No pleito deste ano, os eleitores que gostariam de anular os votos no segundo turno poderiam votar em qualquer número que não pertencesse aos partidos do presidente Lula (PT) e do senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), que disputavam o Palácio do Planalto.
Conforme levantamento da CNN Brasil com base nos dados divulgados pelo TSE, o número mais utilizado para anular os votos foi “00”, que não pertence a nenhum partido e representou 54,5% dos votos nulos.
A conclusão marca o encerramento das atividades do Grupo de Trabalho (GT) de Adequação ao Período Eleitoral 2026, criado para coordenar as medidas necessárias ao cumprimento da legislação eleitoral nos canais de comunicação da empresa.
"Quero parabenizar todos os integrantes do GT pelo empenho, pela responsabilidade e pela dedicação ao longo de todo esse processo. Foi um trabalho coletivo que exigiu diálogo, análise criteriosa e compromisso com o cumprimento da legislação", avalia Thiago Regotto, diretor-geral da empresa.
"Também agradeço a todos os empregados da EBC, que seguiram cumprindo nossa missão institucional de informar a população, com qualidade e responsabilidade. Encerramos esse ciclo com o reconhecimento do esforço de nossas equipes e a reafirmação do papel da EBC na garantia do direito à informação e no fortalecimento da democracia", finalizou, reforçando que as adequações não representaram restrição à atividade jornalística e que equipes seguiram trabalhando normalmente durante o período eleitoral, com apoio das diretorias e da Consultoria Jurídica para esclarecimentos e orientações sobre situações específicas.
Em 3 de julho, a Diretoria-Executiva comunicou a indisponibilização temporária de conteúdos publicados entre 1º de janeiro de 2023 e 3 de julho de 2026 que se enquadravam nas restrições eleitorais.
A medida alcançou portais, redes sociais e intranet. Permaneceram disponíveis os conteúdos de natureza eminentemente jornalística, documental, histórica, cultural ou educativa, cuja manutenção decorreu das finalidades institucionais da EBC e do direito fundamental de acesso à informação.
As medidas adotadas tiveram como base a legislação eleitoral e as orientações da Secretaria de Comunicação Social da Presidência da República (Secom), da Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU), da Consultoria Jurídica da EBC e da Justiça Eleitoral.
O objetivo foi assegurar a conformidade dos conteúdos institucionais durante o período de restrições, preservando os princípios da comunicação pública, como transparência, isonomia, imparcialidade e pluralidade.
Com a conclusão da republicação nos sites EBC, a Empresa encerra mais uma etapa do trabalho de adequação eleitoral, reafirmando o compromisso com o cumprimento das normas legais e com a continuidade de sua missão de levar informação de interesse público à população brasileira.
A recent New York Times article presents evidence that Alaska Democrats sought to confuse voters in that state's 2026 Senate election by introducing a second candidate with a name very similar to that of the Republican incumbent, thereby potentially siphoning off some of the latter's voters. The incumbent senator is named Dan S. Sullivan, while the other candidate is Dan J. Sullivan. As the Times reports, some of the facts here are disputable, and it is not entirely clear whether Democratic candidate Mary Peltola knew about this effort or approved of it. But it seems likely that at least some of her staffers and other Democratic operatives were involved.
Before going further, I should emphasize that this effort is worthy of condemnation. Trying to confuse voters into voting for the "wrong" candidate in this way is not how democratic political participation should work. And the fact that other politicians (including Republicans) engage in various electoral "dirty tricks" doesn't justify this one.
Elsewhere, I have explained why these kinds of actions are not illegal, and why the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to block certification of the Alaska Senate result deserves to fail. I stand by that conclusion. Legal scholar Rick Hasen (a leading election law expert) has a helpful recent post explaining why the New York Times revelations do not change anything from a legal point of view. But the fact that this scheme is legal doesn't make it right.
That said, it is important to keep this issue in proper perspective, and especially to recognize that many other types of lies and efforts to exploit voter ignorance are much worse. Confusion caused by candidates with similar names is relatively rare, and it is difficult to find examples where it affected more than a small fraction of voters. I am not aware of even one case where it was decisive to the outcome of an election. But I welcome correction on that latter point.
The Alaska case is unlikely to be an exception to the above generalization. In the first round of the ranked-choice voting election (which narrows down the candidates to the top 4), only 2.5% of voters picked Dan J. Sullivan. Peltola led the incumbent senator by a much larger margin than that (8.1 points). Even if every single person who voted for Dan J. did so because of confusion (which is improbable), that's unlikely to change the result.
Moreover, the Alaska ranked-choice voting system reduces the risk of error. Some of those who vote for the "wrong" Dan Sullivan might rank the "right" one second. After the former gets eliminated, those votes get transferred to the latter. On top of that, as Michael Dorf points out, the Alaska ballot explicit indicates that Dan S. Sullivan is the "incumbent." That further reduces any potential confusion. The widespread publicity this issue has gotten over the last few weeks further reduces the risk of error. Many voters have probably now heard about the two Dan Sullivans and will be on guard against the problem.
