Americans

WASHINGTON — President Trump says his administration will make one-time payments of $90 per person to help more than 20 million Medicare enrollees pay for their Part B premiums. It will cost about $2 billion.

Less than one-third of all Medicare recipients are eligible for the payments, which are expected to be sent out this week. Not eligible are roughly 35 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, millions of people with disabilities who get premium assistance and low-income Medicare recipients.

The election-year promise that the Republican president made over the weekend comes as the Nov. 3 midterms are fast approaching, with the cost of living and healthcare expenses among the top issues for voters.

Some questions and answers about the payouts:

Who will benefit?

Some 20.8 million people in the original Medicare Part B who are living in the United States, not receiving premium assistance from Medicaid or not paying an income-related monthly adjusted amount.

Medicare Advantage enrollees, who make up more than half of the eligible 64.2 million Medicare beneficiaries, will not receive a payment, according to KFF, a healthcare research nonprofit. Nor will 12 million low-income older adults and people with disabilities who get premium assistance.

The Part B program covers expenses such as doctor’s visits, ambulance services and lab tests. Total monthly costs generally start at about $200 and vary with income.

Allison Schuster, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that the administration “is enabling Americans to take control of their health by putting money directly back in the hands of Medicare patients.”

When will the payments go out and how will they be disbursed?

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website, eligible beneficiaries will receive one $90 rebate this month, with most getting a direct deposit on or around Friday. Others will receive a paper check from the Treasury Department later in October.

Juliette Cubanski, director of KFF’s program on Medicare policy, said the payment will be automatic.

“As far as a benefit goes, people don’t have to call or sign up — it’s just money they receive directly, but not everybody on Medicare will receive this money.”

A White House fact sheet says people can call (800) MEDICARE ([800] 633-4227) to check their eligibility for the premium rebate. To check on payment status, people should call the Social Security Administration at (800) 772-1213.

What is the source of the money?

Payments will come out of the Medicare Improvement Fund created by Congress in 2008 and intended to make improvements to the Medicare fee-for-service program.

The fund was created to improve program management and conduct oversight of contracts and contractors, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but its purpose has expanded after various legislative changes.

This is not the first time the fund has been used.

President Obama’s administration, along with Congress, redirected $20 billion to expand healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

But under Trump, it is the first time that the fund has been used to directly pay recipients.

What are critics of the plan saying?

Critics of Trump’s promise characterize the $90 payments as a preelection stunt designed to sway voters rather than address structural problems in healthcare costs and administration.

The top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, said in a statement that “this is another desperate attempt by a failed president to escape Americans’ revulsion with his failed agenda, amounting to one tank of Trump-inflated gas.”

Trump recently promised $500 rebate checks to an estimated 1 million Obamacare enrollees across 30 states whom the White House alleged were overcharged by the Biden administration for some fees.

Cubanski said the Medicare rebate payments were being doled out when Americans were feeling the bite of higher food, energy and gas prices. Surging healthcare costs are only compounding those pressure, she said.

“This might be helpful for people but it might not go very far.”

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans say the US-Israeli war is not worth fighting, marking a significant spike since July.

Approximately 70 percent of US adults in a new nationwide poll say the US-Israeli war has not been worth fighting, a five-point spike since July.

“Seventy-one percent of adults disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran and 69 percent say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting,” said the survey released on Thursday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The poll, which surveyed more than 2,000 adults in the US, also suggested that Americans are deeply frustrated with US President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy and rising prices, with only 17 percent of US adults polled approving of his handling of the cost of living. Just 26 percent approved of his handling of the economy overall, marking a new low.

Public angst over fuel costs has surged, with about half of respondents now deeply concerned about being able to fill their tanks —up from 39 percent in July. Roughly half of respondents are also highly concerned about being able to afford food.

The data comes as Trump kickstarts his midterm campaign trail in an all-in effort to galvanise the Republican base, stumping first in Texas and Oklahoma amid widespread voter anxiety surrounding the war on Iran’s mounting economic fallout.

The poll also indicated that, despite their frustration, two-thirds of Republicans surveyed said that higher than usual prices are due to factors outside of Trump’s control, with about one-third saying it was directly related to Trump’s policies.

The sombre numbers suggest the president remains deeply unpopular nationally, with some Republicans also faulting him for failing to deliver on promised relief.

‘Pollsters are corrupt’

Overall, more than half of adult respondents said the national economy and the country as a whole are worse off since President Trump took office again in 2025.

In an interview with TIME magazine, published on Thursday, Trump was asked if the deeply unwanted war would threaten his party’s chances in November, to which he initially responded, “It’s possible,” before adding that “it should help, because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Confronted with sliding poll numbers, Trump said that the “pollsters are corrupt” and that the bad polls “are fake”, adding that he would beat anybody running today “by 20 points”.

The resolution cites a ‘lack of accountability’ by Israel’s government and an ‘inability to secure justice’ by the US.

The United States Senate has blocked a resolution that would have required President Donald Trump’s administration to report on the killing of nine Americans in the occupied West Bank and on Israel’s treatment of Palestinian children in military detention.

The resolution failed 47-53 on Tuesday, with senators voting largely along party lines.

It was brought to the floor by Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, and cited a “lack of accountability” from the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an “inability to secure justice” from the US government.

Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote against advancing the resolution, while Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, joined Democrats in supporting it.

Van Hollen forced the vote under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which allows individual members of Congress to demand a formal State Department report on the human rights practices of any country that receives US security assistance.

“Violence is raging in the West Bank, & despite the deaths of nine Americans, the wrongful detention of even more, & the daily torment of Palestinians, we have no accountability from the U.S. or Israeli govt”, Van Hollen wrote on X before the resolution was brought to a vote.

Nine Americans killed

The resolution called for an unclassified report within 30 days of adoption. It would have detailed investigations into the deaths of the Americans, the treatment of US citizens held in Israeli prisons, and the conditions facing Palestinian children in Israeli military detention.

The measure cited the deaths of nine American citizens in the occupied West Bank since January 2022, including Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian-American journalist and Al Jazeera correspondent who was shot in the head and killed in May 2022 while reporting in the city of Jenin.

It also included Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, who was shot in the head and killed by an Israeli soldier in September 2024, and Sayfollah Kamel Musallet, who was beaten to death by Israeli settlers in July 2025.

The others were Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee, who was 14; Tawfic Abdel Jabbar and Mohamed Ahmad Alkhdour, both 17; Omar Assad; Khamid Ayyad; Nasrallah Abu Siyam; and Khamis Rabee Jabara.

The resolution also noted the arrests of several Palestinian-American children by Israeli forces.

Among them was Mohammed Ibrahim, a 16-year-old from Florida, who was arrested in February 2025 and held in pretrial detention for nine months without contact with his family. It noted that US embassy officials and lawyers who met him told his family that he had lost nearly a quarter of his body weight, contracted scabies, and was beaten and tortured.

Other Palestinian Americans who remain in custody include Adam Wajeh Abdelfattah Karakrah, 16, and Sama Safi, 20, a student detained in June in raids targeting students at Birzeit University.

The resolution cited rights groups that have documented the deaths of at least 44 Palestinians in Israeli military camps since the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023. Those groups, it said, have documented widespread abuses, including beatings, sexual violence, harassment and threats, “pointing to systemic and deliberate mistreatment”.

It also went on to note a sharp escalation in Israeli settler pogroms in the occupied West Bank, and stressed that there have been no convictions for the killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli settlers since 2020.

The White House has spent days fiercely defending three taxpayer-funded advertisements that glorify President Trump — approaching at least $1.5 million in public spending — calling them public service announcements.

“Don’t let the Fake News get away with their lies about our epic Public Service Announcements that have been running on tv,” White House communications director Steven Cheung posted on X on Sunday.

But the Republican administration’s ads attracted mounting criticism on Monday, including from members of Trump’s own party.

“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters.

“It would not have been something that I would have done. And I know that the White House is not covered by the same guidance that we are, but it’s not something that I would have done,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, another South Dakota Republican.

Multiple legal experts consulted by the Associated Press said the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes, including a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for “publicity or propaganda” and a law that limits the partisan political activities of government employees.

They said the new ads, which are airing on network and cable TV and streaming, differ from other administrations’ PSAs because they aren’t designed to help Americans access any specific program.

“You watch all three ads, they’re sheer propaganda,” said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics czar under Republican President George W. Bush. “This is increasingly looking like what authoritarian governments do to promote their leaders.”

The heightened scrutiny comes as the Trump administration has increased spending on the ads and bought time on popular TV shows, including college football and National Football League programming. It remains unclear which part of the government is supplying the funds.

With both chambers of Congress led by Republicans, any oversight would likely have to come from Trump’s allies, decreasing the likelihood of hearings or other accountability efforts before November’s midterm elections.

