As 2026 got underway and political observers looked ahead to competitive Senate races, few gave Kansas a second glance. The conventional wisdom was that Republican Sen. Roger Marshall would cruise to re-election, simply because he represents a red state that hasn’t elected a Democratic senator since 1932.
With just days remaining in the midterm cycle, it’s safe to say things haven’t quite gone according to plan for the GOP incumbent.
But I’ve long argued that the turning point in the Kansas race came in early September when Kansans learned that Marshall garnished paychecks and pushed arrest warrants when his patients couldn’t afford their medical bills during his time as a physician in private practice. There’s ample evidence to suggest local voters heard the story and considered it important.
This, as much as anything else, stuck. It was around that point when some polls started showing Hamilton ahead, especially after the Democratic campaign seized on the issue in its advertising.
As the race nears its end, the story continues to haunt Marshall in new and potentially harmful ways. The New York Times reported:
A former patient of Senator Roger Marshall, Republican of Kansas, on Thursday filed a class-action lawsuit against him and his former medical practice, contending that he charged illegally high interest rates in pursuing patients over outstanding bills. […]
The lawsuit, filed in Kansas state court, focuses on the 18 percent interest rate that Mr. Marshall and the medical practice he co-owned, Heartland OBGYN, often charged patients.
When the story about his debt collection practices first came to the fore, Marshall repeatedly said his business practices were “very common,” but a few weeks ago, The Kansas City Star reported that an analysis of medical debt lawsuits in the Kansas court system “found that although it’s not uncommon for hospitals and clinics across the state to sue patients, the 18% annual interest rate Marshall applied to unpaid bills was by far the highest of the roughly 150 medical practices whose public records were reviewed by The Star.”
The report added that in reviewing thousands of court documents, the newspaper “found no other medical providers that charged annual interest at 18% or any other specified rate above 12%.”
The Star also spoke to the lawyer who had represented the Kansas Republican, and he said it was Marshall’s office that was responsible for determining how much interest to charge patients on unpaid bills.
The newspaper gave the senator and his campaign team multiple opportunities over a two-week period to respond to questions about the story. They declined.
Three weeks later, Marshall’s practices are now the basis for a new lawsuit, alleging the interest rates he charged were “egregious” and potentially at odds with state law, which typically limits medial interest rates to 15%.
The Times’ report added that the lead plaintiff in the newly filed class-action suit is Meischa Zimmerman, whom Marshall’s practice sued in 2009 for $3,596 over debt related to the delivery of her daughter by cesarean section.
“She was arrested three times for missing court dates related to the case,” the article added, “once while she was eight-months pregnant and at home with her 2-year-old daughter.”
It’s not yet clear whether other patients have joined with Zimmerman in the case, and a spokesperson for the Republican incumbent did not immediately respond to the Times’ request for comment. Watch this space.
Independent candidate Bill Hill is threatening to unseat Trump ally Nick Begich with a message of affordability
As Republicans fight to maintain their narrow majority in Congress, they face a unique challenge in Alaska – not from a Democrat, but from an independent commercial fisher and first-time candidate running to flip the state’s lone House seat.
Bill Hill, who is an Alaska Native and has worked in education and construction, has positioned himself as a working-class candidate who will fight to make life more affordable for people like himself and his family.
A Republican member on the House Armed Services Committee told Fox News Digital ahead of the midterm elections that the Trump administration has a key decision to make on the future of the U.S.-Iran war as "continuing to do just enough not to lose, but not enough to win, is not OK."
Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., made the comments as Vice President JD Vance declared during a Fox News town hall on Thursday that he promises "Donald Trump is not going to let Iran become a forever war." Official and military sources also told Fox News this week that movements are being made in the Middle East to give the president options if he decides to resume strikes against Iran.
"I share my constituents and many Americans' perspective that I'm very, very frustrated that this war is not over. The way that ultimately this administration went about conducting the war, it needed to execute it and wrap it up in a very short period of time, and we are not there yet," said Harrigan, who is running for re-election in North Carolina's 10th Congressional District.
