Federal prosecutors in California have issued grand jury subpoenas to state and local election officials Thursday, according to a person with knowledge of the effort and a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office, which administers elections in the county. The person was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive investigative steps.

MS NOW has obtained three subpoenas issued last week to employees of the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office. Each subpoena demands the recipient testify on Nov. 4, the morning after Election Day, and produce documents, including any records or communications reflecting the county’s efforts to screen for noncitizen voters or prevent the counting of any noncitizens’ votes.

The move expands the Department of Justice’s controversial probe into suspected noncitizens who are registered to vote in California. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice sued California to demand officials there set aside mail ballots cast by any of the roughly 20,000 registered voters it identified as “likely noncitizens,” according to a database compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.

A district court denied the Justice Department’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have forced California to segregate any mail ballots cast by alleged noncitizens and refrain from counting or tabulating them unless and until California could verify their citizenship. The DOJ has already appealed that order, and Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, has said that he expects the case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the DOJ’s grand jury subpoenas as an attack.

“The Trump Administration’s escalating attacks on our hardworking elections officials in California are unacceptable,” Bonta said in a statement shared on X. “As Judge Carter said in his opinion yesterday,‘these threats must stop.’”

California and L.A. County officials have criticized the DOJ for claiming, without evidence, that thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote, especially after the county said it reviewed a sample of registered voters on DHS’s list and found information indicating that many were born in the U.S.

The subpoenas, which were first reported by Bloomberg, are signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Michael Wheat, a veteran federal prosecutor who first joined the Justice Department in the 1980s. Wheat has brought criminal charges in recent weeks against alleged noncitizens for election-related crimes.

Wheat has also been tied to the investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar, who, according to a search warrant issued earlier this month, is being scrutinized for potential immigration fraud.

The post DOJ issues new grand jury subpoenas to California election officials appeared first on MS NOW.

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump handed out candy to hundreds of costumed kids outside the White House residence at Thursday's annual Halloween celebration.

Under the leadership of Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, is seeking to heavily restrict traditional Medicare enrollees’ use of remote monitoring devices for their health conditions. A proposed rule would eliminate coverage for these services unless the service is provided at a physician’s office. This rule would particularly hurt enrollees who have difficulty traveling to in-person appointments, such as rural seniors. And it would undercut a key Republican effort to alleviate the harms of last year’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Remote monitoring programs allow patients to collect their health data themselves (such as taking their own blood pressure, oxygen levels or blood sugar) and transmit the data to healthcare providers, who can use the information to help manage the patient’s health. These programs aren’t just convenient; they make it easier to proactively manage chronic diseases before there is an emergency. Patients and providers don’t have to rely on a single data point at a scheduled appointment or waiting until the condition worsens.

Where the HHS inspector general suggested a scalpel, CMS would use a hammer.

Consequently, reliance on remote monitoring has expanded in recent years. Almost 1 million Medicare enrollees received it in 2024 alone. Remote monitoring has proved particularly valuable to those who have chronic medical conditions but face obstacles to in-person appointments. For instance, residents in rural communities and areas with shortages of health professionals don’t need to travel long distances for appointments as frequently. Transportation is a critical social determinant of health, and if one has poor vision or limited mobility, in-person appointments are especially challenging.

To justify the new restrictions, the CMS cites a 2025 report by the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general. Those findings raised concerns about suspicious billing practices and patients not receiving treatment. But the report called for a measured approach: closer monitoring of billing while preserving Medicare enrollees’ ability to benefit from this program. CMS would go much further: Because most medical practices lack the bandwidth to launch and oversee their own remote monitoring programs, requiring the service to be provided by someone at a physician’s office practically eliminates the benefit. In short, where the HHS inspector general suggested a scalpel, CMS would use a hammer.

Already, a bipartisan group of House members is calling on Oz to reconsider the rule, but it fits within a broader context of the Trump administration’s quiet campaign to curtail Medicare’s effectiveness.

Much of the attention on H.R. 1 — what Trump called the “big, beautiful bill” — focused on its draconian cuts to Medicaid, but the law also triggered an automatic $500 billion cut from Medicare between 2026 and 2034. The law also delayed until late 2034 the implementation of finalized rules that would help very low-income Medicare enrollees access programs to help cover premiums and cost-sharing of benefits.

The new CMS proposal, however, is particularly curious in light of how the “big, beautiful bill” came to be.

Since then, CMS has allowed a subsidy program for Medicare Part D prescription-drug costs to expire. And it introduced a pilot program in six states that uses artificial intelligence to review the medical necessity of prescribed care. The practice, also known as prior authorization, previously was rarely used in traditional Medicare. The pilot program has already resulted in significant delays in care.

The new CMS proposal, however, is particularly curious in light of how the “big, beautiful bill” came to be. To stanch the proverbial bleeding that rural communities are projected to face from the bill’s cuts, Republicans created a $50 billion fund for rural healthcare. Technological innovation was a central pillar of this effort, known as the Rural Health Transformation Program.

Restricting remote monitoring does anything but foster innovative technologies. And the effects will be felt increasingly in the years to come. The RHTP is a relative pittance compared to H.R. 1’s Medicaid cuts and will do little to prevent closures of rural hospitals or key hospital services. And when a rural hospital closes, the driving time to the next hospital increases by 20 to 40 miles on average, regardless of whether one is on Medicaid or Medicare — which makes the ability to monitor one’s health at home all the more important.

While remote monitoring programs are imperfect and deserve oversight, they help provide healthcare in typically underserved areas. What’s more, by facilitating earlier detection, these programs can result in better patient outcomes, which are less costly to treat. In other words, remote monitoring is good for patients and for the healthcare system itself.

Along with Social Security, Medicare is considered the “third rail” of American politics. Not only is the program popular, but seniors (roughly 90% of its enrollees) vote at high rates, and younger voters prefer to protect the program for when they age into it. The politics of Medicare retrenchment may ultimately prove to be less visible than the consequences of slashing health programs. Elected officials understand the political costs of reducing Medicare spending. Yet under Oz’s leadership, CMS is demonstrating how to weaken Medicare through a series of administrative decisions that preserve the appearance of coverage while weakening access to care. Medicare’s greatest vulnerability may not be outright cuts, but rather the quiet erosion of the benefits on which seniors have been counting.

