In-person early voting for the U.S. midterm elections began on Monday in Washington D.C., while more than 23 million people across the country had already cast ballots by October 25, far surpassing the 15 million recorded in 2022.
Early voting opened on October 26 across Washington D.C. and will run through every district until Sunday, November 1.
Residents who missed the online or mail registration deadline can still register directly at the polling center. That same-day registration requires a valid, recent proof of address, such as an official identification, a utility bill or a bank statement issued within the past ninety days.
District law also lets non-citizen residents who meet age and local residency requirements vote in municipal elections. They receive a separate ballot limited to district offices, including the Council, the Board of Education and the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions.
In neighboring Maryland, the early voting period runs through Thursday, October 29, with centers open daily from 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. local time. Voters there can also register the same day by showing a document that proves their current address.
Election authorities detailed the rules for those who prefer mail ballots or official drop boxes before the November 3 general vote. In Washington D.C., ballots must carry that date’s postmark or be deposited before 8 P.M.
Maryland set Tuesday, October 27, as the cutoff for requesting printed ballots at each county’s local offices.
Voters who miss the October 27 request deadline in Maryland can still cast a ballot in person during the early window or on November 3. The mail route, however, closes at that point for printed ballots.
The midterm cycle has produced a sharp rise in early participation. As of October 25, more than 23 million people had voted early nationwide, up from the 15 million recorded in 2022.
After two years marked by unilateral decisions, a hardline stance on immigration, rising living costs and involvement in the war against Iran, Donald Trump’s administration now faces a ballot test that could strip Republicans of their absolute control of Congress.
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are being contested. Republicans hold 218 seats against 214 for the Democrats, along with two vacancies and one independent seat occupied by Kevin Kiley after his departure from the Republican Party. That narrow margin leaves the chamber within reach for the opposition, and the surge in early ballots is being read as a measure of how much ground the ruling party could lose.
The early vote will keep building through the final weekend before November 3, when the full contours of the midterm electorate will emerge.
O índice de aprovação pública do presidente Donald Trump subiu ligeiramente para 32%, um aumento de um ponto percentual em relação à sua mínima histórica registrada na semana passada, às vésperas das eleições de meio de mandato nos Estados Unidos, que vão definir qual partido controlará o Congresso.
Os dados são de uma pesquisa Reuters/Ipsos concluída nesta segunda-feira (26).
Os colegas de partido de Trump, os republicanos, lutam para manter as maiorias da legenda na Câmara dos Representantes e no Senado.
A pesquisa, realizada ao longo de cinco dias em todo o país, também revelou que, entre os eleitores registrados, a preferência pelos democratas supera os republicanos — 47% contra 36% —, ao serem questionados sobre em qual partido votariam (em uma pergunta de intenção de voto genérica).
Cerca de 11% afirmaram não saber em quem votariam caso a eleição fosse realizada hoje.
Essa diferença de 11 pontos percentuais entre democratas e republicanos foi 1 ponto percentual menor do que a registrada em uma pesquisa Reuters/Ipsos encerrada em 19 de outubro.
A pesquisa também perguntou aos eleitores indecisos para qual partido eles tendiam a pender. Ao levar em conta essas respostas, a disputa nacional pareceu um pouco mais acirrada, com os democratas à frente por 9 pontos percentuais — 50% contra 41%.
Para os republicanos, perder o controle de qualquer uma das casas legislativas poderia complicar a agenda de Trump nos dois anos finais de seu segundo mandato como presidente.
As pesquisas de intenção de voto genéricas (*generic ballot polls*) são levantamentos nacionais que oferecem uma visão geral de qual partido os entrevistados gostariam de ver no comando do Congresso. Embora essas pesquisas revelem o sentimento público em nível nacional, elas não captam as nuances das disputas estado a estado e distrito a distrito — as quais definem o controle do Senado e da Câmara dos Representantes, e nas quais os republicanos detêm certas vantagens estruturais.
A pesquisa Reuters/Ipsos, realizada online, coletou respostas de 1.679 adultos norte-americanos, incluindo 1.280 eleitores registrados, e apresentou uma margem de erro de 2 pontos percentuais para o total de adultos e de 3 pontos percentuais para os eleitores registrados.
O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, afirmou nesta segunda-feira (26), sem apresentar provas, que a votação para a Presidência do Brasil “pareceu mais uma eleição fraudada”, mas destacou que gosta de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) e que se dá bem com o petista.
Questionado por repórteres sobre sua avaliação do pleito, realizado no domingo (25), Trump disse que achou “terrível”. Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), que foi derrotado por Lula, anunciou que não reconhecerá o resultado da votação e que pedirá anulação.
“Não tomei partido, mas a imagem que passou para o mundo foi péssima; é mais uma eleição — e você sabe, eleições precisam ser inquestionáveis —, por isso, para mim, a situação pareceu muito ruim”, adicionou.