"That being said, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. And so at the end of the day, I do believe that this was a war that was inevitable at some point, but the party that's in power and the administration that decided to pull the trigger on it is responsible for the outcome, and they're responsible for the outcome in a very short period of time. Otherwise, things get really, really difficult," Harrigan continued. "And I think we've been seeing that, both from a political perspective but also from a policy perspective."
"And so while the administration needs to wrap this up, we are not in a forever war, but we need to make sure that we're not... we keep the mission the same. We accomplish the mission. And we do what it takes to either win or come home," Harrigan added. "And that binary decision has to get made by this administration."
Harrigan told Fox News Digital that Trump "needs to involve Congress" if he chooses to renew military action against the Iranian regime.
"I think that that will long-term set the course for the country to be resolute in affirming and actually executing and accomplishing the objectives that exist. Because look, like it or not, Congress is responsible for the funding arm of the government. And if they run out of money to accomplish the objectives, then that is not good for our strategic interests," he said. "So, in my opinion, Congress and the White House need to be very closely involved in making the next set of decisions that exist for this conflict."
"And we do need to make sure, again, that we either do what it takes to actually win in Iran, or we need to take the three out of five objectives that we've accomplished and say that, you know what? We've largely accomplished our strategic objectives. We've got more work to do over the long-term that's going to require consistent and persistent over the horizon monitoring of their nuclear program. And we're going to have to mow the lawn every now and again, and everybody's got to realize that, and leave, right?" Harrigan continued, mentioning how the U.S. has prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and eliminated Tehran's missile and drone production.
"But we've got to choose one of those two options because continuing to do just enough not to lose, but not enough to win, is not OK," he said. "It's not OK for the American people, it's not OK for our troops, it's not OK for geopolitical and economic stability. And it does not serve the long-term strategic interests of the United States. So it's time to choose."
Harrigan, a Green Beret and business entrepreneur, is running for re-election on Tuesday in North Carolina. He is facing off against Democrat challenger Ashley Bell, a physician associate, and Libertarian candidate Steve Feldman, who ran unsuccessfully for the seat two years ago.
As a current member of Congress, Harrigan told Fox News there is "no question" the Republican Party's House majority is at stake heading into Election Day.
"Whoever has 218 votes gets to chart the course of the direction of the House, the work that its committees do. And in particular, as it relates to the Trump administration, whether or not President Trump's going to get impeached," he added.
"What this boils down to is the future direction of the country. Are we going to be stuck looking backwards instead of actually looking forwards, dealing with the actual business of the county and the free world, or are we going to be stuck in some sort of a Democratically-led nightmare that is simply going to be obstructionist to the conservative principles and values that people voted for in 2024?" Harrigan asked. "That's what's on the line this election cycle."
In total, AIPAC or its super PAC, United Democracy Project, spent on 333 of the 473 seats up for election this year, in some cases through indirect funding. A new project by The Intercept reveals the hundreds of candidates still taking the pro-Israel lobby’s cash, and how AIPAC is obscuring its spending.
The nation's major political parties are at a crossroads. Win or lose Tuesday, the end of the 2026 midterms marks the beginning of a high-stakes fight over the direction of the Republican and Democratic parties as the Trump era nears its end.
The surge is especially pronounced in Texas, where voters are deciding closely watched Senate, House and governor's races. More than 6.3 million Texans had voted early as of Wednesday, compared with 4.2 million at the same point four years ago, a 50% increase.
With Republicans likely headed for a good ol' fashioned ass kicking in next week's midterm election, it doesn't seem too premature to ask the next big question: What are the Democrats going to do once they have a congressional majority?
The New York Timesreports that Democrats will move quickly on four items that are "consensus items among their members that are basic enough to bypass time-consuming committee consideration and go straight to the floor."
Two of those items are really good ideas: ending President Donald Trump's tariffs and ending the war in Iran (or ordering Trump to "seek authorization from Congress to continue it"). Both would restore proper congressional authority in areas where Trump has expanded executive power, with terrible results.
The other priorities, however, include reversing Medicaid spending cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and extending some Affordable Care Act health care subsidies that expired last year. Both would require higher spending at a time when the federal government is already running $2 trillion annual deficits and the national debt is at a record high.
