#midterms-2026
19 entries with this tag
Months After Gutting the Voting Rights Act So Elected Officials Could Redraw Districts However They Please, the Supreme Court Handed Them the Other Half of the Power Over Elections — Clearing the Trump Administration to Let States Screen Voter Rolls With SAVE, a Federal Database So Flawed That More Than One in Five Texans It Flagged as Noncitizens Turned Out to Be Citizens — Over the Three Liberal Justices' Dissent That Disenfranchising "Even a Few Lawful Voters" Outweighs the Government's "Nonexistent" Harm
On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court and cleared the way for the Trump administration to let states use SAVE — the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database — to check the citizenship of registered voters before the November midterms. The order, on the emergency docket, drew a public dissent from the three liberal justices. The Court limited the ruling to "individualized" citizenship checks and noted that federal law still bars mass purges close to Election Day, reserving that larger question for a case next term. But the tool it revived is notoriously inaccurate, and it fails in one direction: it disproportionately flags naturalized citizens as ineligible. When Texas ran its voter rolls through SAVE, it identified 2,724 "potential noncitizens" — and then confirmed that at least 578 of them, more than one in five, were in fact U.S. citizens. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented that "the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences" — noting there is no meaningful noncitizen-voting problem for the database to solve. Seen alongside the Court's April decision gutting the Voting Rights Act to free legislators to gerrymander at will, this ruling completes a pattern: having let elected officials decide how voters are grouped, the Court is now letting the political branches decide, through a faulty database, who counts as a voter at all.
When a Republican Congressman Forced a Vote to Impeach Defense Secretary Hegseth for Unlawfully Waging War on Iran, the Republican Speaker Canceled Congress's Last Scheduled Day and Sent the Whole House Home Early for a Seven-Week Recess — Punting the Vote Past the Midterms to Spare Vulnerable Members From Having to Say, on the Record, Where They Stand on Hegseth
On September 15, 2026, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for unlawfully waging war against Iran without congressional authorization. Massie filed the resolution as "privileged," a procedural move that would normally force the House to act on it within two legislative days. Speaker Mike Johnson's response was to make sure the House was not there to act: he canceled the chamber's last scheduled votes and sent members home a day early for a seven-week pre-midterm recess, taking a final vote Wednesday night on a Russia sanctions bill and then adjourning. The effect is that the Hegseth impeachment vote will not happen until at least November — after the election. Republican leaders insisted the timing had nothing to do with Hegseth, and Johnson called Massie's effort "ridiculous" while defending the secretary. But the reason was reported plainly: leaders wanted to protect vulnerable Republicans — many uneasy with Hegseth's leadership during the unpopular six-month Iran war — from a politically difficult vote. The tell is that impeachment was never likely to pass a Republican House; what leadership could not stomach was making its own members go on the record about Hegseth at all. So rather than hold the vote and defeat it, they canceled Congress and fled town.
After a Yearlong Campaign to Restrict Mail Voting and Repeated Emergency Trips to a Friendly Supreme Court, Trump Was Finally Told No: the Court Left Judge Talwani's Block in Place, Refusing to Let His USPS Mail-Ballot Rule Take Effect for the 2026 Midterms — Finding the Administration Unlikely to Win and, Per Kavanaugh, That Imposing the Rushed Rule Now Would Be "Arbitrary and Capricious"; Only Thomas and Alito Publicly Dissented
On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court refused to let Trump's mail-voting restrictions take effect for the 2026 midterm elections — leaving in place the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani and denying the administration's emergency bid to lift it. The practical result: voters will not face the new hurdles this fall. The Court's majority said the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, allowed that there is "at least a fair prospect" the USPS rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority, but concluded that applying it in the 2026 elections "would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections" — precisely the rushed, unworkable timeline that a whistleblower, the states, and Judge Talwani had all warned about. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented; no other justice disclosed a vote to let the rule proceed. This is a defeat for Trump, and a notable one: the same Court that in August lifted an earlier injunction in his favor declined, weeks later, to clear his signature voter-suppression scheme in time for the election it was built for. The rule would have required states to upload voter lists to USPS and meet new ballot-envelope and barcode requirements, letting the Postal Service withhold ballots from voters not on a federal database. For this election, it is dead.
