Donald Trump

Published on 09/09/2026 – 10:16 GMT+2•Updated
10:22

The front month contract on Brent crude, the international standard for oil prices, crossed $100 per barrel again on Wednesday morning while the US standard, WTI, hovered around $95.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Prices have risen almost 20% since the middle of last week as fighting around the world’s most important oil chokepoint has once again intensified.

It is also the first time since 23 July that oil has hit the $100 mark.

US Central Command said its forces destroyed five Iranian tankers carrying crude oil on 8 September after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard fired ballistic missiles at a US Navy warship twice within two days. The command did not identify the ship, but said it was not hit and continued patrolling regional waters.

It followed a similar strike on 5 September, when Iranian forces fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and a destroyer, both of which evaded the attack. The command responded by disabling or destroying three Iranian tankers.

Tehran retaliated by firing missiles at a US military base in Jordan, where air defences intercepted most of them, and renewed threats to target tankers in Kuwaiti and Bahraini waters.

Iran has also repeatedly warned vessels against using unauthorised routes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran would soon declare an exclusion zone outside the strait, warning that any vessel entering without Iranian coordination would be added to a sanctions list.

Saudi Arabia has been drawn in too, with Aramco facilities at Jazan attacked again on Monday, though damage was reported as limited.

Roughly 7 million barrels a day are still moving through the Strait of Hormuz, against about 20 million before the war began on 28 February.

No end in sight

The military escalation is running alongside a financial one.

Washington launched Operation Economic Outcast in late August, an effort to sever Iran from the global financial system by targeting its access to digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping.

The US Treasury designated close to 60 companies, individuals and vessels at the outset and has signalled fresh measures weekly, with the European Union endorsing the campaign this month.

Rhetoric on both sides has hardened.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the country “will destroy [and sink]” Iranian oil tankers if Iran fires on American vessels while the Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf replied by stating “strike our assets and you get struck”.

US President Donald Trump has continued to insist the waterway is functioning, posting on Truth Social last week that “Hormuz volumes are BACK” and claiming 18 million barrels a day were flowing.

However, the US Energy Secretary Chris Wright put Monday’s figure at 17 million barrels of crude and products combined, while acknowledging the multi-day rolling average is considerably lower.

During last week’s White House press conference, US Vice President JD Vance also declined to categorise the ongoing conflict as a war and stated that “the only reason we do not have a worldwide energy crisis is because of the leadership of the President.”

Faced with the latest developments, analysts are adjusting upward.

Goldman Sachs raised its Brent and WTI forecasts by $5 on Monday to $85 and $80, respectively, for December and warned prices could exceed $120 next year should Gulf output remain 4 million barrels a day below pre-war levels, though the bank does not treat that as its base case.

Reading scores among 15-year-olds in the United States have fallen to the lowest level in about 25 years, according to an international education assessment.

On Tuesday, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released findings from the 2025 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a global metric for educational achievement.

The results showed that US reading scores fell 14 points from 2022, the last time PISA results were released.

The decline was part of a broader international trend, with an OECD average from 23 countries also dropping 16 points.

But the US stood out for the size of its performance gap. Some 25.7 percent of US students were ranked as low performers in reading, while 13.3 percent were flagged as top performers.

“Looking across all 90 participating countries, there was not a single country with significantly wider inequality in reading scores than the US,” Michael Kieffer, a professor of literacy education at New York University, told Al Jazeera. “What is clear is that we are under-serving many students.”

The PISA results come as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks to reshape the federal government’s role in education.

In March 2025, Trump issued an executive order calling on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin the process of dismantling the Department of Education, a federal agency that tracks student achievement, distributes federal education funds and enforces civil rights in schools.

The Education Department, however, does not establish school curriculums or academic standards. That responsibility has traditionally fallen to state and local authorities.

Still, Trump pointed to slipping test scores as a reason to shutter the department. He has also denounced the department for its “entrenched bureaucracy” and called for its responsibilities to be redistributed to the states.

In response to a request for comment on Tuesday, McMahon sent a statement to Al Jazeera echoing Trump’s push.