But that's probably a pretty good summary of what Democratic control of Congress for the next few years will look like: a mix of critically important reforms to combat Trump's big-government agenda and, well, the Democrats' own big-government agenda.
Over at National Review, John Puri has an extensive list of "truly frightening" policies Democrats could pursue after the midterms, including stuff like bypassing the filibuster to borrow more heavily, arbitrarily restricting commerce, handing out taxpayer money to political allies, and promising "free" money for everyone. Gosh, I sure hope none of that happens (again).
More seriously, there are also likely to be some major investigations into corruption and other executive branch misdeeds. Trump's family and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are likely to be among the main targets. Hegseth could "face impeachment—which would make him just the third Cabinet secretary in history to face such a sanction," The Atlanticreports.
Of course, there are plenty of caveats to this. Most importantly, Trump will still be the president—and will be able to veto anything the Democrats pass through Congress. There's also the Senate's filibuster rules. Even the biggest of blue waves is highly unlikely to deliver a 60-seat majority.
Though they may dream big, Democrats will face some serious constraints on their policymaking agenda. They will face fewer obstacles in blocking, unwinding, and investigating Trump's unlawful and corrupt actions—and that's where I, for one, hope they will spend their efforts.
Scenes from Washington, D.C.: "On Sept. 16, Leo J. Terrell threatened to choke a Justice Department intern with a computer charger."
So begins The Harvard Crimson's scathing and deeply reported takedown of Terrell, the former talk radio host and Fox News contributor who is now the senior Justice Department official running the Trump administration's crackdown on elite universities (which is ostensibly an effort to police antisemitism but seems more like an excuse to use federal taxpayer dollars to fight a culture war).
The computer cord incident "was one of a series of episodes described by Billa and three other interns, all Jewish," the Crimsonreports. "Terrell isolated them from the rest of the Justice Department, berated them over minor mistakes, and repeatedly threatened their jobs or careers."
When he's not harassing his staffers, Terrell seems to be overcome with delusions of grandeur. A planned 15-city media tour in advance of the midterms "was supposed to be the centerpiece of Terrell's work" and would have put him on stage with singers, comedians, and professional athletes. One event has been held so far: "an Oct. 14 gathering at a synagogue in Southfield, Mich. with Terrell as the keynote speaker."
ProPublicahas "tallied and cataloged every case we can find of an immigration agent reportedly detaining a citizen during the current administration—more than 500 cases from Inauguration Day through Oct. 21, 2026."
Federal debt held by the public has surpassed the size of the U.S. economy for the first time since World War II. Unlike back then, however, the debt is being driven by entitlement spending, which means it is going to keep spiraling higher.
Relatedly, five states are carrying more than $30,000 in debt per capita, according to a new report from the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason: New York ($37,006 per capita), New Jersey ($35,100), Connecticut ($33,189), Illinois ($31,582) and Hawaii ($30,759). All told, America's state and local governments are more than $6 trillion in debt.
Patrick Stewart, the legendary actor whose range included everything from Shakespeare to starships, died at age 86.
In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to: Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Fund https://t.co/luC5CdcWDy Alzheimer's Foundation of America Caregiver Resources https://t.co/zvNptfyuNd
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — A promise not to start foreign wars was a central plank of Donald Trump’s 2024 platform. In North Carolina, home to the nation’s most populous military base, Fort Bragg, people have taken that broken promise personally.
Elizabeth Boahn, 48, from Stedman, voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024. But in 2026, with her 18-year-old son, Colby, on the verge of joining the Navy after graduation, she’s regretting her support.
“It’s heartbreaking. I just, I pray that he doesn’t have to go over there,” said Boahn, referring to the Middle East.
When you shake a man’s hand, you look him in the eye. If they can’t, you don’t trust them … be a man of your word.”
—Elizabeth Boahn
“My granddaddy taught me this, and he was a Marine. When you shake a man’s hand, you look him in the eye. If they can’t, you don’t trust them … be a man of your word,” Boahn said. Asked if she considered Trump a man of his word, she said, “Nope.”