The post Dr. Oz’s new Medicare proposal would be bad news for rural seniors appeared first on MS NOW.

Alaska’s Republican governor ordered an investigation into Democrat Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign Wednesday after The New York Times reported her campaign was involved with another person named Dan Sullivan ending up on the ballot alongside Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. That report that Peltola’s campaign attempted to put a finger on the scale provoked a fresh round of outrage from President Donald Trump, and, at first glance, it may have seemed to support an unprecedented lawsuit by the Department of Justice lawsuit to pre-emptively discredit a Peltola victory. But not even Wednesday’s political bombshell justifies the DOJ’s involvement.

There’s a lot to find concerning about the Peltola campaign’s shenanigans, but the federal government has no power to force Alaska to alter its election procedures.

The Peltola campaign denies it did anything untoward, but there’s plenty to be concerned about in the Times’ reporting. According to Peltola’s former campaign manager, who spoke extensively with the Times but retracted her comments before publication, the campaign worked with Senate Democrats’ campaign arm to recruit the second Dan Sullivan to run. The DOJ’s lawsuit to intervene in Alaska’s election in case the incumbent Republican senator loses also leans heavily on the Peltola campaign’s supposedly nefarious moves to confound voters.

But even if there were attempts to confound voters, that doesn’t mean voters will be confounded. The ballot makes exceedingly clear which Dan Sullivan is which. The incumbent Dan S. Sullivan has the word “Incumbent” next to his name and the label “Registered Republican,” and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s name is left unadorned.

And Edward Foley, a law professor and former Ohio solicitor general, explained in an MS NOW essay why concerns of voters accidentally denying the incumbent senator re-election are “significantly mitigated” by the state’s ranked choice voting system.

That doesn’t mean we should entirely disregard the reported shady tactics and condescension from people working to get Peltola elected. At one point, some Democratic strategists seemed to delight in the idea of confusing the public:

In one exchange of text messages obtained by The Times, Peltola advisers seemed to make fun of voters while watching a focus group, surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler.

“Do we have a scheme for you,” wrote a consultant for the Peltola campaign. A pollster on the chat wrote that one voter seemed like the perfect audience “for our ballot strategy plan :)”

Despite Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s call for an investigation, and the DOJ’s lawsuit, the Times report makes clear that “ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska.” But the department’s lawsuit says it has an “obligation to protect the integrity of its election” and, if Peltola wins, wants to block certification “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan,” according to their lawsuit.

The DOJ’s suit quotes an initial claim from Carol Beecher, Alaska’s director of the division of elections, that Daniel J. Sullivan wanted to be on the ballot “for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot.” But now Beecher is firmly against the DOJ’s suit. State lawyers in a motion to dismiss filed Monday argued that the federal government “lacks authority to intervene in state elections at all, much less in support of a favored candidate.”

If anything, in its own efforts to affect the race’s outcome, the DOJ may have jumped the gun.

Nothing in the Times’ report changes that. There may be consequences for Peltola and her campaign staff at the state level. As election law expert Rick Hasen noted, if anyone lied under oath about cooperation between Democrats and Dan J. Sullivan, then there could be cause for a perjury prosecution, but no allegations on that front had arisen as of Thursday afternoon.

Any such testimony would have come from Dan J. Sullivan’s lawsuit to remain on the ballot earlier this year. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in his favor, allowing him to remain an option for voters. Again, there’s a lot to find concerning about the Peltola campaign’s shenanigans, but the federal government has no power to force Alaska to alter its election procedures.

If anything, in its own efforts to affect the race’s outcome, the DOJ may have jumped the gun. I imagine there would be a lot more willingness to criticize Peltola outright, and a potentially less mixed bag reaction from Alaskans, without the federal intervention. As it stands, the case will still fall flat, and Alaska’s voters will still have their say in who represents them in the U.S. Senate — even if they have to take a few seconds longer to read their ballot.

The post Alaska Senate race shenanigans still don’t justify the DOJ’s lawsuit appeared first on MS NOW.

Some influencers in MAGA world are at one another’s throats over the arrest and possible deportation of one of the movement’s loudest anti-immigration cheerleaders.

Samuel Sey, a Christian blogger and Ghanaian immigrant, has gained popularity for his vocal defenses of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents waging Donald Trump’s racist anti-immigrant crackdown. But as I explained in this week’s Tuesday Tech Drop, he was arrested last week after reportedly overstaying his visa.

The Department of Homeland Security told The Christian Post that Sey is “an illegal alien from Ghana” who has accepted “voluntary departure” from the country.

The MAGA movement, it seems, is torn over the ordeal.

On one hand, a Black immigrant who overstayed his visa would seem like a prime target for a movement like MAGA. On the other hand, a Black immigrant willing to celebrate Trump’s brutality toward immigrants is useful to the movement for propaganda purposes — and that seems like a big reason why some conservatives are expressing sympathy for him.

Christian nationalist influencer Joel Webbon faced some backlash over a prayer in which he thanked God for Sey’s arrest and for “shutting his mouth from spewing out more lies and slander against your servants.” Webbon, who also prayed for Sey’s deportation, is someone known for promoting bigotry and arguing that the U.S. could use even more racism.

Webbon’s remarks drew criticism from various conservative commentators and influencers who apparently have a soft spot for Sey despite MAGA’s mass deportation push. But that’s clearly not a universal stance among conservatives — even Sey’s podcast co-host, who has praised Trump’s immigration policy as “loving,” said his views were “unchanged” after Sey’s arrest.

So much for the Trump administration’s claims of only targeting the “worst of the worst” immigrants. And while some conservatives are bristling over that fact, others are still sticking to the script.

