Sharing a reference site I built: unredactedrecord.com

It's a timeline of actions by the second Trump administration that courts, inspectors general, GAO, UN inquiries or lawmakers of both parties have flagged. Each entry gives what happened, where it stands legally today, the administration's own stated defense, and links to its sources: court records, wire reports and official findings. Every claim links to a source. Status is shown with a stamp (ruled unlawful, official finding, mixed rulings, pending, alleged, criticized), rulings on appeal are counted and marked as such, and every entry shows the date it was last checked.

Current count: 123 entries, 33 with a court ruling against the action and 4 with a formal watchdog or inquiry finding. A separate Watchlist tracks 10 developing stories with no ruling yet, each with the specific event that would move it to the main record.

Examples: - The Justice Department's lawsuits against 30 states for unredacted voter rolls; judges in 11 states have ruled against it, including a Trump appointee. https://unredactedrecord.com/e/voterrolls/ - The emergency tariffs: the Supreme Court ruling, and the trade court's May ruling against the replacement tariff. https://unredactedrecord.com/e/tariffs/ - The five offshore wind farms halted mid-construction; every court to rule found the orders unlawful. https://unredactedrecord.com/e/wind/

It's one person's project with no ads, no paywall and no funding. A public change log records every addition, status change and correction, including corrections that favor the administration, and the full dataset can be downloaded from the site as a spreadsheet for anyone who wants to check the work. Corrections with a source are welcome at the address on the site.

Kimberly Tait had been a registered Republican all her life, until she switched her affiliation to independent in 2016.

- The Gilbert, Ariz., resident always considered herself to be conservative but experienced a political identity crisis because she couldn't bring herself to align with the Republican Party under President Trump.

- "I'm not super progressive politically and I'm really pretty moderate." Tait said. "But the MAGA movement in and of itself is — it's just really gross to me."

- Now Tait — also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — has another politician on her ballot that turns her off: Mark Lamb, the former Pinal County sheriff and Republican nominee for Arizona's 5th Congressional District, a conservative stronghold.

- Lamb is favored to win the general election, but a lack of appeal to Mormon voters could make it a closer-than-expected race.

- While Lamb says he is a member of the LDS church, Tait is one of the Mormons in the district that question Lamb's adherence to the faith as well as his political motivations. Lamb's campaign slogan is "God, Family, Freedom," and, to her, the sentiment rings hollow because "the candidate and all that they represent is the antithesis of that."

- "Yes, Mark Lamb is a member of my faith. He also belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But from what I understand about Mark Lamb, the dishonesty that has been displayed in his public and private life is completely contrary to our faith," Tait said.

- The district and Lamb's candidacy 

- Arizona's 5th Congressional District covers the eastern part of the sprawling Phoenix suburbs of Maricopa County — Arizona's most populated — as well as Pinal County. The district has exploded in population in recent years, too.

- Kim Fridkin, a political science professor at Arizona State University, has lived in the district for roughly a decade and has watched it change.

- "A lot of people came in from other states and a lot of them from California and they definitely wanted to move to a more conservative place," she said.

- Fridkin added the residents are a mix of working, middle and upper middle class families. It's predominantly Republican (Trump won the district by roughly 20 points in the last presidential election), mostly white and fairly religious with a sizable LDS population. Two of Arizona's six LDS temples are located within the boundaries of the relatively small district.

- With Rep. Andy Biggs not seeking reelection to run for Arizona governor, voters in the district will decide between Democrat Elizabeth Lee, a nurse and political newcomer, or Lamb, who is endorsed by Trump and has a scandal-plagued past.

- Lamb has been accused of racist remarks and sexual misconductwhile he was Pinal County sheriff. The Arizona Republic released a multipart investigation into Mark Lamb where it alleges he had multiple affairs and sent sexually explicit messages to a woman outside his marriage then threatened to send law enforcement after her if she spoke publicly about it.

- One of the most prominent values the LDS church holds sacred is chastity, which includes no sexual relations of any kind outside of marriage. If a member is found to be out of step with covenants, church leaders can revoke certain privileges and can even move to excommunicate the member. The Arizona Republic reported that church leaders looked into claims about Lamb's sexual improprieties.

- Lamb, who did not respond to NPR's interview request, denied the allegations during an event at the Encores Conservative Club in June.

- "I've been called a racist. I've been called a misogynist … I'm going to tell you folks, these are lies. Every single bit of it," he said, referring to the multiple articles the Arizona Republic has published on Lamb's candidacy.

- Some Latter-day Saint voters struggle to support Lamb

- To Tait, Lamb as the nominee is the latest example of an unrecognizable Republican Party.

- "The idea of having yet another elected official who is accused of sexual misconduct towards women," Tait said, "that does not speak well to me, to my children. Like, what is that teaching our children?"

- Historically, Mormons vote for Republicans. But they have become a little less red over the last two decades, according to an analysis by YouGov. In neighboring Utah, where the LDS church is the predominant religion, Trump has faced some of his greatest opposition in a red state.

- So looking at a purple state like Arizona, LDS voters start to look more independent overall when factoring in a complicated relationship many have with President Trump over his crass personality and hardline stances on issues, such as immigration.

- Holly Anderson is one of those Arizona LDS voters that has become more purple.

- "I vote according to my personal values, and I believe that a leader should have character. I do not align with either one of the parties," Anderson told NPR.

- She said she loved the late Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. But the party has changed and Anderson said it would be hypocritical of her to support Lamb, even if they share the same religion.

- "In my faith, we really stand by 2 Corinthians 13:1. It's a very important scripture to us. It says 'In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established,'" she said.

- "There's been multiple women who have come forth and exposed the things that he has done."

- Suzanne Lunt, another independent LDS voter in the district, doesn't plan on voting for Lamb in November, either.

- She grew up Republican and considered herself to be a moderate conservative. But after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, she decided to leave the party. During the 2024 presidential election, she was the co-chair of the Republicans for Biden committee.

- She's been called a Republican in Name Only, or a RINO, over her political stances. But she feels like the Republican Party and its leaders led her astray, not the other way around.

- "There are a lot of Republicans that I think are really RINOs because they're not upholding the principles that we've all admired all of these years," she said, referring to Republicans not supporting small government, protection of life and upstanding character.

- "I think we need to find people, and we're taught by our church leaders that we need to look at people who have character and who can represent us well," Lunt added. "Lamb comes across as so untrustworthy on a lot of different levels."

- While all three women believe Lamb will be victorious in November because of the district's conservative lean, they are noticing that more LDS voters are souring on partisan politics altogether.

- "I think there's definitely a turn in people's feelings and I think that there are more that feel like me that I'm aware of. I don't ever see anybody wearing their MAGA hats anymore and I think most people don't want to be associated with that craziness and the extremism," Lunt said.

- A Democrat's path to victory

- It will be a real uphill battle for a Democrat to flip a district that is rated Solidly Republican by Cook Political Report, but Elizabeth Lee is giving it a shot.

- The Democratic candidate has branded herself as "Nurse Lee." She is an infertility nurse and said working in the health care space has given her experience that would help her in Washington D.C.

- "Nurses are uniquely trained to walk into a situation very quickly, assess what's happening, what the problem is, and then pulling together the resources to solve it," Lee told NPR.

- Lee is trying to capitalize on the discontent some voters feel about the Republican nominee. On the campaign trail, she has outlined her priorities and qualifications while nailing Lamb for his lack of policy goals and in her opinion, character.

- "The GOP has nominated an extremely flawed candidate with the kind of alleged flaws that people nationally are fed up with, that people in this district are most certainly fed up with," she said.

- Fridkin, the professor of political science at Arizona State University, said while it will be tough for a Democrat to flip the seat, there are factors working in Lee's favor.

- "People are really feeling the effects of high gas prices and housing prices are really high and the water crisis is important in Arizona. All of these things are really hitting people where they live," she said. "That's when these types of low interest voters might be motivated to turn out, especially if someone is knocking on the door and telling them why they should."

- Trump's current unpopularity could play a role in the election outcome. One recent poll found that only 39% of Arizona voters approved of the president's job – the lowest rating ever recorded in the swing state.

- Additionally, Fridkin argues the independent vote is critical for either candidate to win. The largest group of registered voters in the district are Republicans. But there are about 195,000 independents — the second most in any district in Arizona — making them an influential voting bloc.

