Donald Trump

The United States Supreme Court has rejected Donald Trump’s bid to restrict voting by mail ahead of the November midterm elections, in a setback to the US president’s efforts to change rules governing elections.

The ruling on Monday by the conservative supermajority court allows states to continue sending out mail ballots as they have done for years, dealing a blow to Trump’s plans to stop the ballots before the elections and halting possible last-minute legal actions as voting begins in some states.

Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the security of mail-in voting, citing debunked claims of widespread election fraud associated with it. That is despite the president voting by mail himself, including during the 2024 election.

Mail ballots, in place for decades, have been found to increase voter turnout and currently account for a third of all votes cast in the US.

Here’s what we know about the legal challenge to overturn them:

What are mail-in votes?

Voting by post works by sending ballots to the homes of registered voters, who then mail them back before a deadline.

Eight states, several of them Democratic-leaning – California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington – as well as the District of Columbia, allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail.

Others only allow smaller elections to be conducted by mail.

Although there are cases of forgery or repeat voting, they are rare and amount to just four in 10 million mailed votes, according to the Brookings Institution.

What has Trump said about the mail-in votes?

Trump falsely blamed his 2020 presidential election loss on mail-in voting fraud. He and his supporters also opposed changes made during the COVID pandemic to expand mail-in voting.

During the 2020 Republican National Convention, Trump called mail-in voting changes “the greatest scam in the history of politics”.

His attempt to push the SAVE America Act, which calls for sweeping voting laws, has stalled in the US Senate. The bill, passed in the House of Representatives in February, faces opposition over concerns that millions of voters will be disenfranchised.

How did Trump target mail-in votes?

In March 2026, Trump signed an executive order directing the US Postal Service to take control of mail voting by designing new envelopes with special barcodes that would allow the federal government to ensure ballots are only from eligible voters.

For the midterms, that move would force all states to adopt a uniform envelope style in a short time.

The order also required states to provide the US Postal Service with a list of eligible voters ahead of elections. Several government departments, including Homeland Security and US Citizenship and Immigration Services, would also have the voters’ lists.

The postal agency was additionally empowered to deny mailed ballots if they did not comply with new standards or were not associated with registered voters on the states’ lists.

What happened to the order?

Democrats and activists challenged the order in several courts, resulting in a series of back-and-forth rulings between May and August.

US District Judge Indira Talwani imposed an injunction against the rule in June on the basis that it likely violated the US Constitution. Talwani also noted in her injunction that Trump’s executive order would be impossible to apply when the midterms were already so close.

But her ruling was overturned by the conservative-majority Supreme Court in late August in a temporary judgement.

The Supreme Court had not decided at the time whether Trump’s move was constitutionally legal. Rather, it only sided with the Trump administration on procedural grounds after the administration argued that Democrats sued too soon.

What does the latest judgement mean?

In the latest and final decision, the Supreme Court refused to lift Judge Talwani’s injunction.

In a brief written order that did not go into detail, the court noted that the administration was likely to fail in its push to restrict mail-in votes ahead of the midterms.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Trump, voted with the majority against the administration, though he indicated he could support the policy at a later stage. Two judges, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented.

Critics have long warned that restricting mail-in ballots could disenfranchise some voters who typically rely on this method.

It could also disrupt the delivery of mailed votes, as some states, including Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin, have begun sending in midterm ballots.

WASHINGTON, United States: The US Supreme Court dealt a major blow Monday to President Donald Trump’s attempts to restrict mail-in voting before the November midterm elections, denying his request to lift an order halting the divisive plan.

Only two of the six conservative justices on the nine-member panel offered a dissent.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion with the majority, said Trump’s plan may ultimately be legal in the long run, but “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

Trump signed an executive order in March seeking to restrict mail-in voting, saying without evidence that it is vulnerable to fraud. The order quickly prompted multiple legal challenges.

Democratic-led states sued the administration on grounds that under the US Constitution, states — and not the federal government — retain broad control over the administration of elections.

Trump’s executive order would require the compilation of lists of eligible voters and for the US Postal Service (USPS) to deliver ballots only to voters who are on the lists.

Officials from several states had warned that a lack of legal clarity around the plan was sowing chaos months before the November 3 vote.

Several states, including North Carolina, have already begun sending mail-in ballots to voters.

A USPS whistleblower had also warned that millions of Americans may not receive ballots because the systems being used by the postal service have been put together in a “sloppy and rushed manner.”

Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots but has frequently used them himself, including last month when he voted by mail in Florida’s Republican primary.

The president has for years claimed without evidence that mail-in voting is highly vulnerable to fraud, repeatedly linking it to his false assertion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him by Democrat Joe Biden.

Polls show that Trump’s Republican Party faces a serious threat of losing its narrow control of Congress in November, particularly the House of Representatives.

If Democrats win, they have signaled they would block Trump’s agenda and could even move to impeach him for the third time.

Indigenous groups, environmentalists, and locals in several states have opposed the border wall construction.

A group of landowners, ranchers, businesses and a non-profit organisation have sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump to stop construction of a wall along the country’s border with Mexico in the remote Big Bend region of the southern state of Texas.

Trump officials “were woefully unprepared for the hornet’s nest they stirred up because they had no idea how much we love this place”, David Keller, an archaeologist and historian who specialises in the Big Bend and lives in the region, said in a news conference announcing the lawsuit on Monday.

“For us, the Big Bend is not an empty place on the map,” he said. “It is our home.”

The lawsuit was filed by Conserve Big Bend and six landowners, with the support of dozens more people along the border.

It comes as the Trump administration is ramping up a $46bn effort to line the roughly 3,219km (2,000-mile) border with a collection of 9-metre (30-foot) steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and technology intended to keep out smugglers and migrants.

In Arizona, federal officials are pushing ahead with construction of the border infrastructure, even though it cuts through land belonging to the Tohono O’odham Nation, an Indigenous tribe that has said it does not want the barrier and that it is unnecessary.

In Texas, the effort has run up against numerous lawsuits and bipartisan opposition from sheriffs, elected officials, tour guides, environmental groups and landowners.

As part of its wall-building efforts, the administration has waived numerous regulations and statutes designed to protect the environment, archaeology or wildlife, on the basis that there is an urgent need to protect the border in what the US Department of Homeland Security has called areas of “high illegal entry”.

But in the lawsuit announced on Monday, the plaintiffs argue that when it comes to the Big Bend region, that is not an accurate description. They cite historical statistics from US Customs and Border Protection showing how few people cross the border in Big Bend compared with other areas along the US-Mexico border.

Big Bend has about 805km (500 miles) of border, roughly one quarter of the total length of the border with Mexico from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. But the region accounted for only about 1 percent of arrests, according to the lawsuit.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom does not like being on Donald Trump’s side on any issue.

But when it comes to transgender girls and women in sports, particularly at the school level, the Democrat said he largely agrees with the Republican president. Newsom, one of his party’s leading White House prospects, believes it’s “deeply unfair” for people who are assigned male at birth to compete against girls.

“I don’t want to be on that side of it, but I’m being honest — I’d be lying to you if I said differently,” Newsom told the Associated Press as he was campaigning recently in South Carolina. “I haven’t been able to figure out how to make it fair from my perspective.”

Newsom is not alone.

While most Democratic officials remain steadfast supporters of the transgender community, an increasing number in red and blue states are distancing themselves from their party’s unflinching support for the transgender community’s policy priorities, such as allowing athletes to compete on teams that match their gender identity. The shift follows years of conservative attacks against Democrats on the divisive issue, which affects a relatively small number of transgender people and their families, but has emerged as one of Republicans’ most potent political weapons in the Trump era.