“The United States of America is a nation built to lead the world, yet our one-size-fits-all federal education bureaucracy has shortchanged our children and stifled our future,” McMahon wrote.

The White House has argued that federal education spending is excessive and has failed to translate into higher standardised test scores.

Since the Education Department was founded in 1979, it has spent more than $3 trillion, according to the White House.

“This moment is a stress test for our nation’s future,” McMahon said in her statement to Al Jazeera. “To pass it, we must enact a hard reset that stops protecting a failed status quo and instead builds a system that empowers state leaders and embraces innovative learning options through school choice.”

“School choice” has been a rallying cry for many US conservatives. The term refers to the practice of diverting taxpayer money away from public education to help parents finance alternative choices for their child’s schooling, like charter schools, homeschooling or private institutions.

The practice is controversial. Critics have accused the “school choice” system of weakening public education in favour of less regulated school systems that receive money with little oversight.

But since returning to office in 2025, Trump has embraced “school choice” as a form of “educational freedom”.

Last year, the Education Department announced $500m for its Charter School Program, touting the funds as the “largest investment” the initiative has ever received.

The money was earmarked to allow states to expand their charter school systems and fund new charter-school developers.

In July 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Trump’s signature piece of legislation – also created the first federal tax credit for donations to organisations that provide scholarships for primary and secondary school students, including for private-school tuition and tutoring.

Last month, Trump hosted a “school choice”-themed event at the White House to kick off the start of the new school year.

But critics warn that greater investment in education is needed across the board to reverse diminishing test scores.

“PISA 2025 shows that reversing declines in student performance is urgent,” OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said in a statement.

“The most successful education systems focus on fewer areas in greater depth, invest in teachers, engage parents and provide targeted support for the students and schools that need it the most.”

It’s not your imagination. Political discourse on Twitter really has grown meaner in recent years, according to a new study.

The research, published Thursday in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that the level of incivility in tweets by members of Congress increased by 23% between 2009 and 2019 — a change the study’s authors attribute in part to how Twitter’s “like” and “retweet” buttons reinforce the spread of toxic content.

Its findings mark “the first robust evidence that incivility is rising among American politicians on Twitter,” wrote the study’s authors, hailing from several U.S. and Canadian universities.

Researchers examined 1.3 million tweets from official congressional accounts between 2009 and 2019. To quantify the levels of incivility, they used artificial intelligence to analyze the messages and assign a toxicity score from 0 to 100, reflecting the likelihood that someone would consider the text to be rude or disrespectful.

The analysis classified a 2009 tweet by then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) with a high incivility score of 45.1 for accusing a rival of “going AWOL” from his congressional post. And a 2019 tweet by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) — which said another politician was “endorsing infanticide & proudly doing it!” — scored at 47.6.

To some degree, the increasingly antagonistic tone is due to more civil members of Congress being replaced by less civil ones, the study says. But the findings attribute more of the shift to members themselves changing over time and posting more provocative tweets.

The increase in incivility was most pronounced among liberal Democrats, especially in the first half of President Trump’s term.

“They were much more likely to be reacting negatively to Donald Trump — both his behaviors and his tweets,” said Robb Willer, a co-author and director of the Polarization and Social Change Lab at Stanford University.

The study analyzed tweets during President Obama’s two terms and the first two years of Trump’s presidency. (The sample did not include posts from the contentious 2020 election or the start of President Biden’s term.)

The analysis also evaluated Obama’s and Trump’s tweets. Obama’s posts had an average incivility score of 13.4, which remained fairly steady over his two terms. In Trump’s first year, his score was 18.8, and it climbed to 23.0 by 2019.

The study didn’t place any moral judgments on Twitter incivility, Willer said. People sending harshly worded tweets “might have all sorts of explanations that might be morally well-founded and valid for why they engaged in the speech they did.”

Whatever the motivation, the more toxic tweets stand out in Twitter’s crowded online platform. The average congressional tweets were not especially uncivil, with relatively low scores. But the tweets with higher toxicity scores tended to get much more attention, via retweets and likes, which increase the public’s exposures to such messages and make incivility seem more prominent than it actually is, according to the study.

