Democrats are now more trusted than Republicans to handle the economy, inflation, immigration, crime — even national security.

The New York Times released a poll, conducted jointly with Siena University, on Wednesday showing just 34% of registered voters in the United States approve of the job that Donald Trump has been doing as president, while 60% disapprove. The Times noted that this is a lower approval than that of any president at this point before a midterm, with the lone exception of Harry Truman, who limped into the 1946 midterm elections with a 33% approval rating, which the Times noted was “at the dawn of modern polling.”

The numbers are even worse for the president if you compare the difference between his approval and disapproval rating — his “net” rating, as we call it here at FiftyPlusOne — to that of his predecessors. In October 1946, Truman’s approval in our historical average hovered between 35% and 38% — about where Trump is now — but “only” around half of Americans disapproved of him.

Fourteen days before the 1946 midterms, Truman’s net approval stood at −10.3 (37.9% to 48.2%). That is much better than Trump, who, as of our average on Wednesday afternoon, has a 34.8% approval and 62.0% disapproval rating — for a net of −27.2.

Trump approval rating: The latest polls

MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne weights its average by poll quality and recency. Full results are available here.

This comparison makes Trump the most unpopular president of all time, and it isn’t close: The previous record for worst-ever presidential approval before a midterm cycle belonged to George W. Bush in 2006, at −19.3. That was the “thumpin” year of 2006, when Democrats gained 31 House seats and five in the Senate amid widespread backlash to the Iraq War and the federal mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. Trump is eight points below that level — and 17 below his own standing at this point in 2018, when Democrats gained 40 House seats.

It is not hard to explain this drop in views of the president. Voters elected Trump in 2024 largely because of economic anxiety resulting from rising costs under Joe Biden. But the president has delivered a hard-right agenda — tariffs, mass-deportation tactics — without bringing down the cost of living.

In a CNN/SSRS poll released back in July, 73% of Americans said Trump had not paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems — a record high. Just 27% said he had the right priorities.

That damage has also spread from the president to his party’s reputation — and trust in it to handle those issues. Wednesday’s Times/Siena poll found Democrats ahead by eight to 20 points on the economy, cost of living, gas prices and healthcare. And that’s not a one-poll fluke. FiftyPlusOne compiled every available poll asking which party Americans trust more on a given issue — Gallup back to 1951, plus ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN and others more recently — and averaged net trust within each two-year cycle, weighting polls taken closer to Election Day more heavily.

The results are shown in the graph below as the gap between the percentage of Americans who said they trust the Democrats and Republicans on each of six key issues. (Positive values indicate Americans are more likely to trust Democrats than Republicans).

Start with the economy. In 2022, Americans trusted Republicans over Democrats on the economy by 14 points in our average; in 2024, it was by 10 points. Today, Democrats lead by six points — a 20-point swing in four years, and the party’s best showing since 2008. Gallup’s long-running measure tells the same story: 51% of Americans now say Democrats will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous, versus 37% for Republicans, the widest Democratic lead since 2007.

The shift on prices is even sharper. Republicans led on inflation by 13 points in 2024. Democrats now lead by 10 — a 23-point swing, and the best Democratic showing according to data going back to 1990.

Immigration has gone from the issue where the GOP posted its best cycle on record — a 14-point Republican lead in 2024, in data going back to 2006 — to a three-point edge, and polls from the latest quarter are roughly even. MS NOW reported the administration’s crackdown is pushing Latino voters away. Republicans still lead on border security and crime, but by far less than they did: 15 points on the border, down from 26, and eight on crime, down from 16.

Even national security, a Republican calling card for decades, has flipped. Gallup now finds 46% of Americans trust Democrats more to protect the country from international terrorism and military threats, compared with 42% for Republicans — the first Democratic lead since 2007. As recently as 2023, Republicans led by 22 points.

The polls indicate Trump has squandered his party’s advantage on several issues it has dominated for decades. The view from political science is that issue advantages take decades to build — but evidently, only a year to crumble.

Low-info or low-engagement voters — the ones only starting to pay attention to the races in the weeks immediately prior to the elections — tend to react more to the general vibes of the incumbent than particular issues. If that holds, and these voters are turning in now to a president with a worst-ever approval, that will bode well for Democrats in a few weeks.

Control of the House: The latest polls

MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne weights its average by poll quality and recency. Full results are available here.

Faced with these numbers, Republicans may be looking for an escape hatch from the damage Trump has done to their party. They may yet get one by the next presidential election, but are unlikely to get one before votes are counted for the midterms next week. In recent weeks, Trump has held a half dozen unhinged rallies throughout the country that are likely to do little to reassure voters about his performance on the economy, cost of living or foreign entanglements.

If the polls are right, this failed strategy could result in one of the largest popular-vote victories for the Democrats since Watergate.

The post Trump’s historic unpopularity gives Democrats a shot at last-minute undecided voters appeared first on MS NOW.