It is still theoretically possible that confusion between the two Sullivans will end up having a decisive impact on the election. Some people who voted for Dan J. might not rank the other Sullivan second, or might misunderstand how the RCV system works. And some voters might (understandably) not be very careful about how they mark their ballots, thereby making a mistake despite the various safeguards against it. Still, it seems highly unlikely that such errors will have a decisive impact on the outcome.
Overall, this kind of a thing is relative molehill of a problem. Elections where it makes a decisive difference are likely to be extremely rare, at worst. By contrast, candidate lying about policy issues and exploitation of voter ignorance about them is a veritable mountain. I summarized some of the relevant evidence in an earlier post about the Alaska controversy:
Donald Trump is a particularly egregious example, going all the way back to his first campaign in 2016, and more recently with his lies about the 2020 election and other issues. But more conventional politicians also often resort to lies and deception, even if not to the same degree. President Obama, for example, famously lied when he claimed that, under the Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." That deception won the 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year award. But it still helped Obama get reelected in 2012. I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care….
Ultimately, both exploitation of voter confusion about names and other deceptions used in campaigns seek to exploit widespread voter ignorance. Because of the combination of "rational ignorance" (lack of incentive to seek out political information) and "rational irrationality" (lack of incentive to engage in unbiased evaluation), most voters know little about government and public policy, and often do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. This makes them vulnerable to deception and manipulation, and incentivizes politicians to lie and otherwise distort the truth.
I would add that lies and deceptions about policy issues affect vastly more voters and have vastly bigger impacts on electoral outcomes than confusion about candidates' names. To take just a few recent examples, Trump in 2016 and 2024 and Obama in 2012 probably could not have won without the former. If, in 2024, key swing voters had realized that Trump's policy agenda of tariffs and mass deportations was likely to raise prices (as it predictably went on to do) rather than lower them (as he promised to do), he likely would have lost. Polls showed that prices were the biggest issue in the election for key swing voters. Trump also might well have lost if GOP base voters realized he was lying about the 2020 election, among other issues. In 2012, Obama might have lost if swing voters realized that he was lying when said that, under his signature policy initiative (the Affordable Care Act), "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
Effective lies and deceptions about policy issues (often exploiting preexisting voter ignorance and bias, but also deliberately seeking to create more of it) are ubiquitous. And they very often affect electoral outcomes. Even when they don't change the outcome between the candidates who run, they often have an impact on the policies those candidates adopt in the first place. As described more fully in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance, political parties and their strategists know most voters are ignorant, and often deliberately select policy agendas based on the likelihood of successfully exploiting that ignorance. The result is that even the lesser of the evils on offer in a given election (or the less egregious liars) are often still very bad.
From a moral point of view, I don't see any reason to believe lying about policy issues and exploiting voter ignorance about them is any worse than trying to trick voters into selecting the "wrong" candidate out of confusion. In practical terms, the former happens much more often than the latter, and has a far bigger effect).
Cornell law Prof. Michael Dorf recognizes that lies about policy issues are bad, but suggests that efforts to create confusion about candidate names are worse, because the latter are harder to combat with "counter-speech." I think the truth is the exact opposite. People can and do use counter-speech to oppose lies and deceptions about policy issues. But "rationally ignorant" voters will often ignore the counter-speech (not wanting to take the time and effort to study it) or reject evidence that goes against their preexisting biases. Many policy issues require considerable time and effort to understand well.
By contrast, it's much easier to find out there are two candidates with similar names in the election, and to take precautions against accidentally voting for the "wrong" one. Counter-speech to that effect need not be very complicated at all, or take a long time to understand. In the Alaska case, for example, you just need to remember to vote for Dan S. rather than Dan J. or just know to vote for the one marked "incumbent." And figuring this out does not require going against any partisan or ideological biases.
As I have emphasized in previous writings about voter ignorance, I do not believe we can or should fight it by trying to punish politicians for their lies, or by censoring "misinformation." There is, in fact, no easy solution to the problem. But I assess a range of options in my 2023 article on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance, and in Democracy and Political Ignorance. I believe the best approach is to make fewer decisions at the ballot box and more by "voting with your feet," where incentives to seek out information and evaluate it wisely are much better. In the works linked above, I also argue that we should give consideration to simply paying voters to increase their knowledge levels (e.g. by establishing a "Voter Achievement Test" and offering rewards to high scorers). But I recognize that any effective approach will take time, and there may be no one fix that is sufficient by itself.
The beginning of wisdom here is to recognize we have a wide-ranging problem of voter ignorance, and to prioritize the most significant types of ignorance and exploitation thereof. On that scale, ignorance about policy issues should rank high, while voter confusion about candidates' names is a very minor problem, by comparison.
