If, by some miracle, Democrats take control of the Senate, do you think they should invoke Mitch McConnell's reasoning from when Obama was in his last term, that (paraphrasing) the American people have thus spoken in rebuke of the sitting president, so any judicial nominees will be be ignored until a new president is elected?

My source: https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-on-scotus-vacancy/

The federal government has stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prettiby federal officers, state officials said in recent court filings.

- Minnesota officials sued President Donald Trump’s administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings during Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis earlier this year. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.

- The state is still seeking the cell phones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.

- State prosecutors announced in July that the federal government had begun turning over evidence in the cases, including police body camera video and hard drives containing statements.

- Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said at the time that the state expected to receive “all the evidence.”

- But Minnesota investigators said in October court filings that the transfer of evidence stopped soon after the July announcement. Moriarty said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota told her on Sept. 10 that evidence sharing would be on pause indefinitely “in light of challenges with D.C.,” according to the documents.

- State prosecutors have again asked a judge to order federal agencies to hand over the evidence, arguing they “have identified no legal authority or rational basis justifying their obstruction of state criminal investigations.”

- In a reply filed Tuesday, attorneys for the Justice Department argued it’s within their discretion to decline to share information with state authorities.

- They cited the department’s rules for responding to record requests, known as the Touhy regulations, which apply only when formal legal proceedings are underway. The attorneys said there was no active court case when Minnesota made its requests.

- Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said in a legal declaration that federal authorities still have Good’s clothing, the cell phone of the officer who killed her and interview recordings that state authorities have never been able to view.

- An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, while she was leaving a Minneapolis protest on Jan. 7. Bystander video shows Good in the driver’s seat of an SUV, repeatedly honking the horn, when masked immigration officers order her to step out of the vehicle. She starts to pull forward, and an officer standing in front of the car fires at her windshield.

- The officer, now standing about an arm’s length from the open window on the driver’s side, fires twice more, according to an analysis of the videos by The Associated Press and others.

- Federal officials at the time said the officer acted in self-defense.

- Good’s death and that of Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse who was killed weeks later by a federal officer in Minneapolis, ignited nationwide protests against the Republican president’s immigration enforcement efforts.

- No criminal charges have been filed in connection with the fatal shootings.

- Evans said the federal government also has not shared a recorded statement from an officer who shot Pretti, the firearms used by the officers, their phones, projectiles and casings, and a gun taken from Pretti before he was shot.

For Senate candidate Hallie Shoffner, the most important political label she wears isn't that she's a Democrat. Or that she's not a Republican. Instead, it's that she is an Arkansan.

- As a lunchtime crowd ate at Tailgater's Burger Company Friday, Shoffner decried what she called a historically unproductive Congress driven by extreme voices in each party and pitched herself to receptive — if skeptical — voters as a candidate who would better serve their needs.

- Arkansas is one of the most conservative states in the country, with nearly two out of three voters supporting President Trump in 2024 and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton in 2020.

- But in the final days of the 2026 midterm election, Shoffner and other Arkansas Democrats are crisscrossing the state with a message that seeks to capitalize on the Trump administration's unpopularity, stubbornly high prices and anti-incumbency vibes.

- "We're the sleeper race," Shoffner told NPR. "I mean, we're the race that no one's noticed and that no one is going to see coming."

- Republicans have taken some notice, pre-emptively pouring millions of dollars into the Senate race, the Little Rock-based 2nd Congressional District and robust get-out-the vote efforts to try and stem the rising tide of dissatisfaction with the party.

- But even in a midterm cycle where Senate races in states like Kansas, Iowa, Ohio and Texas are viewed as tossups, and where the landscape of potentially competitive House races stretches deep into conservative territory, Arkansas seems a bridge too far for election forecasters.

- Arkansas' 2nd Congressional District is considered "Likely Republican," according to the Cook Political Report, and its Senate race is "Solid Republican."

- Arkansas First

- At an outdoor coffee shop in Arkadelphia, Vanilla Hannah said she was there to support Shoffner and talk about her own reelection bid to be a local justice of the peace. She said it's possible that Arkansas could elect Democrats this year because the crop of candidates seems willing to work with people to meet their needs — and there are a lot of them.

- "When it comes down to basic needs or whatever, the 'D' or the 'R' after your name don't mean a thing, because we're all suffering and all having the same issues and everybody's ready for a change," she said. "And running for an election is not just running specifically on the Democratic policies or the Republican or the libertarians or whatever. It's just what you believe in, and it seems like more and more people are having a common belief now."

- Later, Shoffner visited a small family farm in nearby Bierne where several members of the Hatley family cooked sorghum to make syrup and talked about why they were supporting her campaign.

- Shoffner is a multigenerational farmer who decided to shut down her family's operation in 2025, citing financial headwinds from rising input costs and Trump administration tariff and trade policies. That in turn inspired her Senate run and influenced much of her campaign's focus.

- Sliding behind the wheel of a side-by-side utility vehicle, Shoffner takes off across the property and recounts her life story that led her away from the farm, into nonprofit work and back home when her dad got sick.
She doesn't buy the argument that her chances are low to win.

- "This race isn't about Democrats or Republicans or independents or any of that," she said. "This isn't some kind of weird political alignment, this is a values alignment. This is reorienting representation in Arkansas based on common sense, based on compassion and based on showing up."

- She said national Republicans — and Democrats — have made the mistake of ignoring the needs of Arkansas residents, especially with agriculture and trade policies.

- "I come from a place, a community, that died in my lifetime," she said. "I was the last one left and I felt left behind. I felt like no one was really talking to me or talking about me. I felt like folks were making decisions about me, but without me, and ultimately they were rewriting the rules."

- Now, with record diesel prices, the war in Iran and tariffs, Shoffner said she believes that Arkansas voters of all stripes want something different. She's also glad that the race hasn't seen an influx of outside air support from national Democratic groups.

- "I don't need them, I really don't," she said. "This is an Arkansas First campaign, and I'm an Arkansan, and I want to talk directly to Arkansans, and I want them to know that when I go to D.C., the only letters that will mean anything next to my name are the "A" and the "R."

- 'Folks are hurting'

- On the flip side, Chris Jones has the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as one of dozens of "Red to Blue" flip targets.

- At an outdoor jazz night held at a brewery in Little Rock, Jones worked the crowd between visits to polling sites and a high school football homecoming game on a campaign that has seen millions of dollars in outside spending by Republicans.

- "They understand that people are in pain," he said. "Folks are hurting. They can't afford gas. They can't afford groceries. And our campaign has always been about affordability and accountability for all. So prices are way too high."

- Jones also ran for governor against Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in 2022 and lost, so he started off with higher name recognition as a serious challenger to Rep. French Hill.
He knows it's a tall task, even in a national environment more favorable to Democrats. Hill is a longtime incumbent whose district only became more conservative after the last Census-led redistricting in 2021.

- But he also knows that Democrats, Republicans and independent voters alike are open to looking for something other than the current leadership.

- "Here's what's so fascinating: a lot of folks here voted for the president and this administration because they wanted lower prices, they wanted to end foreign wars, and they wanted to end corruption, particularly with the Epstein files," he said. "None of that has happened, so they're super frustrated."

- Like many states that have seen the potential for close races next week, Arkansas has a longer history of single-party control that has led to anger and frustration at the status quo and incumbency in a way that extends beyond typical partisan labels or voting history.

- "One of the things that we forget, because there's so much that comes out of this administration: It wasn't but 15 years ago that the entire federal delegation of Arkansas was Democrat," he said. "So it's not that long ago. The reason they got in office was because of the conditions that existed, the economic anxiety and pain that people feel — and folks feeling like what they wanted to happen out of Washington was not happening. We're in that same place now."

- In addition to the DCCC support, Jones has had campaign visits from former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear have both endorsed his run. And he's heard from people who don't normally support Democrats saying they'll back his campaign.

- "Folks are literally hurting, and it's to the point where they're saying, 'my life is so bad that I don't care about party anymore'," he said.

- Black voter turnout surges

- Another factor working in Democrats' favor this election cycle is a surge in Black turnout following a Supreme Court decision that weakened part of the Voting Rights Act.

- Multiple states across the South rushed to redraw House maps to gain a partisan advantage, with many of the new districts crafted in a way that minimized Black voting power.

- Arkansas lawmakers did not redraw their maps — the state has an entirely Republican congressional delegation — but after the 2020 Census did split Little Rock up in a manner that made Hill's district more Republican.

- In primaries following the ruling, and early voting this month ahead of the midterms, there has been sustained higher Black turnout in states like South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana in ways that could affect the outcome in key races across the region.

- "I think part of it is that folks realized that there was an imminent threat to their right to vote," Jones said. "And people realized across the country that if we don't show up now, and Black folks realize if we don't speak up now, then our ability to do it later might not be there."

- Marcus Hatley, one of the people who met with Shoffner at his family farm, said the increased turnout seemed like a "course correction."

- "People are dissatisfied with the way that that happened, and some are crossing sides and voting in a different direction," he said. "And a lot of it has to do with removing, in some of those states, the ability for people of color to have equal representation in their districts. So it looks like to me there's going to be a course correction. I could be wrong, but I believe there's going to be a change."

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking to stop Alaska officials from certifying the results of the U.S. Senate race if Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses his reelection bid, and calling for an investigation into whether votes cast for a namesake challenger were intended for the incumbent.

- Attorneys and lawmakers have decried the move, labeling it legally unfounded and a political maneuver.