Democrats believe circumstances have aligned for them to win a slew of competitive elections in the state

Mary Peltola’s campaign to represent Alaska in the US Senate has taken her to parts of the massive state’s interior that are inaccessible by road and on the frontlines of the cost-of-living crisis she hopes will make her the first Democrat to win the seat in nearly two decades.

She has been to towns where paper towels retail for $40, a half gallon of oat milk goes for $21 and the cost of a new freezer can be quadruple what it is in the state’s largest city, Anchorage, simply because it’s so complicated to get there. Along the Arctic Ocean, she’s heard of communities where power bills have climbed to $1,500 a month because they rely on generators for power and the Iran war has pushed the cost of diesel to new heights.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Kerry Tasker/Reuters

© Photograph: Kerry Tasker/Reuters

© Photograph: Kerry Tasker/Reuters

Frustration with a sprawling fraud scandal has cut Peggy Flanagan’s poll lead – could ex-NFL reporter Michele Tafoya win a first statewide election for Republicans in 20 years?

As Democrats fight to regain control of the US Senate, hopes are rising in states – from Kansas to Texas – where they have not prevailed in decades. But in Minnesota, where Republicans have not won statewide election since 2006, the contest for an open Senate seat is closer than expected.

Should Peggy Flanagan – the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor – win the election, she will be the first Native American woman to serve in the US Senate. But history has not yet been made. The closely watched Cook Political Report shifted its rating on the race this week from “likely Democrat” to “lean Democrat”.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Elizabeth Flores/TNS/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

© Photograph: Elizabeth Flores/TNS/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

© Photograph: Elizabeth Flores/TNS/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

Regardless of the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections, any party that wins the majority will have done so because of the independent vote. For the past several elections, this cohort has been the crucial swing vote that ultimately decides the election. Independents are the kingmakers.

If Democrats win big on Nov. 3, expect a familiar story. Pundits will call it a mandate. Party leaders will say voters want their agenda. They will be wrong.

I have spent my career in partisan politics, and I keep seeing the same mistake. Both parties read the results of a protest as an endorsement.

LEE CARTER: POLLS SAY DEMOCRATS COULD SWAMP REPUBLICANS. AS A POLLSTER, I HAVE A QUESTION

Here is why. Independents do not fit neatly into a partisan box. They are not secret Democrats, and they are not secret Republicans. They agree with each side on some things and with neither on others, which is exactly why neither party can claim them.

That does not mean they lack convictions. Independents, like most Americans, have coherent views on politics and policy. And these positions are widely shared and present opportunity for meaningful legislation. On energy, 70% of Americans want government to actively expand supply: more energy, lower prices, less pollution. On immigration, 77% want legal immigration maintained or expanded, focused on the skills the economy needs. Respect our laws and welcome those who contribute.

WASHINGTON REWARDS FAILURE. IT’S TIME TO SEND CAREER POLITICIANS HOME

On technology, 83% want parents to have the legal right to see and control what their kids do on social media. On spending, 73% want to bar Congress from using accounting tricks that hide the long-term cost of a bill. On corruption, 78% support term limits for members of Congress.

Put those together and the agenda is clear. Live within our means. Keep our promises. Win the future while protecting our communities, kids and liberties. Build a government accountable to people, not parties. That is not the progressive wish list, and it is not the Republican platform either. A vote against whoever is in charge is not a vote for anyone’s program. It is a demand for these things.

FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS QUESTION WHETHER AI’S PROMISE OUTWEIGHS ITS RISKS

Look at what independents are actually upset about. The border is still unresolved after years of promises. Energy costs keep squeezing family budgets. And artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping jobs and daily life while Congress offers speeches instead of a plan. These are not left or right complaints. They are complaints about people in charge who are not getting results.

Independents are now the largest bloc of American voters. They decide close elections, and they have no loyalty to either team. They vote for whoever seems least likely to make things worse. Two years ago, that was one party. This year it may be the other.

DEMOCRATS THINK A BLUE WAVE IS BUILDING. HERE ARE 3 FORCES THAT COULD STOP IT

The numbers tell the story. Roughly two-thirds of independents say Washington does not hear them. That is not a number that describes people who have found a new political home. It describes people who feel abandoned and are looking for the exit.

For a blue wave to occur, it will rest on independents who are holding their noses. They will be voting for Democrats because the alternative looks worse, not because they have embraced the progressive wish list. Treating that vote as a blank check is how a party loses the same voters two years later.

MINNEAPOLIS PROGRESSIVES TURN ON GEORGE FLOYD-ERA PUBLIC SAFETY OVERHAUL, PUSH TO DISMANTLE OFFICE

Consider crime. Most Americans, whatever their party, want safe streets and a justice system that works. Imagine House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stepping to the microphone to announce a serious, commonsense crime bill. Fund good policing. Go after repeat violent offenders. Protect due process. It would not be a radical idea. It would be a reasonable one.