Soul searching over transgender issues is one facet of a sprawling identity crisis that Democrats are confronting during the midterms and before the next presidential election. Although they risk a backlash from their progressive base, there is also a sense in some corners that the party must evolve on an issue where the overwhelming majority of voters — even many Democrats — agree with Trump.

The issue was a central theme for Trump and his Republican allies on the main stage at their midterm convention in Dallas last week, where the president said he hoped Democrats would continue to stand up for transgender girls and women who want to compete in girls’ and women’s sports.

“I’m petrified that they’ll change,” he said. “That will really hurt us.”

Republicans are already replaying some of the same political attacks that they used against Kamala Harris in the presidential campaign two years ago, when they said she’s “for they/them, not you.” On Friday, they released a new advertisement targeting James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas, with the same phrase.

Democrats confront difficult political terrain

A political group backed by billionaire Trump ally Elon Musk has begun running digital ads targeting Democrats in key Senate races in Texas, Ohio and Alaska, accusing them of allowing men to compete in women’s sports.

In Texas’ pivotal Senate contest, the new ad from Musk’s America PAC opens with a video clip of Talarico saying that “God is nonbinary.”

Talarico began to distance himself from those positions months ago. He went further in a Fox News interview last week, saying he would vote in favor of a national ban for gender-affirming surgeries for transgender minors, which are rare.

“I’ve missed the mark on some of my past statements. I will be the first to admit it,” Talarico said in an interview near the Republican convention site. “I think the reason that politicians in that convention center across the street want to talk about six sexes is because they don’t want to talk about $6 diesel.”

In Iowa, State Auditor Rob Sand, the Democratic Party’s nominee for governor, has spoken out against transgender athletes competing in women’s sports as a matter of fairness. Ohio Democratic gubernatorial nominee Amy Acton has taken a similar position, although she has drawn criticism from the left for adopting Trump’s language after saying she opposed “boys playing in girls’ sports.”

And in deep-blue Massachusetts, transgender rights became a defining campaign issue during the state’s recent Democratic U.S. Senate primary, illustrating the potential backlash that party members can face.

Sen. Ed Markey, 80, secured the nomination and later credited his win to not shying away from advocating for transgender rights. He used the issue to attack his Democratic opponent, Rep. Seth Moulton, who had said he wouldn’t want his daughters to play against transgender athletes.

Moulton apologized for his comments, which drew outrage from some progressives, but the damage was done.

While Moulton lost his primary, his position — not Markey’s — is in line with the majority of voters nationally.

A June poll from Quinnipiac University found that about 7 in 10 registered voters think that transgender women and girls should not be allowed to play on women’s and girls’ sports teams. About one-quarter think they should. Democrats are divided, with about half saying transgender women and girls should be allowed and about half saying they should not.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted last year found that just over half, 55%, of Democrats would be “not too” or “not at all” comfortable with athletes playing on teams that don’t match their sex at birth, while 21% said they were “somewhat” comfortable and only 23% said they were “extremely” or “very” comfortable with this.

There’s division among activists

Markey’s public commitment to transgender rights stood out because Democratic politicians are increasingly running away from the issue, said Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, which is dedicated to electing supporters of transgender rights to federal office.

“The reality of being a transgender person in America in 2026 is that on election nights, while other folks are talking about who had a good night and who had a bad night, sometimes you are quietly wondering, ‘Am I going to be OK?’” Hack said.

At the same time, even transgender activists are divided over supporting Democrats who have positions that are unfriendly to transgender people.

Erin Reed, an advocate and independent journalist covering transgender issues, this month put out a guide flagging Democratic candidates who she accused of taking anti-transgender positions. She highlighted 15 states that have such Democrats, saying that she would not vote for the “worst offenders” even if it means a Republican wins.

She doesn’t want Democrats to see that “throwing transgender people under the bus is a winning strategy.”

“One seat can be won back,” Reed wrote. “A party cannot.”

Meanwhile, Hack would probably vote for a Democrat even if that candidate supports some policies the Christopher Street Project opposes, in hopes that the party can take control of Congress. However, those candidates shouldn’t expect the organization’s endorsement.

“While I hope many of them win, I think they can do it without our resources and without our support,” Hack said.

Laws are changing around the country

The political debate is evolving as transgender people increasingly become the target of conservative backlash through state laws and the Trump administration.

Sports participation has become one of the main fronts in a political battle over transgender rights, although most Republican-controlled states have also implemented policies that affect a bigger slice of the population. There are bans on some gender-affirming health care for transgender young people and rules against transgender people from using the bathrooms that match their gender identity in schools and occasionally other public places.

At least 25 states are now enforcing laws or policies banning transgender women and girls from competing in at least some women’s and girls’ sports and three others have adopted laws but have enforcement blocked by the courts.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws barring transgender girls from school teams.

Transgender athletes make up a small portion of team rosters. NCAA president Charlie Baker testified in 2024 that he knew of fewer than 10 transgender college student-athletes out of more than 500,000 total.

The debate is a preview for 2028

The debate within the Democratic Party heading into the 2026 midterms offers a preview for those Democrats contemplating presidential bids in 2028.

Newsom, who is considered a frontrunner in the shadow primary, highlighted his long record of supporting LGBTQ+ priorities, including sanctioning same-sex marriage as the San Francisco mayor decades ago and later appointing the first trans judge in California history.

But in sports, he thinks it’s unfair to allow people assigned as males at birth to compete against girls.

“It’s a hard issue. I struggle with it,” Newsom said. “I think people know where my heart is, my soul is. I have a trans godson.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another likely Democratic presidential contender, has taken the opposite position.

He has consistently criticized state-level bans and restrictions on transgender athletes, calling them “bullying” and a “setback for equality.” Following the recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld state bans on transgender athletes, Pritzker, whose cousin is transgender, reaffirmed his position on social media.

“There’s a place for you in Illinois,” he wrote.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro opposes bans on transgender athletes in school sports, which he’s called cruel and designed to discriminate. He argues that athletic participation and eligibility should not be dictated by politicians, but rather handled by local athletic organizations — a stance in line with several LGBTQ+ groups.

He’s also raised questions of fairness, however.

“Look, I think it’s a tough deal being born into the wrong body. And I don’t think these kids deserve to be persecuted and bullied by the president of the United States,” Shapiro told The Atlantic last year. “I also don’t think they deserve an unfair advantage on the playing field.” Research has been mixed on whether transgender women have advantages in sports, and it depends partly on whether they went through puberty as boys.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is gay and a potential presidential contender, said on Fox earlier in the year that he takes people seriously on both sides of the debate “whether you’re talking about parents who are wondering what this means for fairness for their kids competing, or parents who want to make sure that their kids aren’t being discriminated against and get a chance to participate.”

“But I also have to tell you,” he added, “I would be surprised if this is a top three or even a top 10 voter issue in the midterms this year.” ___

Peoples and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. AP writers Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., and Amelia Thomson DeVeaux in Washington contributed to this report.

Published on 14/09/2026 – 9:40 GMT+2•Updated
9:46

The oil market spent Monday morning pricing in a weekend of bad news from the Gulf.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Brent for October and November deliveries gained over 3% and crossed $108 a barrel, while the US benchmark WTI for October rose 2.3% to around $102, both extending last week’s advance after each reclaimed the $100 threshold.