Asked how the war with Iran had affected her life, Boahn said, “it’s on the verge of taking my son away … 18 years old, hasn’t even really begun to live a life.”
She had choice words for the president. “He’s going over there and starting wars, that is destroying our economy. It’s causing my struggle of living,” she said.
Boahn’s frustration with the president’s broken promise stood in contrast to how some veterans who spoke to MS NOW reflected on Trump’s failure to stay out of foreign military conflicts.
Chad McKeown, who voted for Trump in 2024, served in the Army for 20 years and deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. After returning home, he started Kraken Customs, an auto body shop that emphasizes hiring veterans.
Kraken Customs, an auto body shop that emphasizes hiring veterans.MS NOW
McKeown acknowledged the costs of the war with Iran. “This whole thing is an economic nightmare,” said the 45-year-old entrepreneur, who said his business is still doing well despite the headwinds.
But asked about his thoughts on the war itself, McKeown said it’s part of the military’s culture not to question orders from the commander in chief.
“When you put your life on the line for your country in the service — whether it’s Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, now Space Force — you learn how to humble yourself amongst those that are appointed above you,” he said.
The moment you get on the side of naysaying them or becoming a shadow governor, you are discrediting what we’re all supposed to be standing for.”
—Chad McKeown
“The moment you get on the side of naysaying them or becoming a shadow governor, you are discrediting what we’re all supposed to be standing for,” he said.
Mary Hampton, an Army veteran from Vander who voted for Trump three times, echoed that deference. “Do I want our troops home? Yes, I do, absolutely. But I’ve got to leave those decisions to other leaders that are in charge right now,” she said.
Reagan Juan, an Army veteran, has service in her blood. Her grandfather, Don Feeney, is one of the original members of Delta Force, the prestigious elite U.S. Army special operations unit. Juan, who was named after President Ronald Reagan, said she voted for Trump in 2024 solely because of his promise not to start any foreign wars.
“That’s such a big promise. We’re not just promising, you know, more funding for education, or we’re not promising tax cuts. This is people’s lives, our real lives,” said Juan, whose husband also served in the military.
“There needs to be way more checks and balances. There needs to be more oversight. There needs to be more transparency in what is actually going on,” Juan said. “There needs to be a clear end state. There needs to be a clear exit strategy. If we aren’t doing that, I don’t know what we’re doing out there,” she said.
Juan said she feels “shame” for voting for Trump and repeatedly described the war in Iran as “reckless.”
An Elon University poll from March 2026, shortly after the war began, found that 51% of North Carolina voters opposed military involvement in Iran. A more recent poll from Elon University in September found that number virtually unchanged, with 52% of registered voters disapproving of the war. That is lower than national polling averages on the issue: An October Pew poll found 65% of Americans disapproving of the president’s handling of the conflict.
My delivery expense has nearly doubled. My prices have been inflated, but my margins have remained the same, or less.”
—Jason Bruton
The longer this war has gone on, the less patient Jason Bruton has become. Bruton, an auto body shop franchisee, voted for Trump three times.
“The war in Iran is dragging on too long. I was supportive of it in the beginning when I thought it would be like a monthlong war,” he said. The Pentagon estimated that the war has cost more than $47 billion dollars, an investment Bruton doesn’t think will pay dividends.
“My delivery expense has nearly doubled. My prices have been inflated, but my margins have remained the same, or less, because I’m absorbing some of the cost of doing business and to help keep my customers,” Bruton said.
Immigrants at Texas detention facility, protesting against harsh conditions, say they face threats of force-feeding
Members of Congress sent a scathing letter to federal immigration officials this week demanding answers about conditions inside a Texas immigration jail, as detained immigrants on a prolonged hunger strike claim officials are retaliating against them and threatening them with force-feeding.
A group of seven congressional Democrats sent the letter earlier this week to Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, and David Venturella, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting director, protesting about the treatment of hunger strikers.
Endorsement not always full-throated but party backing marks major turn after bitter split over nomination
Facing a barrage of extreme attacks from Donald Trump and his allies, the Democratic establishment is finally rallying around progressive Abdul El-Sayed, the party’s candidate in the closely watched US Senate election in Michigan. But the endorsement is not always full-throated, and often even omits his name.