That single act would change the national story. Independents would take notice. It would say the party is willing to govern from the center and listen to people who do not agree with it on everything.

SCANDALS, SOCIALISTS AND TRUMP ROIL PRIMARIES, SEND INCUMBENTS PACKING AT NEAR-RECORD PACE

But that bill will not come, and the reason is not hard to see. A party that wants the support of the middle is being pulled by a left flank that treats a compromise on public safety as betrayal. Groups like the Democratic Socialists of America hold enormous sway over the energy and the primaries. Jeffries cannot move toward the center without a fight inside his own coalition, and so he does not try.

That is the real danger for Democrats. The very independents who may hand them a majority will be watching to see what they do with it. If the answer is a sharp turn toward the activist left, those voters will leave just as fast as they arrived.

NEWT GINGRICH: REPUBLICANS CAN WIN THE 2026 MIDTERMS — IF THEY FOLLOW THE PLAN

Republicans should not take comfort either. If they lose, it will be because they too failed to listen. Both parties have spent years competing for the loyal base and ignoring everyone else. The result is a country in which most voters feel they are choosing between two disappointments.

There is a better path, and it is not complicated. Secure the border and fix the legal immigration system. Lower energy costs by building what we need. Set sensible guardrails on AI before the technology outruns us. Do these things in a way that respects voters of every stripe, and independents will reward you. Ignore them, and they will punish you, whatever letter follows your name.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

This is why just a few handfuls of independents can entirely change the way we view and conduct politics. A growing share of the country is independent, yet very few members of Congress are. That gap is the story behind the story this November.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

When the votes are counted, the winners should ask a hard question. Did voters choose us, or did they simply reject the other side? The honest answer will decide whether this election is a turning point or just another swing of the pendulum.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ADAM BRANDON

Pro-Israel lobby says it will prioritize individuals' donations to candidates as it did before creating PAC and super PAC in 2021, which some analysts say hurt its image

Rep. Ilhan Omar revealed new details about last week’s federal raid on her home in Washington, D.C., which she said was “designed” to intimidate her. The Minnesota Democrat sat down with MS NOW’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday for her first interview since federal agents searched her residence as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Omar, who is the first Somali American member of Congress, said she had returned home from traveling and was only asleep for 2 1/2 hours before she was awakened by agents “pounding on the doors” on Oct. 12. The congresswoman told Hayes her first thought was that “something was on fire.”

“You don’t show up to somebody’s house that early in the morning unless you’re trying to freak them out. And you know it obviously did freak all of us out,” Omar said.

“It sounded like an urgent evacuation sort-of situation,” she added. “So it took us a while to figure out what was actually happening.”

When her husband opened the door, Omar said she was presented with a warrant. She also said she was asked to sign a document waiving protections provided to her in the Constitution as a member of Congress. Omar declined.

“That was obnoxious. I couldn’t understand why they would think that I would sign such a thing,” she said.

During the raid, which Omar said lasted four to five hours and involved as many as 25 agents, the authorities “mostly conducted themselves in a decent way” as they searched the home for items in compliance with the warrant, the congresswoman said.

‘A bizarre, bizarre thing’

Omar said the federal agents seized her phone, an old phone, her youngest daughter’s old phone, her husband’s notebooks and a camera he had received from his uncle. She also said they took a Somali phrase book for children, which her husband was using to learn the language.

The Democrat said she was “surprised” when she was handed a receipt for the items.

“To walk away with 17 items of, like, 10 that were just notebooks and like old phones was such a bizarre, bizarre thing,” she said.

Asked about the raid on Omar’s house, the Justice Department told MS NOW in a statement last week that Homeland Security Investigations “executed a judicially authorized search warrant” and said it was “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.”

A source told MS NOW the warrant listed potential violations involving immigration fraud, false statements in immigration proceedings and conspiracy. According to CNN, which cites people familiar with the probe, investigators are looking into whether Omar or her late father made false statements about her age during the citizenship process.

Omar arrived in the United States in March 1995 at the age of 12 after fleeing the civil war in Somalia and spending four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She later became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000 at 17.

“The people who knocked on my door, searching for papers, literally have his papers,” Omar told Hayes of her father on Wednesday. “They are the ones who processed us to come to the United States.”

While she said she takes the matter “seriously,” she doesn’t believe the federal government has a case to prosecute her.

“It would be a huge undertaking to, I suppose, indict a 12-year-old for being so cleverly conspiring to defraud immigration services to come to the United States,” she said. “I’m sure there are a lot of smart 12-year-olds, but that seems like a leap.”

Trump’s ‘obsession’

This isn’t the first time Omar’s immigration status has been scrutinized. The Washington Post reported that in 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, a political appointee asked immigration authorities to look into Omar’s records for any evidence of fraud. But Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to open a full investigation, according to the report.