“Não apoiei ninguém nem nada, mas acompanhei a eleição e ela pareceu tão corrupta”, acrescentou.
Em outro momento, o presidente dos Estados Unidos foi questionado se faria algo a respeito da eleição brasileira, respondendo que não comanda o Brasil e que tem bom relacionamento com Lula.
“Eu gosto do Lula, me dou muito bem com ele. Só acho que a forma como a apuração foi feita passou uma impressão muito ruim”, disse.
“Se um governo conservador no Brasil fizesse isso, todo mundo na imprensa mainstream americana perderia a cabeça, mas acho que eles estão apenas escolhendo ficar em silêncio porque é tudo pela causa”, alegou.
Outras autoridades dos EUA também se pronunciaram e saudaram o petista, como Gavin Newsom, governador da Califórnia, o senador Bernie Sanders e Zohran Mamdani, prefeito de Nova York.
Nações da América do Sul, como Chile, Peru e Colômbia, que são comandadas por líderes de direita, também reconheceram o resultado. A Argentina, de Javier Milei, não se pronunciou.
Campanhas de Flávio e Lula pediram extensão do horário de votação
O pedido do grupo de Lula usou como base relatos de problemas envolvendo o transporte de eleitores em todo o país.
Já a campanha de Fávio havia pedido o alongamento da votação ao TSE para os estados do Paraná, Santa Catarina e São Paulo por causa das fortes chuvas.
O PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores) também protocolou um pedido ao Supremo Tribunal Federal para prorrogação da votação por mais duas horas em todo o território nacional. Cristiano Zanin foi sorteado relator do caso às 16h30, no horário de Brasília.
O magistrado acatou a solicitação às 16h57, mas a decisão só entrou nos sistemas da Corte às 17h01. A apuração foi paralisada por volta das 17h06, com o TSE já tendo divulgado os números de algumas urnas.
Kassio Nunes Marques, presidente do TSE, referendou a medida às 18h.
Autoridades do Brasil confirmam lisura da votação para presidente
“Volto a dizer: não houve nenhuma alteração advinda da decisão judicial. Temos absoluta confiança em todo o processo eleitoral”, declarou Nunes Marques.
Os presidentes do Senado e da Câmara dos Deputados, Davi Alcolumbre (União) e Hugo Motta (Republicanos), respectivamente, também se pronunciaram.
Alcolumbre disse que o resultado foi uma “vitória da democracia” e pediu respeito à “vontade soberana do povo”. Hugo também elogiou o sistema eleitoral brasileiro e afirmou que a data se trata de “um dia de alegria para nós, democratas”.
O número representa 0,027% dos 127,8 milhões de votos registrados no país e não teria peso suficiente para alterar o resultado da disputa presidencial.
It has been a wild few weeks for the US-Ukraine relationship as Trump, more and more, has been able to be what he always wanted to be: a friend and supporter of Vladimir Putin. It started openly with the diesel deal, which drove a coach and horses through the sanctions regime leveled on Russia, a […]
Brazilian progressive leader and incumbent president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made history last night, defeating far-right Flávio Bolsonaro of the Liberal Party in the second round after coming in second in the first round.
The results were awaited with bated breath after a judge ordered polls to be open for two more hours following complaints from voters who claimed they had been unable to reach polling places due to transportation problems. First the Workers’ Party (PT), and then the Liberal Party (PL), requested the extension, which paused the vote count until 7:00 pm in Brasília, the capital.
With 51.79% of the valid votes, the former union leader, metalworker, and head of the Workers’ Party staged a historic comeback against Bolsonaro, who lost the initial momentum he had in the first round and barely reached 48.21%. This is the first time a candidate who finished second in Brazil’s first round has staged a comeback and won the election in the runoff.
Bolsonaro entered the runoff with a relative – though significant – lead following his victory in the first round of voting on October 4, where he received 47.03% (approximately 56,104,503 votes), while Lula, to the surprise of many, came in second with 45.16% (53,879,538 votes).
In other words, there was a gap of nearly 3 million votes between the two candidates that seemed very difficult for Lula to overcome, especially considering that the remaining votes were split among candidates who were mostly from the right and center-right – a fact that led many to believe that Bolsonaro, the son of former president and currently imprisoned Jair Bolsonaro, would win the runoff.
But Lula, a true legend of Brazilian politics (a labor leader during the dictatorship who won the presidency three times), achieved the unthinkable. Between the first and second rounds of voting, he managed to gain more than 10 million votes compared to the first round – an astronomical figure, considering that Bolsonaro barely managed to gain some 3.7 million votes.
Lula’s victory
After it was clear that Lula’s victory was irreversible, the Brazilian streets were filled with people wearing the traditional red of the Workers’ Party. However, the victory was celebrated by a sort of broad coalition that had formed to overturn the result – one that spanned the political spectrum from classical left-wing parties and movements, to progressive liberals, and even some center-right groups that saw Bolsonaro as a threat to democracy.