Prices moved following Saudi Arabia’s announcement that its East-West pipeline is temporarily closed after drone attacks.

The line carries crude across the kingdom to Red Sea ports, allowing oil to reach export terminals without passing through the Strait of Hormuz, so its loss removes the main alternative at the moment the strait itself is most dangerous.

That danger was also demonstrated on Sunday, when a merchant vessel was hit in the strait, killing one person and injuring three others, according to Iranian authorities.

Passage through the waterway now works very differently from before the war.

Vessels must obtain Iranian permission to transit, and Tehran is weighing a mechanism to charge service fees. Ships that fail to comply are routinely targeted, while US forces periodically bomb the Iranian coastline to contest Tehran’s claim to control the strait.

Diplomatic efforts have stalled too.

Oman has postponed planned talks between Iran and Gulf states on the future of the waterway, which carries a large share of the world’s seaborne oil trade.

Record fuel prices and finger-pointing

The consequences are extremely visible at American pumps.

The US national average price of diesel crossed $6 a gallon on Friday for the first time in history, up from around $5.85 a week earlier and roughly 60% above the $3.71 drivers paid a year ago.

Petrol is also averaging $4.22 after setting records over the Labor Day weekend.

US President Donald Trump has pointed the finger elsewhere.

Speaking to reporters in Ireland on Sunday, where he was attending the Irish Open at his Doonbeg golf resort, Trump stated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia.”

“Let him go after targets, but not diesel fuel, because he’s causing a shortage of diesel fuel,” Trump added.

Ukraine has struck more than 20 Russian refinery targets this summer, prompting Moscow to ban diesel exports.

On the flight back from his state visit to Ireland this weekend, Trump reiterated the claim.

However, the supply arithmetic suggests otherwise.

Analysts attribute roughly 800,000 barrels a day of lost diesel supply to Russia’s export ban, against about 1.2 million from disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, according to Lipow Oil Associates.

The wider picture is more lopsided still as crude flows through the strait have fallen from around 20 million barrels a day before the war to about 7 million.

Between them, the two wars have also shut refineries representing around 5 million barrels a day of capacity.

Additional sources • AFP

Board of trustees recommending that the main building be closed immediately due to costs, US newspaper reports.

The John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, is on the brink of bankruptcy and could close as soon as Tuesday, The Washington Post has reported.

According to the report in the United States newspaper on Sunday, the institution’s board of trustees, of which President Donald Trump is the chairman, has argued that putting the president’s name on the facade could be the only way to avoid imminent and “certain fiscal collapse”.

The trustees also say the institution will not be able to pay employees or meet maintenance costs within a few weeks.

The assessment was set out in a 57-page report before a special meeting on Tuesday, when the Trump-led board is expected to consider the two main issues affecting the performing arts centre: A financial crisis and a physical one, as the building needs renovation.

The Post reported that board members are recommending that the main building be closed immediately due to costs.

The ⁠Post also said Trump ⁠would help the Kennedy Center if his involvement is acknowledged. The trustees’ report represents “a remarkable new phase in Trump’s takeover of the Kennedy ⁠Center, which has been engulfed by financial turmoil, leadership upheaval and litigation ⁠since he installed himself as chairman ⁠last year”, the paper said.

The Kennedy Center was named in honour of the late US president who championed civil rights before he was assassinated in 1963.

Trump placed himself as chairman of the Kennedy Centre shortly after beginning his second term last year, and in December his hand-picked board voted to rename it the “Trump-Kennedy” Centre, a move later blocked in court.

In response to Trump’s takeover, a host of artists have cancelled concerts, with US media reporting that ticket sales had fallen to their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Post reported that the centre was expected to collect about $124m of the projected $220m in revenue that it had budgeted, “leaving a roughly $23 million deficit even after substantial spending cuts” this past fiscal year.

It added that a spokesperson for the centre blamed the problems on “financial mismanagement by previous leadership” and said Trump’s name had attracted new donors.

Gavin Newsom, the California governor who loves to heckle Donald Trump and talk about the “big swings” he’s taken at policy while in office, is now a lame duck.

Within a few short months, he will be termed out of office and return to being a regular citizen, if not an average one. Newsom’s presidential ambitions are stronger than ever, and there’s virtually no list of Democratic hopefuls that doesn’t include his name near the top.

But 2028 is a long way away, about a millennium in political time. Newsom has a tough road ahead to not just stay relevant, but also to forge a difficult path between keeping a national profile as a Trump-attacking defender of democracy and not getting pummeled (or worse, ignored) when he loses the safety and power of his elected office.

Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak take a look at what the next few months, and the next year, may have in store after the governor becomes simply Mr. Newsom.

Chabria: Newsom is making the most of his last leg in office. Recently, he went on an election jaunt through the South, visiting the Carolinas and Alabama to help campaign and raise money in those states.

It is not his first out-of-state trip to lend a hand in campaigns, but likely one of his last as governor. He wouldn’t be the first elected official to have a gap year (or years) before being elected to the Oval Office — Ronald Reagan had more than five years off between being governor of California and winning the presidency — but it’s definitely a disadvantage.

How much do you think being out of office hurts Newsom?

Barabak: Loyal readers of this column — thanks, we appreciate both of you! — know I’ve long looked askance at our gallivanting governor and his extracurricular, eyes-on-2028 activities. I understand that preening and politicking is way more fun and ego-enhancing than the minutiae of government in Sacramento. At the same time, I’m old-fashioned enough to think a person should do the job taxpayers are paying them to do.

But, as you note, that will be a moot point soon enough.

I’m not certain being out of office will be all that great a hindrance. In fact, I think it offers advantages, the main one being Newsom’s freedom to devote his full time and energies to running for president.

You mention Reagan; I don’t think it’s an accident he made two failed tries for the White House while serving in Sacramento. Pete Wilson also attempted the leap from the state Capitol to Washington, and failed badly.

It’s tough to do both.

As Dan Schnur, a former Wilson strategist, once put it, “There aren’t any direct flights from Sacramento to Manchester” — New Hampshire traditionally being home to the first primary — “and you can’t run the state from a cellphone at O’Hare” airport.

So I don’t think exiting office will necessarily hurt Newsom. But I’m highly dubious of his presidential prospects nonetheless. You?

Chabria: This is definitely a wide-open race, with, I suspect, contenders not yet on any lists. It’s way too early to know if Newsom will make it in the primary, but I do think he’s positioning himself in a way that differentiates him from some of the folks he may run against.

Socialism is the right’s boogeyman, framed as a peril to democracy full of death panels and welfare fraud. More than one presidential aspirant has shied away from the label for fear of supposedly losing middle-ground voters or being dragged through the “communist” muck that MAGA media such as Fox News love to sling.

In a recent PBS interview, though, Newsom didn’t disavow some democratic socialist ideas, such as Medicare for all, pointing out that California has long had a powerful progressive faction and many of the ideas considered radical for the right are run of the mill here — and potentially popular across the country.

Newsom seems to be embracing some of those lefty stances, especially ones about affordability and opportunity. While affordability is going to be everyone’s platform, pairing it with big-swing policy like universal health insurance might appeal to voters tired of words without action.

It’s a smart lane, embracing MAGA’s labels instead of defending against them, with policies even middle-ground voters might appreciate in these increasing desperate days when ground beef averages nearly $7 a pound and coffee costs more than booze.