UPDATE: I have made minor additions to this post.
The post Creating Voter Confusion About Candidates' Names is Bad - But Exploiting Voter Ignorance About Policy Issues is a Much Bigger Problem appeared first on Reason Magazine.
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.
Continue reading...
© Composite: Getty Images
© Composite: Getty Images
© Composite: Getty Images
A medida faz parte da campanha do Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego (MTE) de combate ao assédio eleitoral no trabalho.
O MTE disponibiliza um canal específico para receber denúncias de trabalhadores que sofreram ou presenciaram situações de discriminação no ambiente de trabalho relacionadas ao voto ou ao posicionamento político.
Para registrar uma denúncia, basta acessar a página assedioeleitoral.trabalho.gov.br.
As denúncias podem envolver ameaças de demissão, represálias, pressão para votar em determinado candidato ou candidata e outras formas de constrangimento ou discriminação por motivação política.
Segundo o ministério, sempre que possível, é importante informar a data e o local da ocorrência, identificar o empregador e descrever os fatos. Mensagens, documentos, imagens, áudio e outros registros que ajudem a comprovar a situação também podem contribuir para a apuração e adoção de medidas cabíveis.
Experts round on chancellor over ‘scattergun’ budget, saying he ducked big tax and spending decisions
John Healey has backed away from cutting the cost of welfare this parliament, amid dire warnings his first budget could lead to brutal spending cuts because of a £28bn shortfall in public finances.
Experts rounded on Healey’s steady-as-she-goes budget on Thursday, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying he had left himself a mountain to climb by ducking big tax and spending decisions.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images
© Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images
© Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images
O MPT aponta a responsabilidade da Meta pelo conteúdo publicado em suas plataformas e pede que o Tribunal Regional do Trabalho (TRT) da 2ª Região arbitre indenização de R$ 50 milhões por danos morais coletivos.
>> Descubra se você está sofrendo assédio eleitoral e saiba como denunciar
Conforme a Agência Brasil noticiou, as denúncias de assédio eleitoral aumentaram mais de 75% desde a última segunda-feira (26), dia seguinte ao segundo turno das eleições gerais, totalizando 1.459 casos em todo o país.
O maior número de denúncias é proveniente de São Paulo (620), seguido de Minas Gerais (351), Paraná (338), Rio de Janeiro (252), Rio Grande do Sul (223) e Santa Catarina (165).
Os dados coincidem com a multiplicação de relatos sobre incentivos a boicotes e a demissões de funcionários que tenham votado em candidato contrário à orientação política do patrão.
De acordo com o MPT, passado o pleito em que o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva se reelegeu, perfis nas plataformas digitais passaram a incentivar e orientar empregadores a vasculharem as redes sociais de seus funcionários ou colaboradores com o objetivo de descobrir em quem estes votaram e, no caso de a opção ser diferente da patronal, demiti-los.
“Outras publicações expõem pessoas à ridicularização, com nome e imagem, ou comemoram demissões”, sustenta o MPT, assegurando que só quatro das publicações analisadas em um único perfil, que totaliza 3,8 milhões de seguidores, somaram mais de 2 milhões de curtidas.
De acordo com o MPT, além de permitir conteúdos ilegais durante dias, os próprios sistemas de recomendação da Meta, como a aba ‘Explorar’ e os ‘Reels’ sugeridos, ampliam o alcance do que gera mais engajamento.
Consultada pela reportagem, a Meta informou que não comentaria o assunto.
Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) deve fazer a solicitação de residência permanente nos Estados Unidos “em algum momento”, e o pedido seria processado rapidamente pelo governo de Donald Trump, assim como ocorreu com Eduardo Bolsonaro, segundo o NYT (New York Times).
O green card, documento que deve ser solicitado por Flávio, permite que estrangeiros residam e trabalhem legalmente nos EUA por tempo indeterminado, desde que cumpram as regras da legislação migratória norte-americana.
Eduardo conseguiu o green card em julho deste ano, após mais de um ano esperando pelo atendimento da solicitação à administração federal.
Atualmente, o senador e sua família receberam do governo de Trump uma autorização condicional para permanecer nos Estados Unidos por até um ano. Assim, poderão ficar no país até outubro de 2027, pelo menos.
Essa permissão é concedida em casos específicos, incluindo casos de urgência humanitária.
Ainda segundo o NYT, Jason Miller, um funcionário da área de comunicação da Casa Branca, providenciou o jato utilizado por Flávio Bolsonaro na fuga para os EUA.
O senador viajou na noite de terça-feira (27) com essa aeronave da Argentina para o Equador, onde foi feito o reabastecimento, e, então, para Miami, de acordo com uma fonte “a par da logística” dessa viagem ouvida pelo jornal americano.
Eduardo Bolsonaro manteve contato com o assessor de Donald Trump, ainda de acordo com o NYT. “O plano foi colocado em prática na segunda-feira, depois que o Sr. [Flávio] Bolsonaro foi orientado a entregar seus passaportes, informou a fonte”, pontua a reportagem.