In his speech marking his fourth presidential victory, Lula said: “I want to thank the Brazilian people – those who have stood by me for so long – and express my gratitude for the generosity of Brazil’s young people … We are going to change the way this country is governed … we are going to involve the people more. Digital communication will play a very significant role in this administration. I will deliver the best presidential term this country has ever seen.”
“Following our victory, we will have to discuss a new way of governing this country. The people’s participation in this campaign – the students, women, and workers who took to the streets – will compel us to find a new way of governing. This country will never be the same again,” said the reelected president.
Lula also stated that the debates against Bolsonaro and the PL campaign were riddled with lies and “denialism”: “I never thought a person could lie so much in this country, with such brazenness, as if there were not a single shred of humanity within him.”
Finally, he also addressed the problems his campaign faced regarding the dissemination of its messages on social media. The PT repeatedly denounced that the major social media platforms hindered or outright prevented the spread of its political messages, while Bolsonaro’s messages faced no such issues.
Is Meta meddling in Brazil's elections? With Sunday's runoff neck and neck, new reporting raises serious questions.
The pattern is hard to ignore: Lula's campaign was blocked from boosting Instagram posts for nearly 24 hours, his ad account was previously restricted, and… pic.twitter.com/DVjDWJa7Xw
Hence, he suggested placing limits on the power of the major corporations behind social media platforms – a stance he has taken on other occasions and which has caused friction with tech giants: “We cannot fail to recognize that a crime in the digital world must be treated the same as a crime in real life. We cannot have monstrous companies of this size – which make billions without paying taxes to our country – trying to alter election results,” Lula said in his victory speech.
Bolsonaro’s reaction
For his part, far-right politician Flávio Bolsonaro said he “rejects” the election results and announced that he will seek to have the election annulled: “We are going to consult with our legal team; we are going to request that these elections be annulled. I will not accept that the rules of the game have been changed in the middle of the game – once again – by Lula’s friends on the Federal Supreme Court.”
Bolsonaro, who delivered his speech to his supporters, was referring to the extension of voting hours. According to his team, the extension was ordered after the polling stations had closed, which, they claimed, violates Brazilian electoral rules – even though the PL itself had also requested the extension.
This is not the first time that Bolsonaro’s supporters have rejected Lula’s victory. In 2022, it was Jair Bolsonaro who refused to acknowledge his defeat. Months later, during Lula’s inauguration, hundreds of Bolsonaro supporters violently stormed several government buildings, after which investigations were launched into an alleged attempted coup d’état. One of those found guilty in the case was Jair Bolsonaro himself, who is currently serving a sentence for that crime.
However, it will be difficult for Bolsonaro’s allegations to gain traction in Brazil’s immediate future. With the exception of Argentina’s far-right politician Milei, South American countries – through their heads of state and foreign ministries – have publicly congratulated Lula on his victory, which amounts to a de facto recognition of his win.
However, the Bolsonaros still have the Trump administration as a last resort, as it has publicly supported the PL candidate, just as it did with his father in the past. This is the first time since Trump began his second term that a candidate he supported in a Latin American country has failed to win, which still raises questions about what Washington’s stance will be regarding Lula’s historic victory – a victory in which, against all odds, he managed to defeat Washington’s candidate and thus halted a wave of far-right victories in Latin America.
The week before October 25 in Brazil was frenetic. It appeared that every one of the over 200 million Brazilians had a political opinion about the presidential election. The country was fundamentally polarized. Polls showed that the vote was going to be tight, with most polls favoring the challenger Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the former president Jair Bolsonaro, and the standard bearer of the far right of a special type. But the incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula and president of Brazil from 2003 to 2011 and then since 2023, would not allow the polls to stop him. He traveled the length and breadth of the country, holding massive and energetic rallies to mobilize people to vote. In the first round, 21% of the voters did not turn out in a process that is otherwise compulsory (and a large section who did vote left the presidential section either unmarked or spoiled). Only 2.2 million ballots separated Bolsonaro (who won 47% in the first round) from Lula of the 158.7 million registered voters. To win between October 4 (first round) and October 25 (second round), Lula had to either attract people who had voted for Bolsonaro or those who had not voted or spoiled their ballots. No other candidate had turned around such a deficit in Brazil’s modern history. But Lula did it.
Streets
In the three weeks between the first and second rounds, Lula and his team motivated millions of people onto the streets in the large cities of Brazil, but also in several smaller, but significant towns. These enormous mobilizations created a sense that Lula would overcome the mathematical disadvantage presented by the voting numbers after the first round. All psephological analyses showed that Bolsonaro would cruise through in the second round, which would have indicated the impossibility for Lula. But the left did not rest on this handicap but went on the offensive.