The post Pro-ICE influencer’s possible deportation sparks infighting in MAGA world appeared first on MS NOW.

The stench of eugenics continues to waft through Donald Trump’s administration.

A new report from The Bulwark sounds the alarm on disturbing remarks made by Ellis Boyle, a North Carolina-based U.S. attorney, during a discussion about crime with conservative influencer Cassie Clark. The outlet reported on Boyle’s comments about removing people with “bad” gene pools from society:

“What I’ve observed is, you know — it occurs to me, and this is not a new thought; I heard someone else say it. And I started looking — and if you look, you see it: 5% of the population cause 90% of the crime.”

And Boyle kept going:

“I think there’s a big component — if you took out [the] 5% of the population that’s bad and removed them from society, so they don’t create mayhem and create, you know, babies with the gene pool of more bad, then I think, in two, maybe three generations, think of how great this population would be. But that’s something that takes willpower.”

In response to the backlash against Boyle, Clark attempted to defend him from criticism, writing on X: “Removing the people who keep hurting everybody else from free society is called incarceration. … What it is not is eugenics.”

Yet Boyle advocated for removing people from society to limit their supposedly bad “gene pool” — which is absolutely a key tenet of eugenics.

Boyle’s office didn’t immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.

Trump’s bigoted and baseless remarks about some immigrants having “bad genes” that make them prone to criminality have echoed textbook eugenicists by suggesting that America’s woes could be addressed by altering the nation’s genetic makeup.

The president and Elon Musk, the Republican Party’s biggest donor, have made a habit of trafficking in this kind of racist pseudoscience — and so have others in their orbit.

Late last year, I wrote about about people with ties to Musk and a bunch of other Silicon Valley tech bros appearing in the Epstein files, with emails showing that they discussed eugenics. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., another prominent voice of racist pseudoscience, has been accused by critics of using the nation’s top health agency to support eugenics ideology as well. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, a top infectious disease expert, said in his resignation letter from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that eugenics “plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated” at Kennedy’s agency.

Members of the MAGA movement routinely take umbrage at people making historically accurate comparisons between them and groups like the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Aside from the movement’s numerous Nazi scandals, ceasing to promote eugenics would certainly make those comparisons seem less apt.

The post U.S. attorney’s eugenics comments spotlight extremism within the DOJ appeared first on MS NOW.

If you spend enough time paying attention to political messaging, you’ll inevitably hear about “dog whistle” politics. The idea is straightforward: Just as actual dog whistles can only be heard by canines, officials and candidates often use coded language to deliver subtle messages to targeted audiences in ways that are not immediately obvious to everyone else.

Donald Trump and his allies have been using these rhetorical tactics quite a bit lately.

On Wednesday afternoon, for example, the official “war room” account for the president’s political operation published an item to social media that read, “Which way Western Man?” The typical person might not have given this much thought, but it’s quite likely that fascists recognized the phrasing immediately.

Last year a Newsweek report supplied the relevant context after Trump’s Department of Homeland Security pushed a similar message:

The Trump administration has been accused of quoting a white supremacist who was backed by a Neo-Nazi group, as part of its social media campaign to recruit immigration enforcement agents.

In a post shared to X on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said “Which way, American man?”, a quote appearing to reference Which Way, Western Man, a 1978 book by the avowed white supremacist William Gayley Simpson, who argued Hitler was right and Jews must be killed.

The post from the president’s official “war room” account came three weeks after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin published an item of his own via social media that accused the left of trying to “vandalize the demographics of America.”

For some generous observers, it might be tempting to give the Republican administration the benefit of the doubt, but there’s also a track record to consider. The New York Times reported earlier this year:

The posts have referred to neo-Nazi literature, ethnic cleansing and QAnon conspiracies, mused about deporting nearly a third of the U.S. population, and promoted lyrics from an anthem bellowed by the far-right militants of the Proud Boys.

Their authors are not on society’s fringe. They are in the offices of the White House and the departments of Homeland Security and Labor, using official government accounts.

The article highlighted several messages, including one from January in which the White House and DHS jointly posted a recruitment ad for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The message began, “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN.”

It wasn’t long before observers noted this same phrase is the name of a song, which, as the Times noted, was written by members of a self-described “pro-White fraternal order” and has been embraced by white nationalist groups.

To be sure, administration officials have repeatedly denied that they’re trying to send signals to right-wing extremists and have insisted that the rhetorical similarities are coincidental.

That said, William Braniff, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University, told the Times that one or two posts might be easy to overlook. But “when you add it all together,” Braniff said, “it’s much harder to dismiss.”

The post Team Trump pushes notorious phrase linked to white supremacists (again) appeared first on MS NOW.

When Ben Carson led the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he faced a variety of controversies, but one of the most embarrassing involved furniture he bought for his office at taxpayer expense. In one especially memorable congressional hearing, the then-secretary offered a rambling, and at times contradictory, explanation for the spending, initially saying the furniture was necessary in part for “security” reasons, before ultimately blaming his wife.

Around the same time, then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt also spent more than $43,000 to install a soundproof phone booth in his office for reasons that never made any sense.

Nothing of consequence came of the incidents, even if the controversies might have served as cautionary tales for future Cabinet members: It’s best to exercise caution when it comes to public funds and office decor.

It’s a lesson Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who actually served alongside Carson in the first Trump administration, failed to learn. The New York Times reported:

Linda McMahon, the education secretary, plans to spend $43,000 on new furniture for her government office, a work space makeover that comes as she lobbies Congress to shut down her department.

Ms. McMahon’s team has informed Congress that her current furniture is worn out and “cannot be configurationally or aesthetically integrated into the agency’s new office space,” according to Education Department records reviewed by The New York Times that have not been publicly disclosed.

I know effectively nothing about interior design, but I suppose “cannot be … aesthetically integrated” is another way of saying “looks funny.”

The amount of money is notable in its own right, but that McMahon wants to spend money on furnishing an office she doesn’t think should exist adds an element to the story that makes it unavoidably worse.