Omar also told Hayes she did not know about the 2019 probe until she “saw it in The Washington Post reporting a couple of days ago.”

“I did hear that they opened, that there was an opening of my immigration file, but I didn’t know to the extent of what the opening of my investigation meant and who opened it,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration also looked into Omar but declined to move forward due to lack of evidence.

When asked if she believes Trump has nothing to do with the ongoing investigation into her, Omar told Hayes, “Absolutely not.”

“He’s got everything to do with it,” she said of Trump, pointing to reported efforts by his first administration to investigate her.

Trump and Omar have had a long-standing, contentious relationship. In 2019, the president attacked Omar and three other Democratic congresswomen in a series of tweets telling them to “go back” to the countries they came from. At a rally days later, Trump criticized Omar by name as the crowd chanted “Send her back.”

Over the years, Trump has frequently repeated unproven rumors about the congresswoman’s personal life, including her immigration status and an unproven conspiracy theory that she had married her brother to bypass U.S. laws.

In 2025, Omar told The Guardian she believes Trump has an “unhealthy and creepy obsession” with her.

Omar told Hayes she suspects the raid was partly the president making good on his promise after years of threatening the congresswoman.

“They’ve done this sort of full press where they kept alluding to the fact that something was going to happen to me,” she said. “And I think a lot of their right-wing influencers, who seem to have direct connection to not just the president but his orbit, I think they were starting to lose faith that these were empty promises and they had to do something. I believe to say, ‘Hey, look, we raided her house.’”

The 44-year-old and mother of three has spoken openly about the surge of death threats she has received since taking office. She told Hayes that she and her family will have to move from their home due to the highly publicized raid.

“Obviously, I can’t continue to live there,” she said. “So we have to figure out where to move to because our address has been public, and with the death threats that I deal with, it’s no longer going to be feasible to be in that house and have my kids visiting off and on, having people track them.”

Despite the challenges, the congresswoman said she would not let the president’s efforts break her.

“In my faith teachings, we believe that God doesn’t give you more than you can handle,” she said. “I think I’m designed uniquely by God to withstand all of this.”

Omar said she was “confident” in her truth that she did nothing wrong and told Hayes she believed the justice system would prevail.

“If I continue to stand up to bullies and people who are carrying out ungodly corruption, I’m going to be okay,” she said.

This story has been updated to include additional information.

The post Rep. Ilhan Omar details early-morning raid she says was ‘designed’ to ‘freak’ her out appeared first on MS NOW.

Former speaker is latest target of mailings sent to various Congress members in the lead-up to the midterm elections

California representative Nancy Pelosi’s office received “a suspicious letter” on Wednesday in what appears to be the latest incident of ill-intentioned mailings targeted at US Congress members before the midterm elections.

The offices of more than three dozen members of Congress across the political spectrum have received envelopes containing white powder in recent days. One lawmaker’s office said preliminary tests indicated the powder was not hazardous.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

© Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

© Photograph: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The four debates in Maine’s U.S. Senate race, between incumbent Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson, are over. Early voting is underway. And while Jackson survived the quartet of clashes, the race remains as close as ever.

Debate expectations for Jackson were between middling and low. His down-home style was compared to the senator’s highly polished vibe. He had far less experience in high-profile debates. But ultimately Collins and Jackson both effectively delivered their core messages.

As in previous campaigns, Collins tried to claim the mantle of bipartisanship and argue that only she can deliver for Maine. She shared laundry lists of bills she worked on and specific projects helping towns. (Her campaign also focuses on this in ads; I even received a detailed text to my phone claiming credit for “$59 million for the City of Bangor.”)

“Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” Jackson said in the first debate.

Jackson took both parts of Collins’ case head on. He again noted Collins’ record of backing Trump 96% of the time, contrary to her assertions of bipartisanship. He contended that Collins’ deliverables are woefully insufficient compared to the cuts she has backed. “Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” he said in the first debate.

Three debates later, Collins herself helped the case against her bipartisan bonafides. A moderator asked her to identify a time when a vote against Republicans changed the outcome. Collins muffed. She cited opposition she organized to Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defense secretary, which failed after one senator, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, changed his mind at the last minute. “So that didn’t change the outcome,” one of the moderators replied.

Jackson’s arsonist comparison was not the only memorable image he conjured. After Collins bragged that she stopped Canadian tariffs on road salt, the Democrat replied, “We can’t eat road salt.” Memes proliferated featuring images of a truck carrying road salt labeled as “Meals on Wheels” and Collins pictured as Marie Antoinette saying, “Let them eat road salt.” A Mainer at the Fryeburg Fair confronted Collins with Jackson’s remark.

Beyond its virality online, Jackson’s remark bore real-world heft. Food prices are up and heating oil prices soared 81% since last year. Often using examples about himself and others, Jackson focused on understanding working people, the necessity of a better healthcare system and fighting oligarchic power. He has also challenged Collins’ contention that he would not be able to help Maine like her.