Barabak: While I’m skeptical the words “socialism” and “communism” are the talisman that President Trump and other Republicans believe, warding off what could be a dreadful midterm election for the GOP, I still believe the connotation — wacky, lefty policies — has potency among a not-insignificant slice of the electorate.

November’s election is going to be a referendum on Trump, as Newsom himself frequently says. The fight for the Democratic nomination is a contest of a whole other order.

We agree that no fellow Democrat is going to cede the $7-a-pound affordability argument to Newsom. But to offer some differentiation, many will doubtless portray him as being a bit too out there, especially when they start making the electability argument.

And that’s not to mention what awaits him if Newsom were to emerge as the Democratic nominee. (Fun fact: In 1988, it was a Democratic primary opponent, Al Gore, who first criticized Michael Dukakis over Massachusetts’ prison-furlough program. Republicans then seized upon the issue and used it as a bludgeon, to Dukakis’ great detriment, in the fall campaign.)

In a way, it’s interesting we’re even having this discussion about whether Newsom is too far left. There are parts of his record — his chummy ties to Silicon Valley, his light regulatory stance toward data centers, his making nice with the likes of Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, that make some Democrats question whether he’s too far right.

Chabria: It’s true that Newsom is more centrist than progressive, and equally true that most of America misses that point.

I think there is a version of the next election, though, where the Democratic Party has its own Tea Party moment, when a populist faction wanting social change carries power.

Call it the anti-Trump swing, the search for a Democrat who seems authentic and pugilistic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker fit this mold.

Everything we know about elections and electability really is up for grabs in this new age of technology and billionaire influence, and the vein of frustration within the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is only growing stronger because of it. If Republicans do lose out in the midterms — and I am not convinced they will — it changes the calculation on everything, including how far left the average independent voter may swing in the face of an economically crushing oligarchy.

But I would be remiss if I did not say this: Fears that Trump will interfere with the midterms or the next presidential election are justified. Even though things have calmed a bit — there is less talk of agents of some sort at polls — he is pursuing policies and pushing propaganda that could harm a fair election.

We need to safeguard elections, otherwise candidates don’t matter.

Barabak: We 100% agree on that. Candidates, and the campaigns they wage, matter only if elections are free and fairly conducted and all sides —looking at you, President Trump — acknowledge and abide by the outcome.

I wouldn’t, however, infer too much from the outcome in November. For many voters, it will be a chance to vent — about inflation, an unpopular war, Trump’s brazen money-grubbing, his blatant disinterest in the lives and livelihoods of struggling Americans and anything else that’s causing an irritating rash under their collars. That’s why it seems more likely than not Democrats will at least win control of the House.

But midterm results are notoriously unreliable barometers of the presidential election that follows. To give just a few examples, Republicans walloped Democrats in the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections and yet Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama each won reelection just two years later. In 2022, Democrats fared surprisingly well in the midterm election, and in 2024, well … you know what happened.

Chabria: I don’t think America has a past political moment that can be compared to this one. By nearly every independent measure, the United States is closer to an autocracy than we’ve ever been. We’ve lost the respect and trust of our allies, and a political party that has the support of only about 30% of citizens is reshaping our social and civic life under white nationalist principles.

We are in a high-stakes moment, and the next election won’t be a decision between Democrats and Republicans, but between democracy and something else. The sad truth is that in 2024, more Americans did not vote at all than voted for Trump. About 64% of eligible voters cast a ballot, and Trump received only 49.8% of those votes.

The next Democratic nominee can come with whatever message they want, but if Democrats don’t vote, their candidates don’t win. So for Newsom, or whoever the nominee is, the first victory may be the nomination — but the real test will be turning out the vote.

Barabak: It’s a long way — about a millennium, as you said — from here to November 2028. I agree, though, on the importance of not sitting out this or any election, for that matter. I recollect a button I once saw in a shop on Elm Street, the main drag through, yes, downtown Manchester! It read: “Didn’t vote? Don’t bitch.”

That pretty well sums it up.

The video is titled “Jimmy Kimmel’s Interview With James Talarico That the FCC Doesn’t Want You to See.”

It was posted Thursday night on the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s” YouTube page. By 10 a.m. Friday, the video had gained more than 2.7 million views — and the interview hadn’t aired on the show’s network, ABC.

“… We are being targeted by the FCC for the crime of interviewing political candidates,” Kimmel says in the YouTube clip. “Even though for years we, and every other late-night talk show, have welcomed numerous candidates, including Donald Trump when he was running. He was on this show two times. [Trump’s] FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations, because they want to make our editorial decisions for us, which of course, we cannot accept.”

The host continued: “Tonight we are bypassing the public airwaves and hosting this interview on YouTube, even though our government would clearly prefer we not do it at all.”

The late-night host moved his interview with the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas online to sidestep new Federal Communications Commission policy regulations.

Kimmel said earlier in the week that the FCC had “threatened” his show.

“For the whole 20-plus years of our show, in fact, I’ve been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem,” Kimmel said during Wednesday’s ABC broadcast. “Something has changed,” he said.

The change Kimmel was referring to involves the Communications Act’s “equal opportunities” requirement. It states that if a broadcast station features a qualified political candidate, it must provide equal airtime to an opposing candidate. Daytime and late-night talk shows have long operated under a “bona fide news program” exemption that shielded them from the equal time rule.

But under new guidance from the FCC Media Bureau, which is overseen by Donald Trump appointee Brendan Carr, talk shows may no longer qualify for the news exemption if their candidate interviews are determined to be motivated by partisan purposes.

In short, political bias is in the eye of the FCC beholder, and it has been focused on shows like “Kimmel Live!” and “The View,” which voice criticism of the president. The FCC has ordered early license reviews for several Disney-owned ABC stations. ABC has accused the Trump administration of trying to chill free speech.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, who is the commission’s only Democrat, said Thursday in a statement that Kimmel’s choice to move Talarico’s interview to YouTube “shows just how far this Administration’s campaign of censorship and control has gone.”

The YouTube summary of the Kimmel/Talarico interview reads as follows: “Jimmy’s interview with Democratic Senate candidate from Texas James Talarico was not televised because of threats from the FCC so we’re hosting their discussion here on YouTube. James talks about Republicans being scared of him winning, Jesus being co-opted by MAGA, the RNC Convention being held in Texas, not taking money from corporate PACs, Trump calling him a ‘freaky guy’ and having second thoughts about endorsing his opponent Ken Paxton, and the GOP making it harder for people to vote.”

Assistant White House Press Secretary Davis Ingle accused Kimmel of “play acting” and “creating a false narrative about this administration’s policies,” in a statement Thursday. “Chairman Carr has not threatened him regarding interviewing James Talarico, or any other candidate,” Ingle said. “Any media outlet blindly amplifying Kimmel’s egocentric delusion should insist on proof. Of which they will find none.”

Unless they spend 10 seconds on Google, where there’s ample proof.

During a February taping of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” Colbert told his studio audience that CBS lawyers had prohibited him from broadcasting an interview with Talarico, or even mentioning the cancellation on television, following threats from the FCC.

“[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said.

CBS denied they stopped “The Late Show” from airing the interview, which was instead posted on the show’s YouTube page.

Within months, “The Late Show” was canceled after 33 years on the air. Its final broadcast was May 21.

During Kimmel’s interview with Talarico, the host pointed out that it wasn’t the first time an interview with Talarico had been “demoted” from network television to YouTube. He asked his guest, “Why are they so scared of you?”

“They’re worried that we’re going to win this race in Texas,” Talarico said about running against Republican Ken Paxton.