Two Democratic senators — Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies — wrote to the secretary this week, pressing her to abandon her spending plans.

“It has come to our attention that as you cut off funding for students, push out staff, and do all you can to illegally dismantle the very department you lead, you plan to spend $43,278.64 on new furniture for your own office,” the senators wrote. “You vowed to put yourself out of a job; now you expect American taxpayers to pick up the tab to refurnish your own office.”

“Secretary McMahon, you have asked students, families, and teachers across the country to endure extraordinarily painful cuts in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility,’ and you have pushed out nearly half of the staff at the Department,” they added. “This year, you have asked Congress to slash funding for important K-12 programs and to cut funding for higher education programs by nearly $5 billion. But it is clear that you do not think that you should have to abide by the same rules you want to apply to others.”

Murray and Baldwin concluded, “The American people are sick of the corruption, sick of the waste, and sick of the hypocrisy coming out of all corners of this administration.”

The Education Department’s press secretary told the Times the agency was “saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” in large part by moving to smaller offices as part of the broader effort to dismantle the department altogether. It’s a line McMahon is likely to repeat the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.

The post ‘Sick of the waste’: Democrats seize on Linda McMahon’s office furniture flap appeared first on MS NOW.

For the past several weeks, Republicans worried about the outcome of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race have focused on one aspect of the contest above all others: the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.

After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system. Both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.

This has generated all kinds of allegations that the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, and her allies coordinated behind the scenes to get the other Sullivan onto the ballot. The candidate and her team repeatedly said they weren’t involved, but The New York Times published a report Wednesday that called those denials into question. From the article:

The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.

Not surprisingly, Republicans who were already worked up about the allegations when there was no evidence became apoplectic in response to the newspaper’s report. Donald Trump published four separate rants to his social media platform, for example, each of which alleged unidentified crimes, called for Peltola’s disqualification or both. Around the same time, the president told reporters that the Democratic nominee “should resign,” and at a Wednesday night rally in Ohio, he also called for her prosecution.

On Thursday morning, Trump hedged on whether Peltola should be allowed to serve in the Senate, even if Alaskans elect her.

Other Republicans went down a similar path. Incumbent Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties; Attorney General Todd Blanche scurried to Fox News to accuse Democrats of “cheating”; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer launched a congressional investigation; and even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’s generally been friendly with Peltola, complained of “a culture of deception.”

For now, it’s fair to say that there are legitimate questions about what transpired, though they don’t yet have definitive answers. That said, even if the allegations are true, it’s important not to lose sight of the relevant details.

There’s a qualitative difference between genuine electoral scandals and routine campaign mischief. Asking an official who oversees a state elections system to “find” 11,780 votes that don’t exist is disgraceful on a historic scale, but looking for candidates with names similar to an opponent is a tactic with a deep American pedigree. It’s common enough to have earned a familiar name: ballot-stacking.

That’s not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But both parties have utilized this strategy for generations — there’s a classic story from 1946 about John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, which included two men named Joseph Russo — and it’s never been the subject of hysterics, Justice Department prosecutions or federal investigations.

The same is true of campaign mischief in general. Republicans, including one of Trump’s own lawyers, tried to help Kanye West qualify for the presidential ballot in 2020, as part of a dumb trick. GOP operatives did the same thing in the 2024 race, trying to boost Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances.

Even in the Sullivan-Peltola race, the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC has invested in a Green Party candidate from Arizona — not because it supports his candidacy, but because it’s playing a cheap electoral game.

Similar tactics have been common in Alaska for a while, including in 2010, when some of Murkowski’s critics encouraged people with similar names to register as write-in candidates.

Again, if members of Team Peltola denied involvement in a scheme they were involved in, they’ll deserve to be criticized for underhanded campaign tactics. But to pretend that the latest apparent instance of ballot-stacking is some kind of hair-on-fire scandal is a mistake.

The post Eyeing Alaska, Trump and Republicans pick a fight over campaign mischief they can’t win appeared first on MS NOW.

With the midterm elections expected to determine the Republican Party’s control of Congress for the last two years of President Donald Trump’s term, there are new concerns rising over his potential to use the military at polling sites, which is against federal law.

Trump and senior officials won’t rule out sending troops to polling sites, and in September a senior Pentagon official reportedly told senators that there were discussions about deploying troops on Election Day. The Trump administration’s most senior general said in August that there were no plans to send troops to polling sites.

A new study shows that the majority of Americans — regardless of political party — do not support using troops at polling sites and say that it would significantly reduce the overall public’s confidence in the military as an institution.

The Democracy and Security Network at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, with NORC at the University of Chicago, polled 2,800 Americans between Oct. 7 and Oct. 20, half of whom were veterans, and found that 59% of respondents agreed that the president should not use the federal military to monitor or administer elections. The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

“The introduction of military forces into any election in the United States — a scenario that has not been seen in roughly 150 years — could do significant and irreparable harm to the legitimacy of the vote,” the report’s authors wrote.

The president has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives him the authority to send troops or federalize a state’s National Guard to suppress an insurrection, and Trump administration officials have previously cited authorities under Title 10 of the United States Code to send troops to American cities to assist local law enforcement with protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“People are worried. I think they’re just worried about law enforcement or federal military in general being more involved in elections, and I’m not confident that they’re particularly looking at military versus ICE versus FBI or they’re just concerned in general about that level of interference,” said Lauren Voss, one of the researchers who conducted the study.

Earlier this year, Trump said in an interview with The New York Times that he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after he lost the election in 2020.

Trump has also repeatedly called into question the security of the U.S. election system and amplified false claims of widespread voter fraud in what many say is an attempt to sow doubt among Americans about the election results.

In a recent interview with Time magazine, the president said he hadn’t ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring a national emergency around the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

Last month, the undersecretary of defense for policy, Elbridge Colby, reportedly said during a closed-door Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that there were discussions taking place about deploying the National Guard to polling places during the midterms.

Federal law prohibits the use of military troops at polling locations during an election, except if force is necessary to repel an armed enemy of the United States.