Questionada sobre o assunto pela CNN Brasil, a Casa Branca redirecionou os questionamentos a Jason Miller. A CNN Brasil também entrou em contato com o Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos e com o assessor de Trump e aguarda retorno.
Na quarta-feira (28), Donald Trump confirmou que os Estados Unidos concederam a permissão para que Flávio entrasse no país.
Entretanto, quando foi perguntado por repórteres sobre a carta com teor golpista em que Flávio se autodeclarou “presidente eleito” do Brasil, o líder dos EUA afirmou que não comentaria o caso.
“Não vou me envolver. Foi uma eleição muito estranha, isso é certo”, acrescentou em outro momento.
Trump tem feito acusações, sem mostrar provas, de que a eleição brasileira pode ter sido fraudada. Autoridades do Brasil e de outros países, além de especialistas de órgãos independentes, atestaram a lisura da votação.
O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) foi reeleito no domingo (25) com vantagem de cerca de 4,4 milhões de votos sobre Flávio Bolsonaro. O petista recebeu 64,2 milhões de votos, contra 59,8 milhões do adversário.
O cálculo considera mudanças no Bolsa Família, a perda de arrecadação relacionada à bets e um pacote de medidas voltado aos microempreendedores individuais (MEI).
O relatório também alerta para a necessidade de um ajuste fiscal para estabilizar a dívida pública e aponta perspectivas de déficit primário este ano e em 2027.
Os R$ 40 bilhões estimados pela IFI estão associados a três frentes de medidas anunciadas durante a campanha:
O impacto fiscal poderá ser maior caso outras propostas sejam implementadas.
A instituição ressalta que o cálculo não contempla o Pé-de-Meia Universitário nem a isenção de tarifas de transporte coletivo aos fins de semana.
A IFI projeta déficit primário de 0,5% do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB, soma dos bens e serviços produzidos no país) este ano. Para 2027, a avaliação apresentada na abertura do relatório indica que os novos compromissos, somados às divergências entre as estimativas da instituição e os números do Projeto de Lei Orçamentária Anual (PLOA), podem elevar o déficit primário efetivo potencial a 1% do PIB.
O déficit primário ocorre quando as despesas do governo superam as receitas, desconsiderando o pagamento dos juros da dívida pública.
A instituição calcula que seria necessário alcançar um superávit primário de 2,1% do PIB para estabilizar a relação entre a dívida pública e o tamanho da economia.
“Considerando que a IFI estima ser necessário um superávit primário de 2,1% do PIB para estabilizar a relação dívida pública/PIB, esse quadro indica a necessidade de um ajuste fiscal equivalente a algo como 3 p.p. [pontos percentuais] do PIB”, afirmaram os diretores Marcus Pestana e Alexandre Andrade na apresentação do relatório.
O relatório também destaca que a elevação das estimativas para a taxa de juros real neutra (aquela que, em tese, não estimula nem desacelera a atividade econômica) aumenta o esforço necessário para estabilizar o endividamento público.
A mediana das estimativas de juro neutro chegou a 6,1% ao ano no terceiro trimestre deste ano, acima dos 5% utilizados anteriormente como referência pela IFI.
Nesse cenário, o superávit primário necessário para estabilizar a dívida subiria de 2,1% para 2,9% do PIB, mantidas as demais hipóteses do exercício apresentado no relatório.
A instituição também calcula que a probabilidade de a dívida bruta superar 90% do PIB até 2030 aumenta de 78,9% para 81,6% quando considerada a incerteza sobre o juro neutro.
Outro ponto abordado no relatório são as operações de crédito realizadas pela União com recursos do Orçamento, classificadas como despesas financeiras e que não entram diretamente no cálculo da meta de resultado primário.
Segundo a IFI, os pagamentos relacionados a créditos concedidos com recursos orçamentários passaram de R$ 71,7 bilhões em 2023 para R$ 220,3 bilhões acumulados até outubro deste ano.
Descontados os retornos ao Tesouro Nacional, as saídas líquidas chegaram a R$ 147,7 bilhões em 2025 e a R$ 180,5 bilhões nos dez primeiros meses deste ano.
Embora essas operações não comprometam formalmente o cumprimento das metas fiscais, a instituição avalia que elas têm impacto efetivo sobre a trajetória da dívida pública.
A IFI também identificou pontos de atenção nas projeções orçamentárias para o Regime Geral de Previdência Social (RGPS) e o Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC).
No caso da Previdência, o relatório aponta que o Projeto de Lei Orçamentária de 2027 não contabiliza o impacto de uma decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre aposentadoria especial, estimado em R$ 13 bilhões.