At Trump's Midterm Convention, as Ted Cruz Named Three Democratic Candidates From the Stage, Audience Members Were Heard on the Broadcast Shouting "He Should Be Shot!" After Each Name — Cruz Did Not Stop or Condemn It, and It Happened on the One-Year Anniversary of a Political Assassination That Republicans Spent the Day Denouncing
On the closing night of the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, September 10, 2026, Sen. Ted Cruz was criticizing prominent Democrats by name from the stage. As he named New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, and Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, audience members were heard — audibly, on the convention broadcast — shouting "He should be shot!" after each name. It is important to be precise about who said what: the shouts came from the crowd, not from Cruz and not from Trump. But Cruz did not stop, acknowledge, or condemn the calls for violence in the moment; it is unclear whether he heard them, and his office and the RNC did not immediately respond. The incident carried a grim extra weight because it happened on the one-year anniversary of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk — a day many Republicans spent decrying political violence, even as attendees at their own convention openly called for named opponents to be shot. This belongs in the record not because Trump or Cruz spoke the words, but because it is the atmosphere Trump's movement has cultivated made audible: a crowd at his flagship event treating "shoot the Democrats" as an ordinary thing to yell, and a stage full of leaders who let it pass.
To Close His Dallas Convention, Trump Led the Crowd in a Loyalty Oath to Himself — Calling Himself "the Greatest President in the History of the United States" and Telling Anyone Who Doesn't Vote They'll "Go to Hell" — and, in the Same Breath as His Yearlong Crusade Against Imaginary Democratic "Fraud," Urged His Own Supporters to "Cheat Like Hell": "I Don't Care If I'm Registered or Not"
On September 10, 2026, closing the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Trump led the crowd in an extended "pledge" to vote — and told them to cheat. In the oath he directed the room to repeat, he said: "I don't care if I'm registered or not. I'm going to try and cheat like hell like they do. There's never been bigger cheaters." He told those who fail to vote that they would "go to hell," and described himself, mid-oath, as "the greatest president in the history of the United States." The moment is remarkable on two fronts. First, it is a sitting president openly urging his supporters to cheat in an election — even framed as bravado, an extraordinary thing for the head of state to say — and it detonates his own justification for a yearlong assault on voting access. Across this archive, Trump has restricted mail ballots, pushed a national voter database, and built a "citizenship verification" apparatus, all in the name of stopping Democratic "fraud" he has never substantiated. Here he tells his own crowd to "cheat like hell," which exposes the fraud rhetoric as projection and pretext: the cheating he warns about is the cheating he is now endorsing, for his side. Second, the "pledge" was to him personally — a loyalty oath to a man who called himself the greatest president in history and consigned non-voters to hell. A get-out-the-vote drive turned into a cult liturgy with a confession of intent to cheat built in.
The Unprecedented Off-Year "Convention" Trump Forced His Party to Stage Finally Happened — and Flopped in Public View: He Took the Stage to Hundreds of Empty Seats and Insisted "This Place Is Packed," Battleground Candidates the GOP Needs Stayed Away, the Program Ran on Hours of Praise for Him, and He Dangled a Vague $5,000 "Dividend" — All While Keeping Up the Social-Media Sprees That Defined His Week
On September 9-10, 2026, the first-ever midterm "convention" — the off-year Trump rally in Dallas that he personally demanded and that his party priced like a fundraiser, documented earlier in this archive — actually took place, and it played out as a self-inflicted embarrassment. Trump keynoted the opening night to an American Airlines Center with hundreds of empty seats, and told the crowd anyway that "this place is packed." A number of Republican lawmakers and candidates skipped it entirely — including some running in the battleground races the party must win to keep the House — a vote of no-confidence from the very people the event was supposed to help. The program leaned on hours of speeches praising Trump before he appeared, and his keynote featured a vague promise to send American adults $5,000 "dividends" if Republicans win control of Congress, an assurance long on number and short on mechanism. All of it unfolded against the backdrop of the erratic Truth Social sprees that have defined his week — renaming New Mexico "New America," a stock-trading brag, a threat to halt global trade. The convention was pitched as a show of strength before November. What it displayed instead was a party that spent a fortune to build a stage for a leader too unpopular for its own candidates to stand on with him — and a leader who looked at a half-empty arena and told everyone it was full.