Democrats have often accused the Maine press of catering to Collins, publicizing stories about her securing money for Maine while not covering her contradictions. This year is different.

None of the aforementioned exchanges got the most national attention, though. The one that grabbed out-of-state headlines arose after a protester with a fake press pass interrupted the last forum to rail against the environmental impact of data centers and corporations’ financial power. Collins quickly and without evidence claimed, “So this is obviously one of Troy’s supporters.”

“Oh, shut up. I don’t even know that kid,” Jackson replied.

“Oh, right,” Collins answered.

In a very close race like this election, any moment can matter. But it is striking that, afterward, many Mainers did not find Jackson’s remark problematic. Journalist Kevin Miller of Maine Public Radio wrote that Jackson’s comment was “more flippant than mean-spirited. The two rivals even seemed to exchange snarky smiles before the debate quickly resumed without future disruption.” On a post-debate panel, reporter Rob Caldwell said that, given the negativity of the campaign, the candidates were “going to get ticked off. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be human. … There are a lot of worse things that they could have said.” Callers to a radio show the following day were divided over whether Jackson was rude or had rightly responded with a Maine “shaddup.”

Jackson’s remark was not what the Bangor Daily News highlighted in its front page after the final debate. Instead, the paper focused on Collins saying, “I think our democracy will be just fine,” while Jackson judged American democracy as “at risk” and observed that “Donald Trump is trying every trick in the book to keep power.”

Democrats have often accused the Maine press of catering to Collins, publicizing stories about her securing money for Maine while not covering her contradictions. This year is different. Jackson’s criticisms of Collins’ conflicting votes are getting coverage, and the press is highlighting pay-for-play corruption allegations and examining the dark-money billionaires disproportionately benefiting Collins.

The two campaigns have not been the same and probably will stay that way. Jackson is holding high-profile events with Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Collins’ most high-profile visitor is former Sen. Joe Manchin. Trump has not come and Collins would not want him. While Jackson uses his events to recruit canvassers and grow his field operation, Collins is helped by canvassers paid by Elon Musk.

Maine voters seem sick of the barrage of ads. Jackson’s grassroots operation and earned media look stronger.

Jackson closed with a “who’s on your side” message — the billionaires or the Maine people. Some ads feature past Collins voters who support Jackson now. Some of these voters cite Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Collins is defending her Kavanaugh vote by saying that, despite his track record, she could not know he would overturn Roe v. Wade.

National Republicans’ closing message features sharply negative advertising claiming Jackson bullies women, calling him “a creep” and even attacking his relationship with Lana Pelletier, his longtime partner and the mother of his children. (The Collins campaign asked for the ad to be taken down but critics noted that Collins brought up Jackson’s family in a September interview in Politico and Pelletier has spoken out against the personal attack.)

Maine voters seem sick of the barrage of ads. Jackson’s grassroots operation and earned media look stronger, and Republicans are facing the same headwinds in Maine as elsewhere. But it is never easy to defeat an incumbent and Collins’ brand is strong.

Mainers will have to decide if they want to re-elect Collins, who thinks our republic is not threatened by Trump but brings targeted resources to Maine, or if they pick Jackson, a self-described “working-class guy with a funny accent” who pledges to change policies, lift up all Mainers and protect our constitutional order.

The post Troy Jackson survived his debates with Susan Collins. Here’s what to watch for in the final days. appeared first on MS NOW.

Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie the midterm elections, including by removing voters from state rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were among the plaintiffs who filed the suit against Trump, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The 44-page complaint takes aim at recent demands from DHS — notably in Nevada and California — that states review lists compiled by federal officials of alleged noncitizen voters.

As the complaint notes, state officials have disputed the accuracy of those lists.

The lawsuit points to Trump’s Truth Social threat earlier this week threatening that election officials in LA County “will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” if they count the votes of alleged noncitizens. It cites another from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz, who said in a social media post on Monday that he would “hunt” and “prosecute” anyone who violates federal election law.

“DOJ’s recent actions confirm that Defendants have settled on a course of intimidating state election officials with threats of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than adhering to state law and distributing ballots to registered voters,” states the complaint, filed 13 days before the midterms.

The filing alleges the administration’s efforts to wrest control of elections from the states, combined with federal officials’ threats toward local and state officials, violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles that prevent the federal government from forcing states to enact, administer or enforce federal laws.

In addition to Schumer and Jeffries, the plaintiffs include the Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, a registered California voter who the lawsuit says became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago but fears he could be falsely labeled as a noncitizen and “unlawfully targeted” as a result.

The defendants also include Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said he would “absolutely” consider taking the issue to the Supreme Court; and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has said his department will penalize states that do not cooperate with the federal government’s demands. The plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and to block them from continuing those actions.

“None of this is lawful,” the complaint states. “The Executive Branch enjoys no authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets segregated — Congress has kept that responsibility with the States, subject only to a narrow civil enforcement power the administration has declined to invoke during its recent efforts.”