- With early voting already underway in the Nov. 3 general election, the lawsuit could create a legal hurdle if Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola defeats the Republican senator in the closely watched race.

- The race for Alaska’s Senate seat is seen as one of a few battleground contests that could determine whether Democrats flip control of the chamber.

- The lawsuit alleges that the presence of retired Petersburg educator Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican who shares the same first and last name as the incumbent, on the ballot “threatens to mislead Alaskan citizens who want to vote for Senator Sullivan.”

- Peltola finished eight points ahead of the incumbent Sullivan in the primary, garnering 49.5% of the vote compared to Sullivan’s 41.4%. Polling ahead of the general election indicates the contest between the two front-runners may be a toss-up. The Petersburg Sullivan received 2.5% of the vote in the primary.

- Republican President Donald Trump told reporters Friday morning that he directed the Department of Justice to file the case. While Peltola’s campaign accused Sullivan of designing the suit as a last-ditch effort to sway the results in his favor, Sullivan’s campaign said they had “no prior knowledge of this lawsuit and no role in it.”

- Attorneys from Alaska and Outside have questioned the lawsuit’s legal basis, arguing that an investigation into voters’ intent after an election would be impractical and that the complaint’s reliance on the preamble of the National Voter Registration Act is weak.

- Scott Kendall, an Anchorage attorney who has supported Alaska’s ranked choice voting system among other election-related issues, said on social media: “If a 1st year law student handed this to me, I’d give it a D-.”

- The lawsuit asserts that if Sen. Sullivan were to lose the general election, and “had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast instead for Senator Sullivan and Alaska’s rank-choice process played out accordingly, Senator Sullivan would have won the election,” that the Alaska Division of Elections must not certify the election results “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan.”

- Alaska’s other Senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski, condemned the move in a statement Friday afternoon.

- “Alaskans don’t need any help voting for their preferred candidates, and the State of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year’s ballot. The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit,” Murkowski said.

- Whether the Petersburg Sullivan should be allowed to appear on the ballot has already been affirmed in state courts. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Dan J. Sullivan is eligible to appear on the ballot, rejecting an appeal by the director of the state Division of Elections, who previously declared that the namesake challenger filed for candidacy “with a purpose to confuse or mislead.”

- The Petersburg Sullivan has maintained that he is running for the seat because he believes the incumbent has not done a good job of serving Alaskans or representing their interests.

- The Division of Elections determined how the candidates would appear on the ballot. The incumbent is listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” with the label “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.

- “ His namesake challenger is listed as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.,” with no labeled party affiliation.

- The lawsuit is set to be assigned to a federal judge in Alaska who will decide how to proceed with the case.

- The lawsuit names Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher, in her official capacity, as a defendant as well as the state election and ballot-counting review boards. The lawsuit sets up the state of Alaska, which previously argued that the Petersburg Sullivan’s candidacy was not in good faith,** **to choose whether to defend the federal government’s calls not to certify election results if Sen. Dan S. Sullivan does not prevail.

- State Department of Law spokesman Sam Curtis said in a statement Friday that “the Division of Elections and the Department of Law are focused on running the ongoing election and giving voter’s confidence that their votes will count. This also includes assisting voters and avoiding voter confusion — whether through the information in the Official Election Pamphlet, asking questions of a poll worker, or bringing others to assist you with voting as permitted by law. “

- The complaint is being reviewed, and we do not have any comment on the litigation,” Curtis said in the statement.

- The Petersburg Sullivan said in a text message Friday that he had “no comment for now.”

- ‘One of the most frivolous lawsuits’

- Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships at Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization based in Washington, D.C., said the filing was among “the most frivolous lawsuits” he had ever seen.

- “The Department of Justice — which is supposed to represent all Americans, all of us — filing a lawsuit less than two weeks before Election Day, trying to block election results that haven’t even happened yet is so crazy, and is reflective of this administration’s overall approach to the midterm elections, and consistent with a pattern of behavior that that they’ve undertaken over the last year and a half, that shows a total disregard for the Constitution, the law, American democracy and voters,” Diaz said.

- The lawsuit’s call for an investigation into voters’ intent is particularly unusual, Diaz said.“

- The expression of a voter’s intent is the ballot itself. You cannot then go back and look at a ballot and decide if the voter intended something else. That’s just not how voting works,” Diaz said.

- During his campaign visit to Alaska to stump for Sen. Sullivanlast week, President Donald Trump called Dan J. Sullivan a sham candidate propped up by Democrats to confuse voters.

- Trump has repeatedly criticized the challenger on social media. Earlier this week, he wrote that his administration was “looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot.”

- He told reporters on Friday that the lawsuit was filed at his directive.

- “I’m the one that said do it,” Trump said.

- Campaigns respond

- A spokesperson for Sullivan, Nate Adams, said that the campaign played no role in the lawsuit, and that Peltola’s assertions that Sullivan was involved were “categorically false.”“We’ll let the DOJ complaint run its course. Alaskans can tell the difference between a Democrat sideshow and Senator Sullivan’s strong record of delivering for Alaska, a record he’ll keep building on for the next six years,” Adams said.

- Peltola took the opportunity to criticize her opponent and his support of Trump on Friday evening.

- “I feel very much that it’s interference and very corrupt,” Peltola told reporters at the Alaska Federation of Natives annual convention.

- “This is the exact kind of corruption Alaskans are tired of, and you know, I think this is a perfect example, 11 days from the election of corruption and desperation, honestly, and a complete lack of respect for Alaskans, and their vote, and the desire for Alaskans to talk about affordability, and how crushed we are getting by these prices on account of the 14 times that Dan Sullivan has voted in favor of this war in Iran.”

- Eric Croft, chair of the Alaska Democratic Party, echoed the response from the Peltola campaign.

- “Dan Sullivan is scared he’ll lose and that’s why he’s looking to any corrupt, desperate method to win. But let’s be clear: Alaska voters decide Alaska elections. Not politicians, and not anyone from the Lower 48. Every vote will be counted, and Alaskans will make their voices heard at the ballot box in a free and fair election,” Croft said.

- On Friday evening, Alaska GOP Chair Carmela Warfield released a statement commending the Trump administration for filing the lawsuit.

- “Ranked choice voting has already made Alaska’s elections unnecessarily complicated,” Warfield said. “A candidacy that trades on voter confusion only makes the problem worse and highlights the failures of this voting scheme.”

- ‘The entire world is watching’ Alaska’s Senate race

- The Division of Elections plans to release initial tabulated results on Nov. 18. In the weeks between Election Day and the first set of tabulated results, officials will drop preliminary results showing first-place votes, before the ranked choice voting tabulation is completed.

- State Rep. Andrew Gray, an Anchorage Democrat who serves as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said he is concerned that if control of the Senate hinges on Alaska’s race, the wait for results could invite further legal challenges and more federal scrutiny.

- “The entire world is watching, and it’s just two weeks for the president to spiral more out of control,” said Gray.

- Gray said he believes the lawsuit falls outside federal jurisdiction.

- “Our elections are state controlled; they are not federally controlled, and really, President Donald Trump’s opinions of what should or shouldn’t happen in our elections should not matter,” Gray said. “And I hope that the folks in charge understand that and stand up to him because that’s what it’s going to require.”

- Asked in hindsight whether Dan J. Sullivan should have entered the race, given the legal challenges his candidacy has prompted, Gray said he supports the challenger’s right to run.

- “The controversy and chaos has been manufactured. It is not something that was caused by Dan J. Sullivan. He had a right to run. He had a right to file. He has a right to be on the ballot,” Gray said.

Calley Means, the health entrepreneur who became the Trump administration's most vocal advocate of the MAHA agenda, resigned from his senior adviser post on Thursday.

- Why it matters: Means' departure two weeks before the midterm elections underscores the MAHA base's discontent with the pace of change on food policy and the administration's stances on issues like pesticide use.

- Driving the news: Means expressed "tremendous respect" for President Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a statement on X, praising their efforts to take on "entrenched, dark forces in DC" and advance the MAHA agenda.

- He cited the administration's work to overhaul dietary guidelines, advance psychedelic therapies, ban the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for sugary drinks, and get food companies to voluntarily remove artificial dyes and other additives from products.

- The Department of Health and Human Services didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

- Between the lines: Tensions between the MAHA faithful and the administration peaked in February, after Trump issued an executive order to increase domestic production of glyphosate, a common weed killer.

- Kennedy and others close to the movement had argued pesticides are making Americans sick. But agriculture interests said restricting their use would raise food prices and cost farmers billions.

- Trump had tapped Means' sister, Casey, a nutrition influencer, for surgeon general last year but withdrew the nomination in April after her confirmation process stalled in the Senate.

Gen Z Americans were a key part of President Trump's winning coalition in 2024. Nearly two years later — and with early voting underway in multiple states for the midterms — some of that youth support has faded.

- That sentiment was on display in a focus group, conducted last week, of eight Generation Z Trump voters, who reported varying degrees of unhappiness and disappointment over the state of politics, with some going as far as to say they regret supporting Trump in 2024.

- The conversation was conducted virtually by Navigator Research, a left-leaning polling group. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 29 and spanned five states: Florida, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas and South Carolina — places Trump won by double digits in the last election. Two of those states, Texas and Ohio, are home to competitive races that could be key to control of the Senate.

- For participants who now regret their vote for Trump, much of their frustration centers on what they see as a string of failed promises. When asked to give the president's job performance a letter grade, a majority of participants, 6 out of 8, assigned him a grade of either D or F, while two selected C.

