’t control some of them more than I already did,” he said.

Democratic probes promised

Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, warned a Democratic-led Congress would investigate the FBI’s actions under Patel’s leadership. 

That includes the alleged firing of agents who worked on investigations of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack and President Donald Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago following his first term.

“The FBI is being sued for wrongful termination. I will remind you, director, because you probably need reminding, that while this Congress is not going to investigate the wrongful termination of potentially hundreds of agents for working on properly predicated investigations, the next Congress will,” Schiff said.

The panel’s Republicans praised Patel for his record at the agency.

Patel said his agency “has made America safer than it’s ever been.”

“Across six America 250 events and this year’s World Cup alone, we welcomed over 12 million visitors to the United States to attend these events. Not one single incident occurred at any single one of these events,” he said during his opening remarks.

Bizarre exchange over FBI hiring

One topic that drew scrutiny from both sides of the aisle was a recent reported change at the FBI that lifted previous disqualifying behavior for special agent recruits, including theft from employers, prostitution and bestiality.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said he understands “the game” of Democrats broaching the subject of bestiality to “make you look bad,” but said he was also “trying to get to the bottom of this.”

In a bizarre and unexpected exchange for a Senate hearing, Kennedy asked hypothetically, “If ‘Joe’ participated in bestiality, not as the animal, but as the human, don’t you think he ought to be disqualified?” 

“If he voluntarily did it, sure,” Patel said.

Kennedy interrupted, “Okay, how do you involuntarily do that?”

Patel said some people are trafficked and forced into “degrading acts of all kind,” but later want to join the FBI.

“But you’re not telling us today that if a human being (voluntarily) had sex with an animal that they can still be an FBI agent?” Kennedy asked.

“No,” Patel responded.

“In fact, they ought to be in jail, right?” Kennedy shot back.

“They all are,” Patel said.

“Yea, well, okay,” Kennedy said.

FBI at polling locations

On the topic of an FBI presence at the polls on Nov. 3, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Patel he was “dissatisfied that you are unable to give us an unequivocal, clear, unambiguous commitment that the FBI will be kept out of election interference.”

“You are involved in seven voter-related subpoenas issued to the Nevada Secretary of State’s office, you were involved in seizure of election records from Fulton County, Georgia. Clearly, the FBI has been involved in possible election interference,” Blumenthal said.

FBI agents seized 2020 presidential election ballots in Fulton County in January.

The Trump administration served voter-related subpoenas earlier this month in Nevada.

Welch told Patel he’s concerned about what he’s “willing to do for the president in this year’s midterm elections that the president is already saying are going to be rigged if he loses.”

Moments later Welch asked, “Last month, Congressman and Michigan gubernatorial candidate John James said to podcaster Benny Johnson, quote, ‘I’ve already had a good conversation with my friend Kash Patel, who has said already that the FBI will have a presence leading up to Election Day in Michigan, in both West Michigan and Southeast Michigan.’ Is that true?”

“We have an election crimes community coordinator in all 56 field offices, so you bet we’re going to have them there and manning the posts for election interference,” Patel said.

The exchange continued for several minutes, growing more contentious, as Welch pressed for an answer and Patel said he would not take part in a “charade of lies.”

“Then why are you being such a panderer to President Trump, who’s still claiming that he won the 2020 election, and who has said the only way Democrats can win in 2026 is if they cheat. Do you believe that?” Welch replied.

“I believe in the rule of law. … I want to know how your wealth increased 4,000% since you became a United States senator?” Patel shot back.

“Let’s knock it off,” Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, chimed in after taking over the hearing for Grassley.

AI hacking

Sen. Josh Hawley, who has shown skepticism of the skyrocketing growth of artificial intelligence, used part of his time to ask how the FBI will handle illegal hacking incidents by AI agents.

Several incidents this summer involved AI agents hacking into other systems, including OpenAI agents that broke into tech company Hugging Face, without explicit instructions to do so.

The recent explosive development of AI has dominated headlines and conversations on Capitol Hill in recent days after top tech executives warned development was moving too quickly to adhere to safety guardrails. Congress has yet to pass overarching AI regulations.