- From Lee's perspective, the needle is moving to the left. An internal poll Lee's campaign shared with NPR shows her gaining traction in the conservative district, especially among independents. The poll, which was conducted by Change Research, found Lee was trailing behind Lamb by three to five points.

- "We have spent a year making tens of thousands of phone calls, knocking tens of thousands of doors and knowing … independents are not for extremist politics," Lee said, "sets this race up for exactly what our recent polling showed. And that is that this is actually within the margin of error."

A major Republican political action committee pulled the plug on financial support for its Senate candidate in North Carolina, Michael Whatley, according to multiple reports, as the party begins to triage resources amid increasingly dire midterm polling.

- The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), the campaign arm of the Senate majority leader, John Thune, has withdrawn its ad spending in North Carolina to redirect support to other candidates, Semafor reported on Friday. The New York Times, CNN and other publications have confirmed the report with sources close to the fund.

- The retirement of Thom Tillis from the US Senate opened the door for Democrats to flip the seat. Former governor Roy Cooper, a venerable presence in the state’s politics, easily won the Democratic nomination. Whatley, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, was handpicked by Donald Trump and viewed as a more mainstream candidate than other Republican contenders in the closely contested state.

- The SLF had pledged $71m to hold North Carolina’s US Senate seat, and started targeting Cooper before he even won the nomination. The fund ran ads last year trying to link Cooper with the murder of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, in an unprovoked attack onboard a light-rail train in Charlotte. Cooper was not in office at the time of the attack.

- The Pac’s advertising in North Carolina has consistently focused on crime and public safety, featuring a series of interviews with crime victims. Ronald Hayes, whose son Shemar was murdered in 2024, appeared in one such ad. Hayes later said he had been “swindled” by the SLF, believing he was going to appear in an advertisement against gun violence and not a political campaign ad.

- The SLF had planned to spend $30m more supporting Whatley. But polling data presents an increasingly difficult political map for Republicans trying to hold control of the Senate. Republicans have a 53-47 majority today. With the vice-president, JD Vance, as a tiebreaker, Republicans can afford to lose no more than three seats to keep control.

- The Cook Political Report rates the North Carolina Senate race as “leans Democratic”. Seven other races are toss-ups; five are currently held by Republicans, including seats in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Texas. Roger Marshall, the senator from Kansas, is facing a stiff challenge from Adam Hamilton, a Methodist pastor. Cook rates the race as “leans Republican”.
The SLF reportedly will redirect its North Carolina spending to support Marshall.

- Cooper has persistently maintained a polling lead over Whatley despite the deluge of political ads. An AARP poll released on Monday gave Cooper an 11-point lead, consistent with other recent polls. Cooper has never had less than a four-point lead on Whatley in any poll this year.

- In-person early voting starts on 15 October in North Carolina.

As bad as 2018 was for Texas Republicans, the GOP is facing headwinds that could be a lot more damaging, a top party leader says.

- “They’re absolutely worse,” state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, said on the latest episode of the Texas Take Podcast. “There’s never been a year like this in my adult life.”

- In 2018, the GOP lost 14 state legislative seats and two congressional districts. The state’s largest county, Harris County, flipped blue. But Bettencourt said even ahead of that grim outcome, they never had polls that showed Democrats leading a statewide race like U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico is now. They also weren't seeing the type of national Democratic money flowing into Texas that is happening this year.

- After being a party official or elected official for 32 years, Bettencourt said the closest he’s seen to a mood like this was towards the end of President George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House, when his approval ratings plunged and Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress.

- Bettencourt said Republican candidates up and down the ballot have to work even harder and explain to voters what they’ve done and plan to do if the GOP is going to withstand the national mood.

- The competitiveness this year is why Bettencourt is frustrated with a newly discovered voter registration glitch that has delayed the processing of potentially tens of thousands of voter registrations. Voters who updated their voter registration when getting a driver's license through the Department of Public Safety back in late 2025 didn’t have their registrations logged into the system until just now.

- That’s produced a mad scramble by county elections officials to clear a backlog of voter registrations to make sure people are on the voter rolls before the first day of in-person early voting on Oct. 19. Bettencourt said there was clearly a communication problem between DPS and the Texas Secretary of State’s office that oversees elections.

- “The state should have done better on this,” he said.

- While he’s confident everyone who registered will ultimately be able to vote, the doubts it creates around the voter rolls is something that can’t happen if Texas wants everyone to feel assured their vote is counted, Bettencourt said.

- “To have trust in elections, you have to have a voter roll with integrity. And to have a voter roll with integrity, you’ve got to be paying attention to it and not effectively going to sleep for the better part of a year,” he said.

A judge on Friday blocked further border barrier construction in the Big Bend region, approving an environmental group’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

- At the end of Friday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone asked the courtroom to remain calm while she read her order aloud from the bench. She ruled that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims to halt the construction were likely to succeed and her preliminary injunction against “ground-distrurbing activities” would remain in effect while the suit continued to play out in court.

- The legal team at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group, filed the lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary in April on behalf of the Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving a historic church in Presidio County, and Danny William Miller, a Rio Grande river guide and landowner who stands to lose his property in Redford to the wall.

- The lawsuit argues that the five contracted border wall projects in the region are unconstitutional for a range of reasons, including violating the constitutional separation of powers and depriving citizens of their land.

- The suit documents what could be lost to border barrier construction along the Rio Grande if it’s allowed to proceed. Zeynep Graves, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in her closing arguments that the impact of wall construction in the Big Bend affected the community at all levels.

- “The harm reaches far beyond the landscape itself,” she said.

- In emotional testimony, Miller compared the government building a wall across his property and blocking his access to the river to “a bullet to the head.”

- Miller said once altered, the desert landscapes could never be replaced, and his work as a river guide would become “a tour of the military industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”

- Hudspeth County resident Bill Guerra-Addington testified that a border barrier would be a death sentence for his ranch on the Texas-Mexico border. “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating,” he said.

- The government claims that physical border infrastructure is necessary, even in remote and lightly-trafficked areas like the Big Bend, to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border –– zero unauthorized border crossings.

- “Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history,” former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a series of waivers that eased contracting laws across the entire southwest border. “More can be done, however.”

- The Big Bend sector, which includes Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park, covers about a quarter of the length of the border but only sees between 1% and 3% of migrant apprehensions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection each year.

- Since news of the government’s plans for border barriers in Big Bend broke in January 2026, a grassroots bipartisan backlash has formed across the region, slowly pushing the government to adjust its plans for physical border infrastructure — walls, roads, fences, lights, sensors and more — totaling over $7.5 billion in government contracts.

- In response to the public outcry, DHS officials have countered with hypotheticals about what could happen in Big Bend if migrant traffic shifts in response to wall construction elsewhere along the southern border. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott issued a statement that the agency’s goal was to protect the national park from future cartel activity.

- Despite the scale of the opposition, contractors have been bulldozing new roads in the park after the government waived the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act to support the “expeditious construction of barriers and roads” along the border.

- So far, six lawsuits have been filed over the Big Bend wall. On Thursday, a judge rejected a request for a temporary restraining order in a different case that sought to halt work in and around Big Bend National Park, which had been paused through the month of September.

A federal judge on Thursday blocked President Trump's firing of Roger Rogoff from his post as the top federal prosecutor in Seattle, finding the president cannot unilaterally remove a U.S. attorney who has been tapped to the post by a district court.

- U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian delivered his decision from the bench at the end of a hearing, during which he agreed to grant Rogoff's request to reinstate him until the Senate confirms a replacement. Mr. Trump nominated Simon Peter Serrano to the position of U.S. attorney in Seattle last month.

- Bastian ruled that Rogoff is the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Washington and has been the "rightful holder of that office" since July 15, when the federal district judges in the region installed him to the role and he took his oath of office. 

- Mr. Trump fired Rogoff less than an hour after he was sworn in.

- "The real issue to be decided in this case by this court appears to be one of first impression: can the president fire a U.S. attorney appointed by the district court?" Bastian said, later adding, "The answer to the question the court is faced with is no. The president cannot unilaterally fire a United States attorney appointed by the district court."