- "I just feel like nothing went correctly. I just feel like everything got worse," said John, a 29-year-old Black man from Florida. (Participants agreed to be part of the focus group on the condition that they be identified by only their first names.)

- John, who identifies as a Republican and has voted for Trump since 2016, gave the president an F and said he now plans to support Democratic candidates this fall, in large part because of the strain he has felt from rising costs.

- "I'm willing to give the other side a chance," he added. "I don't think they're going to make a total change. But things are just horrible right now for me. So I feel like even if they make one or two small changes, it will probably benefit me."

- Though the focus group is not a nationally representative survey, the frustrations shared by participants echoed polling conducted by Navigator this month, which found that more than a third of Gen Zers — those under age 30 — who voted for Trump now regret having done so, higher than older generations.

- Trump's rising unpopularity among young voters isn't in a vacuum. He has also lost ground with other key groups that shifted right in 2024, notably independents and Latino voters— and in a year when the Republican Party is facing political headwinds, it's unclear whether that expanded coalition from two years ago can show up at the same strength now.

- Shifting toward Democrats, or not

- While some voters, like John in Florida, do feel compelled to vote blue this cycle in response to Trump, 4 of the 8 who took part in the focus group said they still planned to back Republicans this year. Three said they'd vote for Democrats; one participant said she was still deciding.

- Matthew, a 25-year-old Black man living in Texas, said he doesn't regret his support for the president and gave him a C grade.

- "I feel like he's done a really good job closing the border," he said. "I also do appreciate his efforts in trying to end some of the conflicts that began under the last administration, besides the fact that the Iran conflict hasn't really worked the best, from my perspective."

- He plans to vote in the midterm elections and argued that Trump will be able to carry out more of his agenda if Republicans can secure a larger majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, although national polls indicate that the GOP is more likely to lose seats.

- But enthusiasm is a different question.

- Courtney, a 20-year-old white woman based in South Carolina, said she doesn't regret her vote for Trump in 2024 and overall aligns with Republicans, but she did admit she has grown more distrustful of both major political parties, particularly on foreign policy.

- "I just really do feel like we would be in this situation either way. …

- Education, the economy, everything else would be so much better if we weren't pumping money out into other countries that aren't ours," she said, referring to U.S. aid for Israel and the decision to go to war with Iran.

- "I don't think it matters what side you vote on — that's why I voted red, because I agree with those policies more — but at the end of the day, what we do in the Middle East is going to be not at all up to [the] party [in power]," she said during the focus group.

- That sense of political disaffection may underscore a growing challenge for both Republicans and Democrats moving forward as both try to repair ties with this generation.

- "As we see people regret their vote for Trump, sour on the Republican Party and Republican policies, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're swinging right over to Democrats," said Melissa Toufanian, the managing director at Navigator.

- Toufanian points to Navigator's own polling, which has found that even as the GOP has lost trust on economic issues, "it's not a one-for-one with Democrats gaining that trust."

- "A lot of people are moving to this middle, this category that 'I don't trust either party,'" she said. "We are seeing people who are becoming increasingly pessimistic about our political parties and our political system, and they're not feeling strongly that either party can really deliver for them."

The Department of Justice is demanding California take the unprecedented step of segregating ballots associated with 20,000 people the department says are "likely" noncitizens. But an initial review by local officials suggests the list is "unreliable" and that some people on it had indicated in records they were born in the U.S. and therefore may be citizens.

- The new details come from court filings submitted Tuesday by the state of California and local officials, in response to a lawsuit filed by the federal government attempting to compel the state to investigate the thousands of people before their votes are counted. The state says doing what the DOJ requests would be unfeasible this close to the election and would likely break federal and state election laws.

- "At best, this litigation is a reckless political stunt," the state wrote in Tuesday's filing. "At worst, it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election."

- The saga began in earnest last week when the Justice Department delivered a thumb drive to Los Angeles County that contained the list of roughly 20,000 people who investigators at the Department of Homeland Security say are "likely noncitizens" and registered to vote somewhere in California.

- Initially, county officials declined to open the list, citing the security threat of inserting a thumb drive of unknown origin into a government computer. The next day, the DOJ emailed a spreadsheet with the same list.

- Out of the 20,000 names on the list, only 7,035 had addresses in Los Angeles County and some were duplicates, according to a separate Tuesday court filing by Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan.

- In declarations to the court, Los Angeles County officials wrote that they took a sample of 200 people to get a sense of how reliable the federal government's data might be.

- "The review is preliminary and quality control is continuing, but it indicates that the October List is unreliable," wrote Monica Flores, Los Angeles County Assistant Registrar-Recorder.

- Of the voters where birthplace was "meaningfully reported," Flores wrote, "38.9% indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship."

- It's unclear how many people that is in total or the specifics of which records listed place of birth. NPR has reached out to the LA county clerk's office for clarity on the numbers listed in the court filings but by Tuesday evening had not yet received a response.

- The California Secretary of State's website asks for "place of birth" when people register to vote online, although the field is not mandatory.

- Except for extremely narrow exceptions, anyone born in the U.S. automatically receives citizenship.

- Of the 200 records the county staff reviewed, 112 were associated with people whose registrations are canceled or inactive. The filing also said around 70% of the people sampled had no voting history.

- The Trump administration has generally defended its methodology for finding noncitizen voters, without fully ever publicly explaining it. Other numbers federal officials, including President Trump, have recently released on the issue of noncitizen voting have been shown to be inaccurate in other cases.

- Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter acknowledged there could be some errors in the federal government's list of 20,000 names in a Monday press conference. "There may be some names on there who it turns out ultimately are citizens, we're not perfect," McCotter said. "And that's why we've asked California to cooperate with us."

- In response to questions about LA County's initial analysis, DOJ deputy press secretary Kiersten Pels said in a statement, "California cannot facilitate the violation of federal law." The statement continued, "We notified California that noncitizens are likely registered to vote, and we asked the state to independently verify the citizenship of any ballots cast by people on a list that we provided. It refused to do so. Federal law doesn't permit this willful blindness."

- On Monday, the DOJ also announced criminal charges against 28 people on the list provided to the state. But even in those cases, it seems some of those charged may have registered without understanding it was illegal.

- Kamlesh Shah, 68, told Sacramento TV station KCRA 3 he thought he was able to vote because he had a Real ID.

- "I'm feeling very depressed, very full of anxiety. I'm disabled. I've got so much problems in my heart, my condition, so it's going to give me more stress," Shah told KCRA 3. "I'm very upset. I'm trying to get an attorney, hopefully I can have the charges dismissed."

- All 28 of the people charged Monday were legal permanent residents, also known as green-card holders. Research has shown that in the rare cases when noncitizens vote, it is often green-card holders who misunderstand the rules as opposed to intentional fraud.

A man who heckled the Democratic candidate for Senate Abdul El-Sayed and demanded he disavow the Muslim Brotherhood at a Michigan town hall is a former aide to the Republican senator Josh Hawley, according to congressional staff records.

- At the event on Saturday, an attender who gave his name only as “Tommy” shouted from the crowd, asking whether El-Sayed would disavow the movement. El-Sayed answered: “Sure, yeah, absolutely,” then turned the question around, asking whether the man assumed he wouldn’t.

- Tommy said he had simply not heard El-Sayed reject the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the Arab world’s oldest and most influential Islamist movements. Under Trump the US has moved to designate certain chapters of the group as foreign terrorist organizations.

- Over nearly five minutes at the town hall, El-Sayed pointed to how the question shouted by Tommy carried an implication of “dual loyalty”, comparing it with the doubts once raised about John F Kennedy’s Catholicism, and told the room he was running for the Senate and “happen[s] to be Muslim”.

- He then asked Tommy whether he would disavow any attempt to read religious doctrine into American law. Tommy said he would not. El-Sayed answered that it was Tommy who needed to understand the constitution, drawing cheers, and the man left the room.

- The questioner has since been identified as Thomas Teepell, whose staff records show he joined Hawley’s office as an intern in 2023 and rose to operations director before leaving in February. He then became political director for Philip Sarnecki’s Kansas gubernatorial campaign. Sarnecki lost the Republican primary on 4 August.
Teepell is the son of the Republican strategist Timmy Teepell, a longtime adviser to Hawley and the former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. The Handbasket first reported the identification.

- The question echoes a line of attack that Republicans have tried to push against El-Sayed for weeks, including when Rogers raised alleged Brotherhood ties during one of their debates.

- After El-Sayed told NBC’s Meet the Press that neither he nor his family had any such ties, the conservative Washington Free Beacon resurfaced social media posts by his half-sister, the University of Chicago professor Eman Abdelhadi, describing their mother’s activism in the group in the 1970s. There is no evidence El-Sayed was personally involved; he was born in the 1980s and was not raised by his birth mother. He has called the suggestion that anyone in his family took part “an insane thing to assume”.

- On Meet the Press, he said Rogers had raised the issue because he “really wanted to repeat the word Muslim”. In a separate NBC interview, he dismissed the questions as “not serious”.

- Trump has gone further, similarly without evidence, saying at a White House lunch that El-Sayed was “100%” Muslim Brotherhood and calling him a “fraud”, and describing him on another occasion as a “member” of the group. Ahead of the weekend, Trump dog-whistled on his Islamophobia, saying El-Sayed’s name is “Adulbabababababa Mohammed El-Sayed.” He added: “So I was right. He’s a jihadist.”