At a rally in Port Huron on Sunday, the US president launched the latest in a wave of Islamophobic rants against El-Sayed, erroneously branding him a “jihadist” and “Muslim Brotherhood member” while invoking 9/11.
Alaska’s Republican governor ordered an investigation into Democrat Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign Wednesday after The New York Times reported her campaign was involved with another person named Dan Sullivan ending up on the ballot alongside Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. That report that Peltola’s campaign attempted to put a finger on the scale provoked a fresh round of outrage from President Donald Trump, and, at first glance, it may have seemed to support an unprecedented lawsuit by the Department of Justice lawsuit to pre-emptively discredit a Peltola victory. But not even Wednesday’s political bombshell justifies the DOJ’s involvement.
There’s a lot to find concerning about the Peltola campaign’s shenanigans, but the federal government has no power to force Alaska to alter its election procedures.
The Peltola campaign denies it did anything untoward, but there’s plenty to be concerned about in the Times’ reporting. According to Peltola’s former campaign manager, who spoke extensively with the Times but retracted her comments before publication, the campaign worked with Senate Democrats’ campaign arm to recruit the second Dan Sullivan to run. The DOJ’s lawsuit to intervene in Alaska’s election in case the incumbent Republican senator loses also leans heavily on the Peltola campaign’s supposedly nefarious moves to confound voters.
But even if there were attempts to confound voters, that doesn’t mean voters will be confounded. The ballot makes exceedingly clear which Dan Sullivan is which. The incumbent Dan S. Sullivan has the word “Incumbent” next to his name and the label “Registered Republican,” and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s name is left unadorned.
And Edward Foley, a law professor and former Ohio solicitor general, explained in an MS NOW essay why concerns of voters accidentally denying the incumbent senator re-election are “significantly mitigated” by the state’s ranked choice voting system.
That doesn’t mean we should entirely disregard the reported shady tactics and condescension from people working to get Peltola elected. At one point, some Democratic strategists seemed to delight in the idea of confusing the public:
In one exchange of text messages obtained by The Times, Peltola advisers seemed to make fun of voters while watching a focus group, surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler.
“Do we have a scheme for you,” wrote a consultant for the Peltola campaign. A pollster on the chat wrote that one voter seemed like the perfect audience “for our ballot strategy plan :)”
Despite Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s call for an investigation, and the DOJ’s lawsuit, the Times report makes clear that “ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska.” But the department’s lawsuit says it has an “obligation to protect the integrity of its election” and, if Peltola wins, wants to block certification “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan,” according to their lawsuit.
The DOJ’s suit quotes an initial claim from Carol Beecher, Alaska’s director of the division of elections, that Daniel J. Sullivan wanted to be on the ballot “for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot.” But now Beecher is firmly against the DOJ’s suit. State lawyers in a motion to dismiss filed Monday argued that the federal government “lacks authority to intervene in state elections at all, much less in support of a favored candidate.”
If anything, in its own efforts to affect the race’s outcome, the DOJ may have jumped the gun.
Nothing in the Times’ report changes that. There may be consequences for Peltola and her campaign staff at the state level. As election law expert Rick Hasen noted, if anyone lied under oath about cooperation between Democrats and Dan J. Sullivan, then there could be cause for a perjury prosecution, but no allegations on that front had arisen as of Thursday afternoon.
Any such testimony would have come from Dan J. Sullivan’s lawsuit to remain on the ballot earlier this year. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in his favor, allowing him to remain an option for voters. Again, there’s a lot to find concerning about the Peltola campaign’s shenanigans, but the federal government has no power to force Alaska to alter its election procedures.
If anything, in its own efforts to affect the race’s outcome, the DOJ may have jumped the gun. I imagine there would be a lot more willingness to criticize Peltola outright, and a potentially less mixed bag reaction from Alaskans, without the federal intervention. As it stands, the case will still fall flat, and Alaska’s voters will still have their say in who represents them in the U.S. Senate — even if they have to take a few seconds longer to read their ballot.