“What’s the role here for the bureau? How, how do you wrap your head around these kind of crimes?” asked Hawley, a Missouri Republican.

“This is a great question. It’s literally the new frontier, and nobody’s really talking about it, so thank you. So a couple things: The president has issued his AI directive on what the government can and can’t use, and that’s the right first step because you don’t want 77 different large language models,” Patel said.

The FBI, he said, has reviewed 140 “test case models” to measure their capabilities and “make sure they are cooperating and following underlying federal statutes.”

“What we need to do on a resource basis is go after the people that created these models that are going rogue,” Patel said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday kept in place a lower court’s order blocking President Donald Trump’s embattled plan to place new restrictions on mail ballots for this year’s midterm elections.

The unsigned, one-paragraph order upheld a Massachusetts federal court’s injunction on a U.S. Postal Service rule until after Nov. 3 and did not decide whether the rule itself was lawful. But a majority of the court said the Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenging the rule were likely to succeed.

Two of the court’s stalwart conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the decision. Alito wrote that the Postal Service has “broad authority to regulate the mail” and that at this preliminary stage of the suit challenging the rule, its policy should remain in place.

“I express no view on whether the Government would be likely to succeed on de novo review of the Postal Service’s powers,” he wrote. “But for now, the Government has satisfied its burden of making a strong showing that the plaintiff States’ … claim is not likely to succeed.”

In a brief concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the rule, which codifies technical requirements on the envelopes carrying ballots and requires states to collect and send to the federal government lists of eligible voters, may be legal, but was unworkable for the midterm elections 50 days away.

“There is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” he wrote. “But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious …  because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

In a social media post Tuesday morning, Trump excoriated the decision, saying, without evidence, it would allow Democrats to use vote-by-mail to cheat.

“It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left ‘Dumocrats,’ on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do – And now they have an open field to do so.” 

He also complained about other high-profile rulings that he lost and, without naming them appeared to aim particular ire at the justices he appointed to the court: Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

“This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years,” he wrote. “These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves.”

Case continues

The rule’s challengers argued, in part, that the regulations would be impossible to install ahead of Election Day. Several election administrators, pro-democracy groups and others declared to the court that they agreed with that argument. 

The Postal Service did not bring any evidence against those claims.

Democrats and voting rights advocates also argued the rule was illegal and unconstitutional. The executive branch has virtually no role in elections administration, which is a state responsibility with congressional oversight under the U.S. Constitution, they said. 

The case, tried before President Barack Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, will continue to evaluate the legality of the rule for future elections.

Challengers react 

The groups and officials challenging the rule, as well as other Democrats, hailed the ruling in statements.

“Today’s order from our nation’s highest court makes clear that states cannot be forced to undermine their mail voting systems and risk voter disenfranchisement because of the President’s political agenda,” Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell said. “Mail voting is safe, secure, and reliable, and I will continue to stand up for Massachusetts residents who rely on mail ballots to ensure that they can have their voices heard in the November election.”

Virginia Kase Solomón, the president and CEO of Common Cause, one of the groups suing to block the rule, called the decision “a major win for the millions of everyday Americans,” including elderly and rural voters, and those with disabilities, who depend on vote-by-mail.

“This executive order was a blatant power grab designed to silence voters and undermine our elections, but it failed because the people and the law were on our side,” she said in a statement. “Our Constitution is clear: states run our elections, and voters choose their leaders—not the other way around. No administration can strip the people of their power.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the rule was part of Trump’s “attacks on democracy” for the past 20 months.

“California stood up for democracy and we won,” Newsom wrote on social media. “Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law, and the American people looking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.”

Phil Weiser, Colorado’s attorney general and Democratic nominee for governor, said the court “just sent the message that President Trump and the Postal Service need to stay the hell away from our elections.”

California and Colorado are among the eight states that send ballots to every registered voter.

Spokespeople for the Postal Service and U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the administration in the case, did not respond to emails seeking comment late Monday.