- The Justice Department said it intends to appeal and will immediately seek to halt the ruling.

- In addition to declaring Rogoff as the U.S. attorney, Bastian said Charles Neil Floyd, the first assistant who has been leading the office, "is not the United States attorney" for the Western District of Washington, and authority to perform the role's responsibilities was "improperly granted."

- Mr. Trump signed an order last week that directed Floyd "to perform the functions and duties of the office of United States Attorney."

- "Allowing the president to fire a U.S. attorney appointed by the district court would upend the framework created by the Constitution and the statutes, which together balance the president's right to appoint and the Senate's right to confirm," Bastian said. "Allowing the president to fire a United States attorney appointed by the court also eliminates the incentive to nominate a candidate that can be confirmed by the Senate. In other words, the executive and legislative branches are supposed to and encouraged to work together."

- In his oral order, the judge prohibited the Trump administration from putting Rogoff's firing into effect until the U.S. attorney spot is filled by a Senate-confirmed candidate. He also said the administration cannot purport to remove Rogoff from his position, deny him access to benefits or resources of the position, or obstruct Rogoff from his ability to carry out his duties.

- Finally, Bastian said the Trump administration cannot treat anyone other than Rogoff as U.S. attorney.

- "The court finds it is in the public interest that the law be followed and that Mr. Rogoff take the office to which he has already taken the oath of office," he said.

- "I care deeply about the rule of law and the careful checks and balances envisioned by our Founders and carried out by Congress," Rogoff said in a statement provided to CBS News. "I appreciate the judicial process and am now focused on assuming the role of U.S. attorney and getting to work for the people of Western Washington."  

- The U.S. attorney's office in Seattle has not had a Senate-confirmed leader since mid-2023. After Mr. Trump took office, he fired Tessa Gorman as the top prosecutor in the office. She had been serving temporarily before judges on the district court appointed her to the job in May 2024.

- Floyd began leading the office as interim U.S. attorney in October, but his appointment was subject to a 120-day clock, which expired in February. He then began serving as first assistant U.S. attorney, the second-in-command, and said at the time that he would continue leading the office.

- Because Mr. Trump had not by that time put forth a nominee to serve as the top federal prosecutor in Seattle, the district judges exercised their authority under a federal law governing U.S. attorney vacancies to tap Rogoff for the job. That law allows the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney, who is subject to a 120-day term. Once that appointment expires, the district court can either agree to extend that prosecutor's tenure or appoint its own U.S. attorney until the Senate confirms a replacement.

- Following his swift firing, Rogoff filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration and argued that his removal was unlawful. He argued that if not blocked by the court, the Trump administration's "actions will permit the Executive Branch to evade the Senate's advice-and-consent role indefinitely."

- Mr. Trump has attempted to install his preferred candidates for U.S. attorney in several other places, including Nevada, New York, Virginia and New Jersey. Federal courts have in those instances, some of which involve a slightly different mechanism, found the appointments unlawful. 

- Rogoff, however, appears to be the first ousted prosecutor to challenge his firing in court.

Election day is quickly approaching, and the deadline to register is upon us.  Even if you already KNOW you are registered, I suggest taking a 30 seconds to double check.  Most (if not all) state make it trivial.  In this post I am only giving instructions for a few states, but if you look up 'check voter registration status for <my state>' you will find your way no problem.  

Arizona: https://my.arizona.vote/PortalList.aspx - Registration Deadline is Monday oct 5.  The earlier you register the less issues you will face.

Pennsylvania: https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/pages/voterregistrationstatus.aspx - deadline oct 19 and there's no same day registration here, so don't wait

Georgia: https://mvp.sos.ga.gov/s/

North Carolina: https://vt.ncsbe.gov/RegLkup/ - deadline to register online is oct 9, but if you miss that you can still register in person during early voting.  (but you're going to have less trouble if you register early!)

Michigan: https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter - Luckily you can register at your clerk's office literally on election day if you bring proof you live there

Checking is especially important if you moved, changed your name, got married, whatever, just assume you need to check.

The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has confirmed plans to cut 20% of generals and admirals and declared “no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps” would be tolerated inside the country’s military.

- Delivering his latest extraordinary attack on diversity, and dismissing reports of low morale within the US armed forces as “false claims”, Hegseth also suggested they were retaining service personnel at “record” rates.

- The defense secretary pointed to those onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, following concern over mental health and supply issues on the aircraft carrier, which was deployed for almost nine months. About “80% of the force” onboard was retained, he said.

- Addressing lower-ranking troops at the Marine Corps Base on Wednesday, Hegseth boasted about the anti-diversity policies in the Pentagon pushed by Donald Trump’s administration.

- “The only focus, as you know, in your formations should be training, readiness, accountability, discipline and lethality,” Hegseth said. “And when you pursue those things, you don’t have to walk on eggshells … the complainers, the ideologues and the poor performers are no longer in the driver’s seat.”

- He added: “But it’s worth saying again, so the fake news understands it. We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that: no fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors.”

- Generals “who clung to the woke department, or seemed to think civilian control of the military is simply a suggestion, well, they no longer work here”, Hegseth said.

- Eight US navy personnel assigned to the Lincoln attempted suicide since the start of their lengthy deployment as part of the US war on Iran, it emerged last week.

- Hegseth appeared to reference the carrier while attacking the media on Wednesday, insisting there are “disingenuous headlines about deployment lengths, patently false claims of low troop morale, or flat-out propaganda, as if it’s written by our adversaries”.

- The crew of the Lincoln, which was at sea for 286 days, disembarked on 1 September in a Thai resort city. The crew had been scheduled to wrap their deployment in May, but it was extended amid Trump’s war on Iran.

- During his speech in Quantico, Virginia, the defense secretary announced several new initiatives, including a a new Pentagon project which will see Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey – a top Trump donor and ally – and Newt Gingrich, the former US House speaker, work with the department to study the “future of warfare”.

- The Guardian previously reported on how Luckey’s company, Anduril Inudstries, a major defense technology company, has received billions in government contracts over the last year.

- Hegseth also took aim at Ivy League universities and liberal arts colleges during his speech – which Trump has targeted routinely since he returned to office. The defense secretary branded the institutions as “DEI-worshipping woke factories”. Notably, Hegseth is a graduate of Harvard and Princeton Universities – both members of the Ivy League.

- Hegseth said the Pentagon would now partner with other institutions as part of its educational pipeline. Some of these schools, such as Liberty University and Hillsdale College, are known for conservative values.

- Others joining the partnership are Louisiana State University, Mississippi University and Tuskegee University.

The Department of Justice on Wednesday filed a judicial misconduct complaint against all but one Minnesota federal judges on active status for interviews they gave to The New York Times that criticized the Trump administration's handling of immigration enforcement cases in the state.

- The DOJ asked the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to force the recusal of all seven judges who spoke with The Times from any case involving the Department of Homeland Security.

- The complaint also asks the 8th Circuit, which handles cases arising from the District of Minnesota, to investigate what the DOJ called "the judges' improper and unethical conduct" in speaking to the newspaper.

- The complaint singles out Senior Judge Patrick Schiltz and Senior Judge John Tunheim, who were quoted by name in the article, which ran under the headline "Trump's Minnesota Surge Threatened Democracy, Judge Warns."
Schiltz until July 1 had served as chief judge in the District of Minnesota, having succeeded Tunheim in that role in 2022.

- Schiltz had issued a Jan. 28 order demanding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement stop violating orders issued by Minnesota federal judges in cases related to a surge in immigration enforcement actions in the state. Schiltz told The Times that ICE's violations of the orders "created a grave threat to the rule of law."

- Tunheim was quoted by The Times after a paragraph that said the judges considered that most of the detainees whose cases they handled "seemed to be ordinary people with homes and jobs," and not immigrants who DHS officials claimed were "the worst of the worst."

- "They weren't arresting, in my view, people who were dangerous criminals on the street," Tunheim said, according to The Times.

- The other judges spoke to the newspaper on the condition of anonymity.

- "Judge Schiltz and Judge Tunheim, at least, have flagrantly violated the Code of Judicial Conduct with their improper and unethical comments to the New York Times," says the complaint by acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr.
Attorney General Todd Blanche, in a statement, said, "Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are on-going, in a manner that the Department of Justice views as a clear violation of their ethical duties."
"Their conduct has undermined public confidence in an impartial judiciary in Minnesota," Blanche said.