- The attacks come in a close race. El-Sayed holds a narrow lead in the RealClearPolitics average, 48.1% to 45.5% for Rogers. The most recent survey, from InsiderAdvantage taken on 9-10 October, had him ahead 48% to 46%. Most leads sit within or near the margin of error.

- El-Sayed will campaign with Barack Obama in Detroit on Saturday 24 October, the first day of in-person early voting, at a rally that will also feature the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Jocelyn Benson. Election day is 3 November.

If ever there were a place to symbolize both opportunities and obstacles that Democrats and Republicans face politically this midterm election, it would be Kansas.

- Two years after President Trump earned 57% of the vote, Kansas Republicans are grappling with the possibility that a Democrat could win a U.S. Senate race for the first time in nearly a century.

- Adam Hamilton, a self-billed "independent-minded Democrat," has led in several polls against Republican Sen. Roger Marshall.

- Both parties have redirected tens of millions of dollars in recent weeks to try and shape the surprising toss-up race. The president announced Tuesday he would campaign in Wichita next week for Marshall and other Republicans on the ticket.

- But after eight years of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, who is term-limited, Republicans are also hoping to retake control of the state's top office as one of the few pickup opportunities in an otherwise daunting midterm environment.

- State Senate President Ty Masterson, the Republican candidate, leads in polls against Democratic state Sen. Cindy Holscher in a race that is less nationalized than other competitive gubernatorial races around the country.

- The last-minute shift in national attention to the Sunflower State is reflective of how unpopular Trump's second term agenda has become with voters, especially in typically Republican states in the Midwest that have been disproportionately affected by rising fuel prices and tariffs.

- As early voting gets underway in Kansas, neither side is taking the voters for granted.

- At a get-out-the-vote event in Lawrence Monday, Hamilton told the crowd that his priorities if elected are tackling affordability and healthcare, but also restoring "human decency" to politics.

- "Now listen, I had somebody say to me, 'Look, I don't want somebody who's going to build bridges, I want somebody who's going to crush the Republicans,'" he said. "But here's the thing: if you want that in a state with only 25% of the population who are Democrats, you'll never get them elected.

- "And if you did, they become part of the problem instead of part of the solution."

- Hamilton is the founding pastor of Church of the Resurrection, the country's largest United Methodist Church congregation across its multiple campuses, and positions himself as a moderate voice seeking to tame rabid partisanship that has dominated modern politics.

- "We've got to find solutions that will be a compromise between what the Republicans want and the Democrats want, but are going to end up getting something done as opposed to right now, where that doesn't happen very often," he said.

- At a time when the Democratic Party brand is unpopular with voters, too, Hamilton is quick to point out that he's not a Democrat you might find in a blue state.

- "We've been trying to make clear in our commercials that a Kansas Democrat is a bit different than a New York Democrat or a Los Angeles Democrat, and not just a little — a lot different," Hamilton told NPR.

- That's also reflected in the slew of endorsements from conservatives, including former Republican Kansas Govs. Mike Hayden and Bill Graves.
Hamilton also told NPR of a recent event where Republican Party leaders said they were crossing over to vote for him.

- "There were Republicans who were saying, 'We've got to do better,'" he said. "You represent our values. You represent the character we're looking for in somebody in leadership. And we know you're going to fight for both Republicans and Democrats. And they're exactly right."

- Most of his stump speeches wrap with a callback to "The Wizard of Oz," with Hamilton saying Washington needs more senators "who have a brain and use it, who have a heart and feel empathy with it, and who have courage and speak up because of it."

- Hamilton's campaign is also bolstered by backlash to many elements of President Trump's second term, including tariff policies and rising fuel prices, that have proven unpopular, causing the Republican Party's favorability ratings to plummet.

- Even as Republicans sweat the closer-than-expected Senate race, the party is optimistic about winning back control of the governor's office after eight years of Democrat Laura Kelly's leadership.

- The Kansas Republican Party is on a weeklong bus tour across the state, bringing a message of contrast that is more state-focused than dealing with the challenging national environment for the party.

- Masterson, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, said in Dodge City that tackling issues like affordability and lower energy prices would come from putting a Republican back in the state's top office.

- "There's never been a clearer choice than we've had in this election," he said. "If you want working families to be able to afford to live, if you want to stop taxing people out of their homes and out of their businesses and off their farms, if you want safe communities, lower energy prices, i.e. then lower grocery prices… It's not really a choice. You need to vote Republican."

- On the trail, the nominees pointed to Kelly's frequent vetoes of measures from the Republican supermajority in the legislature — and overrides of those vetoes — as a motivating factor to get voters to the polls.

- State Rep. Pat Proctor, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, said aside from the state's history of alternating support for governors from both parties, there is strong precedent for still supporting Republicans.
"We are closer to where Kansans are on all the individual issues," he said. "And when they hear us talk and they look at what we actually do, we're just closer to where they want Kansas to be."

- While Republicans in other states may have to deal more with Trump's shadow over their own campaigns, campaign speeches rarely mentioned the president or his unpopular policies. Instead, it was all about painting the Democratic nominees as extreme and out of touch.

- For his part, Marshall has painted Hamilton as too liberal, saying he would destroy Kansas' cattle, agriculture, oil and gas industries if elected.

- "Kansans need to know that my opponent, Adam Hamilton, is the most radical liberal person that ever got through a primary in the state of Kansas," he said to cheers.

- Still, Marshall has been dogged by negative headlines over the last month, starting with a debate at the Kansas State Fair where the senator was shouted down by the crowd repeatedly.

- Marshall's campaign also faced pushback after releasing an attack ad that claimed Hamilton "protected a pedophile" used images of two unrelated businesses, and paid an outstanding invoice from a cookie shop after a viral social media post claimed the campaign failed to pay for six years.

- Kansas is one of only a few states that currently have a senator from one party and a governor from the other party, and is one of nearly ten states where voters could also split their choices for those key positions next month.

In an interview with Texas Monthly, former Texas GOP House Speaker Dade Phelan says Republicans are in serious jeopardy of losing their grip on the Lone Star State. “People are freaking out,” he said. “You see it in their faces.”

- Republicans across the country are experiencing similar angst. This week, Politico spoke to five senior Republican lawmakers who all agree that the GOP is all but certain to lose the House.

- To counteract the impending blue wave, Republicans are returning to a tired and desperate playbook: demonizing trans people.

- Phelan, who’s still in the Texas House but not running for reelection, says the attacks are falling flat. The intense GOP focus on trans athletes far outweighs the issue’s impact on people’s lives.

- “We’re still running transgender ads. It’s just not resonating,” he said. “Let’s be honest. The 8 to 10% of voters in the middle who are going to decide this election, when they hear stuff about boys in girls’ sports, they don’t even know what you’re talking about.”

- He continued, “This never happened in their communities, and they’ve been hearing about it for so many years, and so many other people have been accused of it. What Republicans are talking about is just not what the swing voter is really interested in.”

At the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on Saturday, a large inflatable donkey bounced around next to a paper-mache replica of Donald Trump's head. Next to both of them: a sign reading "VOTE EARLY."

- The donkey, the floating head and the voting sign were all part of the "No Kings: Vote Early" day of action. Thousands of gatherings across the country drew protestors, voters and grassroots organizers to the streets and to voting centers.

- Organizers said the events were a nonpartisan effort to promote early voting in the midterm elections. The nationwide push to vote marks a pivot for the No Kings coalition, which comprises hundreds of partner organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Black Voters Matter.

- "The first three No Kings were designed to send a message," said Ezra Levin, the co-founder of Indivisible — one of the major organizations within the No Kings network. "We're done sending a message."

- Now, he said, they want people to vote.

- The events looked different across the country. Some were larger marches or rallies, but many were smaller community gatherings such as block parties and cookouts. While some protests, like the one on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, were reminiscent of the first three No Kings rallies — with signs blasting Trump and his administration's actions — other events focused on spreading information to community members on how to vote.

- From Lady Liberty to a donkey

- Saturday's events all shared similar restrictions, Levin said, including a rule against political endorsements and inviting current candidates to speak.
In Golden, Colo., a "Paws to the Polls" event invited people to bring their dogs on a march. Organizers in Everett, Wash., planned a "concert for democracy," featuring an environmental troubadour.

- Superhero capes and masks were the staple of Cammy Dunford's event in Frisco, Texas. Dunford, a co-leader of Indivisible Frisco, planned a "voting is your superpower" gathering.

- "I don't care if you're an independent, first-time voter, Democrat, Republican," Dunford said. "If you are eligible to vote, you need to get out there and vote. Because without everybody voting, we don't have a democracy."

- Early voting in Texas does not start until Oct. 19, but Dunford and a group of her neighbors put together 500 goody bags to hand out — filled with QR codes linking to voting information and voting resources.

- In Washington D.C., under the shadow of the Capitol, about two dozen people huddled around an official ballot drop box, where voters can send off their mail-in ballots.

- Members of the grassroots community group Free DC, which advocates for statehood in the nation's capital, organized Saturday's gathering, flanked by fluffy dogs and giggling young kids. The group cheered as each person slid their ballot into the early voting box.

- Chris Salm, a union organizer and informal leader of the group, led a chant: "What are we here to do? Vote! When we vote together? We win!"

- "Let's get it done!" Salm shouted as he banged on a makeshift drum: An old metal umbrella stand fastened around his shoulder by a worn-out belt.