An American official convicted of violating the “troops at polls” law, as it is called, can face up to five years in prison “and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States,” according to the statute.

But the German Marshall Fund’s study found that only 64% of Americans knew that the use of troops at the polls is illegal.

The disparity was more pronounced when political party was factored in, with only 42% of Republicans knowing about the prohibition versus 72% of Democrats.

The president has increasingly deployed the military within the United States, including along the border to assist U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security in security operations, and in Washington, D.C., where he says the National Guard’s continued presence is necessary to combat crime.

The researchers found, overall, that domestic deployments are contributing to the declining trend of Americans’ trust in the military as an institution.

Based on the survey results, the researchers concluded that the general public expects troops to refuse unlawful orders, that the courts should order that a military campaign should end if it is found in violation of international law, and that Congress has an obligation to hold the president accountable for ordering illegal military operations by cutting off funding.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has repeatedly failed to directly answer whether he has plans to deploy troops to the polls next week, calling it a hypothetical. But in a recent memorandum, he did outline how he planned to use the Department of Defense to “ensure the integrity of the upcoming election,” namely to root out any foreign actors who attempt to interfere in it.

In a recent letter to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and hemispheric affairs, Mark Ditlevson, confirmed that the Pentagon had no plans to deploy active duty troops or federalize the National Guard to polling sites.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also assured Slotkin in an earlier letter that there were no plans to send troops to seize voting machines, ballots or other election-related materials.

The post Trump won’t rule out sending troops to polling sites. Most Americans are against it, a study finds. appeared first on MS NOW.

Over the past week, the public has learned of three efforts by the Department of Justice to charge perceived enemies of President Donald Trump with federal crimes. One of those efforts, an attempt to indict former White House aide turned Jan. 6 committee star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, failed on Tuesday after a Washington, D.C., grand jury did not have the votes to return what’s known as a “true bill.”

The other two have resulted in the opening of criminal cases: one against former FBI Director James Comey, the third such effort against him in just over a year, and the other against two former FBI employees alleged to have lied to a congressional committee about what they knew about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

And with the midterm elections literally days away, despite this seeming escalation in prosecutions, the Justice Department has maintained that political considerations had nothing to do with the timing or existence of these criminal matters.

As a DOJ spokesperson told The New York Times, “The standard is purpose, not proximity to Election Day. Department policy does not require the department to stop ongoing work during an election season.”

Yet even assuming that Justice Department prosecutors are acting in good faith, that description of DOJ policy is incomplete.

A memo issued in 2024 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland mandated that prosecutors not time “criminal charges or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election.” The memo went on to say, “Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution” (emphasis added).

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request to confirm whether the memo was still in effect. MS NOW is unaware of any evidence that it has been rescinded.

Moreover, the Justice Manual — sometimes called the bible of federal prosecution by current and former DOJ personnel — provides that any issue or even “the perception of an issue” concerning an investigative or prosecutorial action during an election season demands consultation with the Public Integrity Section, the deputy attorney general and/or the attorney general themselves. In other words, Trump political appointees, up to and including Attorney General Todd Blanche, are the final arbiters of whether a prosecutor’s purpose is legitimate.

Given that, some or all of them must have signed off on these recent prosecutorial developments. But the mistakes made by DOJ lawyers in each of these cases suggest both a rush to the courthouse and a desire to stretch the law, criminal procedural rules or both in ways that might fail or have already faltered.

Take the most recent criminal charges against Comey, unsealed earlier this week. Those charges center on the purported disclosure of allegedly classified information by an FBI employee to a New York Times reporter who published an article hours later. According to the DOJ, Comey intentionally caused that disclosure on Oct. 5, 2016, knowing the information was classified.

But the case against Comey, filed 10 years later to the date, was not initiated through an indictment, which requires a vote of at least 12 grand jurors in a federal court. The Justice Department charged Comey via an information, which does not require grand jury involvement and therefore typically can be filed much more quickly than an indictment.

Because the statute of limitations for each of the charges against Comey is 10 years, the DOJ seems to have assumed it could charge Comey by information within that window and then later obtain an indictment, which (barring a defendant’s waiver) is necessary to prosecute felonies.

But now the department is instead defending Comey’s near-immediate motion to dismiss. And his legal team’s argument has nothing to do with the substance of the charges or claims of selective or vindictive prosecution, which it supported with extensive documentation in the two prior cases against Comey.

Instead, Comey’s attorneys argue that the plain language of the statute of limitations pertains only to indictments, not informations or criminal complaints, the third way federal criminal cases can begin. A Washington, D.C., federal judge will hold a hearing on that motion Friday.

The case against former FBI analyst Nikki Floris and former agent Bradley Benavides seems to show signs of a similar rush to the courthouse. That case was instigated on Oct. 20 through a criminal complaint, which typically contains a written statement of “the essential facts” of the offense charged, usually submitted by a federal law enforcement agent under oath and then approved and signed by a federal magistrate judge.

But within days — and literally in the middle of the night before a preliminary hearing — the Justice Department filed what it characterized as a “superseding” criminal complaint. The new complaint lacked a signature from either the agent, swearing to its veracity, or the judge himself. It also was filed under the name of a different FBI agent, without any explanation.

The magistrate judge, Zia Faruqui, was furious, asking the DOJ lawyer whether he was aware of any prior federal case in which a magistrate judge had allowed a superseding criminal complaint without a judge’s sign-off. The lawyer acknowledged that he was not — and ultimately, the judge refused to sign the new complaint, telling the prosecutors, “I am concerned about what your view of the law is.”

The hearing was further derailed when Bryan Witt, the agent who replaced the original affiant, took the witness stand to defend the government’s finding of probable cause to charge Floris and Benavides.

On questioning by Floris’ lawyer, Witt testified that the day after Trump complained during a national address that some FBI intelligence officials had downplayed a report that China had tried to interfere in the 2020 election in order to defeat him, FBI Director Kash Patel directed the U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas City, Missouri, to investigate some of those same officials, including Floris. Witt further testified that the letter arrived “right in the middle of a major public corruption case,” that the new investigation was “a huge distraction” and that he had concerns from the outset that “this would be viewed as political.”