The race will be decided in November.

“We’re not just going up against the most corrupt politician in Texas,” Talarico said. “We’re going up against this entire corrupt system.”

With the US midterm elections just weeks away, Donald Trump’s administration is trying to put a positive spin on a war with Iran that shows no sign of letting up.

Climbing fuel and grocery prices, the president’s provocative social media posts and the Pentagon’s combative relationship with the media are making that story harder to sell.

Contributors: 
Laicie Heeley – Editor-in-chief, Inkstick
Mark Kimmitt – Former US Assistant Secretary of State
Negar Mortazavi – Host, The Iran Podcast
Samira Mohyeddin – Founder, On The Line Media

On our radar

Revelations from Israeli newspaper Haaretz about what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knew before the October 7 attacks have ignited a firestorm in the country. Netanyahu calls the reporting fabricated and is threatening to sue.

Ryan Kohls reports.

How COVID coverage broke trust in the US

Six years on from the start of the pandemic, COVID-19 is back in the headlines – and so are questions about how newsrooms covered it.

The Listening Post’s Nicholas Muirhead on how the pandemic broke trust in the US.

Featuring: 
Amesh Adalja – Infectious Disease Physician, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
Frances E Lee – Co-author, In COVID’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us
Jeanne Lenzer – Investigative Medical Journalist

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham maintains that a poll is ‘off the table’ as there isn’t enough popular support for Northern Ireland to leave the UK.

United States President Donald Trump has said that a unified Ireland would be “fantastic”, in remarks made during a visit to Dublin that were not welcomed by government ministers in London.

Trump’s comments on Saturday came weeks after British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said a referendum on Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom was “off the table”.

“Well, I don’t want to cause any problems, but I will tell you, I’d love to see it unified,” Trump told reporters, while sitting next to Ireland’s Prime Minister, Micheal Martin.

“It’s going to happen eventually … I think it would be a fantastic thing,” he said.

“Now the UK will have something to say about it … but I think it would be a great thing,” he added.

Martin declined to respond to reporters’ questions to comment on the US president’s remarks.

Following Trump’s comments, a spokesperson for Burnham said his position on Irish unification remained unchanged.

Responding to questions from members of parliament on Wednesday about a potential poll in Northern Ireland, Burnham said: “I am not aware that there is majority public support for another referendum, and until that changes, there will not be one”.

Under the terms of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (also known as the Belfast Agreement), a referendum on leaving the UK can be held only at the discretion of the British government.

The accord ended three decades of violence known as The Troubles. The sectarian conflict involved mostly Catholic nationalist paramilitaries seeking a united Ireland, mostly Protestant unionist paramilitaries wanting to remain part of the UK, and British troops.

Gavin Robinson, leader of the DUP, Northern Ireland’s main unionist party, said that Northern Ireland’s future was a matter for its people to decide, not Trump.

“President Trump knows better than most that elections matter. Northern Ireland’s constitutional future will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland, not by commentary in London, Dublin or Washington.”

While polls show a comfortable majority in Northern Ireland favour remaining in the UK, the gap has narrowed slightly since Britain’s departure from the European Union pushed unity higher up the political agenda.

Trump also met Irish President Catherine Connolly, who was elected head of state last year. When Trump last visited Ireland as president in 2019, Connolly, an outspoken politician with left-wing foreign policy views, protested at Shannon Airport in western Ireland.

During Trump’s current visit, some supporters had urged her to speak out against US military actions around the world and defend Ireland’s neutrality.

Anti-Trump protests

Anti-war and anti-Trump protests were held in Dublin and some were planned for later in western Ireland, near Trump’s golf course in Doonbeg.

Reporting from the capital, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic said Dubliners had a “laundry list” of reasons for protesting against Trump’s visit.

“They feel that the Irish government should not be, in their words, rolling out the red carpet for someone like Trump, who they say is a cause of instability in the world and has been enabling Israel’s actions in Gaza … and destabilised the whole of the Middle East.”

Irish people are also protesting against the high cost of hosting Trump, including security, which they say could pay for other things, such as healthcare and social issues, added Veselinovic.

A quarter-century after the attacks on September 11, 2001, officials across the United States have taken part in tributes and memorials to honour the 2,977 victims and those who risked their lives as part of the rescue efforts.

The incident is considered the deadliest “terrorist” attack in US history.

Four planes were hijacked. Two crashed into the World Trade Center, causing its Twin Towers to collapse. A third struck the Pentagon outside Washington, DC. And the fourth plummeted into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers and crew rose against their attackers.

Through social media messages, public speeches and appearances at ceremonies, US leaders on Friday took different approaches to remembering the lives of the thousands who perished on the fateful day.

Here’s what they said:

US President Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump chose to stay in Washington, DC, to observe the 25th anniversary.

During the attacks, 184 people died near the capital when American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, the headquarters of the US military.

Trump opted not to attend a Friday ceremony at the World Trade Center site in New York, where all his living presidential predecessors were in attendance.

His vice president, JD Vance, travelled to New York instead. The ceremony at the World Trade Center has a policy of not allowing political speeches.

In his remarks at the Pentagon, Trump described what happened as “true evil”. He also paid tribute to those who died in the attacks.

“We will honour their lives, we will cherish their beautiful memories, and we will protect this country and its freedoms for every future generation,” Trump said.

The president also praised US troops as he appeared to link the 9/11 attacks with his administration’s war against Iran.

“We will never, ever forget. That’s why we fight today. We don’t have a choice. There can only be victory,” Trump said.

“We salute the service members working right now to ensure the world’s number one sponsor of terror – the Islamic Republic of Iran – will never, ever have a nuclear weapon,” he later added.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also spoke at the Pentagon, delivering his remarks shortly before Trump’s.

He warned the audience to practice “eternal vigilance” against what he called continued threats.

“There are still enemies who hate us. Every day, enemies plot to curb our power and kill our citizens, including from Islamic terrorists abroad and at home,” he said.

He proceeded to seemingly use the 9/11 attacks as justification for the US-Israeli war against Iran, which started on February 28.

“Over the past six months, we have laid waste to the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism,” Hegseth said, referring to Iran. “Our warriors have fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for nearly half a century, that cheered on 9/11.”

He went on to claim that the US military has destroyed Iran’s defences and that the US controls the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for international trade.

Iran has stopped commercial traffic through the strait since the start of the war.

“We’re still sending terrorists where they belong, to hell, and tankers to the bottom of the ocean where they belong,” Hegseth said. “And we’re ensuring that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. The economic pressure tightens every day. We control the strait. We will finish this fight.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani attended the New York memorial service, alongside the city’s former mayor, Rudy Giuliani, who led the city through the attacks.

Before the event started, Giuliani shook hands with the mayor, despite previously calling on Mamdani not to attend the event.

Mamdani, the city’s first Muslim mayor, had recently come under fire from some conservative politicians and victims’ family members who said his presence at the memorial would offend them.

A Change.org petition garnered more than 100,000 signatures from those who wished to express concern about Mamdani’s participation.

Like all politicians attending the service at the National September 11 Memorial, Mamdani was not permitted to speak.

Instead, the mayor released a video on social media remembering those who were killed and challenging the public to honour their memory by doing good works.

“Twenty-five years later, we have a sacred obligation to those who were stolen from us. To care for one another as they cared for strangers. To live lives worthy of the sacrifices they made. And to build a city worthy of their courage. A city where we run toward one another,” Mamdani said.