Democrats are favored to take the House in November, but the size of their potential majority could hinge on a handful of competitive races. Four are in Pennsylvania, where President Trump and Republicans made significant gains in 2024. Now, Democrats are betting that the president's low approval ratings and frustration over high prices will shift the political landscape. Lisa Desjardins reports.
As candidates make a final push to win over voters ahead of Election Day, Lisa Desjardins takes a deep dive into the battle for the House of Representatives.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is unlikely to act before the end of the year on a House-passed bill that would make daylight saving time permanent, defying President Donald Trump and dashing the hopes of Americans who don't like having to change their clocks twice a year. As daylight saving time ends early Sunday and much of the country turns the clocks back an hour, several senators are holding up legislation that would eliminate the...
Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign allegedly collaborated with party operatives to confuse voters in midterms
The US justice department on Thursday is reported to have issued subpoenas in response to a report that the Alaska Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign collaborated with party operatives to get a challenger with the same name as the Republican senator Dan Sullivan on the midterm ballot.
ABC News and the Associated Press reported the subpoenas, citing sources familiar with the matter. The federal investigation comes a day after the New York Times found that the effort to recruit a second candidate named Dan Sullivan in the Senate race set to be decided on Tuesday was led by Peltola’s campaign, which had for months denied involvement.
Democrats lead national polls as Trump and Obama campaign in key states six days before the US midterm elections. See their positions on Israel-Palestine...
When Ben Carson led the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he faced a variety of controversies, but one of the most embarrassing involved furniture he bought for his office at taxpayer expense. In one especially memorable congressional hearing, the then-secretary offered a rambling, and at times contradictory, explanation for the spending, initially saying the furniture was necessary in part for “security” reasons, before ultimately blaming his wife.
Around the same time, then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt also spent more than $43,000 to install a soundproof phone booth in his office for reasons that never made any sense.
Nothing of consequence came of the incidents, even if the controversies might have served as cautionary tales for future Cabinet members: It’s best to exercise caution when it comes to public funds and office decor.
It’s a lesson Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who actually served alongside Carson in the first Trump administration, failed to learn. The New York Times reported:
Linda McMahon, the education secretary, plans to spend $43,000 on new furniture for her government office, a work space makeover that comes as she lobbies Congress to shut down her department.
Ms. McMahon’s team has informed Congress that her current furniture is worn out and “cannot be configurationally or aesthetically integrated into the agency’s new office space,” according to Education Department records reviewed by The New York Times that have not been publicly disclosed.
I know effectively nothing about interior design, but I suppose “cannot be … aesthetically integrated” is another way of saying “looks funny.”
The amount of money is notable in its own right, but that McMahon wants to spend money on furnishing an office she doesn’t think should exist adds an element to the story that makes it unavoidably worse.
Two Democratic senators — Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies — wrote to the secretary this week, pressing her to abandon her spending plans.
“It has come to our attention that as you cut off funding for students, push out staff, and do all you can to illegally dismantle the very department you lead, you plan to spend $43,278.64 on new furniture for your own office,” the senators wrote. “You vowed to put yourself out of a job; now you expect American taxpayers to pick up the tab to refurnish your own office.”
“Secretary McMahon, you have asked students, families, and teachers across the country to endure extraordinarily painful cuts in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility,’ and you have pushed out nearly half of the staff at the Department,” they added. “This year, you have asked Congress to slash funding for important K-12 programs and to cut funding for higher education programs by nearly $5 billion. But it is clear that you do not think that you should have to abide by the same rules you want to apply to others.”
Murray and Baldwin concluded, “The American people are sick of the corruption, sick of the waste, and sick of the hypocrisy coming out of all corners of this administration.”
The Education Department’s press secretary told the Times the agency was “saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” in large part by moving to smaller offices as part of the broader effort to dismantle the department altogether. It’s a line McMahon is likely to repeat the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.
One of the nation’s strangest laws is primed for reform in a new bill from Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that would bring a dose of logic to federal drug policy.