In the first round, Bolsonaro finished 2.22 million votes ahead, but in the runoff, Lula finished with 4.43 million votes ahead. The margin moved by 6.66 million votes. These votes came from the large cities: the 319 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, home to 57% of Brazil’s population, delivered 3.89 of the 6.66 million of the turnaround. Lula’s vote grew more in municipalities that are more evangelical, richer, whiter, more schooled, and more urban. This meant that he ate substantially into Bolsonaro’s base, which was something that surprised even the Lula team. The key to the turnaround was the mass mobilizations driven by the social movements, with the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST) in the lead.
Advances
Across his three terms, Lula has presided over an extraordinary advance in the social conditions of the Brazilian people. Bolsa Família, increases in the minimum wage, the expansion of public universities, and support for family farming brought food, income, and opportunity into households that the ruling class had long treated as disposable. These achievements changed millions of lives and established that poverty could be confronted through public action. Yet the political formula that made these advances possible has reached its limits. Lula sought to improve the lives of the poor while accommodating the power of finance, agribusiness, and the dominant sections of Brazilian capital. During his first two terms, favorable international conditions created room for this accommodation. But redistribution without a corresponding transformation of economic power left the foundations of inequality intact, allowing the beneficiaries of the old order to retain the means to obstruct change and reverse its gains.
In his third term, fiscal restrictions, expensive credit, and dependence on conservative parliamentary forces have narrowed the space for reform. Social programs remain indispensable, but they cannot by themselves overcome insecure employment, household indebtedness, inadequate public services, or the concentration of land and wealth. The exhaustion lies in a governing strategy whose compromises increasingly obstruct the fulfilment of its promises. Lula’s personal authority cannot indefinitely bridge the distance between popular expectations and the concessions demanded by the powerful. A renewed project will require the organized strength of workers, peasants, and residents of the urban peripheries, the very people who form Lula’s base, with an agenda of agrarian reform, public investment, industrial development, and democratic control over finance. The movements that filled the streets must acquire greater power to shape the government’s direction. Defeating the far right opens that possibility, but securing the social gains of the Lula years will require confronting the structures that continually threaten them.
Defeat of Trump
US President Donald Trump, his vice president JD Vance, and members of the Brazilian diaspora in Miami put an immense amount of effort into defeating Lula. Brazil, which makes up half the landmass of South America, and is the largest economy in Latin America, stands out against the wave of far-right governments that now dominate the Americas. Interference in the Brazilian elections is now an acknowledged fact, with Meta cutting off Lula’s accounts at a crucial stage of the contest and other reports of funding and social media intervention.
Trump had hoped that Bolsonaro would win in Brazil so that he can then strengthen his Shield of the Americas process that began in Miami in March 2026. This process was presented by Trump as an institutional form to coordinate security but also for the suffocation of the popular movements and the left. Lula’s victory has blocked Trump’s path to exercise the Monroe Doctrine. It has also meant that Trump will not be able to so easily access the critical minerals in Brazil or to dominate the new oil find in the basin of the Amazon delta.
Despite the obstacles faced by Lula, his victory has been able to show that the far right is not invincible.
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).
A House Judiciary Committee report alleges Donald Trump was actively involved in Epstein’s abuse of young women.
On Monday, Democratic lawmakers released a report calling for a special counsel to investigate possible ties between U.S. President Donald Trump and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, just over a week before the midterm elections.
The more than 50-page report by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee alleges that Trump was an “active participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of young women in the mid-to-late 1990s.”
The document, titled “The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging From the Epstein Files and the Justice Department’s Desperate Efforts to Cover It Up,” includes the names of five women who have accused Trump of “raping or sexually assaulting them” in the company of Epstein.
Among the women’s accounts is one being made public for the first time. It describes an alleged rape by Trump during a pageant held in November 1993 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, although the account provides no evidence beyond the woman’s statements.
“The women who survived Epstein deserve to be heard, Congress must have the full files that the law requires, and an independent special counsel must investigate Epstein’s accomplices and the Justice Department’s cover-up, and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee’s top-ranking Democrat.
🇺🇸 Rep. Ted Lieu says there is “ample evidence” in the full Epstein files alleging Donald Trump raped children.
Trump, for his part, has repeatedly denied committing any wrongdoing related to Epstein’s actions. He has also repeatedly said that he had a falling-out with Epstein years ago and barred him from Mar-a-Lago, his Florida residence, “for being a creep.”
The Democratic lawmakers’ report also calls for greater federal cooperation in legal proceedings against Epstein’s accomplices and increased congressional action to uncover all possible connections within his sex trafficking network.
With the document’s release, Democrats are signaling that they have no intention of backing down from their efforts to continue investigating the connections between Trump and Epstein’s sex trafficking network. They are doing so at a time when they could win a majority in the House of Representatives and even challenge Republican control of the Senate on Nov. 3.
The midterm elections will determine all seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the seats in the Senate, as well as numerous state and local offices.