The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to the administration’s efforts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls, which federal courts have also unanimously struck down. Democrats and elections experts have said these efforts could undermine trust in the upcoming elections. But federal officials have persisted, including by filing a lawsuit against California election officials last week.

Trump administration officials slammed the allegations included in the latest lawsuit.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud,“ adding, “The Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

DOJ spokesperson Kirsten Pels said “election integrity is a top priority” for the administration, adding, “Every action the Department has taken to protect the integrity of this year’s elections is grounded in the law and being litigated in open court. Ensuring that only eligible citizens vote and that every lawful ballot is counted a requirement of federal law.”

A spokesperson for DHS called the lawsuit “another political stunt by Democrats.”

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg, an Obama appointee who presided over the first lawsuit challenging the deportation and imprisonment of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. During an emergency hearing in March 2025, Boasberg ordered that no additional flights to El Salvador could take off; Trump subsequently called him a “Radical Left Lunatic.”

Boasberg was also the subject of a judicial misconduct complaint filed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff in July 2025, based on his alleged comments during a panel conversation at the annual Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg predicted that the administration “would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” The chief judge of the 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, dismissed that complaint earlier this year.

Lisa Rubin and Selena Kuznikov contributed to this report.

CORRECTION (Oct. 21, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET):
A previous version of this article misrepresented a statement from White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. Bis claimed that “Democrats and the media” dismiss concerns about voter fraud, but she did not herself dismiss voter fraud concerns.

The post Democrats sue Trump for ‘intimidating’ state election officials appeared first on MS NOW.

Incumbent Mike Lawler is fending off a challenge from Democrat Cait Conley in state’s 17th congressional district

• US politics live – latest updates

Elon Musk’s Super Pac has spent more than $500,000 in New York’s highly competitive 17th congressional district race to help Mike Lawler, the Republican incumbent, hold on to his seat.

Lawler, a moderate Republican, is fending off a challenge from Democrat Cait Conley in the Hudson valley. It is among the most-watched races that could determine whether Republicans hold on to their majority in Congress.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

© Photograph: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

© Photograph: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Police claim Brad Lander and 80 other activists didn't coordinate, despite IDF maps showing no coordination needed in area; Israel accuses Lander of 'harvesting headlines'

FIRST ON FOX: Cuban-American lawmakers are welcoming a Florida arrest warrant for former Cuban leader Raúl Castro over his alleged role in the 1996 shootdown of two civilian aircraft, saying the move marks a new step toward accountability for the communist regime and vowing to keep fighting for freedom on the island.

The warrant comes after Ariana Fajardo Orshan, chief judge of Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit, found probable cause to believe Castro conspired to commit first-degree murder in connection with the shootdown of two Miami-based civilian aircraft involved in a humanitarian operation near Cuba in 1996.

"As the only Cuban-born member of Congress, this moment is deeply personal," Rep. Carlos Giménez, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital. "For decades, Raúl Castro and his communist regime have oppressed the Cuban people while evading accountability."

Giménez described the warrant as a "powerful message" in the "pursuit of justice," adding that those responsible for the suffering of the Cuban people could soon "answer for their crimes."

"No previous administration has taken this historic step, and our community is eternally grateful for it," he continued. "For the millions of Cubans who have suffered under this tyranny, including those of us forced into exile, this represents a significant moment in our decades-long struggle for freedom."

CUBAN AMERICAN LAWMAKERS WARN CUBA IS CLOSER THAN EVER TO REGIME CHANGE UNDER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier told Fox News Digital that Castro allegedly "ordered" the "premeditated, state-sanctioned murder of four Floridians in cold blood," calling the warrant "a step toward accountability" for the conspiracy that led to the deaths of Carlos Costa, Pablo Morales, Mario de la Peña and Armando Alejandre Jr.

Uthmeier’s office said the warrant could limit Castro’s ability to travel to countries that have extradition agreements with the United States.

OBAMA’S BASEBALL OUTING WITH CASTRO REIGNITES FURY AFTER TRUMP DOJ DROPS HAMMER ON CUBAN LEADER

Giménez said that although the warrant is "historic," he and other lawmakers will continue fighting until Cuba’s "political prisoners are released" and the "Cuban people can determine their own destiny."

Florida state Rep. Juan Porras, another Cuban American lawmaker, said the warrant shows that Florida "will never forget" the victims of the communist regime’s atrocities.

CUBA’S DICTATORSHIP HAS LONG BEEN A THREAT TO AMERICA. NOW, IT’S FINALLY TEETERING

"Thank you to the Miami judge who signed a state arrest warrant for Raúl Castro for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder," Porras told Fox News Digital. "Thirty years later, justice is still moving, but the work is not done. Cuba is not free yet, and we will not stop until it is."