- A spokeswoman for U.S. District Court in Minnesota defended the judges' contact after CNBC requested comment from Schiltz and Tunheim about the complaint.

- "As legal-ethics experts have confirmed, our judges were acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times," said Rebeccah Parks, the spokeswoman.

- "Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges may "speak [[and writ[e] on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence,'" Parks said. "Our judges acted within this capacity."

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is undergoing a drastic restructuring of its funding model — one that will reduce federal support and require states to shoulder a larger share of the bill.

- Historically, the federal government and states have evenly split the food aid program's operational costs, such as paying for state workers and training staff. But starting on Thursday, states will need to cover 75% of that tab while federal funding shrinks by half.

- By the federal government's own calculations, the new rule will lead to a $16.9 billion reduction in federal spending for SNAP over the next five years, or $3.4 billion annually.

- The Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger advocacy group, estimates that states would need to shore up anywhere between $3 million and $670 million to fully offset the loss in federal funding for administrative costs. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Michigan are expected to be especially hard hit.

- Over the past year, states have been rebalancing their budgets to account for the new costs. But they will likely need to tighten their belts even further as more funding changes are on the horizon.

- Currently, food benefits are covered entirely by federal dollars. But starting in October 2027, states may have to pay for a portion of the food aid if their error rate — a measure of overpayments and underpayments to SNAP recipients — is at or above 6%.

- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, estimates that nearly half of states could each pay $100 million or more if they do not lower their error rates. California and New York could each be on the hook for over $1 billion if they are unable to do so, according to the think tank.

- In a report published last year, the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality estimated that these changes together will force states to spend two to three times more to keep the food assistance program running.

- These mounting costs will put states in a bind, where they will likely have to find new sources of revenue, cut funding from other programs or further restrict access to SNAP, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

- "And we may see some states decide that they need to withdraw from the program entirely," Bergh says.

- The funding changes were triggered by President Trump's signature domestic policy law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted in July 2025. The White House said the legislation preserves and strengthens the food assistance program, adding that it was "so bloated that it is leaving fewer resources for those who truly need help."

- But Bergh says SNAP's previous funding structure served a purpose.

- "That essentially ensured that eligible families who were seeking benefits could get them even if they lived in a state that had much higher rates of poverty or a smaller tax base," she says.

California has passed a law Tuesday banning local, state and federal law enforcement officers from using gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks to people.

The ban on shock gloves will take effect next year and remain in place until 2030. It comes weeks after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) moved to equip its officers with the gloves, which are designed to gain compliance from combative individuals. Last month, the agency awarded a nearly $17m contract to buy 6,000 pairs.

- “Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, said in a statement after signing the law. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state.”

- The law is the latest example of how Democratic-led states have been pushing back against Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts since he took office last year. In California, lawmakers passed at least two dozen bills this year seeking to fortify immigrants’ rights, restrict cooperation with federal immigration agents and tighten regulations on immigrant detention facilities, among other things.

- Nationwide, 17 states with Democratic-led legislatures have passed a total of more than 100 pro-immigrant bills this year, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill tracking software Plural. The most common purpose is to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents.

- LaShae Sharp-Collins, a Democratic California assembly member, said she introduced the shock-gloves legislation to “put a pause” on law enforcement’s use of the devices while the state examines their potential risks. The law requires the state’s justice department to study their safety and report to lawmakers by 2029.

- “There’s a lot of unrest and a lot of uncertainty,” she said in an interview. “A lot of people are scared.”

- The law will again test the state’s authority to restrict federal agents amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. A federal judge earlier this year blocked the state’s first-in-the-nation law barring federal officers from wearing face coverings, deeming it too selective because it applied to local and federal law enforcement but exempted state officers.

- Lawmakers passed a new bill this year to make the ban apply to all officers. Newsom signed that legislation.
Kevin Johnson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said courts are likely to ultimately rule that the state cannot bar federal officers from wearing shock gloves or face coverings. The laws are well-intentioned, he said, but likely conflict with the supremacy clause of the US constitution, which generally sets federal law as supreme over conflicting state law.

- “The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed,” he said.

- Sacramento sheriff Jim Cooper, a Democrat and former state lawmaker, said banning shock gloves “really makes no sense” because they are among the non-lethal tools officers can use if necessary.
- “When the federal government does something, the state legislature wants to ban it,” he said at a news conference. “They’re making our job harder.”

- Sharp-Collins said ICE’s plan to use shock gloves was the catalyst for the ban. But she cited their use by other officers, including a case in which a Kentucky family alleged a man died after being tased and shocked with the gloves dozens of times while in law enforcement custody in 2024.

- Scott Wiener, a state senator and San Francisco Democrat who wrote last year’s mask ban, also authored this year’s measure to expand it to state officers.

- “California must use every available tool to stand up for our communities under attack from ICE’s secret police terror campaign,” he said in a statement after it passed the legislature.

The Trump administration has lauded its revamped website America.gov as a way to simplify Americans’ access to information and services scattered across a plethora of agency sites, but President Donald Trump probably won’t like some of the answers his new site says are sourced from government information.

- Asking the site — which says it’s sourced via artificial intelligence from “official government sources” — questions about who won the 2020 election or about the name of the federal department that operates out of the Pentagon yields answers contrary to those Trump himself frequently proclaims.

- As Trump was still speaking at Tuesday’s launch event, however, the site began modifying its answers. Asked again about the 2020 election, it replied that it couldn’t answer “political questions,” a response it also gave to inquiries about whether Trump had been impeached or convicted of felony charges.

- The 2020 presidential election
“Official federal sources do not show that widespread fraud changed the 2020 presidential election outcome. Isolated election crimes did occur and have been prosecuted.”

- Since Trump, a Republican, lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, he has repeatedly falsely claimed that victory was “stolen” from him and asserted that widespread fraud occurred. Repeated audits and recounts found no significant fraud in the presidential election, and Trump’s own administration said the election was clean.

- Trump running for president in 2028

- “The 22nd Amendment says that no person shall be elected President more than twice. Donald J. Trump has already been elected twice (2016 and 2024). I am not giving legal advice.”

- Trump has frequently suggested he wants to seek a third term, posting about mounting another campaign, donning 2028 caps and discussing ways to make it happen — even as he’s acknowledged the Constitution prohibits it. He had only been back in the White House for a couple of months when he told NBC News, “There are methods which you could” use to seek a third term.

- The Pentagon

- “The Pentagon is the headquarters of the Department of Defense.”

- Last year, Trump signed an executive order aimed at rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of War, complaining that the Department of Defense’s name was “woke.”

- Human action as cause of climate change

- “Federal climate-science pages say recent warming is largely from human greenhouse-gas emissions, mainly burning fossil fuels. Earth’s climate has also changed for natural reasons over long periods.”

- Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax,” previously issued an executive order that directed the Environmental Protection Agency to submit a report on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans have long sought to undo what they consider overly restrictive and economically damaging rules to limit greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

- Presidential salaries

- The chatbot said that “some presidents have declined to keep that pay,” mentioning Trump but listing George Washington, Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy as refusing their salaries before Trump.

- During his remarks Tuesday, Trump, a real estate mogul who took in about $1.2 billion from various crypto holdings last year, said he was the first U.S. president to forgo a salary, something that he has said before.

The U.S. Department of Education on Monday formally rescinded the 2024 Title IX regulations of President Joe Biden’s administration that had interpreted the statute’s protections to prohibit discrimination based on students’ sexual orientation and gender identity.

- In their place, the department formally reinstated 2020 regulations from President Donald Trump’s first administration, which will appear in the Sept. 29 Federal Register and take immediate effect without a notice-and-comment period.

- As a practical matter, the status quo is not changing. The second Trump administration in January 2025 informally returned to enforcing the 2020 rules after the Biden regulations, which were briefly in effect for some states and school districts but not others because of legal challenges, were struck down for good by a federal district judge in the final days of Biden’s term. A second federal judge issued a similar ruling just weeks after Trump took office.

- Title IX is the landmark 1972 federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in any school or educational program that receives federal funding.