He also admitted that he never interviewed Floris, though he said it would have been “incredibly useful” and normally would have been something agents did, and that the initial complaint contained factual inaccuracies. As of Wednesday afternoon, Faruqui was still weighing whether prosecutors had probable cause to charge Floris and Benavides.

In light of the challenges the DOJ has encountered in that case, one may wonder if it would have been more effective to slow down and present an indictment to a grand jury. Yet the department’s failed attempt to secure an indictment against Hutchinson — its third potential own goal in recent days in D.C. federal court — might explain why it didn’t.

Because grand jury proceedings are secret, it is unclear why the grand jury did not indict Hutchinson. But according to public reporting, including from MS NOW, lawyers from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division proposed charging her with false statements to Congress, crimes not usually within that unit’s ambit.

The Justice Department’s inability to indict her comes after an unusual number of similar losses in other cases in Washington that have involved known targets of Trump’s ire, including an attempt to indict six members of Congress who, through a video, encouraged military service members to refuse to follow unlawful orders.

And with days to go before the midterm elections and with a president who is openly taking credit for the DOJ’s litigation strategy, it could be that no matter what charging instrument the department chooses, it is working too fast — and with too conspicuous a veneer of partisanship — to succeed.

The post DOJ says recent charges against Trump foes aren’t rushed or improper. But it keeps hitting roadblocks. appeared first on MS NOW.

A couple of months ago, Donald Trump announced plans to create a new national military academy, which he called the U.S. Space Academy. “You think of West Point, and you think of Annapolis, and you think of the Air Force Academy, and you think of the Coast Guard Academies,” the president said. “Great, they’re all great, but we’re going to have now the Space Force.”

It’s not altogether clear exactly what Space Academy graduates would do, but if the Republican’s plans are implemented, this will be the first new federal military academy opened in the United States since 1954.

The White House also hasn’t said where exactly this service academy would be. As it turns out, the president has some thoughts on the matter, which he shared at his latest campaign rally. NBC News reported:

Trump pledged to establish the new U.S. Space Force academy in Ohio, but only if Sen. Jon Husted wins re-election next week.

“And I wanted you to know that if Jon Husted wins, I am going to consider putting the Space Academy right here, if you win,” Trump said.

He added that “every state” wants the Space Force academy (itself a dubious claim), but that Ohio will be the one to get it — if Ohioans vote the way he wants them to in a Senate race.

If former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown prevails, Trump can still deliver the service academy to the Buckeye State, but by his own admission, he won’t. For the president, this is a transaction: He’s prepared to deliver a treat to Ohio, but it’s conditional on his satisfaction with a specific election, which has literally nothing to do with the Space Force or its academy.

This has become a staple of his midterm messaging:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: The president told an Ohio audience he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they didn’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elected a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Oct. 20: The president told a North Carolina audience he would settle claims related to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, but only if Republican candidates won. “If we don’t win, there’s no money,” Trump declared. “If we do win, you’re getting it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (Last week in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

In case this isn’t obvious, nothing about a Democratic-led Congress would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to these states or constituencies. The president made the commitments conditional, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest transactional pitch: Space Force academy is conditional on election outcome appeared first on MS NOW.

"The (war) must continue so that we are protected from threats," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

As persecution continues around the world, so too should our bipartisan support for refugees — regardless of where they come from, the color of their skin, or what faith they practice.  

As persecution continues around the world, so too should our bipartisan support for refugees — regardless of where they come from, the color of their skin, or what faith they practice.  

As the ninth month of the war with Iran gets underway, there’s new reason to believe the simmering conflict is poised to turn hot again. The Wall Street Journal reported, “The U.S. has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the U.S. midterm elections, people briefed on the conversations said.

“The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the U.S. and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations.”

It stands to reason that U.S. military planners would have a lot on their plate right now, which made it all the more notable that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to have fired the Pentagon official chiefly responsible for planning. The Atlantic reported:

Earlier this week, the Pentagon’s chief planner, Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, was ousted from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No explanation was given. This comes at an inopportune moment, given that President Trump may be planning to relaunch the war on Iran. Sylvia, the former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, becomes the latest in a long line of senior officers who have been shown the door since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon almost two years ago.

No replacement for Sylvia was named, and it is unclear who will take over his responsibilities.

The Washington Post published a related piece, noting that none of the relevant players commented on the development, but adding that Sylvia’s “online biography appears to have been removed from the Joint Staff website.”

The same report went on to note, “Sylvia’s abrupt removal has infuriated colleagues, who saw him as a battle-tested and thoughtful leader.”

But while the public waits for additional details about why the hapless defense secretary did this — Sylvia had been targeted by Laura Loomer, a right-wing influencer who often advises President Donald Trump — the larger context is tough to ignore: Two months ago, The New York Times reported that Hegseth’s personnel moves have been so dramatic that he has left the U.S. Army “essentially rudderless” during an ongoing war in the Middle East.

And yet it’s hard to imagine that more dramatic personnel moves are going to put a rudder back on the U.S. military.

I’ve spent months documenting the scope and scale of the former Fox News host’s relentless purge, which has affected every branch of the armed forces and which has grown so serious that it’s fueling congressional plans to impeach Hegseth.

But with the president in his corner, the secretary doesn’t appear to care — about the pushback, the fallout, the outrage or the consequences.

Political scientist Caitlin Talmadge, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who specializes in foreign policy and military operations, noted via social media earlier this year, “Firing senior officers for cause is one thing. Firing them repeatedly on this scale and with no explanation is unprecedented in our nation’s history.”

The practical effects matter. Over the last year, a great many critics have expressed concerns that Hegseth is destabilizing the U.S. military. In fact, The New York Times reported last fall that the secretary had fired or sidelined so many officials “with little explanation” that he’d created “an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust” within the department.