At His Half-Empty Dallas Convention, Trump Promised to Send Every Adult American Citizen a $5,000 "Dividend" — but Only If Republicans Win Both the House and the Senate in November: a Trillion-Dollar-Plus Offer With No Funding Plan, Framed as an Explicit "Elect My Party and I'll Pay You," From the Same President Whose Earlier $2,000 "Tariff Dividend" Checks Were Promised and Never Arrived
On September 9, 2026, in his keynote at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Trump promised to pay every adult U.S. citizen a $5,000 "dividend" — on the express condition that Republicans win both the House and the Senate in November. His words: "If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them ... I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000." He branded it the "Trump dividend" and added a caveat that the money must be spent domestically, "not in other nations such as Canada, Germany or China." The offer drew immediate accusations that it amounts to a bribe: a president dangling a cash payment to the entire electorate, contingent on his party winning the election. Two facts make it worse. First, it is almost certainly undeliverable as described — economists put the cost at over $1.2 trillion, there is no funding mechanism, and any such payout would require congressional approval that even Republicans have been reluctant to give. Second, Trump has done this before and not delivered: his 2025 promise of $2,000 "tariff dividend" checks by mid-2026 never materialized, with prediction markets ultimately giving it about a 3% chance. The $5,000 version is more than twice as large, funded by nothing more specific than "our tremendous economic success" — a success contradicted by the record gas prices, trade war, and inflation documented across this archive. It is a promise engineered to move votes, unlikely to be kept, offered to a half-empty arena the party's own candidates avoided.
A Federal Judge Blocked Trump's Mail-Ballot Scheme Outright — Ruling the Postal Service Rule Likely Unconstitutional Because Only States and Congress Can Set Election Rules, and Finding That Its Rushed Timeline Would Make Voter Disenfranchisement "Practically Inevitable" Before the Midterms — a Real Defeat, Even as His Administration Had Already Raced to the Supreme Court the Day Before to Override Her
On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service from implementing the mail-ballot rule at the heart of Trump's executive order to restrict voting by mail — a durable block that replaces the temporary one she had issued on August 27. Her findings were sharp: the rule is likely unlawful and unconstitutional because it usurps the states' authority to run their own elections (a power the Constitution gives to states and Congress, not the president), and its rushed timeline would make voter disenfranchisement "practically inevitable" before the November midterms, leaving states an "impossible" schedule to comply. The rule she blocked would have forced state and local election officials to submit their ballot envelopes for USPS "design review," add unique tracking barcodes, and upload voters' names, addresses, and barcode data to a new federal portal — and barred the Postal Service from sending ballots to eligible voters until it approved all of that, regardless of looming deadlines. This is a genuine defeat for Trump, and a detailed judicial repudiation of the scheme. But it may be fragile: the administration had already gone to the Supreme Court the day before asking the justices to override her, and it is expected to appeal. The ruling is documented here because of what it establishes on the record — that a court, examining the actual mechanics, found Trump's mail-voting plan both likely illegal and a near-certain engine of disenfranchisement.