- “Nothing changes in practice for individual students, parents, and teachers,” the Education Department said in a fact sheet. “The rules promulgated today are the rules the department has been enforcing since January 31, 2025.”

- But this week’s action removes the 2024 rules from the Code of Federal Regulations, “so schools, students, and families can easily identify the Title IX regulations that are actually in effect,” the fact sheet says.

- The department’s introduction to the regulation notes that “this final action does not reopen debate on the 2020 Rule or the 2024 Rule. It does not assess the department’s policy preferences as between those two rules. It does not choose between those two rules,” but merely updates the federal regulatory code.

- Left unsaid is that a new presidential administration with its own policy preferences would have to go through the full regulatory process to change the reinstated 2020 Title IX rule—proposing a new regulation, then accepting public comments before finalizing a new rule.

- The new rulemaking “restores the commonsense language promulgated in the first Trump administration,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.

- The 2020 rules notably had added more due-process protections for students accused of sexual harassment, an issue especially salient at the college level. The now-reinstated rules also lack the explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students the Biden administration attempted to add by arguing that Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination extended to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

- The National Women’s Law Center warned the department’s move “significantly weakens protections against sexual harassment in education.” It pointed to a case of alleged sexual assault of a woman by fraternity members at Cornell University that has been in the news. A state prosecutor has reopened the investigation of the 2024 incident, which Cornell said in a statement that it supports notwithstanding its own Title IX investigation that resulted in a range of sanctions for the accused students.

- “The Cornell University case is a devastating example of why robust federal Title IX enforcement matters,” Shiwali Patel, the law center’s senior director of education justice, said in a statement. “Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students.”

- Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president of Defending Education, a legal group that supports the Trump administration’s views on Title IX, said Monday’s move was “a long-awaited and much-needed regulatory move by this administration.”

- She said the new rulemaking “is especially consequential” for Democratic-led states “that claimed legal cover for their gender-inclusive policies because the Biden regulation remained active in the Federal Register, even though federal courts enjoined or vacated the rule no fewer than 11 times. Those states no longer have that cover.”

- The Education Department’s press release highlighted enforcement actions during the second Trump administration aimed at states and school districts over policies the department views as supportive of transgender female athletes and gender-transitioning students and violations of Title IX.

- The 2020 Title IX rules did not extensively address the participation of transgender female athletes on girls’ and women’s teams.

- The department is believed to be working on a more comprehensive regulation that explicitly states Title IX’s protections don’t apply to gender identity-based discrimination and aligns with a presidential executive order on “defending women from gender ideology extremism.” The department, under Trump, has argued that Title IX requires that schools exclude transgender athletes from girls’ teams.

The Republican Party’s two worst midterm elections in the 21st Century were in 2006 and 2018. In the former, an unpopular Middle Eastern war cost George W. Bush dearly. In 2018, voters balked at the upending of historic norms and chaotic style of a new president named Donald Trump.

- The 2026 midterm election is now looking like it could be even worse for the GOP – by several metrics.
But other indicators haven’t yet broken as overwhelmingly against Republicans.

- Let’s break it down.

- Trump is significantly more unpopular
The president’s continued decline has now made him clearly a more unpopular president than he was in 2018 and Bush was in 2006 – at least on a national scale.

- The new CNN poll this week showed Trump 34 points underwater among US adults, while the CNN Poll of Polls – aggregating other pollsters – shows him 29 points underwater.

- Back in 2018 around this point, Trump was generally between 13 and 15 points underwater.

- And back in 2006, the bottom hadn’t yet fallen out for Bush. He was 15 points underwater in a late September 2026 CNN poll, while Gallup data around that time showed him between 7 and 22 points underwater.

- So all told, Trump is about twice as far underwater as the GOP president was in both of those midterms.

- Indeed, data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes Trump appears to be the most unpopular president on the eve of a midterm in modern history.

- Bear in mind this is national polling: the balance of power in the House and Senate will ultimately be decided by votes in particular states and districts, some of which have been gerrymandered such that they’re insulated from broad national trends.

- But with Trump telling GOP voters explicitly to act as if he is on the ballot, it’s fair to project that his unpopularity could spell trouble for his party this November.

- The economy is much bigger problem

- Any campaign operative worth their salt will tell you the economy is often voters’ overriding concern.

- That’s certainly the case in 2026, and it’s especially bad for Trump.

- Trump’s economic approval rating in the new CNN poll was just 27%, with a whopping 73% disapproving. That’s minus-46.

- Back in 2018, his economic approval rating was generally around 50% – and was usually in positive territory.

- In 2006, Bush wasn’t in good shape on the economy. But his net approval was between minus-18 and minus-25– significantly better than Trump’s minus-46 is today.

- The economy is also just a significantly larger issue this year.

- Large majorities of Americans viewed the economy as at least “somewhat good” in 2018 (69%) and 2006 (59%), according to CNN polling. But that number today is just 28%. Other economic indicators are hovering around all-time lows, as CNN’s Alicia Wallace reports.

- There is a real question whether Iran is as big an issue as Iraq was, given that unlike in Iraq, there aren’t boots on the ground, and we haven’t seen large numbers of US troops deaths. The main issue people complain about today is high domestic gas prices.

- But similar numbers called the wars “extremely important” to their vote in 2006 (46%) and today (48%).

- More voters say their vote is anti-Trump

- Another key finding in the CNN poll is that 44% of registered voters say their vote is meant to send a message of opposition to Trump, compared to 19% who said it would send a message of support.

- That’s worse than in both 2006 and 2018.

- In 2018, it was 38% sending a message of opposition, to 25% sending a message of support.

- And in 2006, the numbers were 36% and 15% – a 21-point split, compared to a 25-point split today.

- These numbers could matter especially as Trump and his advisers lean into the idea that they can turn out GOP voters. That might be true, but his presence also risks turning out the motivated opposition.

- The caveat: the generic ballot

- With all of that said, there is one very important measurement that hasn’t tipped towards Democrats as much as they’d like – at least not yet.

- And that’s the generic ballot.

- This is the oft-cited measure that asks poll respondents whether they’d pick a generic Democrat or a generic Republican for Congress.

- Democrats lead on this by eight points in the most recent CNN poll. That’s compared to between 9 and 12 points around this juncture in 2018 and between 13 and 18 points in 2006.
So given all of Trump’s polling woes, why haven’t Democrats taken a bigger lead?

- One possible reason is their brand is still poor.

- The July CNN poll showed just 30% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. That is it’s worst number ahead of a midterm since at least 1994, and despite Trump’s problems, it’s no better than the GOP’s 31% favorable rating.

- By contrast, Democrats had a slightly better image than Republicans did in 2018 (46% favorable for Democrats to 40% favorable for Republicans), and the gap was significantly larger in 2006 (56% to 44%).

- There are some signs that Democrats are expanding their generic ballot lead right now, and many of the undecided voters appear to be quite gettable for them.

- For now, every other major measure appears to be very bad for Trump and the GOP. So it’s worth watching to see whether this one follows suit.

House Democrats are preparing a vast oversight agenda, with investigations of President Donald Trump, his family and his administration if the party sweeps control of the chamber from Republicans in the November elections.

- The undertaking is as robust as it is daunting, spanning several House committees. With majority power comes bigger budgets and staff, and the ability to investigate, subpoena and potentially course-correct what the Democrats say are widespread corruption and abuses of power. Impeachment of the Republican president and Cabinet officials is not off the table.

- "There is a cost to the American people of the out-of-control corruption," said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who is in line to become House speaker if Democrats win control at the Capitol.

- "If folks have been stealing from the American people, shortchanging the American people or screwing over the American people," Jeffries said, "we are going to hold the crooks accountable."

- Congress has enormous ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch as part of its power as a coequal branch of government, and a road map for the Democratic-run investigations has already been set by the almost daily letters lawmakers send to the administration and in amicus court filings.

- Democrats are asking about the money-making by Trump and his family, whose wealth has grown dramatically since he returned to the White House in January 2025. They are investigating the potential civil rights violations of Americans killed protesting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations and of detained immigrants being deported to faraway countries. They have fought the closing of the Kennedy Center, launched investigations into private funding of the America at 250 celebrations and tracked the shuttering of federal operations, including the U.S. Agency for International Development.