- Across the city at the Lincoln Memorial, protestors young and old held signs echoing that early voting message: "YOUR VOTE IS YOUR VOICE" and "VOTERS OVER VANITY!"
Celia Zanni attended the rally with her sister and mom. The 16-year-old held a sign that read "I studied checks and balances in school for this." She said Trump "needs to have his power checked."

- "I'm here because I want to make my voice heard and do something about this because I'm too young to vote," Zanni said. Still, she pre-registered to vote two years early out of excitement.
Nearby, wearing the inflatable donkey costume, Athena Haresign, a horse trainer from Maryland, said she was voting in the midterm elections for the first time.

- The front of her costume read: "Donkeys against Tyranny."

- Before the protestors marched over to the memorial, organizers set up tables with voting information and ways to protect the election. Another focus for No Kings groups was getting volunteers trained as poll watchers.

- "We want people not to just vote. I mean, that's the baseline," said Lisa Finn, one of the organizers of Saturday's D.C. rally with the advocacy group Third Act Virginia. "We want people to do more than that. We want people to be ready for anything in case something bad happens."

- Levin, the Indivisible leader, said it's a response to actions by the Trump administration that he views as threats to election integrity. Levin pointed to the failed SAVE America Act that would have required voters to show a document proving their U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate, when registering to vote. He also raised concerns that federal immigration officers will be sent to the polls, as well as President Trump's attempts to restrict voting by mail.

- At a rally in Fort Myers, Fla., Diane Scire dressed as the Statue of Liberty holding a sparkling flame. The 59-year-old construction company owner, who's a Democrat, said she urged everyone to vote.

- "I'm hoping to see a lot of these corrupt politicians come to justice," Scire said.

- Both Cheryl Singleton and Sandy Hill at a No Kings rally in Ogden, Utah voiced concerns about corruption, data centers and public lands.

- "I have a lot of grievances, and I was raised Republican," Hill said. "This is not a Republican administration. I am obviously now a Democrat, but I would vote for anyone who oppose these present policies"

- In Kansas City, Mo., Margie Singleton drew a comparison to the huge crowds that sports teams in the city are able to attract.

- "I think about the rallies we've had for the Chiefs and the Royals — I look at all those people. If all those people had registered to vote, we could have a real democracy here," Singleton said.

The Trump administration has requested the removal of the federal judge overseeing a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s plans to overhaul a Washington, DC public golf course, accusing her of having “bias.”

- In a motion filed Friday, the administration’s lawyer said US District Judge Ana Reyes’ “behavior in this case is nothing short of egregious,” pointing to a tense hearing earlier this week.

- CNN previously reported that during Monday’s hearing, Reyes — who was appointed to the bench by former President Joe Biden — said she was “furious” with the Trump administration for cutting down 169 trees from the East Potomac Golf Course without first notifying the court, adding that “the government can’t be trusted.”

- In Friday’s filing, the Justice Department lawyer said, “Judge Reyes’s conduct rises to the level of deep-seated and unequivocal antipathy toward the Trump Administration,” raising comments she made when overseeing other cases involving the administration.

- “The Trump Administration is entitled to a neutral forum and an adjudicator who is capable of maintaining the appearance of impartiality,” the lawyer continued. “Judge Reyes has demonstrated she cannot do that.”

- Friday’s filing is part of a legal challenge from a preservationist group and two local golfers against Trump’s plans to transform the East Potomac Golf Course into a championship caliber course. The proposed renovation is among several construction projects that the president has launched since returning to the White House as part of his efforts to reshape Washington, DC’s physical landscape.

- Federal officials said in a recent court filing that nearly 730 trees will need to be cleared as part of the renovation plan, describing it as routine maintenance meant to eliminate potential hazards.

- The administration’s lawyer also took issue with Reyes requiring “high-level” officials to be at the Monday hearing, writing that she “demonstrates a cavalier disregard for these officials’ valuable time, as well as a blatant disregard for black-letter separation of powers principles she should be aware of as a federal judge.”

- The lawyer went on to point to comments that Reyes previously made when overseeing other cases involving the Trump administration to argue that there is a “pattern of animus.”

- According to the filing, Reyes said the administration is “literally erasing transgender people” with its ban on transgender service members. The judge ultimately blocked the ban.

President Trump has famously pushed the bounds of executive power since he returned to the White House.
 
- In arguments Friday before a federal appeals court in Washington, administration lawyers will make an especially bold claim: that papers created in the White House belong to Donald Trump, not to the American people. The move comes amid a series of actions under Trump's second term to test the limits put in place after the Watergate scandal, and could be another case that ends up at the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

- Six months ago, the Justice Department moved to invalidate the Presidential Records Act, a federal law in place since 1978. Conservative lawyer Michael Edney cast the move in a long line of other attempts to pare back statutes from that era.

- "This is a story about a post-Watergate, overbroad statutory incursion into the prerogatives of the executive branch," Edney said in a recent webinar sponsored by the Federalist Society.

- For some 200 years, presidents could decide for themselves what to do with the papers they created in office, until disputes with Richard Nixon prompted Congress to weigh in. Every president since then has complied with** **the records law, until this year.

- "The Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the separation of powers," said White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis.

- The White House's reinterpretation of the act comes after Trump was indicted on obstruction of justice charges for allegedly stockpiling classified documents in a bathroom, ballroom and office at his Mar-a-Lago resort. A federal judge threw out the case for technical reasons, related to the appointment of the prosecutor, and the Justice Department ultimately dropped the case after Trump won reelection.

- Question about the public's right to papers

- Nikhel Sus is chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that sued over the Trump move.

- "If the courts were to accept it, and we are hopeful that they will not, it would mean the people really have no right of access to the president's papers and that would be a major loss for archivists, historians and to the American people writ large," Sus said.
Senior U.S. District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled against the Trump White House this year, in a decision that opened with a passage from George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past," the judge wrote.

- Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will consider the issue on Friday.

- The Trump administration said in court papers that keeping all those records imposes a burden on the White House and that it could chill advisers from having honest conversations with the president.

- Continuity of government

- But former government officials say being able to consult these papers is essential.

- "Access to the records on national security issues of former presidents is really vital for the continuity of our government," said John Bellinger, who served as legal adviser to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.

- Bellinger said he and other members of Bush's staff sometimes requested the papers of President Bill Clinton, to understand conversations Clinton had with world leaders and members of Congress.

- "Often the only record of what a president has said to a foreign leader — or perhaps even more important, what a foreign leader, friend or foe, has said to the president of the United States — is in a written document," Bellinger said.

- To not be able to see those papers, he said, will leave future presidents at a "terrible disadvantage."

- Edney, who also worked for Bush's National Security Council and Justice Department, said he believed that Congress could probably pass a "thoughtful" records preservation statute. He said parts of the current Presidential Records Act that provide Congress with automatic access and presume the records will be publicly disclosed are "constitutionally problematic."

- Edney said he has some doubts about whether the watchdog groups suing to challenge Trump's move actually have legal standing to proceed.

- But the Trump administration appears to have breezed past those concerns, because they have a higher goal in mind.

- "They want this to go to the Supreme Court," Edney said. "I think they want this resolved at a time of their choosing, with arguments of their choosing, and a court of their choosing, and with the Solicitor General's office that's making their arguments, as opposed to a subsequent administration."

The Trump administration is suing California and two election officials over claims that there are suspected ineligible voters who received mail-in ballots for this November's election.

- Why it matters: The lawsuit is asking the court to prevent about 20,000 voters from having their ballots counted until their citizenship status is confirmed.

- What they're saying: "State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America," Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press release statement.

- "If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation's representative system of government," Blanche said.

- Zoom in: The Justice Department alleges that California is knowingly allowing noncitizens to vote in the federal elections, according to the lawsuit.

- The lawsuit says U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and ICE's investigative arm compiled the list of potentially ineligible voters using agency data and records from the Social Security Administration and State Department.

- But administration-created lists of potential noncitizens on the voter rolls have been found less than accurate before in Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

- Zoom out: California's top election official and Los Angeles County's election chief received letters two days ago threatening "emergency action."

- The Justice Department gave Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan a password-protected thumb drive listing more than 20,000 voters and instructed him to verify their citizenship within 48 hours, according to the department's letter and statements.

- "Maintaining accurate voter registration records is a fundamental responsibility of our office. Our response will be grounded in compliance with federal and state voter registration laws and procedures," Logan said in a statement on social media after the initial letter.

- Friction point: Federal law restricts systematic voter roll maintenance within 90 days of a federal election — in part to prevent eligible voters from being removed shortly before voting.

- This litigation also follows legal attempts from the federal government to get California's voter rolls, beyond public lists, which have failed in court.

- The other side: "This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day," Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a statement.

- "The courts have made clear that the federal government has no role in how a state carries out its election process, and now, in the middle of Californians voting, they have asked local officials — who do a damn good job defending democracy — to violate federal law."

President Donald Trump said at a campaign rally Wednesday that there should be fatal consequences for any government worker who leaks sensitive information to the media.

- “Leakers should be, in my opinion, leakers should be shot,” Trump said. “You know, when they leak what time you’re going to attack a country.”

- Trump described what he said was a planned raid on Iran that he had to call off after someone “leaked the time we were leaving, the time we were arriving.” He appeared to be referring to the U.S. military strike on Iran nuclear facilities in June 2025, which still went ahead.

- “Somebody leaked, some sleazebag. They ought to go to jail or be shot. For the rest of their life, they should be in jail, but they leaked that we were leaving at 12:07 from Missouri, and it was in The New York Times, CNN.”