"Cuba will be free," Porras added in Spanish.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The warrant stems from the Feb. 24, 1996, shootdown of two unarmed aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue over international waters. Four people were killed in the attack. Castro, who was Cuba’s defense minister at the time, was federally indicted earlier this year in connection with the deaths.

Abdul El-Sayed’s past support for Muslim Brotherhood protesters in Egypt is raising eyebrows in Congress after a former staffer for the left-wing Michigan Senate candidate says he's angling for a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if elected in November.

Two Republican panel members said there is no place on the committee for "radical views" held by El-Sayed, who has associated with controversial streamer Hasan Piker but has attempted during his bid for office to distance himself from the socialist arm of the Democratic Party.

"A man with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, who cheered their takeover of Egypt 15 years ago, and who campaigns with people saying America deserved 9/11, should not come anywhere near the U.S. Senate — and especially not the Foreign Relations Committee," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who serves on the power panel, told Fox News Digital.

Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., another member of the committee, responded to the controversy on X over the weekend.

TRUMP LINKS MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE ABDUL EL-SAYED TO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: 'HE'S A CON MAN'

"El-Sayed says he’s running on affordability, so why does he want a seat on @SenateForeign?" McCormick wrote. "I sit on that committee, and someone with El-Sayed's radical views has no business on it."

McCormick’s post came in response to a report by The Midwesterner that featured comments from Jordan Domingue, who worked as El-Sayed’s security chief during his 2018 campaign for Michigan governor.

"It is extremely difficult to comprehend how dangerous this can be if he is elected," Domingue wrote on X. "It’s especially troubling knowing that despite no foreign policy experience, he REALLY wants a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

In 2011, while working as an assistant professor at Columbia University, El-Sayed wrote an op-ed for The Huffington Post urging the Obama administration to support protesters associated with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

ABDUL EL-SAYED GROWS AGITATED WITH REPORTER AFTER BEING PRESSED ON FAMILY'S ALLEGED MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TIES

El-Sayed argued that supporting the protesters was in the U.S. interest and wrote that even if the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew Egypt’s government, the resulting state would not necessarily resemble Iran.

"It is in America’s interest to support Egyptian protesters’ efforts to achieve the ability to speak their mind and have a say in how they are governed," El-Sayed wrote . "If the U.S. truly wants to be the beacon of justice and liberty that it claims it does, it would behoove the Obama administration to fall decisively behind the protesters in Egypt."

In a recent town hall, however, El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrant parents, said he does disavow the Muslim Brotherhood. His campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request about his 2011 op-ed about protesters.

The Muslim Brotherhood-backed government took power in Egypt in 2012 but was ousted by the military in 2013.

'POD SAVE AMERICA' HOSTS WARN EL-SAYED TO TONE DOWN 'CONDESCENSION' ON MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD QUESTIONS

El-Sayed has throughout his campaign emphasized healthcare, lowering gas and grocery prices and addressing the cost-of-living crisis, as noted by McCormick in his post about the candidate's reported interest in the Foreign Relations Committee.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"It shouldn’t be this hard to get by in the richest, most powerful country in the world," El-Sayed said during his primary campaign against Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

McCormick wonders why, given that context, El-Sayed would be gunning for a spot on a committee that deals solely with issues related to U.S. foreign relations.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* With less than two weeks remaining in the election cycle, and with early voting underway in much of the country, a new national poll from The New York Times and Siena University offers nothing but good news for Democrats.

For example, the survey found Democrats with an 11-poing advantage over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, 52% to 41%. The same poll showed Democrats ahead on every major issue, as well as big leads on questions such as which party “understands the problems facing people like me,” best represents “the working class,” can “fix the problems facing people like me” and “keeps its promises.”

The latest national CNN poll pointed in largely the same direction and showed Democrats ahead on the generic congressional ballot by 10 points, 49% to 39%.

* As if Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas weren’t already struggling enough, an MS NOW analysis of the incumbent’s campaign-finance filings found that the senator still has no one on his campaign payroll, reinforcing ongoing concerns that Marshall is using his taxpayer-funded Senate staff for campaign purposes.

* In Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist poll found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed with a narrow lead over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 50% to 48%.

* Donald Trump held a campaign rally in North Carolina on Tuesday on behalf of Senate hopeful Michael Whatley, though the president seemed to concede that he expects former Gov. Roy Cooper to win the race. “He’s going to become your senator and it’s crazy,” Trump said, referring to the Democratic nominee.

* Though several billionaires have already taken steps to give Republicans a boost in the midterm elections, one notable billionaire is suddenly stepping up on behalf of Democrats: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new $80 million investment in support of Democratic efforts to reclaim a congressional majority.

* In case campaign ads created by artificial intelligence weren’t bad enough, Democrats are fighting GOP-led efforts to use AI-generated robocalls ahead of this year’s elections.

* Florida Republicans are so concerned about a new Democratic ad highlighting the Hope Florida scandal that GOP officials are threatening to criminally prosecute television stations that air the commercial.