WASHINGTON — Department of Homeland Security officers may have broken state laws carrying out the Trump administration’s orders to find noncitizens voting illegally in federal elections, Democratic senators alleged Monday following a whistleblower complaint.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the whistleblower detailed the department’s “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” in which U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services immigration officers combed through state voter rolls, sometimes pretending to be the voter to access records. 

U.S. citizens were also swept up in the efforts due to faulty data and pressure from top officials to meet a quota of five investigations per hour, or 12 minutes per inquiry, according to the whistleblower’s account. 

“We just got more proof of (President Donald) Trump’s vile schemes to rig our elections,” said Schumer, a New York Democrat. “A DHS whistleblower warns that the department is pulling hundreds, hundreds of federal agents from national security roles, and sending them on a wild goose chase. The goal: to try and prove Trump’s sad, tired and long debunked election conspiracy theories.”

The New York Times was the first to report the existence of the DHS operation.

California Sen. Alex Padilla, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration that oversees federal elections, said the president “will go to extraordinary lengths to try to interfere with the midterm elections.”

Padilla said the whistleblower came forward last week.  

Padilla and Schumer called for DHS to shut down the operation. The department did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

“Donald Trump knows his record has been so bad,” Padilla said. “His only chance at keeping Republican majorities in Congress is to interfere with the elections.”

Noncitizens are not allowed to vote in federal elections, and cases are extremely rare. Some localities have passed laws to allow for noncitizen voting in local elections. 

But the topic is a priority for the president, who has directed DHS to investigate voter rolls for illegal voting by noncitizens. On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin announced two noncitizens from Kansas and Louisiana illegally voted in federal elections.

“Voter fraud is already a serious problem, but non-citizens voting is even worse,” Mullin said. “Every time a non-citizen casts a ballot, it steals a vote from an American citizen.”

President Donald Trump has, at times, justified his campaign against mail-in voting in explicitly partisan terms, claiming Republicans’ electoral chances hinge on whether the practice is allowed.

A new analysis from a Democratic-aligned voting rights group, shared first with States Newsroom, shows he may be right: Eliminating mail-in voting would be more disruptive to Democratic voters than Republicans.

Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based advocacy group founded by Democratic former state Rep. Stacey Abrams, analyzed vote-by-mail data in seven 2024 swing states and potential battlegrounds for the 2026 midterm elections. 

Records indicated that Democrats voted by mail more often than Republicans.

The partisan differences didn’t swing any battleground states in the 2024 presidential election, all of which Trump won.

But if Trump succeeds in restricting mail voting in the 2026 midterms, which he is attempting through a contentious executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to enforce new requirements, it could help Republicans win key House and Senate seats as each party seeks a narrow path to a majority in either chamber.

Dems’ mail voting edge

For example, in Michigan, one of the toss-up U.S. Senate races that will determine control, more than 2 million voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to the Fair Fight analysis. 

Nearly half came from Democrats, while Republicans sent 39%, a difference of about 200,000 votes in Democrats’ favor. That gap represents a smaller number of votes than the margin of victory for the winner of the state in the last three presidential elections.

In North Carolina, another state with a close U.S. Senate race in 2026, Democrats voting by mail outnumbered Republicans by about eight percentage points in 2024, though mail ballots accounted for only about 5% of all votes, according to the data.

In a Friday statement to States Newsroom, Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo blamed Trump for undermining trust in vote-by-mail and encouraged voters to view mail voting as a viable method.

“Trump is a desperate loser who has spent years lying to his supporters about mail voting ‘fraud’ – as a result many stopped using a method they once trusted,” she said. “Voting by mail is secure, convenient, and accessible. Whether voting by mail, early, or on Election Day, make your plan to vote now and see it through.”

In a statement, White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis portrayed the rule on mail ballots as a “commonsense” election security measure.

“If securing America’s elections – through commonsense methods like voter ID and proof of citizenship – would make it harder for Democrats to win elections, perhaps they should reconsider the methods they’re using to ‘win,’” Bis wrote.

The Fair Fight analysis shows the partisan gap narrows in states with more mail-in voting.