Em relação ao BPC, a instituição observa divergências entre as projeções do governo e os dados disponíveis até agosto deste ano. Enquanto a estimativa governamental pressupõe redução do número de beneficiários no segundo semestre do ano e aumento das cessações em 2027, os registros indicavam expansão no total de benefícios emitidos.
Sobre a condução da política econômica após a reeleição de Lula, a instituição não prevê mudanças bruscas. A expectativa é de continuidade da estratégia gradualista de ajuste fiscal, com correções pontuais.
Os diretores da IFI, no entanto, defendem medidas consistentes para enfrentar o desequilíbrio das contas públicas e criar condições para a retomada dos investimentos.
“Sem um ajuste fiscal consistente não haverá retomada relevante dos investimentos estratégicos, crescimento acelerado, criação de empregos de qualidade, incremento da renda e dinheiro para financiar políticas públicas essenciais”, avalia Marcus Pestana.
O relatório também recomenda a apresentação de um plano fiscal para os próximos quatro anos e a definição do comando do Ministério da Fazenda, em meio às incertezas dos mercados financeiros.
Para a instituição, o desafio é conciliar o controle do endividamento, o financiamento de políticas públicas e a abertura de espaço no Orçamento para investimentos capazes de estimular o crescimento econômico.
Na semana passada, o Ministério do Planejamento e Orçamento informou que pretende remanejar R$ 20 bilhões do Orçamento de 2027 para fazer frente aos novos gastos. A pasta não divulgou o impacto total das medidas anunciadas durante a campanha eleitoral. Apenas informou que o restante da diferença seria coberto pela revisão para baixo de estimativas de gastos obrigatórios no projeto de lei do Orçamento do próximo ano.
A mensagem de alteração do Projeto de Lei Orçamentária Anual (PLOA) de 2027 será encaminhada ao Congresso Nacional assim que for designado o relator do projeto.
Para este ano, a pasta informou que os impactos serão residuais porque a maior parte das medidas anunciadas só começam efetivamente a valer no próximo ano.
O TSE (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral) registrou a apuração mais rápida da história recente da Justiça Eleitoral no segundo turno das eleições de 2026, realizado no domingo (25), mesmo com a votação prorrogada até as19h. Os dados constam em nota do tribunal e foram divulgados nesta quinta-feira (29).
A totalização de 100% das urnas foi concluída às 23h26, 52 minutos antes do segundo turno de 2022, quando o processo terminou à 0h18 de segunda-feira. Considerando o encerramento da votação às 17h, o procedimento levou 6 horas e 26 minutos, contra 7 horas e 18 minutos do pleito geral anterior.
O resultado matemático da eleição presidencial deste ano foi definido às 21h09, quando Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) atingiu o percentual irreversível para a vitória. Ao final, Lula foi reeleito para o quarto mandato, com 64.256.232 votos (51,79%), contra 59.826.041 (48,21%) de Flávio Bolsonaro (PL).
Segundo o TSE, a velocidade não se deve apenas à capacidade de processamento dos sistemas, mas também à agilidade dos TREs (Tribunais Regionais Eleitorais) no envio dos dados a Brasília.
Por volta das 19h, quase todos os boletins de urna do país já tinham chegado aos servidores centrais do tribunal. Por isso, a avaliação é que a prorrogação em seções com filas teve impacto mínimo no tempo final. Em eleições anteriores, a demora costumava estar ligada ao envio de boletins de locais de difícil acesso ou com problemas de conexão, e não à soma dos votos.
A votação foi estendida por decisão do ministro Cristiano Zanin, do STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal), depois das campanhas de Lula e Flávio relatarem dificuldades no transporte público. A totalização só passou a ser feita oficialmente pelo TSE após as 19h, em razão da decisão.
Em levantamento divulgado na terça-feira (27), o TSE informou que 34.393 votos foram registrados depois das 17h. Desse total, 32.399 foram computados entre 17h e 18h, 1.981 entre 18h e 19h e 13 após as 19h. O número equivale a cerca de 0,03% do total de votos e é muito inferior à diferença de 4.430.191 votos entre os dois candidatos.
Das 497.333 seções do país, 437.065 encerraram os trabalhos até as 17h10. Outras 24.268 funcionaram depois desse horário e registraram 8.673 dos votos computados após as 17h.
O segundo turno teve a participação de 128,2 milhões de eleitores, entre os mais de 158 milhões aptos a votar. A abstenção foi de 19,2%, abaixo dos 21,08% do primeiro turno.
Segundo o Conselho Indigenista Missionário (Cimi), ao menos cinco casos de assassinatos de indígenas na região desde sábado (24) estão sendo investigados.
Mas ele ressalta que a violência no estado é constante.
“Agora temos holofotes para a região. Mas o que aconteceu essa semana, as tentativas de assassinatos, elas ocorrem o tempo todo com a população indígena Guarani Kaiowá. Essa violência que está sendo chamada de violência pós eleitoral, ela é um componente permanente de milícias do campo”, disse.
