election

VICTORIA, British Columbia — A Canadian provincial premier called a snap election Tuesday, saying President Trump’s attacks on Canada are threatening jobs, businesses and the country’s ability to determine its own future.

The provincial election comes after U.S.-Canada trade talks broke down, deepening a dispute that has brought steep tariffs. British Columbia Premier David Eby effectively put Trump on the ballot, arguing the election offers British Columbians a choice between his government’s efforts to resist U.S. economic pressure and opponents he accused of embracing “MAGA-style politics.”

“Join us saying hell no to Trump and to his politics,” Eby said in announcing the Oct. 24 election.

Eby said Trump’s trade war and threats against Canada have changed conditions in British Columbia enough to justify an election two years early.

“Donald Trump is attacking our workers, he’s targeting our businesses, and he is threatening our sovereignty,” Eby said. “He’s threatening our ability to make decisions for ourselves.”

The left-leaning New Democratic Party leader said British Columbia needs to build a “firebreak” against Trump’s economic policies by protecting workers and businesses, reducing its dependence on the United States and finding new markets for Canadian products.

“This isn’t just a trade dispute,” Eby said. “It’s about the life that you and your family are building.”

Eby said British Columbia’s exports to the United States have fallen 4% while exports to other markets have risen 16%.

He also vowed to keep American alcohol off provincial shelves, saying “not one drop of Jack Daniels” would return until Canada gets a fair deal with the United States.

The New Democrats won a narrow majority in the 2024 provincial election, giving Eby enough seats to govern without relying on another party, and he was not required to call another election until 2028.

The election call also comes amid turmoil among the opposition British Columbia Conservatives. Kerry-Lynne Findlay resigned as party leader Sunday following a wave of defections and expulsions from her caucus. Lorne Doerkson was named interim leader.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is running in October’s election for a fourth non-consecutive mandate as Brazil’s president.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Senator Flavio Bolsonaro remain deadlocked in the latest polls, with the first round of Brazil’s election less than two weeks away.

Two new polls on Monday showed that the pair are statistically tied in simulated runoffs ahead of next month’s election. If no candidate wins more than 50 percent of valid votes in the October 4 first round, the two frontrunners advance to a runoff on October 25.

Lula is seeking a fourth non-consecutive term as Brazil’s president, but faces a challenge from the political right in Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, an ally of US President Donald Trump.

The elder Bolsonaro was ruled ineligible for office after Brazil’s top electoral court found he had abused his power while in office. He was later convicted separately over a plot to overturn his 2022 election loss to Lula.

A Quaest poll released on Monday showed Bolsonaro with 42 percent of voter support in a potential runoff, versus 41 percent for Lula.

Meanwhile, a BTG Pactual/Nexus poll has Lula receiving 46 percent of voter support, compared with 45 percent for Bolsonaro in a potential runoff.

The latest polls mark a narrowing from an earlier Quaest poll on August 5, which put Lula ahead by a wider five-point margin, 44 percent to 39 percent.

US pressure looms over election

Lula launched his re-election bid on August 2 at the Workers’ Party convention in Sao Paulo, casting himself as a defender of Brazilian “sovereignty” as pressure from the US administration looms over the race.

The US imposed two fresh rounds of tariffs on Brazilian products in July, which Lula denounced as an attempt to influence the elections through economic pressure.

The Brazilian leader is currently in New York, where he is preparing to address the United Nations General Assembly.

Lula met New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for the first time on Monday. In a brief statement to reporters after the meeting, the Brazilian president said the two had talked about problems common to both Brazil and the United States, particularly the rising cost of living.

Victory of United Russia party strengthens Putin’s hand even as the war with Ukraine grows more unpopular.

President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party has won a record supermajority in tightly orchestrated parliamentary polls that excluded virtually any genuine opposition, near complete official results show.

With over 58 percent of votes secured, United Russia, which has dominated Russian politics for 25 years, is on track to win more than three quarters of the seats in the lower house, the State Duma, according to the results announced on Monday after three days of voting that ended on Sunday.

The polls were the first parliamentary vote since Russian forces invaded Ukraine in 2022 and the first to include residents of four Ukrainian regions that were seized and illegally annexed by Moscow later that year.

Reporting from Moscow, Al Jazeera’s Dmitry Medvedenko said the results, along with a high voter turnout of almost 60 percent, “is likely to be seen by Moscow as emboldening, as public support for what it is doing, especially for what it’s doing in Ukraine for the continuation of the war”.

Ella Pamfilova, chair of the Central Electoral Commission, said Yabloko, the only registered anti-war party in Russia, did not win any seats at the national level. It had been removed from the ballot last month by Russia’s Supreme Court and only had a few dozen candidates in single-seat races.

Yabloko did enter the regional parliament in western Russia’s Novgorod region. It said on social media that it received about 12,000 votes – just over six percent of votes and enough to enter the regional legislature.

Yabloko and the Communist Party, which has criticised some aspects of government policy but carefully avoided any criticism of Putin, said many of their observers were turned away from polling stations.