In Arizona, where 83% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, Republicans held a 5-point margin in mail voting, roughly the same as Trump’s 5.5-point victory in the state. And in Nevada, where 44% of ballots were cast by mail, the mail-in vote was almost evenly split among Democrat, Republican and “other” voters.

Mail voting history

Until 2020, mail voting enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

An April 2020 study published by Stanford University’s Institute for Economic Policy Research found that in the six Western states — Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Utah and California — that had started implementing a system of mailing ballots to every registered voter, the policy did not help either party while modestly boosting turnout.

“Vote-by-mail does not have meaningful partisan effects on election outcomes,” the authors wrote.

But as states ramped up mail voting in the 2020 election as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue turned more partisan, with Democrats more likely to stay away from in-person voting. 

Trump, then running for reelection, cast unfounded doubts on vote-by-mail’s integrity and warned of dire effects for Republicans.

“MAIL-IN VOTING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE FRAUD AND ABUSE,” he tweeted in May 2020. “IT WILL ALSO LEAD TO THE END OF OUR GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY. WE CAN NEVER LET THIS TRAGEDY BEFALL OUR NATION.”

After several cycles of roughly equal rates of mail voting, Democratic mail voters nearly doubled Republicans, 60% to 32%, in 2020. The gap narrowed in 2024, with Democratic voters outpacing Republicans 37% to 24%.

Trump’s claims

While the Postal Service is now arguing in court its rule based on Trump’s March 31 executive order is not an election regulation but only includes “modest” technical specifications for mail, other statements by Trump show the purpose is directly tied to election administration. 

Trump’s order justified new regulations on mail ballots to maintain “public confidence in election outcomes” and “enhance election integrity.”

He previewed the effort in an August 2025 social media post saying he would “lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS” that again made the issue explicitly about partisan advantage.

“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” he wrote. “Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM. ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether the rule can be in effect for this year’s midterms.

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 headlined the first night of the first Republican midterm convention Wednesday, seeking to rally his base ahead of the November elections and dangling a “Trump dividend” to voters if his party retains control of both congressional chambers.

While the Republican National Committee’s two-day event — dubbed a “Trump-a-palooza” by party Chair Joe Gruters — aimed to bolster support for major candidates, some vulnerable Republicans were notably absent.

Still, speaker after speaker, including Republican lawmakers, Cabinet members and people billed by the RNC as “everyday Americans,” filled five hours before Trump took the stage and promised, “Vote Republican and we will leave the world in our dust for generations to come.”

“There’ll be nothing like it,” Trump said during a nearly two-hour keynote address in which he touted the “greatest two years in the history of the presidency.”

The event at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, which did not include voting delegates, is the first major-party midterm convention since Democrats’ convention in 1982. Democrats also held convention-like conferences following the 1974 and 1978 elections.

The GOP convention comes amid sagging poll numbers for Trump as his war with Iran drags on and voters worry about inflation driven by increasing energy costs and tariffs.

Financial incentive

Trump acknowledged political challenges without attributing them to the unpopular parts of his agenda.

“For some reason, when a president wins, even if he’s really a good president or a great president — there aren’t too many of them — they don’t win the midterms, and nobody quite knows why,” he said. “We’ve got to change that because we have something going that’s so good we can’t let that string be broken. So I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot.”

Trump said if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate, he would pay out $5,000 “to every adult.”

“The only caveat I have is that the dividend that we’re making must be spent in the United States of America. We don’t want you going to Canada to spend the money,” he said.

This is not the first time Trump has promised to send checks. The president said in November 2025 he would send $2,000 to Americans from tariff revenue that he falsely said would reach “trillions” of dollars. 

Those payments never materialized and Trump’s emergency tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. The government is now on the hook for refunding American businesses that paid the import taxes.

Trump announced he’ll be campaigning for nearly three dozen Republican candidates in competitive races over the next 55 days.

“We can win every one of those races, but I’m going to go to every one of those states for congressmen and for senators,” he said.