A Fundação Nacional do Índio (Funai), o Ministério dos Povos Indígenas (MPI) e a Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil (Apib) encaminharam pedidos ao Ministério Público Federal e à Polícia Federal para investigar os casos. Um deles envolve um atropelamento de indígena de forma proposital na cidade de Coronel Sapucaia, no sudoeste do estado, na fronteira com o Paraguai.
Segundo dados da Apib, entre 2022 e 2026, seis indígenas da etnia Guarani Kaiowá foram assassinados no estado de Mato Grosso do Sul.
Outra denúncia investigada pelo MPF é a de uma ameaça de envenenar a água usada pela comunidade em retaliação ao resultado da eleição presidencial.
Em um áudio que foi atribuído a um funcionário da prefeitura de Tacuru, no extremo sul do estado, o homem diz ao interlocutor que os indígenas deveriam ser mortos por terem votado no candidato Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT): Na gravação ele fala: “ponha (sic) veneno na água, (vamos) matar essas praga na água”.
Segundo o coordenador do departamento jurídico da Apib, Ricardo Terena, a água na região é difícil e as comunidades indígenas dependem de caminhões pipa. E após a divulgação dos áudios, muitos passaram a não consumir mais essa água. O MPF de Mato Grosso do Sul deu um prazo de 24 horas para que a prefeitura de Tacuru esclareça se os áudios são verdadeiros, quem é o autor das ameaças e quais medidas estão sendo tomadas.
The midterm elections are just days away, and while anything can happen, the broad consensus among pollsters suggests a bad night for Republicans.
Hoping to shore up a victory for his party, President Donald Trump seized upon an idea: bribe the voters.
"If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them," Trump pledged in September, "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000."
According to Vice President J.D. Vance, this "dividend"—which would cost more than $1.3 trillion—would come from the "extraordinary amount of revenue" generated by Trump's tariffs. Of course, that math doesn't work: According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the U.S. took in just under $300 billion in tariff revenue between January 2025 and July 2026, not counting the amount it has had to refund after the Supreme Court found they were illegally imposed.
At that rate, it would take years of tariffs just to pay for Trump's dividend. Adding insult to injury, of course, is the fact that tariffs are paid by Americans, meaning we would be taxing ourselves to pay for our own disbursement.
But in the campaign season's closing days, Trump has made a number of other threats and offers, contingent on his party's success—a completely risible use of government power.
In September, three Ohio Republicans—Rep. Mike Turner and Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted—petitioned the president to build a planned Space Force training academy in their state.
"Every other state wants it," Trump said this month at an Ohio campaign rally. "If we win the midterms, Ohio will be very, very strongly considered."
Some of his pledges have been much more explicitly transactional.
On October 17, the Department of Defense—which Trump calls by its original name, the Department of War—announced a conditional $80 billion loan to pharmaceutical manufacturer Antheia. That same day, at a campaign rally in Kentucky, Trump made a pledge to the state's voters.
"If the Republicans win, the Department of War will be investing $100 million in the pharmaceutical company Antheia to revitalize a gigantic drug manufacturing facility in Winchester, Kentucky," he said. But he prefaced it by telling Rep. Andy Barr, the Republican running for the state's open Senate seat, "you have to win, Andy. Otherwise, forget it."
Days later in both Kansas and Iowa, Trump brought up E15, a gasoline blend that contains up to 15 percent ethanol derived from corn. It has advantages and disadvantages as an alternative to traditional gasoline, but it's a boon for corn-growing states.
"Normally, E15 is not allowed during the summer because warmer temperatures increase fuel evaporation and thus the formulation of ground ozone ('smog')," writes Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute.
The government can waive that restriction to address disruptions in the fuel supply, which it did in March amid gas price shocks related to Trump's war in Iran. The House passed a bill in May to make the waiver permanent and allow E15 to be sold year-round, which Trump backed in June; the Senate version of the Farm Bill includes a year-round E15 amendment, but Democrats have held up its passage.
"With Roger Marshall in the Senate," Trump told Kansans last week, "we will make year-round E15 permanent. But if [Democratic candidate] Adam Hamilton is in, I'm not doing it."
He then made the same pledge in Iowa, where Rep. Ashley Hinson is the Republican Senate nominee. "With Ashley in the Senate, we will make it year-round E15," Trump said. "We'll make it permanent."
Of course, it's nothing new for politicians to make big promises in exchange for your votes. Typically, they're all hollow to at least some degree.
And Trump's pledges do reflect some version of reality: Keeping the Senate in Republican hands will make it easier for him to do certain things. But some of his others have been downright indefensible, less like typical political bribery than outright extortion.
At a rally in North Carolina last month, he tied hurricane disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Senate candidate Michael Whatley's election.
"We spent more than $2 billion [in] FEMA funding," he told attendees. "You're waiting for some additional money…and I'm gonna get that to you, Michael. Now if Michael loses, I'm not sending it." He added right after, "I'm only kidding, you're gonna get it."