Lors d'un meeting dans le Michigan, ce dimanche 25 octobre, Donald Trump s'est interrompu pour commenter les fesses de la rappeuse Nicki Minaj, venue le soutenir. Une sortie surprenante, quelques jours après des...
Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) criticized President Trump, saying Sunday he had “become a curse to Republican candidates” ahead the November midterm elections when the GOP is projected to lose the House. “He has no idea how bad he is doing in GA. And to threaten our state that he would refuse to help…
World leaders scoffed at President Trump reportedly mulling the idea of nominating his ally former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as the United Nations secretary-general. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the possibility “funny,” adding “just a moment ago, he was a candidate for president of the European Commission,” according to Politico. He was referring…
Progressive Leader Defeats Flavio Bolsonaro in Runoff, Blunting Washington’s Push for Regional Allies.
On Sunday, the unexpected reelection of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva represents a setback for U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans to consolidate his influence in Latin America, at a time when the rightward shift of several countries seemed to be clearing his path.
The Workers’ Party leader prevailed with nearly 52% of the vote over far-right Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022), and became the first candidate to win a runoff after finishing second in the first round.
As Trump has yet to comment on the results, which Flavio has refused to recognize, Lula’s victory frustrates the possibility that Washington could add Latin America’s largest economy to its bloc of regional allies.
The setback for the MAGA leader comes just days before midterm elections in which polls indicate Democrats could wrest control of Congress from him.
A major hit for the Donroe Doctrine. Lula wins a fourth term in a historic comeback. https://t.co/PaxbXozabt
In his second term, Trump announced he would revive the Monroe Doctrine, a 19th-century policy he invokes to assert U.S. primacy in Latin America.
When he returned to the White House, his regional allies were few, among them Javier Milei in Argentina, Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, and Daniel Noboa in Ecuador.
Rightward shifts in Honduras (Nasry Asfura), Bolivia (Rodrigo Paz), Chile (Jose Antonio Kast), Peru (Keiko Fujimori), and Colombia (Abelardo de la Espriella) broadened that bloc. On repeated occasions, Trump boasted of having contributed to those victories.
The axis of Trump’s foreign policy toward Latin America is the “Shield of the Americas,” an alliance supposedly aimed at fighting drug trafficking but which in reality seeks to consolidate U.S. hegemony. Flavio Bolsonaro had promised to join that new U.S. geopolitical instrument.
Washington also seeks to counter China’s growing influence in Latin America, although a Flavio victory would hardly have altered Brazil’s economic ties with the Asian giant, given the weight of the agro-industrial sector in the Bolsonarist coalition and its dependence on the Chinese market.
Currently, Lula’s presidency in Brazil and Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidency in Mexico emerge as the main counterweights to Trump’s domination project.
This story is extremely important:
A whistleblower revealed that Brazil's far-right Bolsonaro family dynasty met with Meta to discuss US plans to interfere in Brazil's election, to prevent Lula from winning.
Despite what was at stake in Brazil, Trump avoided expressly supporting Flavio Bolsonaro, unlike what happened in Colombia, where he openly backed De la Espriella. His presence, however, was felt, and Lula’s campaign denounced interference from Washington.
Lula himself declared in his victory speech that the result demonstrates that in Brazil “we do not accept being anyone’s backyard.”
A Flavio victory would have meant “100 percent alignment with Trump in his culture war and security policy,” explained Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Stimson Center think tank.
The Republican was “clearly excited about this possibility,” but an explicit endorsement could have “hurt” the candidate, he added. Trump, however, had already taken a stand through his actions. In 2025, his administration imposed high tariffs on Brazil in response to the trial against Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to prison for attempting a coup d’etat against Lula in 2023.
In May, Trump received presidential candidate Flavio Bolsonaro in the Oval Office, an unusual gesture since he was not a head of state. Flavio asked him to designate the First Capital Command (PCC) and the Red Command as terrorist organizations.
The White House agreed to that request four days later, a decision Lula opposed out of fear that the measure would open the door to U.S. interventionism.
Washington also opened a trade investigation against Brazil over alleged unfair practices, revoked the visa of the Brazilian ambassador and suspended its consular services two days before the first round — in which Bolsonaro defeated Lula — citing security reasons.
That involvement also exposes Washington to the region’s political changes. For Oliver Stuenkel, a researcher at the Carnegie center, ideological alliances are a fragile bet in a scenario marked by frequent alternations in power. “The kind of ideological interventionism that the Trump administration is carrying out in the region is counterproductive. In the medium and long term, it will strengthen anti-American forces,” he said.
Lula’s reelection thus forces Washington to deal with a Brazil that does not share its agenda and highlights the limits of its strategy for Latin America.
Princes and Thieves, a new book by investigative journalist Matthew Cole, may open a rabbit hole into financial connections between Middle Eastern dictators and President Donald Trump's family. Cole accuses Emirati monarch Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) of sending billions of dollars to various mercenaries and political operators, including Jared Kushner, son-in-law to President Donald Trump. Cole's reporting combines well-documented connections with secondhand accounts from anonymous sources.