The study’s results indicate “the people running these accounts are learning from these metrics they can see and doing more of whatever gets likes and retweets,” Willer said.

But, as the common Twitter disclaimer goes, retweets and likes don’t equal endorsement. People may retweet a message to draw attention to content they dislike, for example. Willer said their research indicated that users are largely not fond of toxic tweets, despite appearances to the contrary.

“There’s a possibility here that the Twitter platform, with its pretty spare metrics, may be misleading people that certain tweets are more popular with people … than they really are,” Willer said.

Just as congressional Twitter feeds have grown more toxic, so have the tweets of the general population, the authors said, based on a rough sample of civilian posts.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), one of the most prolific tweeters of California’s congressional delegation, said he wasn’t surprised to hear that incivility has grown on the platform — which he blamed partly on anonymous users and bots. His own feed has plenty of pointed messages to Republicans, often delivered with dry humor, as well as standard fare highlighting his work in Congress.

After 13 years on the platform, Lieu said it’s still hard to predict what will take off in the Twittersphere.

“Sometimes I’ll write what I think is an amazing tweet about a very important policy point and get only a few” likes or retweets, he said. But an evening observation that Scotch and peanut butter make a tasty combination will yield “astronomical” engagement.

One consistent factor for a viral tweet: Trump.

“What I’ve found is in the last five years, when the former president would say something stupid or say something false, and I responded to that, that would get higher engagement,” Lieu said. “If the former president is going to say 27 false things a week, I’m going to try to highlight all 27 false things he said.”

While Twitter has not been seen as a hub of civility for some time, some on the platform expressed fears this week that the tone may worsen now that Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk is set to take the reins. Musk says Twitter’s current system of content moderation clamps down on speech. He has said he wants fewer restrictions on what can and cannot be posted, although he has not given many specifics; users have warned that loosening the rules could lead to upticks in harassment, abuse or pornographic images.

Republicans, meanwhile, have celebrated Musk’s takeover, anticipating he will lift moderation that they see as silencing their views. Among other issues, they object to Trump and other prominent right-wing politicians being blocked or suspended from the site. And Twitter’s fact-checking of false claims of election fraud and COVID-19 misinformation has had a disproportionate effect on right-leaning accounts.

“The most uncivil aspect of Twitter is the company’s transparent censoring of free speech and silencing of conservatives,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall). “Additionally, the platform will not reach its potential or best serve its users until it demonstrates a commitment to fundamental fairness. I’m optimistic that may soon happen.”

Voters in two US states — New Hampshire and Rhode Island — will head to the polls this week to select Democratic and Republican candidates for this November’s United States midterm elections.

In what’s been a campaign season full of unexpected twists and turns, from the continued growth of the Democrats’ progressive arm to mixed results for President Donald Trump-endorsed Republican candidates, the contests mark some of the last primaries before the US makes a final determination on which party will control both chambers of the US Congress.

Before that happens, candidates in some of these New England states’ most notable races will have to contend with some of this midterm’s biggest themes: How much Republicans should align with Trump, and whether a Democratic incumbent can fight off a primary challenger.

Here are the races to watch:

In New Hampshire, a battle to replace a retiring senator

• When does voting in New Hampshire start? Opening times for polling locations vary across the state, but all polls must open on Tuesday, September 8 by 11am (15:00 GMT).
• When does voting in New Hampshire end? Closing times also vary, but state law stipulates polls cannot close earlier than 7pm (23:00 GMT).

The most notable race in New Hampshire will determine the two candidates who will face off to replace outgoing Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

US Representative Chris Pappas has emerged as the frontrunner to win the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, John Sununu holds the benefit of strong name recognition from being a part of the state’s most prominent political dynasty.

Democrats have hoped to retain this seat, a critical must-keep as they look to take back the US Senate currently controlled by Republicans. But recent polling of likely voters conducted by Senate Republicans’ campaign arm shows Sununu leading Pappas by one point. The survey, conducted in the final days of August, found nearly one in four voters are undecided.

However, both candidates, if they win their primaries on Tuesday, may have to confront actions by their party’s top figures, who could complicate their campaigns.