Three ads have aired in less than a week, totaling well over $1M

The first ad in the campaign, which began airing last Wednesday, features clips of Trump talking about defeating communism interspersed with onscreen text promoting the “largest tax cuts in history,” “reigniting American manufacturing” and a call to “defend law and order and police.”

Later in the week, a second ad began running, showing scenic videos of Mount Rushmore at night with quotes and clips from Trump’s Fourth of July weekend speech there honoring the country’s 250th anniversary.

The latest of the ads, a spot first aired over the weekend, is virtually identical to an ad for Trump’s Republican reelection campaign in 2024. It shows him walking down a hallway as his voice can be heard warning of a “final battle” against “globalists” and “warmongers.”

All three ads end with a message that says: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” The White House hasn’t responded to inquiries about which part of the government is paying.

According to AdImpact, which tracks media spending, the spots have so far cost more than $1.4 million and run across a wide range of TV networks around the country. The actual amount spent could be significantly more, depending on whether networks classified the ad as a political ad.

The ads are different from past PSAs, experts say

In defending the campaign, the White House published a list of PSAs from recent Democratic and Republican administrations.

Among the examples it cited were Bush’s Republican administration touting a Medicare law, Barack Obama’s Democratic administration promoting Affordable Care Act subsidies and Joe Biden’s Democratic administration running ads promoting COVID-19 vaccinations.

“The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action,” the White House wrote. “Instead, the announcements are a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it’s worth defending — at home, at the border, and abroad.”

Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said in her view the new ads differ from the examples the White House provided because they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

“These ads are nothing more than government propaganda, aimed at helping Trump,” she said.

Painter, who joined the Bush administration after the Medicare PSAs went out, said that ad campaign toed the line on appropriateness because it included misleading information about Medicare Part D. But he said Trump’s campaign is a far more egregious violation of the statute that blocks congressionally appropriated money from being spent on publicity or propaganda.

“There’s nothing in here about a particular policy that’s at all focused,” Painter said of Trump’s ads. “One of them is just about the evils of the deep state. Another one of them is about communists and Marxists.”

In its support for the ads, the White House also referenced the administrations of President Woodrow Wilson and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom used posters, radio and film to rally the country during World Wars I and II.

James Kimble, a communication professor at Seton Hall University who studies domestic propaganda, said it’s true that Wilson’s Democratic administration used propaganda to rally Americans. But he said most Americans no longer view its actions in a positive light.

“By almost any objective measure, looking back, we find what they did pretty repulsive,” he said.

Skepticism of the campaign grows on the Hill

Top Democrats on the Senate and House appropriations committees last week wrote to the White House demanding the ads be taken down and requesting more information on how much money was spent to create and air them.

In the days since, more than a dozen Democrats and a handful of Republicans have spoken up to further criticize the ads. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the latest ad “an absolute violation of what a democracy is supposed to look like.”

“Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force-fed Trump’s propaganda on their own dime,” he said in a Senate floor speech Monday.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that no public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves.

And Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, had his own harsh words for the administration on Monday.

“Don’t worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the President has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics,” he wrote in an X post.

The Republican chairs of the Senate and House appropriation committees didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Steven Sloan contributed to this report.

“America will never be a communist country,” states the 30-second television ad.

Never mind that socialism is a more probable scenario given the rise of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Nithya Raman’s healthy lead in the Los Angeles mayoral race. This commercial is not about semantics, political systems or the health of the nation.

It’s about touting the alleged achievements of President Donald Trump, from “reigniting American manufacturing” to “defend[ing] law and order” and giving Americans the “largest tax cuts in history.”

One can argue the legitimacy of such claims if they still have the energy to do so after 10 years of relentless MAGA puffery, but the real issue here is that this particular piece of bluster is produced and funded by the U.S. government.

Laws prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for “publicity or propaganda,” even if the White House is referring to its new ad campaign as a PSA.

“This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and utterly illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,” wrote Democratic House and Senate Appropriations Committee members in a letter sent Friday to Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

They demanded that the ad be immediately taken off the air and that “Federal employees who knowingly violated Federal law in working on and paying for this advertisement” be disciplined. “The law is not complicated,” they wrote. “You cannot use taxpayer dollars for political advertisements.”

The spot, which first aired Wednesday on conservative media outlets Fox News and Newsmax, cost $14,000, according to the firm AdImpact, which tracks media spending. By Friday, that number had jumped to $430,000 as the ad hit multiple markets across the country.

And it isn’t the only instance of American tax dollars at work — for Trump. A second ad paid for by you aired Thursday night on CBS.

The minute-long commercial featured footage of the president speaking against the backdrop of Mount Rushmore in an audacious display that might have turned George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt to stone if they weren’t already immortalized in granite.

It included clips from the U.S. military’s Jan. 3 capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, snippets from Trump’s Independence Day weekend speech, a voiceover from UFC CEO Dana White praising the president as “the toughest, most resilient person” he’s ever met, and a montage of images featuring Trump, Trump and more Trump. It ends with the star of the show proclaiming, “This is only the beginning of the golden age of America,” then comes the written disclosure: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”

Anyone who has lived in or traveled to countries with state-run media will recognize the similarities between Trump’s ads and those of, say, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein or current strongmen like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: the intense leader-like gaze, the baseless claims, substandard production quality and music that suggests the subject of the ad should be worshipped. (Trump’s choice for the first ad was “Love Me” by R&B singer JMSN, who opposed the use with an emphatic “I would never…”)

But on U.S. television, the ad feels more desperate than dictatorial. The whiff of desperation coming from the ad blitz may have something to do with the president’s dismal polling numbers headed into November’s midterms.

The administration has argued its ads are “educational and unapologetically patriotic” public service announcements. The White House said in a statement, “These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.”

A White House official reportedly said that the PSAs “are clearly not political” and noted that “the President is not on the ballot and the ads don’t have a call to action.”

Trump has repeatedly told his base to vote like he was on the ballot.

With propaganda like this coming out of the White House, communism is hardly the biggest threat facing the country.

NEW YORK — Some of the loudest cheers for Sen. Ted Cruz at the Republicans’ recent midterm convention in Dallas came after the Texas politician targeted Muslim Americans and their faith’s religious code.

“Sharia law has no place in America,” said Cruz. “We need to stand together and stop it now.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott chimed in moments later, vowing to “fully ban Sharia law in Texas.”

Muslim American civic leaders and scholars — in Texas and other states — are responding forcefully to this latest surge in anti-Sharia rhetoric that dates back more than 15 years.

They passionately defend Sharia — the way it’s practiced in the United States — as positive guidance that has elements in common with the codes of other faiths, such as the Ten Commandments and the collective body of Jewish law derived from the Torah. They rebut the claims of GOP critics that Sharia is a coercive code that threatens the U.S. Constitution and judicial system.

Though there are multiple interpretations of Sharia, its essence is to serve as a code for how Muslims should live and worship — covering such matters as prayer, pilgrimages, fasting, charitable donations and personal virtue.

Among the most energetic of Sharia’s defenders is Illinois-based Sabeel Ahmed, director of an outreach project called GainPeace. He travels widely around the U.S., with a recent focus on Texas, speaking at mosque-sponsored workshops and open houses.

“Sharia is often misunderstood,” Ahmed posted on Instagram after a midsummer visit to Plano, Texas. “Many people think Sharia is only about punishments, but in Islam it is Allah’s guidance for living with faith, justice, mercy, and responsibility.”

Ahmed attributes the durability of anti-Sharia vitriol to politicians and social-media influencers who want to rile up their voting base or their followers.

“They gain popularity by saying it,” he told The Associated Press. “It’s the job of the Muslims to educate what is the proper meaning of the word Sharia. We cannot be angry or hateful.”

Sharia’s role varies significantly among Muslim nations

Among those appalled by the anti-Sharia surge in the U.S. is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, a Sudanese-born Islamic scholar who taught for many years at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta. He is a longtime critic of the relatively small number of governments in Muslim nations that coercively enforce Sharia, saying Muslims are better off in secular states where their religious observance is a matter of free choice.

An-Na’im says he and other Muslim Americans embrace Sharia willingly as a core part of their identity, even as they also embrace American values.

The demonization of their beliefs displays “a shocking ignorance of what Sharia means,” An-Na’im said. “It’s a total dehumanization of the other, the rejection of their right to be human.”

The rhetoric is similarly dramatic among Sharia’s opponents — epitomized by the two U.S. representatives from Texas, Republicans Keith Self and Chip Roy — who co-founded the Sharia-Free America Caucus in Congress.

“Sharia is a direct threat to our Constitution and Western values and seeks to replace our legal system and erode our basic freedoms,” Roy said earlier this year. “Our immigration system must be prepared to confront this challenge and defend our Judeo-Christian values.”