“That is how we’ll remember.”

On Tuesday, Mamdani also released a trove of previously undisclosed documents suggesting city officials tried to downplay – or even mislead – first residents about the dangerous air quality following the attacks.

US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed

Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed took to the social media platform X to honour the lives lost during what he described as a “cruel act of terror”.

El-Sayed is locked in a tight midterm race in Michigan against his Republican opponent, former US Representative Mike Rogers.

Michigan’s open Senate seat is considered a must-win seat for Democrats, if they hope to take back control of the US Senate.

Rogers has sought to create controversy over El-Sayed’s past comments about the September 11 attacks. He has pointed to audio of El-Sayed reportedly saying, “9/11 scarred our country in profound ways, but what we did after 9/11 scarred millions of other people.”

During the Republican Party’s first-ever midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, on Thursday, Rogers blasted El-Sayed, who is Muslim, for being sympathetic to terrorists. He also sought to highlight El-Sayed’s links to left-wing internet commentator Hasan Piker.

“I never imagined that, 25 years after 9/11, I would be running against somebody who campaigns with Hasan Piker, who thinks America deserved it,” Rogers said. “Yep, but here we are.”

On Friday, however, El-Sayed used his social media post to push back against Rogers’s attacks.

“Nothing can justify the murder of innocent civilians. Nothing,” El-Sayed wrote.

He also called on Americans to help build a country that was “more inclusive, more empowering, more just” in tribute to the lives lost.

“They didn’t just attack America that day. They attacked the idea of America,” El-Sayed said of the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers who participated in the attacks.

“The notion of a nation brought together by ideals where it doesn’t matter how you pray or if you pray at all. A place where freedom and commitment to justice bind us, even if at times we struggle to fully realise it.”

Donald Trump is set to arrive in Ireland on Saturday, but most Irish people aren’t happy about it.

A recent poll by the Sunday Independent and Ireland Thinks reported that 69 percent do not support the US president’s visit.

“Thousands of us will march on Saturday because we refuse to normalise a man who has facilitated genocide,” Sean Radcliffe, an economics undergraduate student at Trinity College Dublin, told Al Jazeera.

Taoiseach Micheal Martin “should say it clearly, firmly, and publicly: the United States is facilitating genocide,” added Radcliffe, who is a leader of the student body’s Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign.

Sean Corcoran, an environmental artist based on the Copper Coast in Waterford, spent five hours with three others carving “No Kings” – a nod to anti-Trump protests under the same name in the US, along with “Gaza, Iran, Ice,” into the sand of Dublin Bay Beach.

“As an Irish artist and citizen, I believe it is important for me to use my voice to share my opinion about the Trump administration,” he told Al Jazeera. “Despite the diplomatic and security welcome that Mr Trump will receive when he lands in Ireland, the majority of Irish do not welcome him to Ireland.”

Trump is expected to meet with several figures in Ireland’s leadership, including Martin and antiwar President Catherine Connolly, who has previously said the US is, along with France and England, a nation Ireland “certainly cannot trust”.

Protests are planned throughout Ireland, including in Dublin’s Garden of Remembrance. Many are themed against Trump’s role in supporting Israel’s actions in Palestine.

Ireland, one of the West’s most vocal critics of Israel, was the first European Union country to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements.

Roughly 4,000 security personnel will be enlisted to protect the US leader from protests and other risks during his visit, including roughly 1,000 US Secret Service agents and “anti-drone weaponry”.

Following his visits with Ireland’s political elites and the US ambassador to Ireland, resulting in the temporary shutdown of Phoenix Park, one of Europe’s largest parks, he is expected to visit the Irish Open golf tournament in Doonbeg, where Trump owns a resort.

Connolly, whose role is largely ceremonial, has said that she is “not afraid to stand against the consensus”. She secured a landslide victory in October 2025.

During her campaign, Connolly said she would meet the US president in her official capacity, but added that “I doubt that [genocide] would be the discussion, I doubt that [Gaza] would be on the agenda”.

“People expect a slightly more activist president who might speak out,” Johan Dornschneider-Elkink, professor of Computational Political Science at University College Dublin, told Al Jazeera. “The high level of consensus in the Irish population means that the president can also feel a bit comfortable pushing it a bit.”

Still, the limitations of Connolly’s role, and the economic obligations of the taoiseach are expected to overshadow the issue of Palestine during high-level conversations.

‘Ireland is very much aligned in spirit’

“I think [the protest] shows that Ireland is very much aligned in spirit and policy-wise with the Palestinian people; they very much identify with Palestine,” Stephanie Dornschneider-Elkink, associate professor of Political Science at University College Dublin, told Al Jazeera.

“But there’s also only so much space to be critical. Ireland depends on the US, and there’s an economic relationship at stake.”

Johan added that the visit is more an opportunity for Irish people who want to make known their stance on both Palestine and the Trump administration.

“There’s an understanding that Trump is one president among many, and there will be another president. There’s a longer history of the Irish-US relationship which nobody wants to see damaged.”

Leader of the Opposition Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein, told journalists this week that she hoped Connolly would raise issues like “ongoing facilitation of a genocide in Gaza,” adding that the party will take part in Saturday’s protests.

The party’s spokesperson on foreign affairs, trade, and defence, Donnchadh O Laoghaire TD, shared on his Instagram that he would join the protest in the Garden of Remembrance, asking others to join him “to stand up against genocide and against war”.

The demonstration is organised by the Irish Neutrality League, in coalition with the Irish Anti-War Movement and social justice movement Tonn na Cle, and has received endorsements from the Social Democrats, Labour, People Before Profit-Solidarity, and the Green Party, in addition to Sinn Fein.

Student groups in Ireland have been among the loudest voices of pro-Palestine organising in the country, with Trinity College Dublin becoming the first university in the world to officially sever ties with Israel.

Radcliffe said there is no generational divide “of any significance” over the Israel-Palestine conflict in Ireland.

“Some of the best [pro-Palestine] activists I know in Ireland are pensioners,” he said.

WASHINGTON: President ‌Donald Trump said he did not regret going to war against Iran despite the impact the conflict may have ​on the November US midterm elections.

“I don’t believe in the word ‘regret.’ You can always question yourself a little bit,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham when asked if he regretted the Iran war due to the impact it may have on the elections.

“If ‌I had ‌it do again, I would ​do ‌exactly ⁠as ​I did,” ⁠Trump said in the interview broadcast on Thursday on “The Ingraham Angle” show.

Trump dismissed suggestions that some of his supporters were upset and demoralized about the war.

“I don’t think they’re demoralized. I think they’re very proud of the fact that I’m not letting ⁠Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

Trump ‌reiterated his thinking that ‌the war will end immediately after ​the midterm election.

“It ‌ends right after the election,” Trump said in ‌the interview. He made similar comments on Wednesday, alleging Tehran was trying to influence the elections that will determine whether Trump’s Republican Party retains control of Congress.

The rise in ‌oil and gas prices due to the US-Israeli war on Iran has become ⁠a major ⁠issue for Republicans in the lead-up to the elections.

The US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28 and Iran responded with its own strikes on Israel and Gulf states that host US bases. US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Israeli attacks on Lebanon have killed thousands and displaced millions.

Trump has cited weakening Iran’s nuclear capabilities as one of his war objectives. Iran does not have ​nuclear weapons and says ​its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful purposes. The US is nuclear-armed.

DUBLIN: Rory McIlroy battled against fierce winds to remain in contention at the Irish Open on Thursday with a one under par opening round to sit four shots behind leader Joaquin Niemann.