Collins, Sullivan absent

In perhaps the night’s most surprising turn, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman made an appearance in a video praising fellow Pennsylvania Sen. Dave McCormick, a Republican, and vowing to work with Trump to shore up the steel industry. 

But two of those most vulnerable Republican senators were missing from the more than three dozen speakers Wednesday night.

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, both locked in tough reelection bids, reportedly declined to attend. Neither Collins’ nor Sullivan’s campaigns or Senate offices replied to States Newsroom’s requests for comment.

Sullivan’s campaign posted several images and videos of the senator in Alaska Wednesday.

Collins posted a message of support for the New England Patriots on her X feed as the RNC event was in full swing. The made-for-TV political gathering aired the same night as the NFL’s season kick-off between the Patriots and Seattle Seahawks.

An analysis by CNBC on Wednesday found fewer than half of Republican candidates in the most competitive congressional districts were slated for speaking roles during the two-day event. 

Crowd boos Thune

But many Trump allies running for reelection spoke, and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, sat in a row with Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet members.

Attendees cheered when Trump said Johnson “will go down as the greatest speaker of the House in the history of our country.”

But a chorus of “boos” erupted when the president asked where Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota was in the crowd.

“No, no,” Trump responded to the booing. “John is working hard. He’s got great opposition.” 

Thune and Trump have been at odds about the Senate taking up a strict election bill that would require voters to provide a birth certificate or passport to register to vote, among other provisions.

Unlike other Republican leaders from both chambers, Thune was not scheduled to speak at the convention.

An individual close to Thune told States Newsroom the majority leader is in Dallas and wanted to give other Republicans an opportunity to speak.

‘We’re so glad you’re here’

Several Trump allies, even those facing tight or toss-up races, spoke in praise of the president while stumping for their own candidacies.

Former RNC Chair Michael Whatley, running for an open Senate seat in North Carolina, and Sen. John Husted, fighting to keep his seat in a special Ohio election, praised Trump for passing tax cuts. 

The North Carolina seat is rated “lean Democrat,” by the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, and the Ohio seat rated a “toss up.”

While both Whatley and Husted mentioned their opponents and former President Joe Biden more times than they did Trump, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, did not shy away from lauding the president.

“We’re so glad you’re here,” said Paxton, who unseated longtime Sen. John Cornyn in a Republican primary after receiving Trump’s endorsement.

“The press, the courts, and the establishment all tried to take President Trump down, but he’s won every single time. He’s delivered more for this country than anyone before, secured victories for America that no other president could, and always stood up for Texas,” Paxton said.

Attendees waved “Keep the Majority” signs and chanted “USA” while House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., railed against Democrats, and said “We will not let the Marxists, communists and anarchists destroy it.”

“This historic midterm convention is rallying Republicans at the perfect time because so much is on the line this November,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican.

‘A party for Donald Trump’

Democrats panned the event as an expensive celebration for the president.

“While Republicans spend millions of dollars throwing a party for Donald Trump, Democrats are spending our time and resources doing the work that wins elections: Talking to voters, registering new ones, organizing communities, and fighting for every vote,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in a statement Wednesday.

“The difference is stark,” he continued. “As Republican candidates worship an unpopular president, Democrats are going on offense and staying focused on lowering costs, making life more affordable, and delivering for working families.”

President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with Canada is creating headaches for Republicans ahead of November’s midterms as high prices remain a top concern among voters.

Responding to Trump’s increased tariffs, Canadian officials have said they’re deliberately targeting goods from states where there are close elections. And GOP candidates in Kansas, Maine and Ohio among others have been forced to balance supporting Trump with defending local manufacturers.

Trump has repeatedly targeted Canada, traditionally a close American ally, since returning to the White House last year. But his August move to impose 50% tariffs on billions of dollars of Canadian imports has heightened tensions, pushing Canada to retaliate with its own tariffs on hundreds of American-made products that went into effect Tuesday.

Nearly $28 billion in U.S. exports to Canada now carry up to 50% tariffs, a dollar-for-dollar match on Trump’s taxes on Canadian goods imposed last month, according to Canadian officials. 