By last count, the caucus had more than 60 members. All of them are Republicans, and its members have introduced several anti-Sharia bills since the caucus was formed last December. None of those measures have been successful.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, has designated the caucus as an anti-Muslim hate group.

“The bigoted rhetoric used by this caucus resembles the hatred that anti-Catholic politicians once unleashed against Irish Americans,” said CAIR research and advocacy director Corey Saylor.

“Islam is an American faith, present for over 250 years,” he added. “No one who wrote the Constitution or enforced it since has empowered these legislators to pick which religions get to exist in America.”

Texas has been a battleground for Sharia disputes

There has been substantive anti-Sharia action in Texas. In August, Attorney General Ken Paxton demanded documents from the Dallas-based Islamic Tribunal, which provides religious guidance to Muslims.

Paxton said in a news release that the investigation by his office sought to determine if the tribunal was engaged in illegal activity, such as acting as a court, applying foreign laws that conflict with Texas or federal law, or issuing rulings that imply government authority.

“This is America, and we will not be governed by sharia law,” Paxton said.

The Islamic Tribunal subsequently updated its website with a “ Clarification of Mission and Activities,” stressing that its guidance “complements, and never replaces, the legal, social, and professional services available in American society.”

“The Tribunal does not function as a court of law and does not issue legally binding judgments,” it said. “Our role is limited to mediation and religious arbitration requested by members of the Muslim community in matters related to faith, family guidance, and internal religious affairs.”

Any matters requiring legal enforcement are referred directly to the Texas judicial system, said the tribunal, which likened its work to the services provided by Jewish Beth Din courts and Catholic ecclesiastical tribunals.

Sharia defenders seek to broaden understanding of its essence

Asma Uddin, a professor at Michigan State University’s College of Law, has argued in her writings that many American politicians are depicting ordinary Muslim religious practices — such as prayer, choice of apparel, family counseling and mosque attendance — as evidence of a political danger.

In an interview with the AP, Uddin depicted the current wave of anti-Sharia rhetoric as fearmongering by politicians who view the issue as advantageous for them.

“When politicians use this, it’s giving them exactly what they’re looking for,” she said. “They’re looking for a scapegoat … and this gets people riled up.”

Sabeel Ahmed, who has made three outreach trips to Texas so far this year, plans a trip to Houston in a few weeks for another mosque open-house. He’s also working on a book to be mailed to Christian clergy across the U.S., seeking to broaden their understanding of Sharia and other Islamic practices.

“Islam is not to be feared,” Ahmed said. “People should meet a Muslim, go to the mosque, reach out to us. Let’s emphasize the commonalities we have.”

Crary writes for the Associated Press.

Washington, DC – Palestinian Americans have held a day of advocacy at the United States Capitol under the spectre of a new $2.8bn arms transfer to Israel reportedly approved by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

The Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP Action) group, which organised Tuesday’s event, said more than 300 constituents from across the country met with the offices of more than 100 US lawmakers. They advocated on behalf of a slate of legislative initiatives related to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, surging Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank, and efforts to use immigration law to stifle Palestinian advocacy in the US.

Jenna Escheik, a 19-year-old meeting with lawmakers and staffers from Virginia, including Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and Republican Representative Rob Wittman, said she was planning to speak with “some very challenging and interesting people”.

“I think the main point that we’re trying to get across to every single office is that we’re all proud to be American, and we all have our taxpayer dollars that we just don’t want to see going to wars,” said Eschiek, who is originally from outside of Ramallah in the West Bank.

Yaseen Shaikh, a 22-year-old who travelled with a delegation from Cleveland, Ohio, said he will be meeting with the offices of Republican Senator Jon Husted, who faces a competitive midterm race against former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, as well as the state’s other Republican Senator, Bernie Moreno.

Both Republican senators have consistently voted against legislative efforts to limit arms sales to Israel.

“As I stand among my peers here, among people who I stand on their shoulders, I can only feel hopeful and optimistic that we will make a difference and that change will come,” Shaikh told Al Jazeera.

“We just have to be vehicles for that,” he said.

Palestinian rights ‘catching up’ with lawmakers

Successive presidential administrations, as well as Congress, have for decades resisted calls to condition US military aid to Israel, including throughout Israel’s latest war in Gaza, which will reach its three-year mark early next month.

To date, nearly 74,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, with nearly 1,400 killed since a “ceasefire” agreement went into effect in October 2025.

Last week, US media widely reported the Trump administration approved a US taxpayer-funded $2.8bn military package to Israel, which included 907kg (2,000-pound) MK-84 bombs known to have already caused widespread civilian devastation in the Palestinian enclave.

The package reportedly included 20,000 of those munitions, as well as 20,000 BLU-117s, a close variant.

Several Democrats have vowed to block the transfer, with the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gregory Meeks, using his leverage last week to at least slow congressional clearance.

Osama Abu Irshaid, AJP Action’s executive director, said the new weapons package runs counter to public opinion polls, which have regularly found majority support for conditioning at least some weapons to Israel, as well as surging support for Palestinian rights.

Abu Irshaid said the polls underscore a new political reality for lawmakers.

“I think now we are functioning within this context, where what happens in Palestine, the genocide that took place and continues to take place, what the terrorist settlers are doing in the West Bank, what the US and Israel are doing in the Middle East is catching up with us here,” Irshaid said, “and we’re paying a price”.

While entrenched support for arming Israel has persisted among some segments of the Democratic Party, advocates have hailed what they see as a historic shift in recent months.

In July of last year, 26 Democrats in the Senate voted to block some arms transfers to Israel, the first time in history a majority of Democratic lawmakers in the chamber did so. In April, similar resolutions gained a record 40 votes in the Senate, all Democrats, but ultimately failed to pass in the 100-member chamber.

The so-called Block the Bombs Act in the House, which calls for a partial arms embargo against Israel, reached 81 co-sponsors as of August.

Twenty-two Democratic senators also introduced a resolution last week to force the US Department of State to conduct an investigation into the violence committed by Israeli forces and settlers in the West Bank, in which at least nine US citizens have been killed in recent years.

Abu Irshaid was optimistic that headway could also be made among Republicans, who have been reckoning with an internal divide over US support for Israel, with exceedingly few members of the party currently willing to vote to limit aid.

A December poll by the IMEU Policy Project found a majority of Republicans under 45 said they would prefer to support a presidential candidate in 2028 who “supports reducing taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel”.

“I think what we’re seeing now is that the dam within the Republican Party is cracking,” Abu Irshaid said.

“But the question is, ‘What is after Donald Trump when Donald Trump no longer owns the Republican Party, owns the MAGA movement?’ I think that’s when you will see more cracks taking place.”

‘The same system’

Advocates on Tuesday also focused on what they called the Trump administration’s practice of using immigration law to stifle pro-Palestine advocacy.

Among their policy priorities, those meeting with lawmakers sought to reform language in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which the Trump administration has cited in efforts to deport individuals whose presence in the US the administration deems to have “adverse foreign policy consequences”.

Among those speaking at the US Capitol on Tuesday was Salah Sarsour, the president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, who was detained by ICE in April and released in June. His legal team has charged that the three-decade US resident was targeted based on a coerced confession when Sarsour was detained by Israeli forces as a young man.

Sarsour, who continues to face deportation proceedings, said the ICE detention reminded him of being held in Israeli detention.

“Those criminals that [detained me], they still exist,” he said. “The same criminals that destroy Gaza, they killed tens of [thousands] of children and women, and men and family members.”

Leqaa Kordia, who was among those targeted by immigration enforcement agents following a wave of pro-Palestine protests that swept US campuses in 2024, also recounted the “dehumanisation” of her 368 days in ICE detention.

“And then it hit me that…the same system that threw me in an ICE jail is the same system that funds and arms the military prisons in Israel,” said Kordia, who, like Sarsour, still faces deportation proceedings.

“The same dehumanisation logic that allowed a guard to humiliate me allows the Israeli soldier to kidnap Palestinians and throw them into the shadows,” she told those gathered.

“The same power that keeps my case in limbo is the same power that sends billions of US tax dollars in bombs and weapons to fuel the Palestinian genocide.”

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance and other Trump administration officials said Tuesday they plan to remove 760,000 Affordable Care Act enrollees from public healthcare exchanges, alleging that the individuals were fraudulently enrolled in the program, or simply do not exist.

Vance said the discovery and canceled subsidy payments for hundreds of thousands of people from the exchanges would result in $2.2 billion in cost savings.

“We’re actually making sure that the people receiving Obamacare subsidies are actually entitled to receive them,” Vance, who leads a government-wide task force to eliminate fraud, said in a public address at the White House, Tuesday. He was flanked by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other administration officials.

The Trump administration also announced a six-month suspension on new brokers who sign up enrollees for healthcare coverage, who officials say commit a disproportionate amount of the fraud they uncovered.

Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in an administration-wide initiative to address fraud around the country, including in federal healthcare programs, which officials say is needed to rein in runaway spending and protect taxpayers.

The announcement comes as inflation and rising healthcare costs pressure the Trump administration to come up with a plan to bring down costs for Americans heading into the midterms.

The price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during Trump’s second term, after Republicans opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.

Premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely after the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year.

Roughly 19.2 million Americans are actively enrolled in ACA marketplace health plans as of early 2026, according to the HHS website.

The White House referred The Associated Press to the Vice President’s team for additional comment on bigger plans to address healthcare affordability.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the Trump administration’s plan to remove ACA enrollees from public exchanges.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle Price contributed to this report.

The LA Times/SurveyMonkey poll set out to measure feelings about football and Super Bowl, both in the U.S. as a whole and in the Los Angeles region.

Each day, a huge range of organizations — schools, churches, bowling leagues, companies and more — use SurveyMonkey’s online platform to poll their members, customers or associates.

In total, more than 2 million people take SurveyMonkey polls on an average day, giving the company access to a broad cross-section of the American public.

To conduct surveys on questions of broad public interest, like this one, SurveyMonkey randomly selects some of those people and asks them if they’d be willing to take an additional online poll. Those who say yes get a survey to fill out.

As with traditional telephone surveys, the results then are weighted to match standard Census Bureau measures of the nation’s population — to make sure that the sample mirrors the nation’s distribution of age, race, gender, geography and education levels.

The result is a representative sample of the adult population.

In this case, the poll, which was developed jointly by SurveyMonkey and The Times, was conducted in English and Spanish from Feb. 1-7 among a national sample of 7,590 adults. The sample included 1,659 Californians and 743 people who live in Greater Los Angeles, which encompasses Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

As with all polls, the results are subject to sampling error. For this survey, the modeled error estimates are 2 percentage points in either direction for the national sample, 3.5 percentage points for the statewide California sample and 5 percentage points for the Los Angeles metro area.

SACRAMENTO — To hear President Trump tell it, the 60% or more of Americans who worried that unchecked artificial intelligence poses a risk to humanity are just a bunch of suckers buying the latest election-rigging conspiracy peddled by his foes.

“The AI Hoax being perpetrated by the Radical Left Dumocrats is reminiscent of their Global Warming Scam of not so long ago, where everyone was going to die from extreme heat. What happened?” Trump posted recently, apparently unaware that heat-related deaths continue to rise.

By the end of the week, his circle of sycophants had adopted that language, along with the strange take that Trump alone would be able to control the rise of superintelligence should it occur. David Sacks, often billed as Trump’s AI whisperer, echoed the hoax line at a Politico event, adding that there was an “orchestrated media campaign” meant to “alarm the public.”

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance called the pleas for regulation from inside the industry, including from CEOs such as Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, a “Trojan horse.” He argued that “Americans shouldn’t be scared of anything,” seemingly backing Trump’s absurd declaration that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!.”

As someone who has covered this issue, let me just say the concern is not a hoax, not a marketing ploy meant to juice the value of companies about to have an IPO, and not a vast and sprawling plot by Trump’s adversaries.

But it is a complicated, fraught problem in a pivotal moment. The president’s confusion and inaction pose an immediate risk of slamming shut our small window of opportunity to make meaningful decisions about a technology that will almost certainly change the course of history and humanity.

So why exactly is Trump demanding this unfettered charge at oblivion, and what are the options for putting guardrails up despite him?

Trump’s reasoning

The pacifying but slightly terrified response of Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark to Trump hints at just how alarmed those deepest in AI development seemingly feel about both the president’s attitude and the unregulated future he demands.

“We’re grateful for the president’s attention,” Clark said on Fox News. “What we’re saying here is we need to get a sensible, commonsense safety framework … and we don’t roll the dice on some kind of accident.”

Or, as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put it, “If the only guardrail AI needs is a ‘strong and smart president,’ we’re doomed.”

Like all things Trump, his position involves money. AI is currently a driving force behind the American economy, and if we just cover every inch of open space with data centers, it could keep an otherwise slumpish outlook bright.

OpenAI and Anthropic are also planning IPOs in the not-distant future.

Because these companies are valued at astonishing, 12-zero amounts and because certain stock listing rules will now require that these companies quickly be included in index funds favored by many pensions and retirement accounts, anything that crashes their value — such as investors’ jitters from regulation — could jam up the stock market.

That could affect the lives (and votes) of average Americans.

So despite the long-term risks, the short-term political benefits of the AI gravy train are substantial for Trump.

Then there is the place where Trump actually has a fair point: China. Current AI reflects the values of its creators. It would be disastrous for the free world if superintelligence were trained to favor authoritarianism.

The logic here is if we don’t build “good,” Western-values AI first, we will be at the mercy of “bad” AI, so the possibility of harming great numbers of people is a reasonable, maybe even necessary, risk.

Picking the best path

But is it? Is there a way to instead pursue both geopolitical dominance and safety?

This is where things get messy, and many folks — oligarchs in particular — become invested in keeping the general voter confused.

There is no consensus on a best course of action because we are in uncharted territory and there is actually no way to reliably predict what happens next.

Picking the best path forward, then, starts with picking a camp, a tribe, an outlook. In the broadest sense, there are three possibilities: We attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag; we all try to play nice, as companies and countries, and create rules on the fly; or we just accelerate at full speed, let it rip and what happens happens.

There are obvious problems with each of those.

As an excellent paper by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. explains, which of those camps a person chooses depends largely on just how imminent the danger feels, how feasible it seems to control development of AI and how realistic it is to bank on cooperation — or whether we believe we should and could aim to just continually win a technology war against humans or machines.

These camps, therefore, have little to do with traditional politics. Voters are feeling this issue on a visceral level, one that only a few years ago would have been deemed paranoid and fantastical, and it’s making for strange bedfellows.

Speaking at an conference this week, avowed lefty Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a pause on AI development because he’s in the camp that believes it’s currently too dangerous to go forward without a plan.

At the same conference, ultraconservative Trump loyalist Stephen K. Bannon made a similar point. He also urged Americans not to trust “anything” said by AI oligarchs, and to reject the idea championed by Trump that slowing down is dangerous or un-American.

“If you’re not accelerationist, you are supporting China,” Bannon said. “If you’re not accelerationist, you want America to lose. If you’re not an accelerationist, you’re bad, dumb and evil. Well, the last week has shown we’re none of that, and now we need the time to make the right decision.”

The issue is almost certainly going to be huge and problematic in the midterms — potentially for both parties.

For Republicans, navigating it means tiptoeing between Trump’s egomaniacal, short-term approach and voters who are increasingly intolerant of it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who regularly refuses to cross Trump, has been clear he doesn’t want Congress taking up the issue — despite calls from MAGA stalwarts such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to do so.

“If you’re about to destroy the world, how about, don’t,” Cruz quipped during a hearing on Capitol Hill this week during which he opposed waiving some antitrust rules, as AI companies have suggested — a move that could decrease their accountability if something goes awry.

For Democrats, coming out hard for safety should be an easy decision, seemingly popular with voters. But for a party that had made trademarks of infighting, flailing and uncertainty, it remains to be seen if they can muster the unity to capitalize on this silver-platter strife.

For both parties, it also means finding the courage and will to fight the enormous sums of money AI companies are funneling into elections to ensure any regulations are ones they approve. Politico reported that some Democratic strategists are warning to go soft on the issue to avoid angering those election buyers, because it turns out that even companies clamoring for rules only want the ones they choose.

Ultimately, though, it’s Bannon who cut to the chase with the most important point: Trump holds all the power here.

Congress can’t fix this. Regulation won’t be a single bill but years of work, in a moment when maybe we don’t have years. And more important, the national security aspect has to be handled by the president.

Without the U.S. president leading on a national and global solution, nothing meaningful gets done.

Trump’s position isn’t fostering innovation or safety. He’s simply sending a message of indifference, that he doesn’t really care what happens next — to oligarchs, China or American voters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Unrestrained: Inside L.A. County’s system for issuing and enforcing restraining orders
The California angle: Barabak: As Newsom winds down in California, things heat up in Nevada
The L.A. Times Special: AI crisis heightens the stakes of Xi’s visit to Washington

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

HENRICO, Va. — In-person voting for this year’s midterm elections began Friday, ushering in the final six weeks for Americans to decide which party they trust to lead Congress through a cost-of-living crisis, a prolonged war in Iran and other pressing issues.

Election administrators say they are prepared and confident the vote will be accurate and secure. Nevertheless, President Trump has continued with efforts to denigrate certain voting methods and reshape how elections are run, through court challenges, an expansive federal hunt for noncitizen voters and a pressure campaign to force election officials to share sensitive voter data.