Other times, he didn't take it back: Trump appeared at a campaign rally in Georgia this week, stumping for Rep. Mike Collins to unseat Sen. Jon Ossoff, and part of his sales pitch was that if Ossoff wins, he may just ignore the state.
"President has a lot of power," he said, and there's "a big difference when he likes the people representing a state. Collins could call me anytime he wants." But if Ossoff wins, he added, he won't take the call, and he even narrated a hypothetical conversation to make his point: "'Tell him I'm not in.' 'But he needs money for Georgia.' 'I don't give a damn what he wants!'"
Also this week, Trump railed about the Senate race in Alaska, where Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan faces not only former Rep. Mary Peltola but a retired teacher also named Dan Sullivan. The New York Times reported this week that the Peltola campaign actively recruited the second Sullivan to run explicitly as a spoiler, to siphon votes away from the senator.
"I have delivered for Alaska at Historic Levels," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The Democrats are trying to steal this important Republican Seat and, if that happens, everything we've done for Alaska will come to an immediate hault [sic]."
It's one thing to say the federal government shouldn't provide aid to states—and since taking office, the administration has cut or paused such disbursements by $177 billion. Last week, the FEMA administrator indicated that going forward, states should expect to shoulder more of their own disaster aid.
But this goes much further, with the president explicitly conditioning aid on whether or not the state's voters have displeased him.
Perhaps, as in North Carolina, Trump was simply joking; the White House did not respond to Reason's request for clarification.
But there's certainly precedent to suggest he was serious.
"Last September, the Department of Energy (DOE) recommended cancellation of 624 grants for clean energy projects that had been approved by the Biden administration," Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote in July. The government then "winnowed it down to 284 grants, all but one of which had been awarded to projects in states that were represented by Democrats in the U.S. Senate and had voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election."
In March, Politico reported that Trump had approved 89 percent of disaster aid requests from states with a Republican governor and two Republican senators but only 23 percent of requests from states with Democrats in those offices.
According to the Idle Rambling Substack, the trend continues: Trump has rejected nearly half of aid requests from Democrat-led states in this term while only rejecting 18 percent from Republican-led states.
But perhaps worst of all, he threatened not to pay out damages to people who suffered harm.
Between 1953 and 1987, the water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina was contaminated by leaks of fuel and dry cleaning chemicals. The government estimates that as many as 1 million people, both service members and their families, were exposed to toxic chemicals. The Department of Veterans Affairs officially recognizes eight diseases stemming from exposure, including multiple cancers and Parkinson's disease.
In 2022, Congress passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which waived any federal government claims of immunity and allowed veterans to sue over exposure to tainted water. As of September 2026, the Department of Justice says it has paid out more than $879 million, out of more than $1.1 billion in settlement offers.
"We're also fighting for our great veterans, and taking care of those veterans who brought claims related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune," Trump told North Carolina rallygoers last week. "And if we win the House and the Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible." But "if we don't win, there's no money. If we do win, you're getting it."
It should be clear by now that Trump values personal loyalty over all else. To that end, there is nothing he finds more disreputable than failing to do what he says.
In the closing days of this campaign season, he is making that more explicit than ever, tying his party's success in a state to whether the state is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
Trump was right that presidents have "a lot of power." He's also a living example of why they shouldn't.
The post Trump's Latest Attempt To Salvage the Midterms: Bribe and Extort the Voters appeared first on Reason Magazine.
In a July 16 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a "preliminary review" suggested there "may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote" in her state. Weber was skeptical—for good reason, it turned out. Three months later, the Trump administration reduced that estimate by nearly 90 percent, saying about 20,000 "likely noncitizens" had received California vote-by-mail ballots.
The Justice Department gave Weber and Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's top election official, 48 hours to determine whether any of the people on the government's list were in fact citizens. Otherwise, it said, Weber and Logan should segregate those ballots and refrain from processing them until citizenship could be verified. After Weber and Logan declined to comply with the Justice Department's demands, it asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring them to do so—a request that he rejected in a scathing opinion on Wednesday.
"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," writes U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. "This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff's last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve."
The Justice Department delivered its list of "likely noncitizens" to Logan three weeks before Election Day. At that point, Los Angeles County already had sent ballots to 5.9 million voters and processed 331,000 of them. Logan said he was "legally prohibited" from doing what the Justice Department wanted because it had failed to explain the methodology used to compile the list, raising the possibility that citizens would be denied their voting rights.
There was ample reason for that concern. On July 17, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin averred that "as many as" 15,903 noncitizens were registered to vote in Nevada. The following month, when the DHS submitted a list of allegedly illegal voters to Nevada election officials, the number had fallen to 185—99 percent lower than Mullin's original figure. It turned out that every one of those 185 voters was a U.S. citizen.