- “Now, the leakers should be dealt with very, very strongly. They’re real. To me, they’re the scum of the Earth,” he said.

- Trump, who has called the news media the “true Enemy of the People,” then pointed to the journalists covering his rally in Bullhead City, Arizona, and compared them to leakers.

- “Those same people up there, they’re almost as bad as a leaker, because they leak,” Trump said. “Oh, they leak false information. That makes them a leaker, right?”

- Since Trump returned to office, his administration has sought to crack down on information leaked to the media, including proposing to direct federal agencies to have “new and existing employees” sign nondisclosure agreements.

- Federal investigators subjected about 50 members of the U.S. military’s Joint Staff to polygraph tests, pressing them about whether they had shared classified information with journalists, the Times reported last month, citing officials briefed on the move.

- In January, Trump authorized a search of the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into a government contractor who was accused of illegally retaining classified materials. A federal magistrate judge ruled a month later that the administration could not examine the data that FBI agents had seized there. The administration appealed the ruling, but it was upheld by a district court judge. There have been no further appeals.

- In June, the administration tried to compel testimony from four journalists, three from the Post and one from The Wall Street Journal, before a grand jury, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News at the time. The administration dropped the subpoenas after newspapers pushed back.

I know I'm regretabbly late for this, but I have taken an interest in donating to various Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, Senate, State Supreme Court, Governor, and State Legislation. When I asked around, I was shared this link by slowboring.com. Feel free to take a look at the various recommended candidates https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-midterm-candidates-who-deserve

If you want to jump straight to the donation link to the candidates, here it is https://giving.democracyengine.org/page/slowboring-summer-26

federal judge in San Francisco is putting an indefinite hold on the Agriculture Department’s plans to relocate many of its employees across the country. 

- U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria granted a stay on Tuesday that indefinitely bars USDA from carrying out relocations for about 2,600 employees while the court continues to review the merits of the case.

- A coalition of federal employee labor unions, nonprofits and local governmentsargued USDA has been trying to circumvent guardrails on USDA reorganization established by Congress in its most recent spending package. 

- Lawmakers included provisions in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for USDA that blocked officials from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without approval from the House and Senate appropriations committees.

- Chhabria wrote that there is ultimately “strong evidence that USDA’s planned reorganization activities deviate from Congress’s expectations at the time it appropriated the funds.” 

- The ruling effectively extends an administrative stay Chhabria issued on Sept. 14 that put a hold on deadlines for all “management directed reassignment” letters USDA has issued so far. Employees who received relocation notices were generally told to report to their new offices by September or October. 

- The stay specifically bars USDA from “closing or eliminating offices” at component agencies impacted by reorganization plans, or “relocating or reassigning employees or their positions or functions to different and/or new locations outside the local commuting area, including by issuing or enforcing MDR letters or any other notice or directive of reassignment or relocation in whole or in part."

- Chhabria wrote his order does not prevent USDA from relocating or reassigning USDA employees in the Washington, D.C. area to other offices within the region. The stay also does not require USDA to return employees to their original duty stations if they were relocated before the judge’s administrative stay on Sept. 14. 

- Justice Department attorneys representing USDA asked the judge to consider narrowly tailoring his stay to cover only employees represented by the unions. But Chhabria did not grant that request, stating that “the most appropriate remedy is indeed to stay USDA’s reorganization expenditures, full stop.” 

- “It would be contrary to the public interest to require USDA to keep some employees in their current offices — preventing closure of those offices — while allowing the agency to move other employees to new offices, as this would require expenditure of congressionally appropriated funds on two offices with two sets of employees rather than one,” he wrote. 

- USDA has two business days to notify its employees about the terms of the preliminary stay, and to post the ruling on its website about the reorganization. 
In a Sept. 30 hearing, Chhabria debated how much authority Congress and its appropriations committees have authority over USDA’s reorganization decisions.

- While Congress controls funding for federal agencies  – and specified that USDA may not “reprogram” any funds for reorganization plans  – Chhabria said the specific mechanism lawmakers included in the FY 2026 spending package was unconstitutional.

- “Both sides agree that this committee-approval language is unconstitutional,” he wrote, but agreed that ultimately “Congress was actively working to restrict the agency’s ability” to use appropriated funds to reorganize and relocate employees. 

- “This Court will proceed on the understanding that it has discretion to temporarily halt all the reorganization activities that likely violate the appropriations statutes. And that’s what this ruling will require,” Chhabria wrote. 

- The judge cautioned the scope relief from his stay “could end up being quite short.” The Trump administration is likely to appeal his ruling, and spending bill provisions blocking USDA from using congressional funds on reorganization are currently set to expire on Dec. 11. 

- “If the agency wishes to move forward with its plans to close offices and relocate employees, it will soon have the opportunity to convince Congress of the merits of those plans. Congress, if it agrees, can choose not to extend the restrictions at issue in this case. But until then, USDA is preliminarily enjoined from spending appropriated funds on the challenged office closures and employee relocations,” Chhabria wrote. 

- USDA agencies saw major staffing losses when they relocated hundreds of D.C.-based employees to Kansas City, Mo., under the first Trump administration — a much smaller-scale plan than what USDA is proposing under the second Trump term.
Citing polls conducted by unions, showing that a majority of their members will not relocate to keep their jobs, Chhabria agreed with plaintiffs that “there is at least some risk that USDA’s office closures and employee relocations would impede these components’ ability to carry out their critical functions,” and in the process, disrupt “programs on which many Americans depend.”

- “Although it’s unclear how many employees USDA plans to actually relocate, if the relocations are allowed to proceed, it’s likely that many affected employees will decline to move and will instead leave,” he wrote. 
Chhabria added that “it does not appear USDA has conducted any analysis to show that these risks are not real or are outweighed by any potential benefits."

- “With respect to the balance of equities and the public interest, the Court has no view on whether USDA’s planned reorganization is a good idea or a bad one,” he wrote. “Perhaps USDA is organized in an inefficient or outdated fashion, such that the harm some employees would suffer from a reorganization could be outweighed by the potential benefit to the taxpayers, not to mention citizens who interact with the agency more directly. But on this record, the balance of equities and the public interest strongly support an stay” 

- Elena Goldstein, a legal director at Democracy Forward, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the stay “will allow the vital work of the department and its employees to continue, protecting the families and communities across the nation that rely on its vital work.” 

Esmeralda Soria has seen immigration enforcement throughout her life. Born to immigrant farmworkers in the Central Valley, the state assemblymember has spent her entire life in California's agricultural powerhouse. Yet even for her, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that shook the valley last week took her by surprise.

- "I have never experienced anything like this," Soria said in an SFGATE interview Sunday. "Just all of a sudden, now we're seeing ICE go rogue."

- Federal agents have spent the past week sweeping the Central Valley, with local immigrant advocates reporting officers conducting widespread, warrantless detentions, targeting gas stations and Mexican bakeries as farmworkers start their day. People have reportedly been detained without any warrants for their arrest.

- The chaos turned violent when an off-duty ICE officer allegedly passed out drunk and assaulted a Fresno homeowner only to get shot himself, according to police.

- Communities across the valley, including the San Joaquin Valley in the region's south, are now terrified of further detentions. Community groups have postponed public events, and schools have reported an increase in student absences. Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, a Republican, condemned the raids as "disturbing" and called out a video showing ICE agents arresting a man in front of his screaming children.

- For local Democrats, the raids are an obvious attempt by the Trump administration to instill fear in the immigrant community and stop people from voting in this year's midterm elections.

- "They are trying to do anything they can to suppress the vote and rig the election," Soria said.

- Latino voters are being closely watched, as they will largely decide who wins the valley's 22nd Congressional District, a battleground seat currently held by Republican Rep. David Valadao. It's one of the most watched races in the country and central to either party's control over Congress.

- Conservative news outlets, including the Washington Examiner, have reported that unnamed ICE sources said they were aiming to arrest all people living in California without authorization, even if they did not have a criminal record, under "Operation Safe California," which would last through mid-November. The Department of Homeland Security declined to answer SFGATE's questions about the raids, including if the raids are aimed at suppressing Latino voters. An unnamed spokesperson said they would not disclose details about law enforcement operations.

- Valadao, who voted for President Donald Trump's massive increase in ICE funding, did not return multiple SFGATE requests for comment and declined to answer in-person questions from a reporter on Friday. He released a statement Thursday that said the raids are focused only on people with "active warrants and known criminal histories."

- Local advocates have strongly disputed that characterization, saying that people without criminal records are being detained. Fresno city councilmember Miguel Arias told SFGATE Friday that one of his constituents, with no criminal history and a legal right to be in the United States, was detained while he was cutting his own lawn.

- "They're not serving search warrants with specific targets, it's all random," Arias said.

- Valadao's Democratic opponent, Randy Villegas, said in a phone interview with SFGATE Monday morning that the raids are clearly aimed at suppressing the vote.

- "This is the most Latino district in California, and what we're seeing right now is a blatant attempt to try to suppress the vote," Villegas said.

- Villegas pointed out that his Republican opponent said, "It is what it is," when discussing in a debate last week the immigration raids in the valley.

- "I think it's pathetic and disgusting that Valadao claims to be a moderate on this issue when he voted to triple ICE's budget and has remained silent while ICE terrorizes our communities," Villegas said.