Trump has long argued that Canada is taking advantage of the United States because of a longstanding trade deficit — meaning more Canadian products are imported here than American products are exported to Canada.

“They don’t pay for anything, and they want to be treated like a state, but they’re not a state,” Trump said last month after trade talks fell apart.

The fallout could affect consumers and businesses across the country, but Canada targeted many of its tariffs to inflict political pain just ahead of the crucial U.S. midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

The trade standoff has put Republican candidates in a tough position with an electorate already fed up with high prices and underscores ongoing concerns about how federal trade policy will affect American business and state economies.

On Labor Day, Trump threatened to halt sales of the Canadian airplane manufacturer Bombardier, saying its planes weren’t good enough and the company was treating America as a “piggybank.”

That became immediate political fodder in Kansas, home to Bombardier’s U.S. headquarters and competitive races for governor and U.S. Senate this year. The company employs more than 1,000 people in Wichita, the state’s most populous city that calls itself the “Air Capital of the World” with a local economy dominated by aerospace and aviation manufacturing. 

Trump’s trade war with Canada escalates as new tariffs launch

The state’s senior Republican U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran immediately defended Bombardier, as did Ty Masterson, the Republican nominee for governor and current state Senate president. But the issue has put pressure on the state’s junior Sen. Roger Marshall, a close Trump ally running for reelection in a competitive race. 

“We cannot allow this chaotic economic policy to continue to hurt Kansans; they deserve so much better. As your Senator, I will always stand up for Kansas workers,” the Democratic nominee in the race, Adam Hamilton, wrote on X Monday. 

On Tuesday, Marshall said he would fight to keep Bombardier’s jobs in Kansas, posting on social media, “I’ve already taken that concern inside the Oval Office.” Marshall said he agreed with Trump’s aim of bringing more manufacturing jobs, particularly in Bombardier’s case because the company sells half its products in the United States.

Tariffs on Canadian and American goods are poised to especially hurt Northern and Midwestern states, according to an analysis from Oxford Economics. It identified North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Illinois and Vermont as the states most likely to be affected because they trade the most with Canada. 

Minnesota State Auditor Julie Blaha, a Democrat, said the trade feud is just the latest federal move to push up costs for businesses, consumers and local governments. Her office oversees some $56 billion in local government spending through financial integrity audits and budget analyses. She said Minnesota cities and townships have had no choice but to raise property taxes as they encounter rising prices.

“It’s just one wave after another. And it’s piling up,” she said. “All these rising costs are just coming home to roost, and they’re hitting Main Street.”

Minnesota shares a 547-mile border with Canada. Blaha said the state’s crucial agricultural industry is especially threatened as businesses constantly send products back and forth for processing. She highlighted General Mills, the maker of well-known cereals, including Cheerios. The firm buys Canadian grain that is processed in Minneapolis before being distributed to domestic cereal plants and sold across the U.S. and Canada. 

Grain is not on Canada’s list of targeted products for retaliatory tariffs, but the country did enact new tariffs on agricultural equipment, dairy and other food products. 

“These tariffs have a bigger impact than just one just one hit on a price,” she said. 

Canada’s political pressure

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs were aimed at pressuring the White House by targeting certain states and industries.

“We’re being wise and strategic to put political pressure,” Canada’s Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said last week. 

Canadian data show countermeasures will hit Ohio harder than any other state, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported. Ohio is home to one of the most competitive Senate races this cycle as Republican Sen. Jon Husted defends his seat from former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. 

Husted has largely defended Trump’s tariffs in the Senate. In an August interview with MS Now, he acknowledged the president’s decision-making was not in line with how he would negotiate, but declined to second guess Trump’s stance on Canada. 

Canadian tariffs to further raise prices, a top concern for voters

“It depends on how it ends,” the senator said. “If we get a good deal, both Canada and America can come out of this well, but it’s going to require both sides.”

Canada is Ohio’s biggest export market, sending $17.5 billion in goods across the border — roughly a third of the state’s total exports. More than half of the state’s exports to Canada come from the equipment and machinery and the transportation industries. Ohio is a leading producer of automobiles, an industry deeply affected by tariffs because of interconnected supply chains that span American, Canadian and Mexican factories. 