Two Days After a Whistleblower Warned That the Postal Service's Rushed Ballot System Could Reject Votes in Bulk — and After Already Winning One Round at the Supreme Court in August — Trump's Administration Raced Back to the Same Court a Second Time, Asking the Justices to Lift a Fresh Federal Order Blocking the USPS Rule So It Can Switch the System On Before the November Midterms
On September 3, 2026, the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court for the second time in its fight to restrict mail-in voting before the midterms — asking the justices, on an emergency basis, to pause an order by a federal judge in Boston that blocks the U.S. Postal Service from implementing parts of its new mail-ballot rule. The sequence is relentless. Trump's March executive order directs the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on federally compiled citizenship lists; two courts blocked it as unconstitutional; in August the Supreme Court, 6-3, lifted one of those injunctions; USPS then issued a final rule on August 26; and on August 27 a federal court temporarily blocked the agency from implementing parts of it, with that restraining order set to expire September 10 and a ruling on a longer-term injunction expected within days. Rather than wait for that ruling, the administration went straight back to the Supreme Court to try to clear the block now. The timing is the tell: just two days earlier, a federal whistleblower warned Congress that this very USPS system was rushed, untested, and designed with a "zero-percent failure policy" that could reject entire batches of ballots. The administration is, in effect, asking the Supreme Court to let it switch on a machine it was just warned could disenfranchise millions — racing the calendar toward November, and using the emergency docket to keep the fight on procedure so the courts never have to answer the actual question: whether a president has any authority to run elections at all. He does not.
Trump's Multi-Front Assault on How Americans Vote — a Mail-Ballot Executive Order, a Bid for a National Voter Database, Citizenship-Document Demands, and a Rushed USPS System That Could Reject Ballots in Bulk — Has Run Into a Wall of Public Rejection: Mail Voting Is Popular Across Both Parties, Voters Tell Pollsters His Fraud Claims Are "BS," and His Broader Power Grab Drew One of the Largest Protest Days in American History
Trump has spent 2026 waging a coordinated campaign against how Americans vote — an executive order directing the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots, an effort to compile a national database of voters' private data, demands that registrants produce documents like birth certificates and passports, and, as a whistleblower recently revealed, a rushed USPS system that could reject entire batches of ballots. The stated rationale is "election integrity" and the specter of noncitizen voting. The problem for Trump is that Americans are not buying it, and the backlash has been broad and measurable. Mail and early voting are popular across party lines — Pew found 60% of Americans, including 37% of Republicans, believe people should be able to vote early or absentee without an excuse. CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, summarized the polling bluntly: voters feel Trump is "full of it. Full of BS" on mail voting, the attacks "aren't sticking," and he'd be better off moving on. The rejection extends beyond surveys: the "No Kings" mobilization against Trump's imperial turn filled all 50 states with more than 3,300 events, among the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, and roughly 43% of registered voters say they support it, while a Navigator poll found 52% of Americans describe the federal government as "authoritarian." The through-line is that Trump is attacking a voting method his own voters like, on a fraud premise the evidence does not support, and the public — in polls and in the streets — is pushing back.
A Federal Whistleblower Warned Congress That the Postal Service Is Secretly Rushing an Untested System to Enforce Trump's Mail-Ballot Order — Built in Under Three Months for a Job That Normally Takes a Year, and Designed With a "Zero-Percent Failure Policy" That Would Reject an Entire Batch of Ballots if Even One Is Flagged — Which Could Disenfranchise Millions of Voters Before the Midterms, in Apparent Defiance of the Courts
On September 1, 2026, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a whistleblower report from a federal official warning that the U.S. Postal Service is secretly building a rushed, untested system to implement Trump's mail-in-ballot executive order — and that it could keep millions of voters from getting their ballots this November. The system, a "Federal Ballot Mail Portal" to verify that states' mail ballots comply with the new rule, was reportedly not started "in earnest" until June 2026, giving USPS under three months to build something that would normally take nine to twelve. Most alarming is its design: the whistleblower describes a "zero-percent failure policy" under which an entire batch of ballots could be rejected if even a single ballot in it is deemed invalid — meaning, as one account put it, tossing out 9,999 valid ballots to stop one questionable one. The whistleblower says USPS leadership "discarded all best practices" to hit a September 1 deadline, "raising questions about whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug," and alleges that development continued despite court injunctions and a Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the order. These are allegations from an insider, released by a Democratic senator, and USPS is pressing ahead while the DOJ appeals. But if accurate, they describe a plan to disenfranchise voters at scale, in secret, by machine — the operational engine behind a mail-voting order this archive has tracked from executive decree to courtroom.