In the Democratic primary, Pappas remains the favourite, but his lead has dropped by double digits, according to some polls.

Pappas’s closest opponent is democratic socialist Karishma Manzur, who has picked up support, in part, over her calls to “end US complicity in the genocide of Palestinians”. While Pappas has stressed the importance of the current US-Israel relationship, the congressman has also said he supports a two-state solution and “increasing” aid to Gaza.

Manzur has criticised Pappas for connections to political donors, including those connected to Israel.

Former US Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed Pappas last week. Harris’s support, which Pappas said he was “proud” to receive, could help him across the finish line in the state’s Democratic primary, where most of the party’s voters lean more moderate. Pappas has served in the US House since 2019 and has held elected office almost continuously since graduating from college in 2002. He defeated Karoline Leavitt in his 2022 reelection bid before her stint as Trump’s White House press secretary.

In the Republican primary, Sununu is running to recapture the Senate seat he once held before being defeated by Shaheen in 2008. He faces Scott Brown, also a former senator who once held Massachusetts US Senator Elizabeth Warren’s seat, along with seven other opponents.

Sununu has been trying to put distance between himself and Trump. Trump is, however, backing Sununu over Brown in the primary, despite an ongoing war of words he’s had with Sununu’s family over the years — Sununu’s father and brother have both served as governor, and all have been critical of Trump.

Brown won a special election in Massachusetts after the death of Senator Ted Kennedy in 2009, lost his seat three years later, and unsuccessfully challenged Shaheen in 2014. In Trump’s first administration, Brown served as the US Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa.

In Rhode Island, can an unpopular sitting Democratic governor fight off a challenge?

• When does voting in Rhode Island start? With the exception of one town, voting starts on Wednesday, September 9 at 7am (11:00 GMT).
• When does voting in Rhode Island end? Polls close at 8pm on Wednesday (00:00 GMT on Thursday).

Unlike other states this election cycle, the biggest race in Rhode Island is for governor, not for seats in the US Congress.

Vulnerable Democratic Governor Dan McKee is fighting off a strong primary challenge from pharmacy executive Helena Foulkes.

The highly unpopular incumbent has trailed Foulkes, whose grandfather and uncle were both lawmakers in the neighbouring US state of Connecticut, by as much as 38 points, according to a recent poll. Foulkes has also outraised McKee.

This race is a rematch of a bitter, hard-fought primary four years ago, when McKee, who had been elevated to governor when his predecessor became former US President Joe Biden’s commerce secretary, narrowly beat Foulkes in a crowded race.

While most of this year’s competitive midterm primaries have centred on ideological or generational differences, the outcome of this race could come down to complaints about a freeway bridge in Providence, the state’s largest city, that was partially closed in 2023 due to safety issues.

The resulting congestion and economic fallout caused by the closure have fuelled strong voter resentment towards McKee, one of the most endangered elected Democrats this cycle. Should McKee be unsuccessful in warding off Foulkes, he would become the first sitting US governor to lose a primary in eight years.

In the Republican primary, Aaron Guckian and Elaine Pelino are vying for the nomination. Guckian is a state trade association executive and was the nominee for lieutenant governor in 2022. He won the two-way primary that year with about 68 percent of the vote. Pelino is a former actress and first-time candidate. The state’s  Republican Party has endorsed Guckian.

It’s been 20 years since Rhode Island elected a Republican governor.

Trade tensions soar as Canada matches US tariffs ‘dollar-for-dollar’, impacting 700 products and multiple industries.

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on imports from the United States have taken effect, escalating the trade dispute between the two countries.

Tariffs ranging from 15 percent to 50 percent will apply to nearly $20bn worth of US imports from 12:01am ET (04:01 GMT) on Tuesday, matching US-imposed levies on Canadian goods including machinery, textiles and consumer products.

The new retaliatory tariffs apply to products including steel, household appliances, agricultural equipment and dairy.

“Canada will match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families, and businesses,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters in late August.

US President Donald Trump announced 50 percent tariffs against Canada in July, citing “discriminatory treatment” of US products. The announcement prompted the countries to enter trade talks in August, but a final deal failed to materialise before a deadline imposed by Trump.