That unusual law — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch called it a “curious animal” — is the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act. Known as the Analogue Act for short, it’s part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was rushed into law ahead of that year’s midterm elections by a bipartisan Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan. Passed in the shadow of high-profile deaths, including that of basketball star Len Bias, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act brought mandatory minimum sentences and a vast disparity in punishment for crack and powder cocaine offenses, respectively.
The Analogue Act separately sought to solve the problem of so-called designer drugs. The problem, as the authorities saw it, was that the law was too specific. Cocaine, heroin and other drugs were illegal because they were listed under the Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act’s drug schedules. But nothing was stopping underground chemists from tinkering with listed substances to produce new ones that the law didn’t capture. Congress could ban novel drugs as they appeared on the illicit market, but that took time and would only apply going forward. Bad actors went unpunished in the meantime, so the government thinking went.
As I laid out in my book, “Bizarro,” on the inside story of the Analogue Act and one of the most peculiar cases it spawned, law enforcement was tired of playing catchup in the cat-and-mouse game. It wanted to go on offense. The result was the Analogue Act, which expanded federal drug law to say that any substances “substantially similar” to already illegal ones like cocaine, heroin and others on the most restricted drug schedules were illegal, too.
‘Curious animal’
In solving one problem, the Analogue Act confronted another: the Constitution.
Due process means that people need notice of what’s legal, so they can live their lives accordingly. Yet the act’s substantial-similarity test outlawed a potentially infinite number of substances with a vague, unscientific standard. Whether that standard is satisfied in a given case depends on whether prosecutors can convince juries that one substance is “substantially similar” to another. The ambiguous test has led to conflicting verdicts in different cases involving the same substance.
Even the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chemists haven’t always agreed among themselves about which substances qualify as analogues. If the government’s own experts can’t agree about what’s legal, how can people subject to the law be expected to know?
Judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike have questioned the act’s constitutionality. Notable among them is Gorsuch. Before President Donald Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court in 2017, the jurist called the act a “curious animal” in a 2015 ruling when he was on the Denver-based appeals court. Gorsuch deemed the “substantially similar” test’s meaning an “open question,” as he wondered whether it gives citizens fair notice.
Judge Neil Gorsuch, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump on Jan. 31, 2017, at the White House.Carlos Barria / Reuters
But even since he joined the high court, the justices have refused to consider a petition attacking the Analogue Act. The court’s lack of interest effectively has left the matter with Congress.
Taming the animal with an ‘and’
Enter the new bill announced by Cohen, who has criticized the drug war during his nearly two decades in the House. The Democrat isn’t running for re-election this year, after Tennessee Republicans passed a congressional map, backed by recent Supreme Court rulings, that splintered his Memphis base in what was the state’s only majority-Black district.
Cohen’s “Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act” would, as its name suggests, shift drug law from a punitive approach to one centered on public health, with a revamped scheduling system, scientific research promotion and other measures.
Its analogue amendment wouldn’t overturn the constitutionally suspect “substantially similar” test, but it would address one of its ridiculous aspects.
To understand the fix, it’s necessary to know what the act says currently. It has three sections that define what a controlled substance analogue is, according to its 1) structure, 2) effect and 3) represented effect. It defines an analogue as a substance:
i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.
Beyond the vagueness at the heart of the term “substantially similar,” a key issue is the language in between each section. There’s an “or” in between the second and third sections on effect and representation, but there’s nothing in between the first and second sections on structure and effect. A draft version of the 1986 law had an “and” in between those first two sections, which would have clearly meant that, to qualify as an analogue, at least a substantially similar chemical structure was required.
It’s unclear why the “and” didn’t make it into the final version of the Analogue Act. But its omission has prompted an outlier legal argument that prosecutors only have to prove one of the three prongs: structure, effect or representation of effect. The consequences of that reading are extreme, because if only representation is required (regardless of what the substance actually is or does), then people can serve decades in prison for selling something that isn’t similar to a scheduled drug at all.