Trump Told Voters to "Pretend, Please, That I'm on the Ballot," Demanding the Midterms Be a Referendum on Him and Staging a $45 Million Convention in His Own Honor — Even as the Vulnerable Republican Candidates Who Have to Actually Win Quietly Scrub His Name From Their Websites, One Swapping "Trump Conservative" for "Proven Conservative," Because Association With Him Has Become the Thing to Hide
Heading into the 2026 midterms, Trump has made himself the center of everything: more than 200 endorsements, near-total control of Republican strategy, an unprecedented $45 million convention built around him, and a direct message to voters — "Pretend, please, that I'm on the ballot." He wants the election to be a referendum on himself. The problem is that his own party's most vulnerable candidates are betting the opposite way. With his approval ratings dismal, his Iran war unpopular, and inflation and record gas prices weighing on voters, a growing number of Republicans in competitive races have quietly begun putting distance between themselves and the president — tweaking websites, softening language, and in some cases openly breaking with him. A Texas congressional candidate who once branded himself a "TRUMP CONSERVATIVE" now calls himself a "PROVEN CONSERVATIVE"; from California to Kentucky to Alaska, campaigns have trimmed the Trump references; in Michigan, a Republican congressman is campaigning on his vote against Trump's Iran war. The majority of GOP candidates still embrace him, and the party dismisses the trend as a "manufactured storyline." But the tell is unmistakable: a president insisting the midterms be about him, while the people who need to win are deciding that the safest thing to do with his name is take it down. He is demanding a referendum on himself that his own candidates are quietly trying to lose the connection to.
Six Months Into the Iran War He Sold as a Weeks-Long "Little Excursion," Trump Declared Victory by Posting an AI Meme of Himself Reading "Mission Accomplished 2026" — Reviving the Most Notorious Premature Victory Boast in Modern American History, the One Bush Staged Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln — the Very Carrier Now Stranded at Sea Past 260 Days Because This War Won't End; and Around the Same Time, He Approved Sending More Troops
Six months into a war he had promised would be a weeks-long "little excursion," Trump declared he had won it — by posting an AI-generated meme of himself standing between George W. Bush and Iran's slain supreme leader, with one placard reading "Mission Not Accomplished 2001–2021" and another "Mission Accomplished 2026." The imagery deliberately invokes the single most infamous premature victory declaration in modern American history: Bush's 2003 "Mission Accomplished" banner, staged aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, after which the Iraq war ground on for eight more years. Trump apparently intended the comparison to flatter himself; it does the opposite. The war with Iran is not over. There is no final agreement. The Strait of Hormuz is not reliably reopened. His own defense secretary's "decisive military victory" and his serial victory claims — 58 ships sunk in March, a "deal" in June — have all been overtaken by a conflict that keeps going. And in the clearest tell of all, at roughly the same moment he declared the war won, Trump approved the deployment of more troops to the Middle East. You do not reinforce a war you have finished. The victory lap and the reinforcements cannot both be true, and the reinforcements are the ones with soldiers attached. There is even a grim symmetry Trump seems not to have noticed: the carrier that hosted Bush's false victory in 2003, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is the same ship this archive has documented stranded at sea past 260 days, its sailors rationed to corn dogs, because Trump's war has no end.
The Supreme Court Cleared One of the Two Legal Roadblocks to Trump's Mail-Ballot Executive Order — a Decree That Would Let the Postal Service Refuse to Deliver Mail Ballots From States That Don't Hand Over Their Voter Rolls, Months Before the Midterms — Over a Dissent Warning It "Needlessly Injects Chaos" Into the Election; Justice Jackson Called It a "Kafkaesque Nightmare"
On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions that had frozen Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting — an order that, among other things, would have the U.S. Postal Service decline to deliver mail ballots from any state that refuses to hand the federal government a list of every voter receiving one, impose new federal design and tracking standards on mail ballots, and put the Department of Homeland Security in the business of screening state voter rolls. The unsigned order fell along ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections" and calling the situation a "Kafkaesque nightmare"; Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also dissented. Crucially, the order is not yet in effect: a second nationwide injunction — won by the League of Women Voters and other groups on August 11 — still stands, and legal experts expect the trial court to quickly block the Postal Service's newly finalized rule too. But the direction is unmistakable. The Constitution's Elections Clause gives states, not the president, the power to run federal elections, and two federal courts found Trump's order unconstitutional on exactly that ground. The Court didn't bless the order — it explicitly said implementing measures could still be unlawful — but it pulled away one of the barriers holding back a presidential attempt to dictate how Americans vote, mere months before they do.