“Canada wants the benefits of being a State, without being one!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social in response to Canada’s announcement in August.

The Canadian government said in a statement that the counter-tariffs will impact more than 700 products, adding that it would launch a $5.42bn support package for affected small and medium-sized businesses and workers.

On the eve of Ottawa imposing its tariffs, Trump threatened to block Canada-based aircraft manufacturer Bombardier from selling its planes in the US unless it began manufacturing them in the country.

The dispute has also extended beyond tariffs, with Trump signing an order last month renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” for US federal use.

The retaliatory tariffs could place a financial burden on US automakers as Canada is the largest buyer of US-manufactured cars.

Americans could soon see increased prices on 550 consumer goods from Canada. According to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, US importers and consumers absorb 96 percent of the tariff burden.

Rightward shift in Latin America comes as Washington pledges to grow influence, take militaristic approach to cartels.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio is travelling to three South American countries whose recently elected leaders have closely aligned with President Donald Trump’s administration.

Rubio will travel to Colombia on Tuesday to meet with newly elected President Abelardo de la Espriella. He will then visit Ecuador to meet with President Daniel Noboa before going to Peru, where he will meet with another newly elected leader, Keiko Fujimori.

The State Department has not yet released a more in-depth agenda for the trip, saying only that Rubio will discuss “US support for Colombia’s earthquake response; enhanced cooperation in the shared fight against narcoterrorism, which threatens our hemisphere; and the benefits of deeper commercial relationships between our countries”.

The trip comes amid a rightward shift in Latin America that has seen several Trump-aligned leaders take office. Beyond the three countries, Trump also backed Honduran President Nasry Asfura, who won the presidency in November, and Bolivia’s Rodrigo Paz, who won in October.

Beyond the new leaders, Trump has also closely aligned with Argentina’s Javier Milei, who took office in 2023, and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, who became the leader in 2019.

US influence over Western Hemisphere

Rubio’s visit comes as the Trump administration has pledged to assert more influence over the Western Hemisphere in what Trump has referred to as the “Donroe Doctrine”, a reference to the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine that opposed European interference in the Americas.

It has shifted to a militaristic approach to security in Latin American countries, while broadly reframing efforts to combat drug trafficking as a war against “narco-terrorists”.

In August, Colombia’s de la Espriella upped cooperation with the US by joining the Trump administration’s so-called “Shield of the Americas”.

The 19 members of the group have jointly pledged a “commitment to using lethal military force to destroy the sinister cartels and terrorist networks”.

Unlike his predecessor, leftist Gustavo Petro, de la Espriella has also praised US military strikes on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. At least 227 people have been killed in those strikes, in what rights groups have condemned as extrajudicial killings.

Family members of those killed have charged that the targets were fishermen, not drug smugglers.

The US has proven a major supporter for de la Espriella in the wake of a devastating earthquake in Colombia last month in which at least 330 people were killed and thousands left homeless.

In March, the US military announced it was collaborating with Ecuador, under Noboa’s leadership, to target drug trafficking groups in the country.

Ecuador’s Interior Minister John Reimberg defended the US strikes on vessels allegedly carrying drugs in an interview with broadcaster Teleamazonas last week.

Peru’s Fujimori, the daughter of former leader Alberto Fujimori, who notoriously dissolved the country’s Congress and Supreme Court to consolidate power during his government from 1990 to 2000, has also pledged closer ties with the US and a military crackdown on criminal groups.

Conservative shift

Rubio’s visit comes after the US announced a controversial agreement with Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez. The deal, struck in the wake of the January 3 US abduction of Venezuela’s ex-President Nicolas Maduro, grants US companies access to 65 billion barrels of crude oil reserves over the next 100 years.

It also comes as Washington has continued to up its pressure campaign against Cuba, with Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez on Monday rejecting any talks with the US despite its ongoing fuel blockade of the island.

Brazil and Mexico remain the only regional powers with leftist leaders. Rubio has called the region’s conservative lurch an “extraordinary achievement”.

The shift has accompanied the strengthening of ties between Israel and several Latin American countries since Trump took office.