Friday marked the start of early voting in Virginia. Voters in a handful of other states, including Idaho, Minnesota and South Dakota, can cast absentee ballots in person, typically at a local election office or voting center. More expansive early voting is scheduled to begin in those and other states in the coming weeks.

At a voting location in Fairfax, Virginia, 18-year-old college student Sanya Singhal was among the first to vote early in person Friday morning, arriving well before the site opened to get in line.

“Why not just have a little fun in life, you know, try to be the first early voter?” she said. “I really want to participate in my democracy.”

At a voting location in suburban Richmond, a poll worker rang a bell as the building opened and about a dozen voters in line began to file in. Stephen Gura was excited to be the first.

“This election is critical. We need to stop the Trump agenda. We need to start electing people who will stand up for people in this district,” said Gura, who added that he voted for U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, and Shannon Taylor, the Democratic nominee against Republican incumbent Rob Wittman in the 1st Congressional District.

The Nov. 3 election includes votes for governor and state legislature in most states and will determine whether Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House and Senate. If Democrats retake Congress, it will alter the trajectory of the final two years of Trump’s term, most likely leading to investigations and other oversight efforts.

Voting underway after unusual redistricting and Trump’s bid to control how elections are run

At the suburban Richmond voting center, a steady stream of voters flowed in and out for the first hour of early voting. William Curry, a 74-year-old retiree who described himself as a libertarian-leaning independent conservative, voted for Warner’s Republican challenger, Bert Mizusawa, and Wittman. Curry said he generally approves of the job Trump has done, apart from the war with Iran.

“He’s in a mess he can’t get rid of,” Curry said of the conflict.

On a rainy day in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Bill Goehring, 67, said he voted early at the county office because he will be traveling later. He voted for a mix of Democrats and independents, and said Trump’s “dictatorial tendencies are bad for America.”

The start of early voting comes at a time of deep angst among many Americans about issues including rising gas and grocery prices, the war in Iran, the looming risks of artificial intelligence and Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign.

It also follows an unprecedented spate of mid-decade redistricting for the U.S. House that began when Trump urged the Republican-controlled legislature in Texas to redraw its congressional map to help the party. California and other states followed.

The changes affect millions of people: Research shows 1 in 10 Americans this fall is a resident of a different congressional district than in 2024.

Those partisan efforts are expected to continue before the 2028 elections after a landmark ruling this year from the U.S. Supreme Court weakened the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racially discriminatory redistricting.

As the start of early voting approached, Trump was focused on efforts to assert federal control over election administration, even as the Constitution bestows the power to run elections on the states and, in some cases, Congress. The nation’s highest court rejected Trump’s bid to restrict mail ballots this week, but several of his administration’s other efforts to influence the voting process and mine state voter lists for illegitimate voters continue.

Virginia’s attorney general said Thursday that Trump’s administration may have violated several of the state’s laws after a whistleblower accused federal employees of misrepresenting themselves on voter lookup tools to hunt for noncitizen voters. In a letter, Attorney General Jay Jones demanded that the Department of Homeland Security confirm in writing whether it had directed anyone to access Virginia voters’ information without first obtaining permission from those voters.

Trump for years has raised the specter of widespread noncitizen voting in U.S. elections, and this year is no exception. But despite his administration’s insistence that hundreds of thousands of people are illegally on voting rolls across the country, research continues to show noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare.

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Republican president continues “his disinformation campaign and his attack on election officials.” But he said he thinks despite that and other challenges, “ultimately the process will hold as it has in past years.”

Advocates suggest voters cast their ballots early

Voting rights advocates have encouraged voters this year to cast mail ballots early, in part because of concerns about recent changes in U.S. Postal Service operations that could delay the application of postmarks to ballots.

“Voting early, whether in person or by mail, is good for all of our communities because it gives voters options, eases lines on Election Day and can even mean faster results,” said Hannah Fried, co-founder and CEO of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local.

The top official at the U.S. Postal Service also encouraged voters who cast ballots by mail to get them in early.

“We say seven days,” postmaster general David Steiner said in an interview. “Everything is solved if people vote early.”

In a news briefing Thursday, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon urged people not to be swayed by stories they might have seen or read that cast doubt on election operations. They would be able to vote “just like they always have,” he said.

“I just want to reaffirm that Minnesota’s elections are fundamentally free, fair, accurate, honest and secure,” he said.

Swenson, Rankin and Raza write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York and Raza from Sioux Falls, S.D. AP writer Mike Catalini in Philadelphia and AP video journalist Nathan Ellgren in Fairfax, Va., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The unprecedented spate of mid-decade redistricting for the U.S. House has changed the congressional districts for one-tenth of Americans and significantly altered the makeup of at least one-fifth of districts, according to a new study.

A report by Protect Democracy found that 34.8 million people — about one in 10 Americans — now live in a different district than they did during the 2024 election cycle. And about one-fifth of all Americans now live in a district where more than a quarter of voters are new to the district compared with the last election cycle.

The findings display the stark overhaul that partisan redistricting fights kicked off by President Trump last year have caused for Americans across the country. The new congressional maps are increasingly drawn in ways that favor partisan politics over factors like geography and shared communities. That raises concerns among scholars about how the country’s hyperpolarized politics are affecting American democracy.

“If this trend continues, it really brings into question whether or not elected officials are really representing their constituents anymore, or if the voters are being randomly picked by mapmakers to squeeze out partisan advantage,” said Ben Raderstorf, a policy advocate at Protect Democracy and one of the paper’s co-authors.

The bare-knuckled partisan redistricting battle for the House began when Trump urged the Republican-controlled legislature in Texas, the second most populous state, to redraw its congressional map to help the party. The highly unusual plan prompted an immediate response from California, the most populous state, which held a successful referendum to tilt its map toward Democrats.

Other states followed, and Republicans are positioned to potentially gain nine seats because of redistricting.

The Protect Democracy report warns that such partisan tactics reduce faith in American elections generally and insulate incumbent lawmakers from public opinion. That can make political organizing more difficult, the report cautioned, potentially worsening the country’s already highly polarized politics. Both parties may also enter a “doom loop” where they embrace more aggressive and frequent redistricting efforts to avoid ceding any ground to their rivals.

In some states such as Missouri, the mid-decade redistricting has created confusion for voters about which district they live in and which candidates will appear on their November ballot. After conflicting lower court rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked new Missouri districts backed by Trump that had been used in the primary, leaving the state to revert to its previous districts for the general election.

The report concludes with a call for new electoral structures the authors believe would eliminate the potential downsides of partisan redistricting, like proportional representation or a formal truce between the parties to implement nonpartisan districting plans.

Nine states already use nonpartisan commissions to draw congressional district lines but those provisions have limits. California, for instance, suspended its nonpartisan maps with a referendum last year in response to Texas’ redistricting measures.

Such remedies would face long odds in Congress and statehouses, but scholars believe there are few other avenues to turn down the temperature in the partisan redistricting fights.

“This is only going to get worse until somebody stops it,” Raderstorf said. “The logic of gerrymandering points inevitably towards maximalist partisan advantage on both sides. There is no off-ramp other than reform. It is the only way to break the cycle.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

Fewer than half of Americans believe the upcoming midterm elections will be “free and fair,” amid a broader decline in confidence in vote counts, according to a new nationwide poll.

While 49% of respondents said they expected the elections to be free and fair, 23% said they did not expect them to be, and 28% said they didn’t know what to expect.

Americans are more confident that ballots, once cast, will be counted accurately, though their trust in that varies depending on their political affiliation — with 63% of Democrats, 58% of Republicans and 49% of independent voters saying they are either “somewhat” or “very” confident in an accurate count, the Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections at UC San Diego poll found.

That is a sharp decline from after the 2024 election, when 77% of Democrats, 82% of Republicans and 73% of independents expressed such confidence, the same pollsters found then.

Lauren Prather, one of the center’s co-directors, said the latest findings reflect a decline in trust but also nuance in how respondents understand what it means to have a “free and fair” election — with an accurate count of cast ballots being a major factor, but not the only one.

Of those respondents who said they don’t know if the election will be free and fair, about a third — 31% — also said that they were “somewhat confident” that the vote would be counted accurately, Prather said.

The poll also asked an open-ended question, inviting respondents to share what a “free and fair” election means to them, she said, and trust in the count was a “central part of people’s definition” and a “dominant theme.” However, they also identified other things, she said — with about a quarter of respondents also pointing to “voter access and voter eligibility, as well as freedom from interference and intimidation and having a real choice of candidates,” Prather said.

“In other words, trust in the count is the anchor of how Americans understand what it means to be free and fair but it sits within a broader set of concerns about the integrity of the whole process,” she said.

The polling reflects an American electorate that has grown increasingly concerned about U.S. elections amid unprecedented claims of widespread voter fraud from President Trump and his administration, and increasing warnings from Democrats and independent election experts that those claims — which Trump has made without evidence and which experts deny — are part of a broader effort to interfere with the election and intimidate voters.