The Iran War Trump Started With No Cause Is Now Fracturing His Own Movement: Tucker Carlson, Once His Loudest Media Booster, Calls the War "Disgusting and Evil," Accuses Trump of Betraying America First, Apologized for "Misleading" His Audience Into Voting for Him, and Has Quit the Republican Party to Build Organized Opposition
One measure of a war of choice gone wrong is when the people who cheered the leader loudest turn on him. Tucker Carlson — among Trump's most prominent media backers through the 2024 campaign, and a defining voice of the "America First" movement — has become one of his sharpest adversaries, and the breaking point is the Iran war. Carlson began criticizing the administration's foreign policy in 2025; after the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in February 2026, the split became a rupture. He has called the war "disgusting and evil," accused Trump of putting Israel's interests ahead of America's, and in April 2026 apologized to his audience on his podcast for having "misled" them into voting for Trump. In June 2026 he announced he was leaving the Republican Party over the war, and his theatrical exit has hardened into organized opposition — with talk of a third-party push that could threaten Trump and the GOP. The specifics of Carlson's critique are his own, and some of his framing is inflammatory. But the political fact is the point: the war Trump launched on a threat the intelligence never found — a war his own top general now privately calls unwinnable — has cost him one of his biggest amplifiers and is fracturing the anti-war, "America First" base that put him in office. The coalition is cracking along the exact fault line the war created.
Trump's Own Justice Department Issued a Memo Declaring He Can Hide His Conversations With Private, Outside Advisers — Billionaires, Fixers, Private Lawyers, Even State Officials — Under "Executive Privilege," Stretching a Doctrine the Supreme Court Already Ruled Isn't Absolute, to Wall Off His Shadow Advisers From Congress Right Before the Midterms
On August 11, 2026, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel published a 21-page opinion, signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, declaring that executive privilege can shield the president's communications with "private advisers" — a category the memo defines to include essentially anyone Trump consults outside the executive branch, "whether they be members of the public, state officials, or employees of other branches of the federal government." It is the first time the Justice Department has explicitly extended executive privilege beyond the president and his immediate White House staff to private citizens. Historically the privilege reached only official advisers, and the Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon (1974) that it is not absolute and yields in criminal cases. The immediate beneficiary is Boris Epshteyn — the outside Trump adviser and "fixer" whom the American Bar Association subpoenaed, and who coordinated the campaign of pressure that produced nearly $1 billion in pledged free legal work from law firms, and who helped steer the lawyers in Trump's sham IRS-immunity litigation. The memo would let all of that stay hidden. OLC opinions are not binding on courts, but they govern how the executive branch behaves, and this one is transparently timed: issued months before the midterms, it is pre-emptive armor to defeat the wave of congressional investigations the White House expects if Democrats retake the House. It converts a narrow, court-limited doctrine into a blanket secrecy cloak for government-by-crony — a way to keep the public from ever learning which unelected billionaires and operatives are shaping official decisions, and what they said.
After 23 States and Two Federal Courts Blocked It as Unconstitutional, Trump Asked the Supreme Court to Let His Mail-Voting Order Take Effect Before the Midterms — an Order That Would Bar the Postal Service From Mailing Ballots to Anyone Not on State-Submitted Lists, Put DHS in Charge of Screening Voter Rolls, and Prioritize Prosecuting Election Officials
On July 27, 2026, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court — via an emergency "shadow docket" application filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer — to lift lower-court blocks and let a sweeping executive order restricting mail voting take effect in time for the November midterms. The March executive order would: require states to submit lists of eligible mail voters to the U.S. Postal Service, which would be barred from sending a ballot to anyone not on those lists; give the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security new roles screening state voter rolls for supposed noncitizens; mandate individualized barcodes on ballot envelopes; and "prioritize" federal prosecution of state election officials who send ballots to ineligible voters. Twenty-three Democratic-led states sued, noting the Constitution leaves the running of elections to the states, not the White House. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked it as a separation-of-powers violation, and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that block over the weekend, finding the order would "sow confusion" and "threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters." Sauer argued the injunction was "extraordinary" and that the order "merely sets forth general policy guidance." Voting-rights groups called it "plainly unconstitutional... yet another attempt by the president to unlawfully take control of elections from the states, deter eligible voters from casting ballots, and sow chaos as the November midterms approach." It is the same campaign documented here through the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the purge of the Election Assistance Commission, and the primetime "China stole 220 million voter files" speech — now escalated to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to green-light federal control over an election the president has spent months insisting will be stolen.