On Thursday, Vanity Fairpublished an excerpt from the book, reporting that Dutch military intelligence hacked into Kushner's phone in 2018 and discovered hundreds of millions of dollars in bank transfers connected to MBZ. Also on Thursday, Kushner published a letter from his lawyers to Cole categorically denying the "incredible and false" allegations in the book. "Mr. Kushner never accessed foreign accounts and always followed all rules and regulations and only pursued goals that were in the best interest of the United States as directed by the President of the United States," they wrote.
Cole had originally written on his blog that the book was scheduled for release on October 27, but the publication date was pushed forward over the weekend.
The book purports to tie Kushner to a vast web of Emirati influence operations around the world. In Cole's telling, which matches other journalists' accounts, MBZ wants to reshape the Middle East and eastern Africa into an alliance of U.S.-backed dictatorships, where "tolerance" is enforced through high-tech surveillance and "democracy" is a synonym for terrorism. MBZ's use of mercenaries in pursuit of these goals is well-documented. So is Kushner's personal affinity with the Emirati monarch and his business ties with the Arab monarchies.
Soon after Trump won the 2016 election, MBZ held a widely reported meeting with Kushner. According to the book—and according to much of that earlier reporting—the monarch complained about the Obama administration's failure to back Arab regimes against popular revolutions, its decision to end the Iraq War, and its diplomacy with Iran.
Going much further than past reporting, Cole now claims Kushner was personally involved in MBZ's mercenary operations. MBZ and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman put a collective $2 billion into Emirati and Israeli bank accounts which were managed (but not technically owned) by Kushner, according to Cole's sources. Those same sources claim that parts of this secret "slush fund" went to Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, American military contractor Erik Prince, and Cuban hitman Felipe Vidal.
Haftar, a former CIA asset, became a general in Libya's 2011 revolution and then attempted to overthrow the new government with Emirati backing in 2014. Despite a 2020 ceasefire, his forces continue to control much of Libya. Prince, founder of the military contractor formerly known as Blackwater, moved to the UAE and helped build a secret army of Colombian mercenaries. He sued Cole for defamation after Cole reported on Prince's role in helping Haftar, but a judge threw out the case. Cole's sources claimed that Vidal, a self-described "hit man," helped the United Arab Emirates (UAE) fake an Iranian attack on oil tankers in May 2019, meant to provoke Trump into war.
Kushner's lawyers have denied any relationship with any of those three men, apart from a single meeting with Prince after the 2016 election. (According to Cole, both Vidal and Prince refused to comment for the book.) The position of the U.S. government is that the May 2019 incident was a genuine Iranian attack, not an Emirati false flag.
After the Vanity Fair article was published last week, Israeli negotiator Gershon Baskin pointed out in The Jerusalem Post that the Central Bank of Israel "does not offer private banking services to individuals," which would make it impossible for Kushner's money to be deposited in the Central Bank of Israel, as Cole claimed. The book addresses that argument, claiming that the money was deposited "in what would appear to be a government account," with Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu jointly authorizing transactions.
The Abraham Accords, which include an alliance between Israel and the UAE, have often been touted as a way for the U.S. to "spend less time and less resources in the Middle East," in the words of Vice President J.D. Vance. But Cole argues that the UAE actually used its alliance to entangle American interests in a future conflict. The book states that Kushner set up "a rainy-day defense fund" for war with Iran, using Emirati money deposited in a separate Central Bank of Israel account.
Cole also claims to have evidence that Kushner was on the take from the UAE's regional frenemy Qatar. In 2017, the UAE and Saudi Arabia issued an ultimatum for Qatar to rein in its foreign policy and blockaded the small nation. The Intercept later reported that Kushner's father had sought a Qatari bailout for the family real estate business just before the crisis, and the Qatari-linked company Brookfield ended up providing the needed investment in August 2018, leading to a congressional investigation into the deal.
Democrats are still digging for information on Kushner's business ties to Qatar, but three sources told Cole that the Qatari royal family authorized and paid for the Brookfield deal. The Qatari government "asked the White House how to resolve the blockade. And the Kushners kept saying, 'We have this great property that needs investment.' Eventually, the Qataris realized the only way to settle the blockade was to buy the building," a former U.S. intelligence officer said.
Kushner's lawyers write that they have "no evidence that Qatar impacted the investment decision. Any suggestion of his involvement in the transaction or any allegation of quid pro quo with the Qatari government is false and defamatory."
Other parts of the book are better-documented. Cole obtained a draft of Prince's autobiography, text messages from one of Prince's colleagues, and emails from Emirati government adviser George Nader, who was convicted of fraudulently funneling money into Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. If nothing else, the book is a comprehensive account of the UAE's unofficial empire and its American ties. But the most explosive claims about Kushner's involvement in those activities rest on anonymous sources, making it a matter of Cole's word against Kushner's.