US President Donald Trump is set to jet in to attend the event over the weekend, which is being held at his resort in the County Clare village of Doonbeg.

Northern Irishman McIlroy is defending his title and aiming to win for the first time since collecting a second green jacket at the Masters in April.

A double bogey six at the 13th set the world number two back, but those were the only dropped shots of his round, which was disrupted by the blustery conditions leading to a glacial pace of play.

“I hung in there, shot under par, and at least don’t feel like I’m out of the tournament. A good day tomorrow gets me right back in it,” said the six-time major champion.

“There were a couple of things that were tough today. Obviously the wind and the strength of the wind was one thing, and then the pace of play.”

“This course isn’t conducive to sort of letting you get in a flow. Especially the first two days with so many people in the field, there is a lot of stopping and starting.”

Niemann made four birdies in a row from the 14th to forge ahead.

“It’s a really tricky course and a really fun golf course to play with, especially with the Irish weather,” said the Chilean. “(I’m) getting used to this weather and the rain, so it was fun.”

Delays caused by the conditions meant that some players will have to return early on day two to complete their opening rounds.

Home favourite Shane Lowry is among a five-strong group, two shots behind Niemann after a 67.

Adrian Meronk, Maximilian Steinlechner and Renato Paratore were also at three under when bad light brought their opening day to an end without completing their rounds.

Jon Rahm was level par on a rare appearance back on the DP World Tour.

Pennsylvania senator who has clashed with party over Israel support says he will reject ‘the extremes and socialism’.

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat who has distanced himself from his party, has appeared in a video recording on the first day of the Republican Party’s two-day midterm convention in the United States.

The video on Wednesday was a surprise for those who attended the conservative gathering in Dallas, Texas, where President Donald Trump is seeking to galvanise support ahead of the November elections.

“Yes, I’m Senator John Fetterman, Pennsylvania. Yes, I’m a Democrat. Why am I here talking to you today? Because, well, I’m a common-sense Democrat,” Fetterman said as he introduced his Republican colleague, Senator Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.

Fetterman, a 57-year-old first-term senator, has cast himself as an outsider within the Democratic Party.

He has offered outspoken support for Israel and the war on Iran, even as voters and progressive voices in his party criticise those elements of US foreign policy.

“I’m always going to stand with America. I’m always going to reject the extremes and socialism and that anti-American way of life,” Fetterman said in the video clip.

But his appearance at the Republican Party’s first-ever midterm convention is likely to exacerbate criticism from his Democratic colleagues.

US Representative Brendan Boyle, another Pennsylvania Democrat, has repeatedly questioned Fetterman’s party allegiance, as well as his commitment to public service. He renewed that sentiment after Wednesday’s video aired.

“A year ago I labeled John Fetterman ‘Trump’s favorite Democrat.’ Tonight, he yet again proves why,” Boyle wrote on social media.

Fetterman has also faced questions about his fitness for office following a series of reports that detail his apparent lack of enthusiasm for his Senate responsibilities.

A recent Wall Street Journal article found that the senator had cancelled meetings with constituents.

In one case, The Wall Street Journal said he skipped a June meeting with injured military veterans, citing illness, only to show up later for a Fox News interview about Israel and its joint war with the US on Iran.

His approval rating is now higher among Republicans in Pennsylvania than among members of his own party.

Last month, a poll from The New York Times, Siena College and The Philadelphia Inquirer suggested that 73 percent of Pennsylvania Republicans approved of Fetterman’s performance, up from 25 percent in 2024.

Meanwhile, Democratic support in the state had slid dramatically over the last two years, slipping from 74 percent to 22 percent. Some 63 percent of Democratic respondents held an unfavourable view of him.

While Fetterman has depicted himself as a maverick within the Democratic Party, he has denied that he would switch parties to become a Republican.

“I’m not going to be a Republican, but I’m going to be a Democrat that’s going to have a conversation with whoever is playing it straight,” he said in a recent interview with Fox News.

Still, speculation about Fetterman’s party credentials has continued as the midterms near.

The election on November 3 will decide which party controls Congress for the final two years of Trump’s term.

Republicans currently hold a small majority in the House of Representatives and Senate, but they could face a setback at the polls as voters express frustration over cost of living issues and Trump’s deepening unpopularity.

Still, reclaiming the Senate especially could be an uphill climb for Democrats. Only a third of Senate seats are up for re-election this year, compared with all 435 House seats.

Fetterman is not up for re-election until 2028.

Dallas, Texas – The Republican midterm convention has represented a gambit for the party: centring US President Donald Trump in the final stretch of the midterm elections, even as the first two years of his second term have cast a polarising political shadow.

That has been particularly true when it comes to the war on Iran, which Trump launched alongside Israel on February 28, and the knock-on effects on affordability in the United States, a key issue for many voters.

As Trump prepared to deliver a keynote address on Wednesday in Dallas, prices for Brent Crude, the global benchmark, rose above $100 a barrel for the first time since July, a reminder of the conflict’s continued fallout for global markets.

Nevertheless, supporters who spoke to Al Jazeera still saw the president as the man to rally Americans to vote Republican in November, as the party fights to hold onto control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

But some voiced concern – or confusion – over the impact of the war.

“This really is a Trump-a-palooza, as people have been saying,” said Carter Eisinger, a 27-year-old electrician who travelled from Fargo, North Dakota.

“I think some people say that in a derogatory way, but I think it’s very much a complimentary phrase,” he added. “The reality of it is we are in a Trump Republican Party.”

Still, Eisinger struggled to see how the war fit into Trump’s “America First” vision.

“In my opinion, I don’t really see the connection of how a war in Iran helps us here in the country,” he said. “If the Iran war is justified, I’m willing to pay the gas prices, but I haven’t seen that justification.”

He felt a similar confusion about the close relationship between the US and Israel.

“At the end of the day, I’m going to come right back to whatever is best for families, young people, anyone in America,” he said. “If it’s helping Israel in a way that helps us, then great… but it needs to help us first.”

Others were more charitable towards Trump’s approach to the Middle East, even if they saw the war on Iran as a misstep.

Bijay Dixit, a 59-year-old photographer from Houston, Texas, gave Trump high marks on his approach to immigration. He also believed Republicans were the party to steward the economy in the years ahead.

But on Iran, he said there had been a “miscalculation”, even if he agreed with the Trump administration’s position that the war was ultimately a necessary response to the totality of Iran’s actions in the 47 years since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

“Iran needed to be stopped at some point,” he said. “When I say miscalculation, what I mean is underestimation of the capacity of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps].”

Helen Vennett, a 65-year-old small business owner from Maryland and the chairman of her county’s Republican Party, likened the convention to a high-school pep rally.

“All of us need to have cheerleaders in our life… It just gets you fired up again. You kind of need to know that you’re not alone, that there are believers,” she added.

But while she said she broadly supported the Trump administration’s justification for the war, she acknowledged the potential political fallout.

“It’s a tough one,” she said.

Polls have regularly suggested widespread disapproval among US citizens of the war on Iran, with independents in particular expressing disapproval. Many, in turn, rank affordability as their top issue heading into the midterm vote.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested that only a quarter of Americans think the war is worthwhile.

For its part, the Trump administration has downplayed the prospect of ending the war, focusing instead on efforts to open shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz, over which Iran continues to assert its influence.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday as he departed for the convention, Trump sought to temper expectations that the war would end before November’s pivotal vote.