Trump’s tariff “decision is going to make it very difficult for folks in the automobile supply chain to be able to succeed in Ohio,” Rob Moore, principal at public policy firm Scioto Analysis, told the Ohio Capital Journal.

While Canada’s countermeasures were politically targeted, they will sweep across the country, affecting solidly conservative and liberal states. 

Connecticut State Treasurer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said the trade war will especially hurt New England states that trade more with Canada. He said the tariffs could raise prices of everything from electricity to consumer goods. 

Though tariffs will hit businesses and consumers first, Russell said they will eventually put more strain on local and state government budgets.

And the president’s on-and-off-again history with imposing and rescinding tariffs injects more uncertainty for both business and government, he said.

“Where things are right now, there isn’t any certainty or clarity around where this is ultimately going to land,” he said. “What is consistent through all of this is that consumers in Connecticut and all across the country are going to continue to pay for this tariff war.”

Concerns across New England states

The trade standoff could further hurt New England’s tourism industry that depends on steady Canadian traffic. 

In New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont, tourism is big business year-round as travelers flock to beaches in the summer, leaf peeping in the autumn and skiing in the winter. Those businesses have suffered a drop in Canadian visitors amid Trump’s ongoing aggression with the country.

Steve Wright, general manager of Jay Peak Resort in Vermont’s Green Mountains, recently assured Canadians that they were welcome to the resort that sits just a few miles from the border and a roughly two-hour drive from Montreal.

“The border may feel different right now,” Wright wrote online. “We do not. You are our neighbors. You are our friends. You are part of this place.” 

Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott recently characterized the president’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America as “petty and disappointing.” Scott, who is favored in polls to win reelection in November, said the trade war harms communities on both sides of the border.

“Further escalating tensions does nothing to help American or Canadian families and businesses,” he added. 

In neighboring Maine, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins has criticized the tariffs and urged the administration to resolve its dispute with Canada. A Republican in a competitive race for reelection, Collins grew up just 20 miles from the Canadian border. 

Troy Jackson, her Democratic opponent, has blamed Collins for not stopping Trump’s trade policies. 

Last week, Collins told reporters that the White House viewed tariffs in a macro sense without appreciating how damaging they are to border states such as Maine. Collins said Trump’s tariffs were already hurting local governments that rely on Canada for imported salt to treat roads in winter and could further hurt the state’s crucial lumber and blueberry industries.

While Maine’s important lobster industry was spared retaliatory tariffs, Canada did impose 50% tariffs on wood products and agricultural products. 

“Canada is not China. It is not an adversarial nation,” Collins said. “It is our closest ally, our neighbor, our friend. And our economy is so intertwined with Canada that I am very worried about what the impact will be.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

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. 

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn a lower court and allow it to enforce a U.S. Postal Service rule restricting mail-in voting.

The trial judge, Indira Talwani of the U.S. District of Massachusetts, prejudged the rule before it was final when she issued a temporary restraining order last month and upheld it last week, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. The rule only regulates standards of mail delivery and doesn’t interfere with election administration, Sauer argued.

“Contrary to the claims of the district court and respondents that the Postal Service is trying to federalize the rules for mail-in voting, the Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. Mail,” Sauer said.

Temporary restraining orders are not typically appealable, but Sauer argued that because of the impending midterm election, the court should hear the appeal. The rule carries out an executive order made earlier this year by President Donald Trump.

Election Day is two months from Thursday. One state, North Carolina, is expected to begin mailing ballots Friday.

Morning hearing

The government filed the application just hours after Talwani, whom former President Barack Obama appointed, heard oral arguments on whether to convert her two-week restraining order into a longer preliminary injunction to block the administration from applying the rule during the fast-approaching election.

Over months of litigation, Talwani has communicated disapproval of the rule and the government’s legal arguments and appeared skeptical of USPS’s position Thursday, according to reporters in the courtroom.