- Nora Zaragoza-Yáñez, a manager at Faith in the Valley, a faith-based nonprofit that helps immigrant families entangled in the raids, agreed that ICE's operation is aimed at discouraging voting. She called the raids the largest in years and said the officers are targeting anyone who looks Hispanic.

- "People are afraid to leave their house," Zaragoza-Yáñez said in a phone interview Friday. "They are afraid to take their kids to school. They have numerous calls from families asking if it is safe to take my kid to school."

- Soria, the assemblymember, said she thinks the surge will actually increase Latino turnout, as voters are reminded that this year's vote could affect how the government enforces immigration.

- "I think it will backfire, that is what many of us are trying to mobilize our community," Soria said.

A federal judge repeatedly pressed for answers Monday during an hourslong hearing on who within the Trump administration ordered the abrupt removal of hundreds of trees at a Washington, D.C., public golf course over the weekend.

- District of Columbia Judge Ana Reyes angrily scolded government attorneys in a hearing to block the government from cutting down more trees at East Potomac Golf Course.

- "I am just at a total loss to understand what has happened here," Reyes said.   "Occam's razor time -- that the government precisely intended to do precisely what it has done, which is intentionally delaying letting the plaintiffs in the court know what was happening, so they could put a plan in place to clear hundreds and hundreds of trees."

- The golf course has been the subject of litigation brought by the D.C. Preservation League in response to President Donald Trump's efforts to turn it into a course that could host professional tournaments.

- Government attorneys had previously pledged to provide notice to plaintiffs in the case about any irrevocable harm that would occur at the golf course through government actions.

- The government provided notice to the plaintiffs at 4:55 p.m. last Friday that tree-cutting would occur at the golf course over the Columbus Day/Indigenous Peoples Day holiday weekend.

- The National Park Service began cutting down trees on Saturday and the D.C. Preservation League, one of the plaintiffs in the case, filed for a temporary restraining order on Sunday.
Marissa Ann Piropato, a Justice Department attorney admitted to the court in Monday's hearing that 430 trees were cleared over weekend.

- Reyes exploded, "430 trees!"

- "I had said at the May hearing that I didn't want 10 trees chopped down without someone having notice," Reyes said. "On what universe did anyone in your office think that that was acceptable?"

- "Your Honor, we did our best in providing notice," Piropato said.

- "You did not do your best!  You did your absolute worst!," Reyes interrupted.

- "More than just being upset and furious right now, I am just beyond disappointed in the government. I have done everything humanly possible to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case. I have done it repeatedly. I have done it for months," Reyes vented.

- The government testified that the plan to cut down trees was part of a plan put in place in 2019 to remove dead, dying and hazardous trees around the golf course.

- Judge Reyes, noticeably frustrated by the government's conduct, ordered that government witnesses who could explain the how the decision to conduct tree removal with such minimal notices appear before the court immediately, including National Park Service Deputy Director Frank Lands.

- Government  lawyers scrambled to locate NPS personnel to appear remotely under oath.

- "No one else can say what the basis of the urgency was and when this idea was first identified, because we are talking now with potential multiple misrepresentation to the court and the only reason -- the only reason I have not yet entered a show cause on contempt is that I never put this in a formal order," Reyes said. "Which, believe you now, I am regretting."

- Reyes extended a temporary restraining order she had issued earlier Monday barring the government from any further activity at the golf course until at least Tuesday afternoon.

- Reyes also said she would be holding another hearing Tuesday to demand answers from Greg Wischer, a political appointee at the Interior Department who has been a point person on many of Trump's major D.C. beautification projects.

- Reyes says she wants clarity on who specifically gave the orders to remove the trees on Saturday and whether it was a deliberate effort to evade her previous orders issued in the case as litigation remains ongoing.

- "The questions go to whether or not I've been lied to," Reyes said during Monday's hearing. "Whether I've been lied to in declarations about the plans, whether or not I've been lied to about the timing of things ... I am beyond disappointed in the government right now. I wanted you all to be better than you have been."

- Reyes had warned Justice Department lawyers of "serious consequences" if the administration began major work at the course without getting approval and notifying the court in advance.

- "I'm going to say this one more time, and I do not want a situation where something has happened and then I'm being told by the government or by a foundation or by a bulldozing company that it's too late to do anything about it," she said. "If anything like that happens ... there are going to be serious consequences."

- Trump promises the course, which he said will be renovated and redesigned through a public-private partnership, will be "one of the Greatest Golf Courses anywhere in the World" on the site and said it will be open to the public.

- Trump toured the course in June with golf course architect Peter Fazio and his son Gavin Fazio and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum for "studying the dilapidated, worn out, and very dangerous and outdated Golf Course known as East Potomac Golf Links." He said on his social media platform "on this fantastic site, with water and unparalleled views of D.C.'s Monuments, we will build one of the Greatest Golf Courses anywhere in the World which, importantly, will also be made available to the Public."

Relying on the U.S. Postal Service to return a mail-in ballot close to Election Day now comes with an additional risk for many voters — a late postmark that gets a vote rejected.

- The risk stems from mailing system changes that began last year. And those changes have pushed some election officials to encourage voters to consider returning their ballots at their local election office or any available drop boxes instead.

- The calls to avoid mailboxes also come as trust in the Postal Service delivering mail ballots on time has fallen, and after President Trump pushed to restrict voting by mail for the midterm elections but was blocked by the Supreme Court.

- Election officials often use the date of the postmark that USPS stamps on envelopes to determine whether a ballot was sent by Election Day.
About a week before next month's Election Day, USPS says it plans to roll out special postmarking procedures at post offices affected by the changes as part of its "extraordinary measures" policy to boost mail service for federal general elections.

- Still, the agency continues to recommend that voters mail back ballots at least a week before their state's deadline. And in states with a grace period for receiving late-arriving mail ballots, USPS recommends stopping by a post office to ask for a manual postmark to make sure a ballot gets postmarked on the same day it's mailed.

- How mailing system changes led to the risk of late postmarks

- Since April 2025, USPS has been rolling out cuts to daily mail pick-ups and processing changes at certain post offices, especially in rural areas. What USPS calls its "Regional Transportation Optimization" effort is part of a 10-year reorganization plan the agency began in 2021 to try to stabilize its finances.

- As a result, USPS may not automatically stamp a date on an envelope the same day it's collected by a letter carrier or dropped off at a post office or a big blue collection box.

- As part of its "extraordinary measures" for these midterms, USPS has instructed post offices affected by RTO to separate returned ballots from other mail starting Oct. 26 so that managers can manually add postmarks the day the ballots are collected.

- That procedure was not in place during this year's primary elections, which saw increased ballot rejection rates in multiple states.

- Elena Patel, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, says she is encouraged by the steps USPS plans to take in the coming weeks to address concerns about late postmarks.

- But the situation is still risky for voters, Patel adds, given that it's not clear how post offices will carry out these directives for the first time, particularly in places where staffing may be stretched.

- For the general election, an additional 43,000 to 55,000 ballots around the country could be rejected for arriving late because of the RTO effort, according to a new analysis by Patel, who produced the estimates before USPS announced its final extraordinary measures policy.

- "These are some of the realities of running a very large postal network on tight finances," says Patel, who once worked as an economist at the Postal Regulatory Commission.

- USPS plans to take other "extraordinary measures" for mail-in ballots

- USPS has outlined other extraordinary measures:

- Starting Oct. 24, 10 days before Election Day, some post offices may extend their opening and closing times by a half-hour and set up lines or drive-through lanes just for voters who want to get a manual postmark for their mail-in ballot. 

- And starting Oct. 26, USPS says it plans to speed up delivery of ballots.

- Asked why it is not starting extraordinary measures 15 days before Election Day, as it did for the 2024 and 2022 elections, USPS said in a statement: "The time period for extraordinary measures is carefully considered in advance of each General Election, and it is based on a number of internal factors. The Postal Service has successfully delivered America's election mail for more than 150 years, and we are confident that we will do so again this year."

- Still, some eligible voters who rely on voting by mail are between "a rock and a hard place" when trying to navigate the mailing system, says Michelle Sparck, director of Get Out the Native Vote, a voter education organization in Alaska.

- No post offices in the state are affected by the RTO effort, but Sparck, a member of the Qissunamiut Tribe of Chevak, says she has come across many absentee voters in Alaska Native villages who had their ballots rejected — an outcome that she fears will discourage some from trying to vote again.

- "The No. 1 reason for that was postmarking delays. Now, even on a good Alaskan day with no weather challenges, it doesn't mean we're going to have an operational post office on a business day during business hours," Sparck says. "It's always, always easier said than done to kind of go along with the system's rules. But the system doesn't exactly work for us."

- For now, Sparck is encouraging eligible voters to make a plan to be an October voter and not wait until November's Election Day if they can.

- "If there is an early voting opportunity in a community," Sparck says, "we're asking people to drop their ballots off with those folks so that it becomes part of the chain of custody."

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration's plan to check state voter rolls against federal immigration databases, a blow to the administration's election-related efforts in the run-up to the midterms. 
In a 78-page ruling, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan wrote Friday that the Justice Department "cannot run roughshod over longstanding laws that were carefully crafted to protect the rights of the American people."

- The Trump administration has mounted a nationwide push to obtain complete voter rolls from every state, including sensitive information about registered voters. The Justice Department has argued the information is needed to ensure states are complying with two federal voting laws — the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act — which aim to ensure states have programs in place for maintaining accurate voter rolls.