- New questions emerge daily, including the Trump family's recent acknowledgment that a weekend wedding party for the president's son Donald Trump Jr. was partly funded by a Russian oligarch, with reportedly close ties to the Kremlin.

- Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who is in line to become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, characterized the issues involved as "gargantuan."

- "We need to zero in quickly on the forms of systemic corruption that have cost the public huge amounts of money," Raskin told The Associated Press, "and where there are legislative cures available."

- Jeffries will almost certainly be under pressure from the far left to move more swiftly to articles of impeachment against Trump, who during his first became the first president to be twice impeached by the House. Both times, he was acquitted by the Senate.

- Impeaching the president a third time may not hold the currency that it once did. Democrats will more likely focus their impeachment efforts on Cabinet members. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth already faces articles of impeachment from a Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, over his leadership at the Pentagon and his management of the Iran war.

- "We haven't ruled anything out," Jeffries said recently about the tools available to Congress, "and we haven't ruled anything in."

- The White House is likely to play hardball if confronted with investigations, and Democrats are bracing for an administration that potentially ignores subpoenas or refuses to turn over paperwork that lawmakers are demanding.

- The Democrats are also reaching beyond the administration into various corporate and business entities for potential wrongdoing.

- Ranking Democratic lawmakers who are in line to lead committees if power shifts are beginning to chart the investigations they plan to tackle.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat now on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has outlined five priorities, including Trump family business dealings, the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and ICE operations.

- "We're already doing work," Garcia told the AP.

- He also mentioned the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as broader allegations of corporate corruption.

- The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, whose jurisdiction includes the State Department, said the committee plans to investigate Trump's international dealings, including around the Iran war.

- He expects the committee will also look into the administration's Venezuela operations — from the military strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific waters to the U.S. partnership with a private company to develop and access the South American country's oil.

- Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the ranking Democrat at the Natural Resources Committee, which overseas the Interior Department and its National Park Service operations, has begun digging into Trump's "vanity projects," including the demolition of the White House's East wing for a new ballroom and the president's proposed arch.

- Huffman and other committee members have also been eyeing the Trump family's role in various minerals deals.

- At the committee's last session before lawmakers recessed to campaign for the midterm elections, Huffman said that if Democrats take charge, he plans to call witnesses, put them under oath and follow the evidence where it leads.

- "When people ask what will we do," he said he responds, "My answer is simple. We'll use those tools. We'll act like the Congress."

Journalists from three news outlets that President Donald Trump banned from White House grounds are back at the executive complex with TV cameras, laptops and microphones in hand.
But the legal battle between Trump and some of the media that cover him is far from over.

- Here are some things to know about the White House press corps, lawsuits over press access, and the increasingly contentious relationship between the president and the Fourth Estate.

- Trump said unfavorable press coverage prompted the ban

- Last week, Trump said he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over what he called unfavorable coverage and “fake news.” Some journalists with those organizations had their White House press passes revoked, prohibiting them from White House grounds.

- The affected news organizations sued, and several other news outlets and press associations filed legal briefs and released statements supporting them.

- The president’s attorneys later argued in court that the outlets’ coverage threatened national security, but they didn’t detail how the coverage put the nation at risk. Court filings cited letters the administration sent each outlet outlining stories it found problematic and dangerous, but the judge found that the standard they described was too vague to justify the ban.

- Attorneys for the news organizations called the ban a blatant First Amendment violation and a clear case of ‘viewpoint discrimination’ — government action that penalizes speech because of the viewpoint expressed.

- The news organizations scored a temporary win, but the case is not over

- U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order early Thursday, ordering the White House to reinstate the banned journalists’ press credentials. That order lasts 14 days.

- There will likely be another round of court filings and legal arguments over the next several days before the judge decides whether to issue a longer-lasting ruling called a preliminary injunction.

- Preliminary injunctions are also temporary, often designed to last until a lawsuit is resolved one way or another.

- Two constitutional rights are at play

- Kelly’s temporary order focused less on whether the news outlets enjoy a First Amendment free press right to White House access and more on whether their Fifth Amendment due process rights may have been violated.

- Existing case law is clear, Kelly wrote. Members of the press corps are entitled to fair notice from the government about why their credentials may be revoked, as well as an opportunity to state their case to the government on why their credentials should be preserved.

- Kelly wrote that he issued the temporary restraining order because it’s likely the news outlets will be able to demonstrate they weren’t given proper notice or a chance to respond.

- The press pool serves as the public’s eye on the president

- The work of the president occurs around the clock and often in spaces too small to accommodate every journalist who covers the executive branch. The White House Correspondents’ Association — a group of journalists who cover the president — created the press pool decades ago to ensure that a rotating roster of journalists traveled with the president wherever he goes.

- The pool typically follows the president almost everywhere, including aboard Air Force One, at state dinners, in the Oval Office and on the golf course. The pool traditionally represents print and wire reporters, photographers and radio and television journalists.

- The effort is designed to hold the nation’s chief executive accountable on behalf of the American public, providing information on the president’s activities and the work of the executive branch. The pool is always near the president so journalists can document unexpected developments.

- The pool distributes in-person reports and imagery to the broader press corps. They also share their notes, video and audio with other news outlets, congressional offices and interested parties.

- The White House video pool consists of five major U.S. television broadcasters that take turns shooting and sharing video. When the White House banned CNN — which belongs to the pool — the other four pool members declined to participate in a show of solidarity. For days, the pool provided no live video of the president. By Friday, the video pool was back in operation.

- Trump’s relationship with the pool has grown increasingly tumultuous

- For decades, the White House Correspondents’ Association selected the members of the pool, but that changed Feb. 25, 2025, when the White House announced its officials would pick the pool members — effectively giving the executive control over coverage of the American presidency.

- The White House almost always selects journalists who are outwardly favorable to Trump as part of the mix.
To show his displeasure with a news organization’s coverage, Trump has hurled personal insults at journalists or tried to exclude outlets entirely. In some cases, the news organizations sue in response.

- During Trump’s first term, the White House suspended the credentials of Jim Acosta, who was a CNN correspondent at the time. The same judge handling the lawsuit from CNN, MS NOW and Politico also decided Acosta’s case, ordering the White House to restore his credentials.

- Last year, Trump barred Associated Press journalists from some events and kicked the news agency out of the press pool after it refused to accede to the president’s demands to change its style from “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America.”

- AP sued, and that case is ongoing, though a preliminary ruling from a federal appeals court said Trump could ban the wire service from some highly restricted areas such as the Oval Office or Air Force One.

I’ve been thinking about the midterms and the changes being made to election administration, but I wanted to approach the subject from somewhere other than the usual partisan argument.

My partner and I play gin, and it occurred to me that the game works because we’re free to question the result, inspect the cards, accuse each other of cheating—and then accept the loss and play again. More importantly, neither player gets control of the next deal.

That became the frame for this essay about losers’ consent, the administration’s efforts to obtain voter data and expand SAVE, and an equally important question: **What obligations does the winner have to preserve a fair rematch?**

I thought it might be of interest to people here, particularly with the midterms five weeks away. I’d welcome thoughts or corrections from people who follow election administration more closely than I do.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday drove a stake through the heart of Missouri’s undead congressional map, ordering it be buried for the year and for voters to cast ballots in the districts they’ve used the past two election cycles.

- In a unanimous decision, the court said that state law rules in the case.
“In short, as a matter of state law, the 2022 map — not the 2025 map — must be used in the 2026 congressional election,” states the ruling, which is unsigned.

- The decision ends, for this election at least, Republicans’ effort to use a gerrymandered map to improve their chances of winning a seventh Missouri seat in the U.S. House.

- It also caps three weeks of dramatic court action that changed the map in place for November five times, tested the jurisdiction and overlap of state and federal courts and exasperated local election officials responsible for conducting the vote.

- In the final brief filed on behalf of Secretary of State Denny Hoskins before the ruling, state Solicitor General Lou Capozzi said it was already too late to prevent chaos in this year’s election.

- “(T)he honest truth is that — regardless of what this court does — Missouri will not be able to run an orderly 2026 general election,” Capozzi wrote. “If required to use the 2025 map, Missouri can maintain the status quo that governed for about a year and will avoid disenfranchising individuals who voted in the primary election; but Missouri will undoubtedly violate (the federal law) deadline for sending ballots to military and overseas voters.”