What an appeals court called an “absurd” example of that phenomenon arose in a prosecution against people who sold a mixture of candle wax and flour under the pretense that it was crack/cocaine. “The treatment of candle wax and flour, no matter how it is marketed, as a schedule I controlled substance is an ‘absurd’ result of the kind our canons of construction instruct us to avoid,” the Philadelphia-based court said in a 2003 case, reversing a district court that ruled otherwise.
Yet the concern over that absurdity was not relegated to history. Just a few years ago, a San Francisco-based appeals court suggested that the act could still be used to achieve such an outlandish outcome. Even the government wasn’t pressing for that aggressive interpretation, so the court didn’t feel bound to embrace it in that case.
But if the Analogue Act stays on the books as is, courts could keep reaching “absurd” results in future cases.
‘Open question’
Cohen’s proposed legislation would prevent that absurdity by adding the “and.” Had it been there at the time of the wax-and-flour case, the district court would have had to side with the defense, because even if the mixture was marketed as crack, its chemical structure was not substantially similar to crack by any reasonable measure.
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) speaks during a press conference on April 20, 2026, outside the U.S. Capitol.Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images
To be sure, the new bill’s analogue amendment wouldn’t solve the due process problem inherent in the “substantially similar” test; that could probably only be done by overturning the act entirely. Still, the bill would bring a dose of logic that has been missing for four decades.
Whether that modest measure has the votes to become law with today’s Congress and White House is, as Gorsuch put it in 2015, an “open question.” But even if this bill doesn’t pass, it’s an important question to keep asking.
Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Judge Neil Gorsuch, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, after President Trump nominated Gorsuch to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, on Jan. 31, 2017, at the White House.
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) speaks during a press conference on April 20, 2026, outside the U.S. Capitol.
For the past several weeks, Republicans worried about the outcome of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race have focused on one aspect of the contest above all others: the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.
After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system. Both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.
This has generated all kinds of allegations that the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, and her allies coordinated behind the scenes to get the other Sullivan onto the ballot. The candidate and her team repeatedly said they weren’t involved, but The New York Times published a report Wednesday that called those denials into question. From the article:
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.
Not surprisingly, Republicans who were already worked up about the allegations when there was no evidence became apoplectic in response to the newspaper’s report. Donald Trump publishedfourseparaterants to his social media platform, for example, each of which alleged unidentified crimes, called for Peltola’s disqualification or both. Around the same time, the president told reporters that the Democratic nominee “should resign,” and at a Wednesday night rally in Ohio, he also called for her prosecution.
On Thursday morning, Trump hedged on whether Peltola should be allowed to serve in the Senate, even if Alaskans elect her.
Other Republicans went down a similar path. Incumbent Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties; Attorney General Todd Blanche scurried to Fox News to accuse Democrats of “cheating”; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer launched a congressional investigation; and even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’s generally been friendly with Peltola, complained of “a culture of deception.”
For now, it’s fair to say that there are legitimate questions about what transpired, though they don’t yet have definitive answers. That said, even if the allegations are true, it’s important not to lose sight of the relevant details.
There’s a qualitative difference between genuine electoral scandals and routine campaign mischief. Asking an official who oversees a state elections system to “find” 11,780 votes that don’t exist is disgraceful on a historic scale, but looking for candidates with names similar to an opponent is a tactic with a deep American pedigree. It’s common enough to have earned a familiar name: ballot-stacking.
That’s not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But both parties have utilized this strategy for generations — there’s a classic story from 1946 about John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, which included two men named Joseph Russo — and it’s never been the subject of hysterics, Justice Department prosecutions or federal investigations.
The same is true of campaign mischief in general. Republicans, including one of Trump’s own lawyers, tried to help Kanye West qualify for the presidential ballot in 2020, as part of a dumb trick. GOP operatives did the same thing in the 2024 race, trying to boost Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances.
Even in the Sullivan-Peltola race, the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC has invested in a Green Party candidate from Arizona — not because it supports his candidacy, but because it’s playing a cheap electoral game.
Again, if members of Team Peltola denied involvement in a scheme they were involved in, they’ll deserve to be criticized for underhanded campaign tactics. But to pretend that the latest apparent instance of ballot-stacking is some kind of hair-on-fire scandal is a mistake.
Login