Brazilians will go to the polls in October, when Flavio Bolsonaro, a son of former right-wing leader Jair Bolsonaro, seeks to unseat Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Trump has remained a staunch ally of the elder Bolsonaro, who has been sentenced to 27 years in prison for leading a conspiracy to hold onto power.

The US president has also shown strong support for the younger Bolsonaro, including inviting him to the White House in May.

Manila defence chief says Washington gave ‘definite assurances’ that its commitments to the Philippines remain.

Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro has warned that Beijing could view recent cuts to the joint US-South Korea military drills as an opportunity to reassert itself in the Asia Pacific.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Seoul Defense Dialogue, an annual multilateral security forum, Teodoro said that “China is very quick to exploit gaps”, when asked on Monday whether Beijing could seize on the move.

He added that Washington had given Manila “definite assurances” that the US commitments to the Philippines remained unchanged.

He also accused China of exploiting democratic systems to spread “distortive narratives”.

South Korea and the US shortened the duration of their annual joint military drills and scaled back field training exercises last month after US President Donald Trump ordered a “substantial reduction” in the annual war games.

The US-led Ulchi Freedom Shield war games ended six days earlier than originally planned.

Trump cited his “very good relationship” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and linked the decision to Seoul’s refusal to join the US and Israel’s war on Iran at the time.

Last week, South Korea’s presidential office said it was mulling “contributions” to the US’s freedom of navigation ⁠in the Strait of Hormuz. The presidential office later clarified that nothing has been decided, as any military deployment by South Korea requires a decision by the country’s National Security Council, a resolution at a cabinet meeting, and consent from the National Assembly.

Trump said he planned to meet with Kim later this year. Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, later released a statement denying any ongoing communication between the US president and her brother and maintained that Washington continues to engage in a “hostile” policy towards her country, despite the warm relationship between the two leaders.

US, South Korea and Japan hold trilateral military drills

The US, South Korea and Japan are due to hold five days of military drills in waters east and south of South Korea’s Jeju Island starting on Monday.

South Korea’s military said in a statement that the Freedom Edge exercise is defensive in nature and meant to respond to North Korean nuclear and missile threats as well as promote regional peace and stability.

North Korea has previously slammed the trilateral drill as a “reckless show of strength” that proved its adversaries’ confrontational stance. Pyongyang has also said the drill contained a US intention to lay siege to China and exert pressure on Russia.

Free and fair elections are foundational to our representative democracy. A government intended to reflect and honor the will of the people works only if the people can express their will. That’s why we have elections.

But don’t take the word of your friendly political columnist.

John Lewis, the late Georgia congressman and hero of the civil rights movement, said voting is precious and “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society.” Former President Reagan called the right to vote “the crown jewel of American liberties.”

Alas, we have a president who believes his most precious right, apart from lining his silken pockets, is nursing his over-ripened ego. Donald Trump can’t stand the fact he lost the 2020 election — which he most emphatically did — and so he’s built a carapace of lies: about illegal ballots, rigged election machinery, rampant voting by noncitizens, and so on.

Worse than his deceit — which has deeply undermined faith in our elections and the dedicated people who run them — is Trump’s brazen efforts to rig the system by disenfranchising millions of voters, all so he can keep Democrats from winning office.

Reagan, no less than Lewis, probably is turning cartwheels in his grave.

But there’s a chance to push back. In November, voters in 26 states will elect a secretary of state, choosing the officials who will oversee the 2028 presidential race throughout most of the country. What could possibly go wrong?

Let’s hope we don’t find out.

The secretary of state used to be one of those ministerial posts that few outside government knew or much cared about; from a political standpoint, the office and its occupant seemed dull and dry as Melba toast. That changed after 2000, when Republican Katherine Harris placed her weighty thumb on the scale and helped deliver Florida’s 25 electoral votes, and the White House, to George W. Bush.

What really politicized the office of secretary of state, though, was Trump’s obsessive compulsion with his 2020 defeat.