The rule would create new standards for the envelopes used to send ballots to people who vote by mail. It would also allow the federal government to verify voters receiving ballots are eligible. 

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups say that is an unconstitutional violation of states’ role in administering elections and goes beyond anything Congress has authorized the agency to pursue.

In addition to constitutional concerns, the rule raises practical ones. Experts in election administration say mandating wholesale changes to mail-in voting this close to an election would cause chaos. 

All states made arrangements to design, print and send mail ballots months ago. Changing those plans at this late stage would send them scrambling to update ballot envelope designs, have them approved by the USPS, printed in bulk and sent to voters — along with several other challenges, states have argued in court documents.

Multiple court decisions

The Trump administration has fought in court for weeks to allow the rule to go into effect before the midterms. 

Administration officials appealed an earlier Talwani restraining order blocking enforcement of the rule. That appeal is currently before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Supreme Court last month sided with the administration in a procedural ruling finding that the Democratic state officials and voting rights groups did not have the ability to challenge Trump’s executive order before USPS issued its final rule. The challengers quickly refiled suits to reflect that the rule had been published.

The U.S. Justice Department and a handful of Republican-led states, including Missouri and Texas, defended the rule in the Thursday morning hearing, saying that it was a mail regulation within the agency’s purview, and did not seek to administer elections.

Voting rights groups have argued the rule risks disenfranchising voters and solves no urgent problem. 

Several phases of mail voting under the rule would put legitimate ballots at risk of rejection, they said, while the administration has shown no evidence that mail voting is particularly susceptible to fraud, as Trump repeatedly has claimed.

Portal problems

The buildout of an online tool the Postal Service plans to use to enforce the rule’s requirements for ballot designs and voter eligibility has also encountered problems, according to an explosive whistleblower report this week.

A USPS official provided a written declaration following Thursday’s hearing that the portal would be accessible to states that want to use it “sometime next week.”

The whistleblower account published Tuesday detailed many problems with the tool, which the whistleblower said should have been a yearlong project but was rushed out in months.

A Massachusetts federal judge on Monday declined the Trump administration’s request to overturn the temporary restraining order she signed last week that blocks the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out a rule placing new restrictions on mail-in voting.

The 14-day order published Aug. 27 was not appealable, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a brief order Monday. But even if the order could be appealed, the administration would lose on the merits, Talwani wrote. 

“It is likely that the USPS lacked authority to issue the Final Rule and that the Final Rule is substantively unconstitutional and contrary to law,” she wrote.

She dismissed the administration’s argument that the temporary restraining order came too close to Election Day as a “cynical interpretation” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Aug. 24 decision that allowed President Donald Trump’s related executive order to move forward on procedural grounds.

The high court found that Trump’s executive order, which directed the Postal Service to create the rule, could not be challenged until the rule itself was in place. It made no determination on the merits of the rule.

“A Final Rule has now issued and, contrary to Defendants’ cynical interpretation, the Supreme Court has not endorsed the view that any challenge to the Final Rule is now too late,” Talwani, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the bench, wrote.

She added that she disagreed with the USPS argument that the requirements of the rule, which would force states to overhaul their vote-by-mail systems ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections and to gain federal government approval of lists of voters who requested mail ballots, were “modest.”

The administration is also fighting Democratic-led states and voting rights groups in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over Talwani’s temporary restraining order and in Talwani’s court over a longer pause of the final rule.

Several Republican state attorneys general, representing Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas, joined the suit on the federal government’s side.

The rule’s challengers say it is an inappropriate incursion of states’ power to administer elections, and would likely disenfranchise people who depend on mail ballots to vote. 

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, and despite his personal use of the service, that mail voting enables election fraud. 

The administration has said its rule is needed to ensure that noncitizens do not vote in federal elections, which studies have shown is rare.

Trump issued the executive order March 31. States and voting rights groups immediately sued to stop it, but the legal battle heated up last week with the Supreme Court’s procedural decision on its emergency docket. 

The states and groups challenging the law quickly refiled their lawsuits to reflect that the rule had been published Aug. 21.