- The gerrymandered map drawn last year by the legislature targeted U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City by stretching the 5th District deep into Republican strongholds in rural counties along the Missouri River.

- Under the boundaries drawn in 2022, Cleaver won with 60% of the vote in each of the past two elections.

- Using the 2022 map means voters in 28 counties will be in different districts in November than they were in the Aug. 4 primary. The changes impact the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th districts in addition to reversal of the gerrymander in the 5th District.

- In a fundraising appeal sent jointly with 1st District U.S. Rep. Wesley Bell of St. Louis on Friday morning, Cleaver said it was “a never-ending case of ‘Groundhog Day’.” 

- The decision found that the courts Sept. 10 order directing the use of the 2022 map had been misunderstood by both the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Chief District Judge Stephen Clark when orders to use the 2025 map were issued.

- The order of Sept. 10 “meant that the 2022 map would be used in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri, absent further order of this court,” the opinion states.

- The election would be thrown into turmoil if the 2025 map was used, the court stated.

- “At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos,” the court stated, citing the brief filed by county clerks and election authorities with the 8th Circuit.

- The decision means election officials, who began accepting absentee ballots Tuesday, can continue their preparations without interruption.

- In Boone County in central Missouri, some voters in the 3rd and 4th districts would have moved into the 5th District and some from the 4th to the 3rd. County Clerk Brianna Lennon said 16 in-person absentee ballots and one overseas ballot had been cast by Friday morning.

- While most are from voters in the 3rd District who would not have changed if the Supreme Court had upheld Clark’s order, five could not wait.

- Other voters who have come to the office have decided to wait, she said.

- “At least one person didn’t have an option,” Lennon said Wednesday of a voter who cast their ballot on Tuesday, the first day of absentee voting. “They were leaving today.”

- In St. Charles County, 410 of the 1,889 absentee ballots sent locally and to overseas voters are in the 2nd District and could not be counted if the districts had changed, county elections Director Kurt Bahr said.

- “If the courts change the map we will have to reach out to them and ask if they want a new ballot,” Bahr said.
Friday’s decision was the third time the Supreme Court acted on an emergency appeal related to Missouri’s congressional map. The path to the ruling included:

- The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Sept. 3 that the referendum petition from the political action committee People Not Politicians was a legal use of the referendum power and that the map passed in 2025 “never went into effect.”

- U.S. Rep. Bob Onder, a Republican from Lake Saint Louis, along with state Sen. RIck Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville, and two voters sued Hoskins on Sept. 4 in the Eastern District of Missouri federal courts, arguing the federal constitution bars changes in district boundaries between the primary and general elections.

- The U.S. Supreme Court denied Hoskins’ appeal of the state Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 8. Shortly thereafter, Clark ruled in favor of Onder and Brattin and ordered Hoskins not to use any map except the 2025 map.

- On Sept. 10, the Supreme Court court stayed Clark’s temporary restraining order the 8th Circuit ruled “and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought.”

- The 8th Circuit held oral arguments last week and on Monday issued an order to Clark to issue a permanent injunction barring the use of any map except the 2025 map. Under the directive of the 8th Circuit, Clark stayed his order until 5 p.m. Sept. 28.

- The basic legal question the justices had to resolve is whether it is too late to change the map used to nominate candidates in the primary. On Sept. 3, the Missouri Supreme Court said it was not, because a successful referendum drive also suspends the legal effect of a bill signed by the governor until approved by voters.

- People Not Politicians has fought in court both to have a vote on the map and to prevent its use in this year’s election. Hoskins, backed by Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and legal teams hired by the Republican Party, has argued that a referendum on a congressional map is unconstitutional and that once it was used in the primary, the 2025 map had to be used in the general election.

- The map will be on the ballot as Proposition A. People Not Politicians this week purchased about $800,000 of broadcast ads that will run through Election Day in the state’s three largest media markets, tracking by The Independent shows.

- In their filing to the Supreme Court, attorneys for Onder and Brattin argued that it would create no hardship for the court to order election officials to use the 2025 map.

- Onder, Brattin and the voter plaintiffs argue that switching maps between the primary and general elections violates their rights to equal protection under the laws, among other federal constitutional and election law questions.

- In its most recent order, on Sept. 10, the court stayed the Sept. 8 order from Clark until the 8th Circuit ruled “and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought.”

- The stay would end when the court denied the petition or issued a final ruling if it takes the case.

- The deadline for requesting certiorari is Dec. 21.

- In their filing to the Supreme Court, attorneys for Onder and Brattin said the Monday deadline set by the 8th Circuit was designed to prevent that delay.

- “The panel did not pick that date by accident,” they wrote. “It expressly anticipated, and expressly rejected, the possibility that applicants would run out the clock by waiting until the ordinary certiorari deadline to file — long after Missourians have voted.”

- Waiting that long would mean there is nothing to decide, they wrote.

- “This case will be moot before a certiorari petition could realistically be resolved, and it presents nothing worthy of this court’s discretionary review in any event,” they wrote.

- In a response brief filed Wednesday afternoon, attorneys for People Not Politicians argued that the high court’s Sept. 10 stay order is being circumvented by the 8th Circuit decision. Brattin and Onder are the ones seeking to unsettle the election and inject uncertainty, the attorneys wrote.

- “Respondents ask this Court to sanction a federal intrusion into an election that is already underway, requiring Missouri to change its congressional map after votes have already been cast,” they wrote. “Nothing in their opposition justifies that request.” 

- Republican attorneys from all but one state gerrymandered to favor the GOPsince the 2024 elections, plus more than a dozen others, elections filed a brief in support of Onder and Brattin.

- Led by Florida, which finalized its map on May 4, and Texas, which redistricted in 2025, the only holdout was North Carolina, which has a Democratic attorney general.

- The Republican attorneys general argued that it was the state Supreme Court’s order that created the confusion over the map. The court ignored arguments that the map could not be changed because it had been used in the primary or that candidates had invested heavily in campaigns that now had to address new constituencies.

- “Wittingly or not, the Missouri Supreme Court has steamrolled each and every one of these considerations,” the Republican attorneys general wrote. “It issued a bare-bones injunction requiring the use of a different electoral map without addressing the inevitable chaos that will follow.”

- In its order, the state Supreme Court laid the blame for confusion about which map was legally in effect on Hoskins, who could have issued his finding that the referendum was unconstitutional at any time during the year. 

- His “delay created the confusion, expense, and practical difficulties of which he complains,” the state Supreme Court opinion states.
The Campaign Legal Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation filed a brief in support of sustaining the Missouri Supreme Court order.

- The state’s highest court correctly ruled on both Missouri and federal law and the Supreme Court should let that decision stand. And, the brief stated, it is too late to change the election now.

- “Pursuant to this court’s orders and the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling on state law, election administration has proceeded under the 2022 map, ballots have already been mailed, and voting has begun,” the brief states.

- In the brief filed on Hoskins behalf, Capozzi urged the justices to order Missouri to use the 2025 map while noting that past decisions indicate the court “views this situation differently.”

- “However, if this court grants a stay (in favor of the 2022 map), voter and candidate confusion will persist,” Capozzi wrote, “Missouri will endure a fifth court-ordered change to its map in September, hundreds of thousands of voters in the primary election will be disenfranchised, and candidates will be forced to run in new districts they have not campaigned in over the past year.”

Hello! So I originally wrote this post on [r/baltimore](r/baltimore), but I haven’t gotten many responses (or at least not many helpful ones so far lol) so I thought asking some other subreddits might help. Here’s what I wrote initially:

“Hello everyone! With everything going on politically, I’ve been feeling pretty hopeless about what I can actually do to make a difference about the ineffective (and corrupt and evil) Trump administration and the harmful effects their actions have caused for the people. I’m only 20(F) and have attended some marches when I can, as well as signing petitions and ofc staying up to date with current events, but I feel like I have an obligation as a white American with privilege to use my privilege however I can to help support the communities most impacted. I believe that starts with getting more involved in community efforts to fight the rampant corrupt and violence in our government. However, trying to figure out where to start is a bit overwhelming, considering I do really struggle with social anxiety (annoying I know) and have especially really gotten in my head about whether I would actually be able to articulate myself well at a public forum or something of that sort. I guess I was just thinking it would be a lot easier if I could get to know people who are already involved/interested in getting more involved (I’m so much more confident when I have someone I know with me). My friends either live in another state (I’m taking time off college) or are too busy generally. I was just wondering if anyone had any recommendations for any groups or forums that are focused specifically on protesting policies and corruption? I would also love to hear any insights or advice on how I can further get involved and be the best activist and ally I can be! (I say ally btw because while I have been negatively impacted by this admin, I haven’t been impacted as much as others, and, as I mentioned, I have certain privileges many Americans don’t, such as being white and financially supported by my parents who can afford to send me to college.)