Meanwhile, in Florida’s gubernatorial race, the Democratic Governors Association is making a new $1 million investment in support of Rep. David Jolly’s candidacy. And on Tuesday, Bill Clinton campaigned with Jolly in the former president’s first appearance of the cycle.

* And in New Hampshire’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, former Sen. John Sununu has a new attack ad that takes aim at House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, despite the fact that the California Democrat hasn’t been a congressional leader in nearly four years, and despite the fact that she’s retiring this year. This won’t help the Republican candidate shake off criticisms that he’s more focused on the past than the future.

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.21.26: Democrats’ lead grows on the generic ballot appeared first on MS NOW.

At an unrelated event in the Oval Office, Donald Trump wasn’t asked about Sen. Elissa Slotkin, but the president apparently felt the need to lash out at the Michigan Democrat anyway.

Trump says that Sen. Slotkin "should be tried … we'll see what happens"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T19:06:12.877Z

“The senator from Michigan made a statement yesterday that was amazing, where they want to frighten people, young people from ever working in the Trump administration or a Republican administration, that they want to go and they want to frighten people,” he said.

Trump added that “even the most liberal commentators” were amazed by Slotkin, whom the president described as a “stupid person” who “made a statement that was very, very dangerous.”

Then, taking it still further, Trump said the senator “should be tried for what she did,” although he didn’t elaborate on what crime he believes Slotkin had committed.

It’s likely that many of those who heard the president’s remark had no idea what he was talking about, even if the Republican’s message was likely well received in some far-right circles.

What Slotkin actually said wasn’t especially remarkable. Last week (the president got the date wrong), the senator spoke at an academic event at the University of Chicago, where she made a brief, unscripted comment about accountability for those who work within a corrupt bureaucracy and discouraged younger people from joining corrupt bureaucracies.

“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration?’” she said. “I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.’”

The senator added that meaningful congressional oversight should focus not just on Trump, but on officials who’ve “enabled him” and are “doing his bidding.”

As the discussion continued, Vox’s Astead Herndon noted that Trump has put loyalists in key positions, making it difficult to hold him accountable, at which point Slotkin made the case that shining a light on White House corruption would likely discourage people from joining the administration in its final two years.

The Michigan Democrat made these rather anodyne comments on Tuesday, Oct. 13, and no one seemed to care. No articles about Slotkin’s remarks appeared in any major news organizations the next day, and no one had reason to think presidential threats of prosecution would soon emerge.

But as The Atlantic’s Jon Chait noted, it was roughly five days after the event that “a tidal wave of conservative outrage suddenly crashed over” the senator, with condemnations coming from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and a variety of conservative media voices. Trump himself told reporters earlier this week, “Slotkin said that there should be prosecutions in order to scare people from going into politics.”

Except that never happened. The president attributed made-up comments to the senator, since the benign truth wasn’t good enough to sustain a credible smear.

Stepping back, a few elements to this nonsensical “controversy” stand out. First, the degree to which Trump and his party appear terrified of any scrutiny, accountability or congressional oversight into corruption allegations is tough to miss.

Second, Republicans are so desperate to make the case that Democrats are trying to weaponize government — even as Republicans themselves brazenly weaponize government to a degree without modern precedent — that they’re forced to concoct absurdities like these.

And third, this is a classic example of how the right manages to manufacture outrage out of nothing. “So here’s how the game works,” The New Republic’s Greg Sargent explained. “Right-wing propagandists dishonestly clip a Democrat’s comments to conjure up the impression of a dark plot to persecute supporters of Donald Trump. A bunch of them post on it with an algorithmic boost from Elon Musk. Soon the sheer noise itself vaults the story out of the right-wing ecosphere and into mainstream coverage, where the evenhanded airing of both sides’ ‘positions’ transforms it into a ‘controversy.’ Paydirt!”

As for whether Trump’s Justice Department, which already launched one failed effort to prosecute Slotkin, agrees that the senator “should be tried for what she did,” watch this space.

The post How (and why) Republicans manufactured a faux controversy about Elissa Slotkin appeared first on MS NOW.

Democrats are calling for an investigation into SpaceX CEO Elon Musk following a Wall Street Journal report alleging he ordered the Starlink slowdown in Ukraine. “Either the President was lying or Musk was lying, but the decision to slow down satellite speed and access has life or death consequences for Ukraine,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)…

Democrats are calling for an investigation into SpaceX CEO Elon Musk following a Wall Street Journal report alleging he ordered the Starlink slowdown in Ukraine. “Either the President was lying or Musk was lying, but the decision to slow down satellite speed and access has life or death consequences for Ukraine,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)…

This shift is urgently needed.

This shift is urgently needed.

Imagine if Sam and Dario and Elon and Mark, along with their boards of directors, bore individual liability for the damage their companies may inflict on society.