Politico published a similar report the month before, noting that the secretary’s firings have “injected a fresh wave of fear into the Pentagon over the cost of speaking up and who might be next.”

Early last year, five former defense secretaries, including retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary, condemned the pattern of firings as “reckless.” In a joint letter to Congress, they asked the House and Senate to hold “immediate hearings to assess the national security implications” of the dismissals.

Hegseth and the administration appear to have ignored those concerns; the purge is still going on; and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill have scheduled no such hearings — though that seems likely to change if there’s a Democratic majority next year.

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who served as a Marine officer in Iraq and now serves on the House Armed Services Committee, spoke to Politico about Hegseth’s purges, which the congressman described as politically motivated.

“That’s a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military,” Moulton said. “That’s the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea.”

The Massachusetts Democrat made those comments a year ago. The problem is far worse now.

For his part, Hegseth testified on Capitol Hill in April and defended the pattern during congressional testimony, telling lawmakers who asked about his personnel purge, “Under Barack Obama, 197 general officers were removed. So this is not something specific to this administration.”

We learned soon after that the statistic the secretary cited was entirely made up and had no basis in fact. Whether or not Hegseth is prepared to acknowledge the facts, he’s removed more senior military leaders than any defense secretary in recent American history.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Hegseth purges yet another top general, intensifying controversy appeared first on MS NOW.

Former Biden senior staffer Karine Jean-Pierre is producing an elevated genre movie. The D.C. vet sees indie film as a viable new career.

As the final week before the midterm elections got underway, the political world’s focus turned to, of all things, the Cheesecake Factory.

Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail in Michigan over the weekend and took aim at his Republican successor on a variety of fronts, but the former Democratic president seemed to take a degree of pleasure in mocking Donald Trump’s misplaced priorities.

Spending a little time on the incumbent’s obsession with renovations and interior design, Obama noted Trump turning the Oval Office into a showcase for gold curios. “He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” the former president said to hearty laughter.

Predictably, Trump and his allies spent the ensuing days (a) whining incessantly about Obama having hurt his successor’s feelings; (b) defending the Cheesecake Factory, which obviously wasn’t the target of the joke; and (c) celebrating the Republican’s redecorating efforts, effectively proving Obama’s point about Trump fixating on renovations instead of his duties.

On Wednesday night, Obama returned to the stump, this time in Georgia, where he took some time to reflect on the truly bizarre reaction to his line from days earlier.

"The president wasn't even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison! But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory" — here's Obama's full riff about the "phony outrage" over his Trump/Cheesecake Factory comments and how it illustrates that "these are not serious people"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-29T00:42:53.539Z

After beginning his riff talking about how much time he and his family spent at the Cheesecake Factory, especially as his daughters were growing up, Obama noted, “Of course, the real problem is, prices have gotten so high a lot of folks can barely afford to go out to eat.”

“So you would think that this administration would be spending time worrying about that,” he continued. “But that was the interesting thing about how the administration responded to the speech I gave the other day. They did not dispute what I said about them being directly responsible for rising prices; they did not argue with that. They did not deny tariffs were contributing to higher costs for families; they didn’t say anything about that. I accused this administration, based on the facts, that they were engaging in unprecedented levels of corruption; they didn’t say anything about that.

“The president wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison. That part didn’t bother him. But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory comment. He took great umbrage. He said I didn’t understand the work of the ‘artisans’ in the White House.

“It’s all crazy, but this was the really crazy part: They mobilized a whole-of-government response to that joke — not to inflation, but to that joke.”

After highlighting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s weird event at a Cheesecake Factory earlier this week, the former president concluded, “To everybody out there, including the press, I want you to understand this: This is what I mean when I say these are not serious people. They don’t have solutions to actual problems, so they’d rather have the media and you talking about the Cheesecake Factory. That’s the game they’ve been playing for the last two years. Just keep throwing distractions out there. Attacks, fabrications, phony outrage, and hope that you won’t notice that your bills are higher and your life is tougher.”

As luck would have it, right around the same time that Obama was speaking in Atlanta, the incumbent president was delivering remarks of his own in Ohio, where he spent even more time talking about how impressed he was with himself for devoting so much attention to White House renovations.

“President Obama, who doesn’t understand cleanliness, who doesn’t understand broken, cracked stone and sidewalk, who doesn’t understand that having asphalt going to your main entrance is not the right thing,” the Republican said. “We’d like to have granites and marbles. We’d like to have it look nice. You don’t use asphalt.”

He then proceeded to share some additional thoughts on asphalt, which probably isn’t the message his political operation had in mind for the election season’s closing days, though it went a long way toward proving Obama’s point.

The post Obama skewers Trump again, says he ‘wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison’ appeared first on MS NOW.

A dozen former U.S. officials who resigned from the Biden administration over its Israel policy are demanding 2028 presidential candidates sign a pledge to not hire the officials who oversaw that policy. They are, in effect, calling for the Democratic Party to oust the kinds of premier foreign policy personnel that tend to stick around Washington, shape left-of-center party foreign policy debates, make weighty staff recommendations and continually re-enter new Democratic administrations through appointments.

It’s a sharply antagonistic new 2028 litmus test that would cause drama in Washington — and it’s a great idea.

The officials who signed the pledge letter, which The Washington Sun first reported on Wednesday, resigned in 2023 and 2024 from the White House and several different agencies, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Navy and the Defense Intelligence Agency. In the letter, they express concern that senior Biden administration officials who oversaw Gaza policy “are now actively white-washing their own roles in enabling genocide” — and they want to put a stop to it by barring them from future administrations.

“The senior officials who turned a blind eye to the facts, lied to the American public, actively repressed internal dissent, and enabled America’s material support for Israel’s genocide have no business holding positions of influence in any future administration,” they write. The letter also goes one step further, seeming to suggest that they should also be blacklisted from think tanks, academia and other foreign policy organizations: “They should not be welcomed in any institution from which they may exert influence over the formulation of foreign policy, or the education of America’s next generation of leaders.”