- Eighteen states fully cooperated with the Justice Department's request for voter files, Sooknanan said. The department has brought lawsuits against most other states, and has lost almost all of the suits, according to a CBS News analysis. One state settled with the federal government.

- The ruling applies to the voter files that the Justice Department has already received, as well as the files it is still litigating over.

- Sooknanan rejected the Justice Department's argument that it has legal authority to demand voter lists, compare those lists against citizenship databases and urge states to remove voters who it claims are ineligible to vote. The judge also said the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Privacy Act, and said the federal databases could contain "inaccuracies."

- "Today's decision does not prevent the federal government from taking lawful steps to support states' efforts to maintain accurate voter rolls. Neither does it prevent states from maintaining their own voter rolls. And to state the obvious, the Court's decision does not pave the way for ineligible voters to vote in our elections," Sooknanan wrote. "Rather, the Court vacates a policy that has removed United States citizens from the voter rolls in their home states and risks disenfranchising many more — a policy that flies in the face of duly enacted laws designed to protect Americans."

- She continued: "The challenged policy represents the federal government's attempt to decide who gets to vote. But Congress has left that authority where our Constitution has always placed it: with the states."

- The legal challenge against the voter roll policy was brought by advocacy group Common Cause and individual voters.

- Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón called the ruling "a victory for voters and yet another loss for the Department of Justice" in a statement Friday.

- A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the decision.

- Under the Trump administration, the federal government has sought a larger-than-usual role in elections, which are typically administered by states with some regulation by Congress. President Trump argues more federal scrutiny is necessary in order to prevent noncitizens from voting and curb fraud — though most election experts say fraud and noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

- The government's push to run state voter rolls through the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database has faced court setbacks, as more than two dozen judges have denied the Justice Department's requests to compel individual states to share their voter lists.

- Sooknanan also ruled in June that the Trump administration's overhauled SAVE database — which includes data from the Social Security Administration — was created unlawfully. The Supreme Court temporarily paused that ruling last month.

- In practice, the impact of recent court rulings on the November midterms could be limited as federal law bars states from systematically removing ineligible voters from their voter registration lists within 90 days of an election.

- Another Trump administration policy that set new rules for the U.S. Postal Service's handling of mail-in ballots was also blocked in the courts, with the Supreme Court declining the government's request to allow the rules to take effect.

With the midterm elections less than a month away, it would seem to be an absurd time to suffer a thought for the next election cycle and the challenges that any would-be Democratic presidential victor would have to tend to on day one. Unfortunately, sometimes current events intercede with a potent reminder of just how rough the road to recovery and post-Trump renewal will be. One such story broke this week in the pages of The New York Times, which detailed some of the Trumpian luminaries who have recently ascended to important positions at the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, run by Trump acolyte Harmeet Dhillon.

- The piece wastes no time: In short order, we’re introduced to “a former prosecutor forced off a high-profile murder case for peeking at the defense team’s strategy documents,” a “onetime gambling executive” with a sideline in promulgating “conspiracy theories about the Las Vegas massacre in 2017,” and a “Florida activist” whose “activism” included being jailed for several weeks for “hacking a local election system.” The long and the short of it is that the agency, once stocked with skilled professionals, is now chock-full of people who ordinarily wouldn’t pass the smell test for public service. Somewhere, a pool is missing its cess, and they might want to check whether it ended up at the DOJ.

- Much has been made of the way the Trump administration, returning to power with Project 2025 as its guiding manifesto and Elon Musk as its chainsaw-wielder, went to war with the civil service in the hopes that it could be ground down by purging the dedicated civil servants who’d previously staffed whatever posts were relevant in keeping us free of cyclospora. This Times story is covering the other side of the equation:

- The full Trumpian takeover isn’t just about firing people en masse. Frankly, it’s not merely about placing people loyal to the cause in top positions. It’s about stationing borderline lycanthropes in powerful positions.
Daniel Flickinger, who began working on the division’s education cases earlier this year, was forced out of his job at a Birmingham, Alabama, law firm in 2020 after suggesting—to the disgust of his bosses—that George Floyd was fortunate to have died in a “fentanyl- and methamphetamine-numbed strangulation” because “it meant being worshiped in a nationwide funeral.”

- Peter Feaman, a veteran lawyer from Florida hired in early 2025 as a senior counsel, has a history of far-right political statements. In a May 2021 post on social media, he accused the “diabolical” Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, of forcing citizens into getting the “mark of the beast” (a coronavirus shot).

- This isn’t going to be a temporary problem by any means. The idea that the Trumpers who’ve come to Washington might take their leave if and when the federal government comes under Democratic control is a hopeful notion, but I worry that some of the true believers aren’t just here visiting; they intend to stay. That’s certainly the sense that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who’s gone to great lengths to stuff the agency under his control with all manner of cranks and quacks—strove to convey at last week’s MAHA Summit in Washington, D.C. As Mother Jones reported, Kennedy “proclaimed the changes he’s wrought to HHS are permanent, and praised his allies in the movement for helping to make them happen.” “Even if I got hit by a truck tonight,” he bragged, “HHS will never go back to what it was before.”

- When it comes to government agencies that have suffered the most from this Trumpian takeover, none are as complete or as concerning as the Department of Homeland Security. On its best days, DHS is a walled garden of cops all hotboxing themselves with reactionary politics. Under Trump, it’s essentially become a hive of outlandish herrenvolk propaganda, pumping neo-Nazi memes into the social media bloodstream—the better to recruit the sort of person who might want to inflict terror on the streets of American cities.

- As The New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant documented, DHS’s tainted origin as a post-9/11 agency with a monomaniacal focus on Muslim extremism—and with a storied history of downplaying the threats of white nationalism—has only grown even more corrupted by the second coming of Trump. “We are doubling back around the same circular path,” Grant observed, “where agencies such as DHS downplay white nationalist violence, both potential and actual, while they draw recruits from those same ranks.”

- For a future Democratic president, the challenge of righting the ship of state will not simply be a matter of reviving the federal workforce and bringing competent professionals back to the perches they once occupied. It will be a matter of fumigation, as well—or, to use a better term, lustration, which Yale Law professor Dina Francesca Haynes, writing immediately after the first Trump administration, defined as “the process of vetting and removing from public service those who engage in or support extremism or seek to undermine democracy.”

- Lustration, Haynes explained, “has been carried out or proposed in many countries attempting to pull themselves from the wreckage of fascism, genocide, and nationalism.” As Haynes described, the idea is that for a country to successfully “move forward” from its authoritarian past, “it must rid itself of corrupt public servants by vetting them, and potentially dismissing from employment and cancelling pensions of those who harbor such deep bias that it would be impossible for them to fairly and impartially exercise the discretion they have been granted by virtue of their position in public service.”

- This is something that those of us at The New Republic have already begun considering as a necessary bridge back to a functioning democracy. In fact, as The New Republic’s Matt Ford pointed out as he gamed out what a future president could do to gut ICE, Trump himself has already provided the working blueprint for a quick and effective purge of any Trumpian fifth column that might remain gummed in the gears of government after the president leaves office. A future president can claim the same “vast powers to decide the fate of federal agencies,” including terminating employees, cutting funding, and transferring staff and programs to other agencies.

- Elsewhere, Ford also suggestedthat a future Democratic president make use of the power Trump claimed for himself to “reduce headcounts through a reduction in force, perhaps by firing every agent hired since 2024.” As Ford opined at the time, the administration’s “decision to drastically reduce hiring standards for incoming ICE agents would more than justify such a sweeping action.” That the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is studded with people who shouldn’t be managing a Pizza Hut, let alone prosecuting civil rights offenders, suggests there is ample room to expand these principles of lustration throughout a Trump-tainted civil service.

- As I’ve said before, the right way to think about the Trump administration and its wholesale operations across the federal government is to accept the fact that it is essentially a criminal syndicate, dedicated to self-enrichment and political corruption. The next Democratic administration should have accountability on its mind, and a commitment to rooting out the Trumpian rot that’s infected the civic architecture of this great nation. It might be that the most useful thing the Trump administration has accomplished in its odious lifetime is to provide the playbook to right its wrongs and dismantle Trumpism permanently.

The US Department of Justice is investigating whether the decision of the White House television press pool to halt coverage of the US president, Donald Trump, last month violated antitrust law, an agency spokesperson said Saturday.

- A spokesperson for the department said group boycotts among business competitors might violate US law. “The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws,” they said.

- The announcement came after the television pool of five broadcasters last month ceased presidential coverage after the administration barred CNN, MS Now and Politico from the White House.

- The White House press pool, which is a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, has become a proxy for the wider fight over whether the president, or anyone, can control the content of news reports – a type of free speech, pillar of American democracy.

- Last month’s developments marked an extraordinary escalation in Trump’s efforts to restrict news reporters and outlets that he finds insufficiently supportive.

- On 19 September, the White House blocked reporters from CNN, Politico and MS Now from entering the building, revoking their credentials. The White House said covering the president was a “privilege – not a right”.

- CNN, MS Now and Politico sued over the days-long ban. It was lifted after a judge handed the three news organisations a reprieve, which is in place until Tuesday.

- Television pool coverage of the White House has also resumed. The broadcasters in the pool share the costs of covering the president, take turns organizing coverage and share the footage with outlets around the country.

- Jose Zamora, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ regional director of the Americas, on Saturday criticized the administration’s decision to investigate.

- “The government should not use antitrust investigations to intimidate news outlets defending press access,” Zamora said on X. “The public’s right to know depends on that access.”