"I considered the responses from Kushner's attorneys carefully and consulted multiple sources about them. During the five years I have spent working on this book, I have tried to keep an open mind, and I am confident that my reporting is accurate. Kushner's lawyers' responses did not change that conclusion," Cole writes in the book's epilogue.
When the White House rolled back tariffs on coffee, fruit, beef, and farm equipment, it was effectively an admission that the tariffs were raising prices—and that Americans, not foreigners, had been paying for them.
Now, in the closing stages of the midterm campaign, the White House is once again rolling back some of those import taxes—and once again making an awkward implicit admission.
President Donald Trump's tariffs have become politically toxic.
The administration announced late last week that it would lift the 50 percent tariffs on some Canadian imports, apparently in an attempt to help Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) survive a tough reelection campaign in which the tariffs have played a significant role.
If this is indeed an attempt to sway voters in Maine, it is not a very convincing one. The Trump administration is removing tariffs on some agricultural and mechanical goods, as well as packaging and plywood, The Wall Street Journalreports. But Trump is also imposing new 50 percent tariffs on "other Canadian goods, including carpet, certain valves, and waste products."
Collins issued a statement thanking the White House for the changes. This is what members of the U.S. Senate have been reduced to—begging the president to cast his capricious, tariff-happy eyes toward products that will hurt people in other states more than in your own. (In fairness to Collons, she has voted repeatedly to roll back Trump's tariffs, but not enough of her fellow Republicans went along with it.)
Still, it's worth asking: What exactly is the pitch to voters here? Here's a tariff cut, now vote for Republicans so the president can continue to arbitrarily tax imports whenever the mood strikes?
It's easy to see why Trump's tariffs have become so unpopular. They are a huge and broad tax increase—the Tax Foundation estimates that 54 percent of imports are subject to Trump's tariffs, which are costing the average household about $1,000 annually—that was imposed without congressional authorization or popular support. They create more losers than winners, as downstream businesses and consumers pay the price for the protectionism offered to American manufacturers. Even the supposed "winners" of the tariff policy tend also to be "losers," since so much manufacturing depends on importing raw materials and intermediate goods.
Perhaps more surprising is how unwilling Republicans are to defend the president's signature economic policy. Or to even talk about it.
The Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip crunched the numbers and found that House GOP candidates have not run a single ad talking about the tariffs during this election cycle.
That silence speaks volumes. Trump says "tariff" is "the most beautiful word in the dictionary." But it is now "one of the most hated words in politics," writes Ip.
The only Republicans to mention trade or tariffs in a campaign ad, as far as I've seen, is former Rep. Mike Rogers, who is now running for the Senate seat in Michigan (and thus was not included in Ip's analysis). And he's calling for an end to the "tariff war."
There is a lesson here that hopefully will linger beyond the next week: If you support a policy that deliberately and unlawfully raises taxes and prices, voters will not reward you for it.
It's a lesson that the Republican Party learned long ago, but apparently forgot.
Against economists' advice, a Republican-led government in 1930 implemented a huge tariff hike intended to protect American farms and factories at the start of the Great Depression. Instead, those tariffs worsened economic conditions and triggered foreign retaliation.
When voters went to the polls in 1930, the first midterm after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, they registered their displeasure. The GOP lost 52 seats in the House that year. Two years later, an even larger landslide would sweep Democrats into power in Congress and the White House, ushering in the New Deal era that reshaped the federal government forever. The two lawmakers who lent their names to the legislation were among those who lost their seats, fittingly.
The most notable difference this time around is that Congress didn't actually pass a tariff bill. The trade barriers were instead imposed directly by the executive. Voters don't seem to care. Republicans were too cowardly to stand up to Trump's unilateral power grab, and now they seem too ashamed to try to defend that policy (and their largely complicit response) on the campaign trail.
As they say, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And "doomed" may be a fitting way to describe the Republican majority in Congress right now, thanks in no small part to Trump's tariffs.
Democrats Need a Net Gain of Four Seats to Take Control of the Senate as Polls Show Tight Contests Across the Country.
U.S. President Donald Trump is fighting to maintain Republican control of the Senate, where his party currently holds 53 of the 100 seats, in the midterm elections on Nov. 3, which will feature 10 key races.
Although polls show Democrats with a lead of up to 10 percentage points in national voting intention, a Democratic victory in the Senate is far from guaranteed, as polling margins in each of those races remain narrow. Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats to take control of the upper chamber for the final two years of Trump’s term.
With less than two weeks to go before voters head to the polls to elect senators to 35 seats in the upper chamber — 22 currently held by Republicans and 13 by Democrats — here are the 10 key Senate battles:
North Carolina (Republican)
Although some media outlets consider the Republican Party to have already written off the state’s Senate seat, Republican candidate Michael Whatley still has a chance to prevent former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper from winning.