“I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterm,” he said, accusing Iran of intentionally holding out until November.

“They’re desperate to try and affect the election so that we can get a nice weak group of people in there and leave them alone and let them have their nuclear weapons,” he said.

He predicted the war would end swiftly after the final votes have been cast.

“They can’t hold out any longer,” he said.

John Russell, 55, from Rockford, Illinois, who regularly travels to Trump rallies as part of the “Front Row Joe’s” group, said he believed voters would still view the first two years of Trump’s second term as a net positive.

“It’s been a small bump with the gas going up,” he told Al Jazeera from the convention.

“But it had to be done. We can’t allow [Iran] to have a nuclear bomb,” he said, referring to one of the administration’s main justifications for the war.

Tehran has long denied seeking a nuclear weapon, with military analysts generally agreeing that destroying its nuclear programme would require a major military escalation, involving boots on the ground.

Russell predicted that the Republican Party’s bet would pay off at the polls.

“It’s going to fire up the base,” he said of the convention. “It’s going to switch some independents to vote for the Trump-backed candidates, and they will win.”

The United States Republican Party – and its talisman President Donald Trump – is descending on Dallas, Texas, to host a rare convention before the midterm elections in November.

Usually reserved for presidential election cycles, Trump’s call to hold the high-cost event before the November 3 midterm vote has underscored both the president’s unorthodox campaign style and the urgency of the political moment for his Republican Party.

Trump’s approval rating has tanked in the lead-up to the midterm vote, with polls pointing to a panoply of factors, most notably the US-Israel war on Iran and its knock-on economic effects for US consumers.

The lack of enthusiasm threatens what are already considered long-shot odds in the Republicans’ effort to hold on to control of the House of Representatives. Shifting public opinion has also put control of the Senate increasingly in play, although Democrats still face an uphill battle to pull off an upset.

A loss of control in either chamber would serve as a major check on Trump’s authority in the final two years of his second term.

But not all Republicans have bought into Trump and the party’s claims that the convention will spur voter turnout.

Several, particularly those in the tightest races, have kept the event at arm’s length amid concerns that associating with the president could only further mobilise his detractors.

Here’s what to know:

When and where is the Republican midterm convention?

The convention will be hosted at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas, on Wednesday, September 9 and Thursday, September 10.

The event is expected to run from 3pm to 9pm Central Time (20:00 to 02:00 GMT) on both days.

Trump is scheduled to speak on both nights, including a Wednesday address and the convention’s closing keynote on Thursday from 8pm to 9pm Central Time (01:00 to 02:00 GMT on Friday).

US Vice President JD Vance will close out night one with a speech.

Is this a typical political convention?

Not at all.

The Republican National Committee (RNC), the party’s official organising body, has billed the Dallas midterm convention as a “first in American political history”.

Both Democratic and Republican national conventions have historically capped the primary season before a presidential election. The emphasis has historically been on the presidential nomination process during the largely ceremonial events.

During those conventions, so-called “delegates” from every state pledge their votes for a candidate based on the primary election outcome from their home state.

A candidate who secures the required majority of delegates formally becomes the party’s presidential nominee at the convention.

Parties also typically hold several smaller meetings surrounding the event to establish and release the party’s official platform.

Why are Republicans holding a midterm convention in 2026?

To start with, there will be no nominating process – presidential or otherwise – during the event, as there is no presidential election in 2026.

Instead, the convention has taken the shape of a supercharged campaign rally and fundraiser.

It has been pitched as an opportunity to introduce candidates in punishing races to potential donors and to give a clear, if Trump-dominated, party message as the races enter their final stretch.

The RNC has promised “a primetime showcase for President Trump’s success, candidates, and causes that have propelled the 2026 midterms to unprecedented focus”.

What’s on the schedule?

There will be quite a lot. The official programme lists “53 items and speakers” on night one, followed by 56 more on night two.

The first night will focus on issues including tax cuts, healthcare affordability, immigration, border policy, trade and domestic manufacturing.

The second night will focus more on affordability and families, including policies related to taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security.

The subject areas hew closely to Trump’s wider political messaging.

The official programme gives relatively little attention to several other subjects. The US-Israel war with Iran and Trump’s aggressive tariff policy receive scant mention.

Who else is speaking?

Trump and Vance are the convention’s marquee speakers, but an array of prominent Republicans and candidates are expected to feature across the two-day programme.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is likely to get a healthy amount of stage time. Paxton is running for Senate against Democrat James Talarico, whose early lead in polling has raised alarm bells for Republicans. A Democrat has not won statewide office in Texas since 1994.

“We’re going to have a lot of speakers, and the ones we want to focus on will be obviously Ken Paxton,” Trump told reporters last week. “We gotta get him elected.”

The race is particularly personal for Trump, who endorsed MAGA-aligned Paxton over Republican Senator John Cornyn, a four-term incumbent seen by many as the surest challenger for Talarico.

Will Trump’s convention help Republicans in the midterms?

It remains to be seen whether the convention will help to turn out voters in a meaningful way.

Trump has proven a canny campaigner in the past, leveraging his eye for television spectacle to build support and turn out low-propensity voters. But several factors could limit the impact.

Trump’s Thursday night speech conflicts with the opening games of the National Football League (NFL) season. The event also runs up against several memorial events for the September 11, 2001 attacks throughout the week.

Some Republican officials have also reportedly criticised the hasty announcement of the event, which Trump called for in late June, raising questions over whether organisers will indeed be able to achieve the spectacle envisioned.

For his part, Trump enters the convention with his approval rating continuing to tank, hovering at a 38 percent average in major polls. Several of the most recent polls, including a Reuters-Ipsos poll and a Financial Times-Focaldata poll conducted in late August, reflected only a 33 percent approval.

Trump entered office in January 2025 sitting at about 52 percent approval.

Why are some Republicans skipping?

To be sure, several Republicans in key races have said they will attend the convention.

They include former Congressman Mike Rogers, who is running against Democrat Abdul El-Sayed for an open Senate seat in Michigan; Ohio Senator Jon Husted, who is facing an unnerving challenge from former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown; and Georgia Congressman Mike Collins, who is seeking to unseat Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff.

Others have been wary.

Trump’s policies in his second term have cast a long shadow, leaving many candidates calculating whether attendance could backfire and instead energise voters opposed to Trump.

Democratic primary turnout in several key states – including Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas and Georgia – has soared this year, while Republican turnout has remained steady but unextraordinary, as reported by The Associated Press news agency. That has been a worrying sign for Republicans.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican incumbent seen as vulnerable in her race against Democrat Troy Jackson, has been among those who have said they will not attend.

Several candidates in key House races have pointed to prior commitments.

Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks told The Bulwark she preferred to spend her time in her home district in Iowa, where she faces a challenge from Democrat Christina Bohannan.

“Because I have a district that I have to be in and take care of, so I’ll be in my district,” she explained about her decision.

Miller-Meeks eked out a victory over Bohannan in 2024, winning by a margin of just 0.1 percent.

Are Democrats countering?

Several left-leaning groups are organising protests.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has announced that four Democratic lawmakers will travel to Dallas for counterprogramming during the Republican convention.

However, the cash-strapped Democratic National Committee (DNC) has avoided holding its own midterm convention.

The committee went into debt in the wake of the 2024 presidential election, even putting up its Washington, DC-based headquarters as collateral for a $15m loan, the NOTUS news site reported in July.

The RNC has not yet released a final price tag for its convention.