"DHS has identified over 250,000 potential non-citizens illegally registered to vote" in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Mullin said in July. He was echoing President Donald Trump, who for years has grossly exaggerated the extent of illegal voting by noncitizens, often in service of his own vanity.
Trump has repeatedly claimed, for example, that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for "the millions of people who voted illegally," and in January 2024 he warned that noncitizen voters "could very well affect the next election." In a speech the night before Mullin's announcement, Trump asserted that the DHS had "identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections."
Judging from Nevada's experience, the actual number may be closer to zero. It is hard to say, because the methods used by the DHS remain hazy.
In the California case, Carter says, the DHS "purchased a voter file that appeared to reflect 'the actual voter rolls in California, that as of August 2025, may be used for the 2026 federal election.'" It "then 'enhance[d]' the voter data through a 'reliable third-party data analytics'" and used records maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to find "an internal USCIS immigration number" that "may" correspond to each registered voter. "The matches are scored," Carter notes, "because 'the resulting data may be incomplete, outdated, or mismatched.'"
The DHS "then compared the potential identity matches to Department of State and Social Security Administration data to screen out U.S. citizens," Carter adds. "In the next step, a confidence level was assigned (where a high score supported a 'strong identity link') and a manual review was conducted for each match to 'determine which registered voters'" were "likely to be aliens." Then came "a 'quality review' to identify issues such as 'duplicate entries' and 'incomplete records,'" followed by "an 'enrichment process' that utilized 'additional unique identifiers' to 'improv[e]' the matching process."
The government did not initially specify the source of the "reliable third-party data analytics." But it later revealed that "the third-party platform it relied on was
Lexis Nexis," Carter notes. "It remains unknown how Lexis Nexis performed its analysis, such as how it 'linked names to Social Security numbers not available on the California public voter file.' Plaintiff likewise did not explain what its 'enrichment process' entailed or how it occurred. Plaintiff also provided 'no error rates' or 'validation against a reliable benchmark' that would enable a determination of the accuracy of its findings. Omissions of this critical information prevent an evaluation of Plaintiff's procedure, including how Plaintiff reduced its initial claim of nearly 200,000 alleged noncitizens to 20,000 individuals."
Potential sources of error include conflating people with similar or identical names and outdated records that do not reflect recent naturalization. Because it is unclear how the DHS tried to address such problems, it is not surprising that Weber and Logan did not want to rely on the Trump administration's list, especially given its pattern of dramatically reducing the putative number of illegally registered voters.
"It is well-documented that matching voter registration records with data from other
administrative databases 'presents numerous challenges,'" Carter writes. And given the potential for error, he says, "Plaintiff's allegations are not credible." He adds that the TRO sought by the Justice Department "would likely lead to voter disenfranchisement" and "would create a significant administrative burden for Defendants, leading to chaos and upending the election."
In any event, Carter says, the Trump administration does not have legal standing to seek such an order. The government's main argument was that California officials, by refusing to segregate ballots from people on its list, were interfering with its enforcement of 18 USC 611, which makes it a misdemeanor for "any alien to vote" in a federal election.
"Defendants do not 'interfere' with the United States' ability to enforce Section 611 by
administering an ongoing election in accordance with established State and Federal law, rather than assuming new obligations pursuant to a federal criminal law they are not responsible for enforcing," Carter writes. It is well established that state officials have no obligation to enforce federal law, he notes, and that they cannot be "commandeered" to do so.
Nor does the federal government need such assistance to enforce Section 611. "The very same day the United States filed its TRO [application] in this Court, the Department of Justice brought charges against 28 individuals" in California under that law, Carter notes. It is not clear how many of those defendants, who represent 0.0001 percent of California's 23 million registered voters, actually cast ballots. But "if fraudulent voting occurs," Carter says, "the United States should uphold the law and bring additional Section 611 indictments against those non-citizens it believes actually voted illegally in the current—or a prior—election."
The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility for conducting elections, subject to explicit limits imposed by Congress. But the Justice Department's actions in this case "are indicative of a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials," Carter writes. The department "has filed at least thirty-one lawsuits in federal district courts across the country seeking complete voter rolls from the States. Out of the twenty-six decided cases, the DOJ has prevailed in precisely zero."
In addition to "its failed attempt to seek State voter rolls," Carter notes, "the United States has also requested that States act based on the Executive's own lists." But "sister district courts across the country have cast doubt" on the reliability of those lists for the same reasons that Carter cites in this case.
On October 23, the Justice Department "sent letters to every county in California requiring them to set aside the votes of alleged non-citizens," Carter notes. "The letters stated that election officials 'risk significant federal scrutiny' if they failed to comply with the Government's demands. The government reiterated its threat in open court yesterday, stating that State and County election officials who do not comply with their letter risk federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2, which criminalizes aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offense. The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop."
The post Trump's Claims About Noncitizen Voting Are 'Not Credible,' a Federal Judge Says in a Scathing Decision appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Login