Ohio (Republican)
With controversy over data centers at the center of the campaign — many residents oppose their construction in their cities because of the resulting increase in electricity costs — polls give former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown a slight lead over Republican Sen. Jon Husted.
Trump says if Democrats "get in" during the midterms, he will be "the last Republican president" pic.twitter.com/tHw1xOPn8u
A popular Democratic candidate, independent voters willing to cross party lines and growing economic discontent over the rising cost of living have forced Republicans to defend a seat that, under different circumstances, would appear much safer. Former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola is leading Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan in polls.
Maine (Republican)
Veteran Republican Sen. Susan Collins took office on Jan. 3, 1997, and is facing one of the closest races of her political career. In this midterm election cycle, she is the only Republican seeking reelection in a state Trump lost in the 2024 election. Collins and her opponent, Democrat Troy Jackson, the former president of the Maine Senate, are tied in polls.
Texas (Republican)
If there is one example of Democratic momentum in the congressional elections, it is Texas, a solid Republican stronghold until now. Democrats have not won a Senate seat in the state since 1988, so a victory by Democrat James Talarico over Republican Ken Paxton would end a 38-year losing streak. Polls show Talarico with a slight lead or the two candidates tied, but none show Paxton winning.
Michigan (Democratic)
The race is crucial for Democrats to secure a Senate majority because, if Abdul El-Sayed loses, they would have to win at least five seats currently held by Republicans. The race between Democrat El-Sayed, who would become the first Muslim senator, and former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers has no clear favorite less than two weeks before Election Day.
🤡🎙️Trump se félicite des centaines de milliards que les États-Unis gagneraient grâce au pétrole depuis l’escalade au Moyen-Orient. Il reconnaît au passage que les gens paient plus cher à la pompe et explique que son équipe lui avait conseillé de ne pas trop s’en vanter. Sa… pic.twitter.com/dMORvSUtvL
The text reads, “Trump expresses satisfaction over the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. stands to gain from oil following the escalation in the Middle East. He acknowledges, in passing, that people are paying more at the pump, and explains that his team had advised him not to boast about it too much. His response? ‘I couldn’t care less.’ The midterm elections are fast approaching. Keep this video handy.”
Iowa (Republican)
Polls have also failed to identify a clear winner in the quintessential American agricultural state, where rising fuel prices and discontent among rural voters threaten decades of Republican control. Democrat Josh Turek and Republican Ashley Hinson are competing for Iowa’s Senate seat.
Kansas (Republican)
The state, which has not elected a Democratic senator since 1932, could do so on Nov. 3. Democrat Adam Hamilton, a Methodist church pastor, describes himself as an “independent-minded Democrat” and faces a tight race against Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, with polls showing the candidates tied.
New Hampshire (Democratic)
Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas holds a modest lead in polls over former Republican Sen. John Sununu in a state where Trump’s popularity continues to decline.
Georgia (Democratic)
Although Trump won this Southern state in 2024, polls show Democrat Jon Ossoff consolidating his lead over Republican Rep. Mike Collins.
“Francamente la Norvegiafa schifo, è diventata un cesso di Paese, veramente”. Così il presidente americano Donald Trump, in un comizio in Michigan per sostenere la candidatura al Senato del repubblicano Mike Rogers, si è sfogato contro il Paese europeo colpevole, come lui stesso ha affermato, di non avergli dato il premio Nobel per la Pace per la seconda volta – riconoscimento invece assegnato all’ex giudice dell’odiata Corte penale internazionale Navi Pilay.
Ha aggiunto di voler riaprire le frontiere agli immigrati di determinati Paesi, ma di non volere “nessuno della Norvegia“, nonostante nello Stato del Michigan vivano oltre 71mila norvegesi-americani secondo gli ultimi dati U.S. Census. Nel comizio in midwest ha poi coperto di insulti islamofobici il candidato democratico Abdul El Sayed per le elezioni midterm del prossimo 4 novembre.
Gernot Döllner criticised for in-person announcement of major investment in US days before midterm elections
The head of the luxury carmaker Audi is under fire in Germany for appearing at a rally with Donald Trump just days before the US midterm elections, to announce billions of dollars of investment in battleground state Georgia.
Gernot Döllner joined Trump on stage after the US president gave a speech criticised by the head of an elected body of employees at Audi’s parent company, Volkswagen, as being full of “racism, sexism, transphobia [and] contempt for democracy”.
2016 was a pivotal year in the 21st century. In June, Britons voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. In November, U.S. voters elected Donald Trump as president, a figure widely regarded as a bad joke by both Democrats and establishment Republicans. Both events marked the beginning of a far-right wave that, a decade later, continues to sweep across much of the world. And both were aided, perhaps decisively, by a small London-based political consultancy: Cambridge Analytica. The company collected data from 87 million Facebook users without their consent and used it to create personalized political propaganda to boost the campaigns for Trump and Brexit, among others.
Login