U.S. policy would be improved morally, spiritually and strategically.

The letter does not name specific Biden officials, but says candidates who take the pledge should acknowledge U.S. complicity in Isael’s genocide and refrain from hiring anyone who “as a past or present political appointee was an architect, leader, defender, or key enabler, of the U.S. policies of unconditional support to Israel that constitute complicity in a genocide.”

This letter comes after a coalition of progressive organizations, including the Democratic Socialists of America, Just Foreign Policy and the Palestinian Youth Movement, launched its own similar pledge in September called #DroptheGenocide20. That pledge identifies 20 top Biden officials who had key roles in Israel policy, including former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, former White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk, and former White House national security communications adviser John Kirby. All of these officials currently hold prestigious gigs and have the status and connections to make them serious contenders for roles in a future center-left presidential administration.

It’s unclear if these pledge movements will gain traction, but I hope they do. There is no realistic hope for legal accountability for the Biden — or Trump — administration’s roles in enabling Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. But at least stigmatizing them can serve as a tool for accountability. The Biden administration’s support of Israel as it targeted civilians and active participation in the revolting scheme to starve the enclave should not be shrugged off as a casual policy error. It was a moral atrocity and should be treated as such. It was also a strategic mistake because it undermined America’s international standing and credibility when advocating for human rights.

Some Biden partisans may counter that this is a backward-looking form of activism at a time when we must focus on the future. But nothing could be further from the truth. If top Biden officials who made terrible decisions were iced out of future presidential administrations, it would have a concrete effect on the future. It would block personnel with poor judgment from entering the government. And it would in the process telegraph the more humane values those administrations want in appointees who will formulate and execute policy. Ultimately, U.S. policy would be improved morally, spiritually and strategically by removing from its ranks people who think enabling genocide is defensible. And if this project of stigmatism included leading think tanks and cushy academic gigs, then our intellectual climate would be enriched as well.

This goes well beyond Israel policy. These kinds of pledges would also act as a deterrent against future scenarios in which foreign policy officials face major moral dilemmas. Currently, a culture of impunity pervades Washington — key figures who architected the war in Iraq, for example, paid no price for their roles in enabling one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunders of all time, yet remained influential in the think tank, academic and media worlds. Their continued presence in foreign policy discourse permitted a noxious ideological tendency, neoconservatism, to continue influencing how Republicans and, to a lesser extent, Democrats discussed the future direction of U.S. foreign policy.

In a sane world, similar pledges would arise on the right to pressure future Republican administrations to view the architects of Trump’s war on Iran as unacceptable. Unfortunately, there’s little reason to believe that any such standards of moral or strategic judgment will ever be upheld by a political movement that has demonstrated cultish tendencies.

Democratic presidential candidates don’t necessarily need to officially sign these pledges to observe their spirit. They can at least say that those Biden officials would not be a fit for their administration and explain why.

As The Washington Sun pointed out, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and a potential 2028 contender, was recently asked by Zeteo about future administrations hiring officials like Blinken, McGurk and Sullivan. He replied, “People can change, but they have to be able to demonstrate that they fully understand exactly what went wrong and their role. … I have not seen the kind of introspection and change that I think would be required.”

Exactly. These pledges are one way to force that badly needed reflection. And impose consequences.

The post A group of former Biden officials is creating a wise new litmus test on Israel policy appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge has denied the Trump administration’s request for an emergency order that would have forced California to set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters whom the Department of Homeland Security has identified as “likely” noncitizens.

In a 26-page opinion, U.S. District Judge David Carter, based in Santa Ana, California, noted that the relief the Department of Justice was seeking was unprecedented in both substance and timing.

“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,” Carter wrote.

“In bringing this lawsuit, the Executive would have this Court believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign. But California and its people are sovereign, too,” he continued.

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal late Wednesday night. Bill Essayli, the top DOJ official in Los Angeles, said at a news conference Tuesday that he expected the case to reach the Supreme Court.

“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials,” Essayli said in a statement Wednesday night. “This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution.”

In rejecting the Justice Department’s motion for a temporary restraining order, Carter also rejected the argument that California and Los Angeles County were impeding the federal government’s enforcement of a statute criminalizing noncitizen voting by refusing to use DHS’ database to verify the citizenship of the flagged voters.

Carter noted that the Justice Department announced the prosecution of 28 alleged noncitizens residing in California for election-related crimes on the same day it sought the emergency order.

That demonstrated, Carter reasoned, that the Justice Department had the ability — as well as the power — to enforce federal law. California and the county, he ruled, were not interfering with that ability “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.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit, filed on Oct. 15, came just days after the federal government first asked California and Los Angeles County to review its list and set aside ballots from people whose citizenship could not be confirmed. The DOJ also sent letters to both the state and the county warning that they could face prosecution if election officials allowed noncitizens to vote.

In his ruling, Carter directed that such threats end immediately.

The opinion also detailed Carter’s concerns about the reliability of DHS’ database, which an agency official admitted in a sworn declaration was “enhanced” with commercial data sources.

The judge’s overriding concern, however, was preventing chaos and protecting public confidence in the democratic process.

“The Executive’s requested relief, however, would wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway, create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens,” Carter wrote.

“Eroded trust in our democracy is irreparable,” he contined. “Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred. If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger.”

He concluded, “This Court declines to be a party to such process.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called Wednesday’s ruling a “victory,” but warned that the state’s fight continues.

“No administration can disenfranchise thousands of individuals or disrupt an ongoing election based on highly unreliable claims of noncitizenship,” Bonta said in a statement. “Today’s ruling is yet another important victory for the rule of law and the right to vote. But this fight is not over. We will keep fighting to protect California’s elections from unlawful federal interference and get this baseless lawsuit dismissed.”

CORRECTION (Oct. 29, 2026, 9:31 a.m. ET): A previous version of this article misspelled the name of California’s attorney general. He is Rob Bonta, not Banta.

The post Judge denies DOJ demand that California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 ‘likely noncitizens’ appeared first on MS NOW.