Thad Kousser, the center’s other co-director, said the findings are in line with a broader era of distrust in civic institutions in the U.S., but also a result of the fact that “people are following different signals from their leaders” as to the trustworthiness of U.S. elections — with vastly different messaging coming from leaders on the left and the right.

Poll respondents shared some concerns about the fairness of the November midterms, he said, but also split by wide margins on other concerns based on their political affiliation.

Voters across party lines shared concerns about gerrymandering, the poll found — with 48% of both Democrats and independents and 36% of Republicans saying they distrust that congressional district lines are drawn in a way that fairly reflects what voters want.

“Nobody has loved the redistricting wars that have been a big story throughout this year,” Kousser said.

After Trump urged Texas and other Republican-led states to launch unprecedented mid-decade efforts to redraw their congressional lines to bolster their party’s chances of retaining control of the legislature through the remainder of Trump’s term, Democrats fought back — including in California, where voters passed Proposition 50 to allow state Democrats to redraw congressional lines in their party’s favor.

On potential foreign interference, 32% of Democrats, 42% of independents and 48% of Republicans said they didn’t trust that U.S. elections are well-protected.

More than three-quarters of Americans — including 79% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans and 75% of independents — said they were “concerned that misleading audio or video ‘deepfakes’ created using AI will impact” the midterms.

But on other issues — including those most discussed by the political establishment — the political divide was much starker, the poll found.

For example, while 53% of Republicans said they distrust that ballots are counted accurately, just 19% of Democrats said so. While 52% of Republicans said they distrust that noncitizens are prevented from voting, just 12% of Democrats said so.

Meanwhile, Democrats and independents were more concerned than Republicans about eligible voters being able to cast their ballots without facing obstacles or intimidation, the poll found.

Many poll respondents said they expected to face intimidation from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at or near polling locations — with such fears being particularly pronounced among voters of color, who were about four times as likely as white respondents to say they expected such intimidation, the poll found.

While 49% of Black respondents, 45% of “Hispanic” respondents and 40% of Asian American and Pacific Islander respondents said they expected to face intimidation, just 11% of white respondents said so, the poll found.

Overall, 35% of respondents said an ICE presence would make them less confident of an accurate vote count, compared with 23% who said it would make them more confident. Those responses also varied greatly by race — and partisan leaning.

White respondents were nearly split, with 29% saying it would make them less confident and 28% saying it would make them more confident. Respondents of other races were vastly more likely to say an ICE presence would make them less confident — with 38% of Black respondents saying they would be less confident and 10% saying they would be more confident; 43% of “Hispanic” respondents saying less and 18% saying more; and 57% of AAPI respondents saying less and just 6% saying more.

Nearly 60% of Democrats said an ICE presence would lower their confidence, and less than 8% said it would increase their confidence. Among Republicans, meanwhile, about 46% said it would increase their confidence, and less than 9% said it would decrease it.

Kousser said the polling gives the sense that a “free and fair” election “means something more to people than simply tallying up correctly the votes of those who were able to cast a ballot.”

“You might doubt that the election was free and fair if you are concerned that congressional districts are gerrymanders, or that some voters stayed away from the polls because of worries about intimidation, or that some people cast a ballot who were not, in fact, eligible,” he said. “These concerns, which can come from all different parts of the ideological spectrum, could lead people to be concerned that [a] ‘correctly counted’ election was not, in fact, fully free and fair.”

Kousser and Prather said what effect diminished trust in elections will have on the midterms and how Americans view the results remains unclear, but will depend in part on how close the election is and what messaging leaders — particularly Trump — share about the results once they come in. Prather said she did not expect it to diminish turnout.

The national survey of 5,016 American adults was conducted Sept. 1-9, with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.4%.

Democratic state parties announced Monday that they are launching an operation for the midterm elections they’re calling the “New Battlefield Project,” intended to recruit 10,000 volunteers to guard polling places in case armed federal officers show up.

Activists are planning mass protests if the Trump administration tries to interfere with voting or ballot counting. And legal scholars are distributing white papers advising judges what they should do if the government tries to seize ballots.

The unprecedented efforts are in response to President Trump’s equally unprecedented moves to interfere in this year’s midterm elections, which include attempts to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements to register to vote and directing the Postal Service to play a central role in deciding which voters should get a mail ballot.

The anxious contingency planning as voting gets underway has become a marker for how fraught democracy has become in the country that once stood as an example to the world.

“We have never prepared for an election sabotage event like we have now,” said Ezra Levin of the left-leaning group Indivisible.

Trump has given Democrats plenty of reasons to organize a resistance

Democrats say they have reason to plan for doomsday scenarios. During his first term, Trump refused to accept his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and attempted to overturn the vote, only to be defied by career officials and more establishment Republicans. Upon returning to power, Trump has stocked his administration with those who helped his 2020 efforts, has used the federal government to target his political enemies and pardoned more than 1,000 people prosecuted for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that was intended to halt the certification of Biden’s win.

Incumbent presidents’ parties usually lose ground in the midterms, but Trump has pulled out the stops to try to keep that from happening this time. He’s demanded Republicans redraw maps to create more safe seats for themselves in the House of Representatives, held last week’s unusual midterm convention and tried to change election rules even as states begin to send out ballots.

The advice for judges asked to approve search warrants for ballots, for example, was inspired by the Trump administration’s seizure of 2020 ballots and other election records in Fulton County, Georgia, which includes Atlanta, based on old, disproven conspiracy theories.

Rick Hasen, a UCLA Law professor and director of the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, noted that Trump has expressed regret that he didn’t take more aggressive action to overturn the 2020 results, such as ordering voting machines to be seized.

“All these things take what was off the wall and put it on the wall,” Hasen said. He said that while it is important not to unduly scare voters about what might happen, it’s “hard to walk the line between alarmism and complacency.”

Trump’s actions worry Democrats. Administration calls them common sense

Last year, Democrats worried that Trump might intervene in off-year elections in California, Virginia and elsewhere, only to have voting go smoothly with no clashes with the federal government.

“The only ‘fears’ Americans have about our elections are being fueled by extreme liberal Democrats who refuse to support commonsense legislation that ensures Americans, and Americans only, decide our elections and other basic election security measures like Voter ID,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Blis said in a statement.

Still, the stakes are far higher in the midterms, which will determine whether Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress. So far Trump has been unable to change voting procedures before the midterms.

Courts halted Trump’s first attempt to reshape election rules via executive order last year. The president backed a bill in Congress to make even more sweeping changes but it’s stalled in the Senate because of opposition from Democrats and some Republicans.

Then Trump tried to limit mail voting by executive order, but the courts again blocked it, saying the changes couldn’t happen before the midterms. That case is before the Supreme Court. Election officials warn that it would be impossible to implement Trump’s requirements in time for this election.

Litigation about election rules has reached such a pitch that the National Bar Association last week announced an initiative to help voters of both parties understand last-minute election rule changes and to create a hotline for those who encounter trouble casting ballots.

Concerns that polling places will become targets for immigration agents

Every election, the two major parties mobilize massive operations of attorneys, staffers and volunteers to monitor polling places and ballot counting. The Republican National Committee said it’s already recruited a record number of poll watchers.

“The RNC has spent this entire cycle preparing not just to defy history in November, but to protect it,” spokeswoman Ally Triolo said. “We’ve built the largest election integrity operation in Republican Party history because our mission is simple: secure every legal vote and ensure Americans can trust the outcome of our elections.”

Democrats also have expanded their operations, and the Association of State Democratic Parties is adding to that effort with its “battlefield” recruitment project. That also will include a network to share information about online threats and manipulation, said Jane Kleeb, the chair of the group and of the Nebraska Democratic Party.

“If they’re saying they’re going to put armed people outside polling places, we should put friendly people outside polling locations to film them,” Kleeb said in an interview. “There’s a whole new battlefield we have now.”

Kleeb was referring to widespread fears among Democrats that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will be deployed to the polls, something that multiple administration officials for months have denied will happen. There have been scattered instances of ICE officers at polling places over the past year, usually saying they’re in pursuit of or investigating a specific person. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said this month it’s possible that could happen again in November.

In an indication of the distrust of the administration’s reassurances, civil rights groups and the city of Denver last week filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to formally bar ICE from polling places. They cited a law dating to the Civil War era prohibiting armed federal agents at election sites.

“This administration is basically using the rhetoric that undocumented citizens are voting and that they’re going to have DHS and ICE at the polls to try and intimidate and suppress the Latino vote,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the plaintiffs.

Activists see Minneapolis immigration protests as a midterms model

A staple of the election buildup is a series of tabletop exercises in which each side runs hypothetical scenarios to practice its response. As part of that, Democrats and civil rights groups are rehearsing for the possible deployment of ICE agents or the National Guard to polling sites, although the Pentagon has said it has no plans to deploy troops to the polls.