Spurred by his incessant lies about supposed fraud, allies and opportunists set out to hijack the country’s election machinery and do Trump’s dirty work from the inside. In 2022, a group calling itself the America First SOS Coalition endorsed a slate of cranks and quacks who ran for secretary of state in 14 states, including the presidential battlegrounds of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.

FILE – Tina Peters, former Mesa County, Colo., clerk, listens during her trial, March 3, 2023, in Grand Junction, Colo. (Scott Crabtree/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel via AP, Pool, File)

(Scott Crabtree / Associated Press)

Thankfully, all of them lost, save for one candidate in Indiana. Among those defeated was Tina Peters, the former county elections chief in Mesa County, Colo., who went on to infamy, and prison, for orchestrating a security breach aimed at “proving” 2020 votes were stolen from Trump. (Never mind that he won the county by nearly 30 percentage points.)

The SOS Coalition apparently is defunct; its website address now leads to an online gambling portal.

But more than two dozen election deniers ran for secretary of state this year, according to States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group that works to promote fair and secure elections nationwide. Six of those candidates won their primaries and made it to November’s ballot, including in three states — Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin — that promise to be key once more to picking the next president.

The stakes in those races are considerable, said Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri expert on state elections. “Who’s going to be administering [election] rules? How they’re going to interpret those rules?” he said, offering examples of the office’s import. “Whether they’re going to try to make it more difficult to vote, or easier to vote. Whether they’re going to try to engage in activities that will further raise doubts in some people’s minds about how fairly the election has been conducted.”

Nevada Republican Jim Marchant is among the election deniers running for secretary of state in November. He lost four years ago after promoting Donald Trump’s false claims he beat Joe Biden.

(Ricardo Torres-Cortez / Associated Press)

The contest in Nevada is a rerun of 2022, when Democrat Cisco Aguilar narrowly defeated Republican Jim Marchant. Undeterred, Marchant continues to spout gibberish about sabotaged voting machines and other far-fetched claims of election chicanery. Among the remedies he’s floated, according to the Nevada Independent, is using technology to measure voters’ heartbeat as a way to verify their identity.

Um…

Meanwhile, in Arizona, incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes faces Republican state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, an attorney who was sanctioned by the State Bar for pursuing baseless claims of 2020 election fraud. One of his Trump-inspired lawsuits was swiftly rejected by a federal judge who noted its conspicuous lack of “relevant or reliable evidence” — thus raising doubts not just about Kolodin’s discernment but also his capacity to cover even the basics.

In Wisconsin, where elections are overseen by a six-member, bipartisan commission, Republican Jay Schroeder is running on a pledge to dismantle that fair-minded system, calling it a “failed experiment.” Had he been secretary of state in 2020, Schroeder told NBC News, he would not have certified Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

That’s all you need to know, Wisconsin.

Great amounts of time, energy and resources are being devoted this election to races for Congress and for statehouses across the country, which makes sense.

Control of both the House and Senate are in play on Nov. 3. There are more than a dozen gubernatorial contests with at least some degree of competition, including close races in Ohio, Georgia and Wisconsin.

But with so much riding on the outcome, it’s also worth paying heed to those down-ballot races for secretary of state.

You can’t keep elections on the straight and narrow if the people running them are crooked.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday said the Iran war was “small potatoes” and “not a big thing.”

Trump was responding to questions about comments by Vice President J.D. Vance, who had said a day earlier that the conflict wasn’t a war.

“A lot of people don’t call it a war,” Trump told reporters. “I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us.

“It’s not a big thing. We did Venezuela, and we did this.”

Trump described the war as intermittent and a flare-up, USA Today reported.

Hours earlier, on his Truth Social platform, Trump explicitly called the conflict “the War in Iran.”

“The Radical Left Lunatics, Dumocrats, and Communists would rather have us LOSE the War in Iran, than have President Donald J. Trump WIN the War for America,” he wrote early Friday afternoon.

A day earlier, Vance told reporters there had been “no active shooting” and downplayed the severity of the war.

“I wouldn’t call it a war,” Vance told reporters at the White House.

Trump agreed with his vice president.

“I would say it’s a military conflict, if you want,” Trump said on Friday. “I don’t think it matters what you call it.

“What matters is the fact that we have had tremendous success.”