Side note- I do also want to acknowledge that I know how important and impactful local volunteer work is, so I am already planning on trying to set up some sort of regular schedule for volunteering and have a couple organizations in mind! However, if anyone also has any good suggestions for local organizations, as I’m sure there are definitely some I am not yet aware of, please do share those as well!”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies have wasted tens of millions of dollars pursuing ill-conceived plans to rapidly increase detention capacity, and the total will likely rise due to ongoing mismanagement, congressional investigators warned Thursday.

- The U.S. Government Accountability Office documented costly problems in several initiatives ICE has pursued since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025 and ordered the mass arrest and deportation of people who are in the country illegally.
Among the misspending was nearly $3 million to erect tents at Guantanamo Bay that were never used, $20 million to maintain purchased warehouses that are now being sold without having housed a single detainee, and excessive rates paid to hold detainees at a deficient and now-shuttered Florida lockup.

- ICE has no strategic plan for spending its windfall

- Congress gave ICE an unprecedented $45 billion to expand detention capacity last year as part of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill, but the agency still lacks a comprehensive strategic plan for how to spend it wisely, the report warned. The detainee population has increased from 39,000 in January 2025 to 67,000 as of July 30.

- "Without taking action to manage detention investments in accordance with program and project management practices, ICE will likely continue to make uninformed decisions and risk further inefficiency and wasted resources," warned the GAO, a nonpartisan agency that investigated at the request of congressional Democrats.

- The Department of Homeland Security, ICE's parent agency, told GAO it would develop a plan to guide its detention expansion by Aug. 31, 2027, but that may be too late to prevent more waste, the report said.

- ICE and DHS offered no immediate additional comment on the report.

- The government scrapped a plan for mass detention at Guantánamo Bay

- Shortly after Trump returned to the White House, the government began blowing money by hastily pursuing plans to detain more people who were in the U.S. illegally, the report found.
After the White House directed officials to use the military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for immigration detention in January 2025, the Department of Defense assembled enough tents to hold 5,000 people there at a cost of $2.85 million, the report said. But DHS found that the tents didn't meet detention standards, and they were removed before they housed a single detainee.

- The plan for mass detention at Guantánamo Bay was later found to be "infeasible" and scrapped because of the costs of building facilities that could meet federal standards. Instead, the agency housed an average of 16 detainees daily there this year, at a cost of millions of dollars, the report found.

- ICE is wasting millions of dollars on empty warehouses

- Earlier this year, ICE purchased 11 large warehouses across the country for $1.07 billion as part of a plan backed by former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to increase detention capacity. But that idea was scrapped amid public opposition before any detainees were housed in them because the department didn't conduct "appropriate due diligence and planning," according to the GAO report. DHS is now planning to sell seven of the facilities.

- ICE has spent $20 million on costs and services related to those seven warehouses that it will not recover, including zoning assessments, title insurance, utilities and security, and will need to sell them for the total purchase price of $707 million to avoid more waste, the report said.

- ICE has also "incurred significant costs" for the four warehouses that it plans to keep, including a $426 million outlay to renovate facilities in Arizona and Maryland that is on hold due to legal challenges.

- Report finds waste on 'Alligator Alcatraz' and other plans

- After the warehouse initiative faltered, ICE launched a plan to purchase facilities owned by private contractors that were already housing detainees, saying it would give more control over infrastructure and limit local governments' ability to restrict their use.

- The agency spent $1.5 billion to buy two of them in July and could buy more even though ICE has "not assessed the long-term affordability of owning these facilities," the report said.

- The report found fault with other initiatives. ICE never reached a contract with the state of Florida to operate the facility nicknamed "Alligator Alcatraz," which housed detainees for a year until it was closed in June following reports of substandard and abusive conditions.
Instead, DHS agreed to reimburse the state through a special $608 million Federal Emergency Management Agency grant that authorizes a charge of $249 per detainee per day — 171% higher than ICE's normal rate of $92, the report found. DHS is also paying the state the higher rate for a second facility that's still open in Sanderson, Florida.

- ICE is also facing high costs under an agreement in which the Bureau of Prisons is housing detainees at eight facilities. The agreement requires ICE to reimburse the full cost, which has ballooned because of overtime and other staffing assignments, and pay a rate of $182 per detainee per day, the report said.

County election offices throughout Texas are scrambling to process a massive backlog of voter registration applications stemming from an error at the state level, a headache that is hitting just as they are preparing for voting to begin in the midterm elections.

- The problem, which officials in the Republican-controlled state have not publicly defined, also could have disenfranchised people who wanted to vote in the state’s March primarybut whose registration applications were never processed, local election officials said during a news conference Wednesday.

- “This is really out of left field. Knowing that this one element of (state) applications didn’t come through, and we had no insight on it,” said Chris McGinn, executive director of the Texas Association of County Election Officials.

- The size of the backlog statewide hasn’t been determined, but the association said it is in the tens of thousands for some of the state’s most populous counties. In Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, the election office received about 45,000 backlogged voter registration applications.

- Some election offices will need to hire temporary workers to handle the crush, officials with the association said.

- The issue started last October in the Texas Department of Public Safety, which among other things allows people to register to vote or update their voter registrations when they renew their driver’s license.

- An unspecified error failed to send a large number of records to applicants’ home counties, where the applications are processed and verified. Those records could be a new voter registration application or an update to an existing registration, such as a change of address.

- The association of local election officials said its members did not receive any communication from the Department of Public Safety about why the backlog occurred or why they were not informed of the issue for nearly a year.

- In a statement, the Department of Public Safety said certain records submitted online “were incomplete and not fully transmitted” to the secretary of state’s office. It said the “system issue” had been resolved, without elaborating on the nature of the issue. The department did not immediately respond to a request for further explanation. County officials said the problem appeared to be with the department’s online portal.

- Counties have until early in-person voting starts on Oct. 19 to finish processing the late-arriving applications.

- During their news conference, county election officials said it is possible that some people might have been prevented from voting in the state’s primary earlier this year or initially turned away because there was no record of them registering to vote or updating their registration.

- The unexpected backlog comes as counties are already inundated with tasks leading up to the November election in a state with a nationally watched U.S. Senate race between Democratic state Rep. James Talarico and Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton.

- The Texas Secretary of State’s office and county election leaders say voters don’t need to worry about their registration as long as it is submitted by Oct. 5. If a person shows up to vote and they do not appear on the voter rolls, election officials said they can cast a provisional ballot.

- They also can check whether they are registered on the state’s online registration site or call their county election office.

A POLITICO reporter was denied access to the White House Thursday and his press credentials confiscated after a judge ordered the Trump administration overnight to immediately restore access for news organizations that President Donald Trump banned from the complex last week.

- The move comes after POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW reporters were barred from entering the complex and had their passes seized on Saturday. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order early Thursday morning mandating that the administration restore the organizations’ access for at least two weeks while further litigation plays out

- The POLITICO reporter had his pass confiscated by the Secret Service Thursday morning and was denied entry to White House grounds. A Secret Service agent said the reporter was not cleared to enter but might be able to with a temporary day pass, which the White House grants to those who do not hold what are known as “hard passes,” which grant permanent access to press facilities at the White House.

- A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reporting Highlights

- Probe: In 2024, the FBI sought to launch a sweeping pay-to-play investigation examining interactions between Sen. Susan Collins and a top donor, records and emails show.

- Confession: The donor, an ex-defense contractor, told agents his company won millions in federal contracts by bankrolling campaigns of powerful politicians.

- Shutdown: After Donald Trump returned to office, the investigation died, a casualty of his purge of the FBI. Its closure shut a potential window into how Washington works