Levin, of Indivisible, said his group has run 17 different scenarios preparing for what could happen in November. But the first priority, he said, is to boost turnout.

The No Kings network, which has spearheaded large anti-Trump protests over the president’s second term and includes Indivisible, is launching a campaign encouraging early voting that will peak with rallies Oct. 17.

Others are organizing among both left-wing and more traditional groups to push back if the administration is aggressive in November. Some look to the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis as a possible model.

Two activists were shot and killed by ICE agents during those January demonstrations, and the administration eventually backed off the aggressive crackdown the president had launched against the city.

“We recognize there might be a similar moment in November, where Trump attempts to do that again, where everyday working people and students need to band together and say, ‘Actually, no, this is our country, you don’t get to decide who gets elected or who gets to take office,’” said Kidus Girma of the left-wing Sunrise Movement.

Riccardi and Brown write for the Associated Press.

Earlier this year, an Iran-linked actor used Anthropic’s Claude artificial intelligence model to scrape and analyze data with the aim of helping target U.S. naval forces in the Middle East. A group in Yemen – very likely Iranian-backed Houthi militants – also used Claude to assist with work on guidance systems for ballistic and hypersonic missiles.

These are just some of the revelations about how adversaries and other malign actors have been using one of the premier pieces of AI software being developed in the United States that were contained in a new report Anthropic released late yesterday. The 154-page document also details instances where Claude was used directly and indirectly to support intelligence gathering and surveillance, cyberattacks, influence operations, and even worrisome biological research over the past eight months. In addition to Iran and Yemen, the human actors behind these activities were based in Russia, China, and a host of other countries.

Anthropic has shared details about what it calls the “misuse” of its models in the past, but describes the new report as its “most detailed” to date. The company has clearly been cataloging these case studies, and has assigned each one a control number. Though the entire contents of the report are cause for concern, the explicit attempt to use Claude to target American forces, as well as to develop new higher-end missiles and other military technology, are particular standouts and signs of what’s to come, as we will highlight below.

GTG-30005: Military reconnaissance

GTG-30005 is the case study dealing with the targeting of U.S. naval forces, and the summary is as follows:

“In another investigation, we identified and disrupted an Iran-nexus threat actor that used Claude to collect and analyze publicly accessible data to develop targeting recommendations against US naval forces in the region. The threat actor used Claude to compile targeting handbooks, through a Python pipeline the threat actor built with Claude’s assistance, to identify and track naval positions based on open-source information. The compiled material included a roster of US personnel scraped from captions on public military photographs; publicly accessible ship and aircraft transponder identifiers; commercial satellite-imagery query scripts; and an inventory of public websites that exposed US naval movements. The threat actor also directed Claude to compile vulnerability research on shipboard systems, cataloging known CVEs in maritime VSAT terminals, Cisco communications equipment, and industrial control products.”

“We banned the actor’s account, developed detections to reduce the risk of future misuse, and shared threat intelligence with government authorities to disrupt the threat.”

How exactly Anthropic defines the term “nexus” here is not immediately clear, and other entries in its new report also use “state-nexus” in addition to country-based variations. However, in this specific case, an addendum is added to the entry that explicitly says that the same account was separately tied to “domestic mass surveillance” software development work “for Iranian state systems,” clearly pointing to an actor directly linked to the regime in Tehran.

Whether or not any of the data collected and analysed here was directly used to subsequently carry out attacks on U.S. forces is unknown. However, there have been media reports just in recent weeks that Iran has been increasingly trying to strike American warships. Those same reports have raised questions about how the country has been prosecuting those operations given its limited capabilities and capacity to track maritime targets far from its shores. The possibility that Russia or China could be supplying targeting data has been put forward.

The use of AI technology by nation-state armed forces to develop target sets and engage them is already known to be growing globally. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been a pioneer in this regard, but the U.S. military, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and others are also known to be developing and fielding these capabilities.

U.S. military officials have also voiced increasing concern in recent years about the ability to track the movements and disposition of U.S. military assets and personnel using publicly available pictures and other data. There has been much talk, in turn, about how to balance transparency and operational security.

GTG-87001: Disrupting a Yemen-based guided weapons engineering cell using Claude to develop guidance software

Anthropic’s new report details an instance where an individual in Yemen used Claude as part of missile guidance work, which is given the control number GTG-87001.

“We identified a cell of threat actors based in northern Yemen running three weapons development programs: a guided rocket that used a commodity phone-class flight computer with final-phase homing guidance; a multi-stage ballistic missile with a stated range goal above 2,000 km; and a multi-variant missile (referred to as the “R2000” set) that included a hypersonic glide vehicle variant.”

“The actors used Claude Code in place of human software engineers to develop the guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) software that steers and stabilizes a flying vehicle. For example, they used Claude to integrate an open-source autopilot onto a phone-class flight computer, writing the control and position estimation software, tuning the control settings, running a firmware build pipeline, and performing a flight simulation. The actors managed several Claude instances at once, assigning each one a role, much as a lead would delegate work on a small engineering team: the actors tasked one instance with writing the code, another with research, and a third with reviewing the code the first instance produced.”

“Our safeguards blocked many of their requests, but not all of them. The actors used a variety of tactics to evade our safeguards, including hiding their goals and the products the software was meant for, and they split their work across multiple sessions so no single session revealed their full intent.”

“These actors carried out a sustained effort to develop guided weapons, including using Claude to design guidance software. We do not have evidence the actors succeeded in fielding an operational device; but they did test-fire a guided rocket. This field test appears to have failed: within hours, the actors returned to Claude to work out why it failed.”

“We identified this activity as part of our internal investigations into suspected weapons development. We banned accounts associated with the actors and shared threat information with public- and private-sector partners to mitigate risks posed by the actors. Nevertheless, we have evidence that the actors had already built an offline simulation toolkit that does not rely on Claude or other engineering computing environments such as MATLAB.”

As mentioned earlier, the report does not name the Houthis, but that group has historically been based primarily in the northern end of Yemen. It is also the only entity in the country known to have active missile development programs, which are conducted with critical support from Iran.

Whether this particular work directly resulted in any new capabilities is unknown. Anthropic notes that there looked to be at least one failed test launch before the accounts were banned, which would have occurred sometime after the beginning of this year, based on the stated cutoff dates for the report. By the end of 2025, the Houthis had already amassed a wide array of very real ballistic missiles, including types with at least claimed ranges of 2,000 kilometers (approximately 1,242 miles). The group also has a variety of cruise missiles and one-way attack drones that it has employed operationally.

Still, being able to leverage Claude could only have helped any domestic missile development efforts in Yemen, which might help reduce dependency on Iran, at least to a degree. Furthermore, developing functional hypersonic glide vehicles capable of prolonged stable flight has historically been notoriously difficult, even for entities with extensive relevant knowledge bases on an organizational level.

GTG-17001: Disrupting a China-based operation using Claude to draft a fire control specification and acquisition documents for undersea warfare

Use of Claude in foreign military endeavours goes beyond the Middle East, as evidenced by case study GTG-17001. This involved a Chinese actor conducting work related to a naval counter-torpedo defense system.

“We identified a China-based threat actor who used Claude to advance three parallel tracks of work on an anti-torpedo weapons system:”

• “First, the actor used Claude to draft a Chinese-language specification for an anti-torpedo fire control system (the core logic that aims and times an anti-torpedo weapon’s response). The document was written to win approval from a Chinese defense manufacturer, which would move the work on to technical certification and operational testing.”
• “Second, the actor used Claude to produce a Chinese-language technical proposal of more than 200 pages, accompanied by an executive briefing deck.”
• “Third, the actor used Claude to benchmark their own system against specific US anti-torpedo and anti-submarine programs based on publicly accessible information. They then generated a Chinese-language briefing on US Navy systems derived from open-source reporting.”

“The actor presented themselves as an original equipment manufacturer in the US defense sector. We assess the actor was associated with a Chinese defense industry manufacturer aiming to produce a weapons specification and acquisition proposal for the People’s Liberation Army Navy.”

“The actor used Claude to write the acquisition proposal, refining it over many drafts. After each draft, the actor instructed Claude to role-play a hostile expert reviewer to critique the proposal, then used that feedback to sharpen the next version. In parallel, the actor used Claude to build pieces of the anti-torpedo weapons system’s fire control software and a test matrix to validate them.”

“The operational lift the actor achieved was a function of using Claude to automate complex technical outputs. The actor leveraged the model to compress the development timelines for the certification registry, compliance documentation, and automated fire control logic. The actor also accelerated the traditional human review cycle by having Claude critique the acquisition proposal across multiple rounds of review while role-playing a persona.”