Trump Fired Every Remaining Member of the Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission — Gutting the Agency That Certifies Voting Machines Four Months Before the Midterms — Then Gave a Primetime Address Claiming China Stole "220 Million Voter Files," a Claim His Own Government's Intelligence Flatly Contradicts
On July 16, 2026, Trump delivered a 25-minute primetime address from the White House East Room claiming he was "declassifying intelligence" that revealed "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure" — including the assertion that "The People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files." His own government's intelligence contradicts him: a federal report from March 2021 concluded "We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections." FactCheck.org and others found the documents the White House posted did not support the sweeping claims. The speech came exactly one week after Trump fired the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission — Democrats Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland (dismissed by email) and Republican Christy McCormick (asked to resign by phone) — leaving the bipartisan federal agency that certifies voting-machine standards and helps states run elections without a quorum, unable to act, and unlikely to regain one before the November midterms. The White House cited a recent 6-3 Supreme Court decision on the president's power to fire independent-agency members as its justification. Trump also repeated debunked 2020 conspiracy theories and baselessly claimed fraud cost a Republican the Los Angeles mayoral primary. A Reuters analysis found his noncitizen-voting claims unsupported — just 129 prosecutions under the relevant law since 1996, most involving confusion or paperwork errors, not organized fraud. It all lands atop the administration's broader campaign to seize control of election administration: the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the SAVE voter-roll purges, and DOJ criminal threats to state officials.
FEMA Will Withhold 20% of a $1 Billion Anti-Terrorism Grant Program — Money for Cybersecurity and Protecting Crowded Public Spaces — Unless States Rewrite Their Elections to Trump's Demands Before the Midterms, a Power the Constitution Gives Him Zero Authority Over
The Trump administration is holding counterterrorism money hostage to force states to change how they run elections before the November 2026 midterms. FEMA's fiscal-year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program notice says the agency will withhold 20% of each state's total award — from a $1.064 billion program that funds cybersecurity, emergency planning, training, equipment, and protection of crowded public spaces — until the state proves it has complied with new "Election Security" requirements. Those requirements: submit a plan to abandon electronic voting systems that use bar codes/QR codes and move to hand-marked paper ballots (eliminating ballot-marking devices); conduct 5% manual post-election audits; reconcile voters against ballots cast; run the entire voter roll through the DHS "SAVE" citizenship database within 120 days; and verify the citizenship of every poll worker and vendor. In FY2025 the election-related hold was just 3% for three modest actions; FY2026 escalates it to 20% and a far larger list. The 3% election-security set-aside and the 20% holdback are explicitly separate — meeting one does not release the other. The grants flow largely to populous urban states: New York alone expects about $204 million in FY2026. Switching to hand-marked paper ballots would cost states hundreds of millions — Georgia's Republican secretary of state estimated $66 million for his state alone. The Constitution gives the president no authority over election administration; a federal judge recently wrote exactly that while blocking parts of Trump's anti-voting executive order, and another judge blocked DHS from using SAVE to purge voters, finding the administration "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens." The DOJ has separately sued 30 states for refusing to hand over voter lists and warned election officials in all 50 states they could face criminal charges. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul: the administration is "once again putting New Yorkers' lives at risk to forward their political agenda." Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows: "Trump is trying to meddle in how states run American elections because he's terrified of losing power after the 2026 midterms."