“We uncovered this activity as part of our internal investigations into suspected weapons development. We cannot attribute the activity to a specific entity or actor. But we have banned the account for violating our Supported Regions Policy and our Usage Policy, which prohibits weapons design and development, and incorporated our investigative findings into our safeguards to mitigate the risk of future misuse.”

Anthropic’s report does not name the U.S. programs leveraged here, but does note the information in question was publicly available. Anti-torpedo systems for surface warships and submarines have been an area of significant interest for the U.S. Navy for years now. Those developments have also produced compact torpedo designs for use in other applications.

The PLAN’s interest in these same kinds of capabilities is not at all surprising. Underwater threats and countermeasures to them, broadly speaking, would play a central and vital role in any future conflict between the United States and China across the broad expanses of the Pacific.

GTG-27005: Disrupting a Russia-based operation using Claude to engineer an autonomous military drone swarm

Another case study, GTG-27005, details the use of Claude by Russian actors working on drone swarming technology.

“We identified likely freelance Russia-based threat actors who set out to build a full-stack autonomous first-person-view (FPV) kamikaze drone swarm. The actors used Claude Code to write and test the code and save it directly into the actors’ own project files. In addition to Claude Code, the actors used a software-in-the-loop simulation stack and a rented graphics processing host for model training. They called the operation ‘DronDoc’ or ‘Serafim.’”

“The actors used Claude to build the core software system, including the drones’ shared swarm memory and fault-tolerant coordination logic (FTCL); an onboard small language model to govern attack, observe, and return-to-base behaviors; a terminal guidance software system to steer drones to their target (using the onboard camera) and issue the call to detonate; a control-link geolocation module to find opposing drone operators; a passive acoustic detection layer; and low-level logic for the drones’ programmable chips. The actors designed the platform for autonomous lethal engagement; the onboard model could select targets (including a ‘person’ target class) and issue detonation commands without a human in the loop. The actors’ activity—including flashing the low-level firmware to live development boards, provisioning single-board computers, and wiring up a simulation environment over a mesh network—confirmed that they were using real hardware-in-loop testing within their sessions.”

“The actors trained a computer vision classifier on scraped Ukrainian combat footage, splitting the target classes into “enemy” and “friendly,” and allow-listing Russian systems. They also repeatedly used a fixed coordinate in Donetsk Oblast as the demonstration strike point, with front-line cities and corridors in Ukraine as the mission geography.”

“The actors created their accounts between late 2025 and early 2026 and started the operation in mid-May 2026. The actors circumvented our geographic access controls by routing traffic through commercial virtual private servers.”

“We assess the actors were a small, specialized freelance team doing a mix of civilian and military work, not a Russian state entity. We identified nine accounts associated with this group; eight were used only for ordinary freelance work, not weapons-related software development. Based on our investigation, we assess the actors had ties to a regional university with a federal research center associated with the Russian Academy of Sciences. The actors claimed to have received funding from Russia’s Advanced Research Foundation, National Technology Initiative, and Ministry of Defence, though we cannot verify those claims. We identified this activity as part of our internal investigations into suspected weapons development, we banned accounts associated with the actors, and have incorporated our investigative findings into safeguards to reduce the risk of future misuse.”

Anthropic’s report included a table, reproduced below, detailing different types of drones and other capabilities that were fed into the model as part of this work.

Also, while Anthropic said it could not confirm any direct ties in this instance to the Russian government, the work described here is fully in line with capabilities that have already been demonstrated to varying degrees in Ukraine in the past few years. TWZ has been very closely tracking developments on both sides of the conflict when it comes to new automated targeting and swarming capabilities for shorter- and longer-ranged kamikaze drones. In 2024, we also published a detailed feature outlining a coming revolution in drone warfare, signs of which were already emerging then, thanks to AI and the ever-lowering barrier to entry for leveraging that technology.

GTG-17002: Disrupting a China-based operation using Claude to build targeting software for electronic warfare and air defense suppression

The last case study in the Conventional Weapons section of Anthropic’s new report, GTG-17002, covers electronic warfare-related work by a Chinese actor, with a particular focus on potential air defense targets in Taiwan.

“We identified a China-based actor who used Claude’s chat, coding, and agentic work tools to design, build, and iterate on a Chinese-language suite of about 16 modules for electronic warfare, using the electromagnetic spectrum to detect, jam, or deceive an opponent’s radar and communications, and for suppressing an opponent’s air defenses.”

“The actor used Claude to build the software system, from the underlying logic to the user interface, and iterated through 12 versions. This included implementing and optimizing the system’s radar detection and jamming physics, generating a vulnerability analysis module, and drafting Chinese-language targeting instructions. The software suite the actor built analyzed an opponent’s radars, surface-to-air missile sites, command posts, and communications nodes, then computed their detection coverage, assessed the effectiveness of jamming, ranked targets by value and vulnerability, including which to suppress first, and determined how best to assign jammer sorties to targets across multi-day campaigns. The suite also ranked which of an opponent’s assets to suppress first, and modeled specific engagement envelopes, including those of Patriot and THAAD-class [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] systems.”

“Mid-project, we observed the actor change the simulation’s default scenario to 12 targets in Taiwan. The targets included a command bunker in Taiwan, an early warning radar site, Patriot and Tien Kung [surface-to-air missile] batteries, major air bases, and a regional combatant command headquarters.”

NCSIST – Tien Kung III Air Defense Missile & Hsiung Feng III Anti-Ship Missile Live Firing [480p]

“The actor also ran a self-hosted model on an internal network alongside Claude and connected the software suite to this model through a tool-use integration.”

“Based on our investigation, we assess the actor is a China-based defense and military-industrial researcher. Account-level metadata and content flagged by our safeguards indicated the actor was linked to PRC research institutions, including the PLA Academy of Military Sciences. We detected this activity as part of our internal investigations into suspected weapons development, we banned accounts linked to the actor, and have incorporated our investigative findings into our safeguards to reduce the risk of future misuse.”

An accompanying table, seen below, mentions several specific types of U.S.-made air defense radars, as well as the Link-16 datalink network, as having come up in the course of this work. Electronic warfare variants of the Chinese Y-8 and Y-9 aircraft, as well as the J-16D electronic warfare jet, and what appears to be a reference to the Golden Eagle drone helicopter, are also mentioned.

China’s J-16D Shows Versatility Across Reconnaissance, Attack, Defense: Designers

The suppression of enemy air defenses is an essential part of any modern air campaign, whether conducted independently or as a part of a larger operation. This would be no less critical in any military intervention against Taiwan from the mainland, or any other larger-scale conflict the PLA might find itself in.

Guardrails and ethics

Beyond the details in any of the specific case studies, Anthropic’s new report underscores growing broader concerns about guardrails for the use of AI and general ethics surrounding the technology. As noted in the instances above, Anthropic has also implemented various safeguards to try to block access to Claude from certain regions and/or to prevent the model from conducting certain types of work. At the same time, what the company has now shared makes clear that those protections can still be circumvented to a significant degree, at least for now.

For its part, Anthropic has been publicly supportive of transparency laws and regulation, at least within the United States. The company also notably made tweaks to certain Claude models earlier this year to address U.S. government cybersecurity concerns.

Starting in December 2025, Anthropic has also been very publicly embroiled in a dispute with the Pentagon over the potential use of Claude to support mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapon systems. This subsequently led to the company being designated a supply chain risk, and limitations being imposed on the use of that model within the U.S. military and elsewhere across the U.S. government. Anthropic is continuing to fight that action in court. However, just yesterday, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Pentagon Chief Technology Officer Emil Michael said the U.S. military had scaled back the use of Anthropic’s products in support of classified work by 90 percent.

The concerns about ‘misuse’ outlined in Anthropic’s new report apply, in general terms, to publicly accessible models being developed by other companies, too. There have already been publicly disclosed instances of AI agents themselves engaging in hacking and other malign behavior in order to complete assigned tasks, raising additional questions about security and public safety, not to mention ethics.

TWZ has noted in the past that America’s adversaries are likely to be less worried about ethics, in general, when it comes to AI. Anthropic’s new report also shows there are few bounds to what state-aligned or even non-state actors might seek to use this technology for, including the development of potential weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time, AI models like Claude are not going away, and developments continue to advance at an ever-quickening pace, opening the door to further proliferation. Developments are rapidly intermingling globally, with companies in China notably leveraging models created in the U.S. to further their own work, which is then released publicly. The technology will increasingly become more integrated and critical to most aspects of military operations and weapons development, alongside its commercial and civilian applications. It is just as much a superweapon as anything else, and the country with the more capable models, and the willingness to deploy them, will have a major edge in future conflicts.

With all this in mind, it seems very plausible, if not probable, that the case studies described in Anthropic’s new report are just the tip of an approaching iceberg that will need a concerted effort to tackle.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com