The Communists made it into parliament with 13.8 percent of the vote, securing 40 Duma seats. The nationalist LDPR party won 25 seats and the New People party 20.

Russia did not invite observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which the Foreign Ministry has accused of “double standards” for its criticism of the country. OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President Pere Joan Pons said the decision to exclude observers violated Russia’s commitments as a member.

‘Surprise to nobody’

Many Russians appeared unsurprised by the poll results.

“In the morning, I saw that ⁠⁠United Russia was winning. It probably comes as a surprise to nobody,” said Moscow resident Tatyana.

Asked what she would like to change, she said: “Well, I guess everyone knows the most acute thing – the conflict in Ukraine. I’d like to see it end sooner, with peaceful methods if possible”.

The continuation of the war risks entrenching policies, which are increasingly affecting average Russians and the parliamentary supermajority may struggle to change the dynamic.

“Putin, of course, will interpret United Russia’s results as confirmation of the (public) support of the war, even though it is not the case: The overall demand for ending the war is growing,” said Tatyana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in an online commentary.

“The main question is: What now? There are great concerns about mobilisation, new repressions, harsher measures and escalation,” she wrote.

Western criticism

The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas dismissed Russia’s “so-called” election.

“The Kremlin silenced dissent, barred the only registered party that opposed its war in Ukraine and shut out international election monitors. The veneer of democracy is all that remains in Russia,” Kallas said.

In a joint statement, five countries, including Australia, Britain and Canada, condemned Russia’s “sham” parliamentary elections in areas of occupied Ukraine, branding them “part of a wider system of occupation”.

With the deadline for mailing out millions of California ballots nearing, Los Angeles County’s top election official welcomed the U.S. Postal Service’s recent assurance that it will process those ballots as normal — not under the untested new vetting system backed by President Trump and rejected as unworkable by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“That certainly serves as a stabilizing force, as we’re literally weeks away from mailing the ballots,” said Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office.

Still, there are other Trump administration challenges to deal with, he said — including unsubstantiated public claims of widespread voter fraud, refusals by top-ranking officials to rule out deployments of armed federal agents to polling places, and behind-the-scenes criminal probes into local voter lists.

Since March, Logan’s office has received a series of federal grand jury subpoenas demanding voter registration and other information on dozens of individuals who the Trump administration says may not be U.S. citizens, Logan confirmed to The Times.

Logan said his office is now in the “interesting place” of having to comply with the subpoenas despite suspecting that the Department of Homeland Security relied on inaccurate or outdated voter information to compile the names to investigate.

“We’re responding appropriately as directed through a subpoena, but that doesn’t afford the dialogue for us to get the background on what they’re looking for and how they came up with the names that they did,” Logan said. “There’s really no information being provided to us on that.”

The subpoenas appear to mirror others received by elections officials elsewhere in the country as part of a new Homeland Security effort to identify noncitizen voting, which Trump has long alleged without evidence is widespread.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin publicly claimed, again without evidence, that there may be more than 190,000 such voters on California rolls. On Friday, the Justice Department announced it had charged 16 noncitizens in six states with illegal voting and other election-related crimes following investigations alongside its Homeland Security partners.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber dismissed Mullin’s claims. Independent elections experts and Democratic officials say voter fraud should be taken seriously, but is exceedingly rare. California has more than 23 million registered voters.

Mullin’s remarks and the subpoenas appear part of a much larger and unprecedented federal effort to bolster allegations from Trump that the upcoming Nov. 3 elections are unsafe and corrupted by noncitizen voters.

Trump issued two executive orders, one requiring voters to provide additional identification and proof of citizenship, and one ordering the Postal Service to refuse mail ballots it deems illegitimate. The Justice Department has sued California and other states for their voter rolls, and Homeland Security has threatened state elections officials with criminal sanctions if they don’t purge noncitizens from their rolls.

Trump gave a speech in July alleging that the American election system is “so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.” Earlier this month, he encouraged his supporters to “cheat like hell” to keep Republicans in power, and told them they would receive $5,000 each if they succeed — which many experts derided as a “bribe.”

Last week, FBI Director Kash Patel refused to rule out sending federal agents to polls.

Despite all that, California officials and independent elections experts have maintained the election will be safe — in part because Trump’s executive orders and the Justice Department’s many lawsuits seeking state voter rolls have all been blocked by the courts.

“The bottom line for voters in California right now is nothing has changed. We’ve had safe and secure elections, and we will continue to do so,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

Logan said it “is clear that the administration is aggressively pursuing their narrative” about voter fraud being widespread as part of Trump’s old “playbook” of questioning votes he expects to lose — but that the election in California will nonetheless “be fair and secure and transparent.”

The fight over fraud

At least three subpoenas have been issued to Logan’s office — one in March, one in July and one this month — including from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of California, The Times confirmed.

U.S. Atty. Adam Gordon, who leads the federal prosecutor’s office in San Diego, did not respond to a request for comment. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who leads the federal prosecutor’s office in Los Angeles and has announced two voter fraud cases in recent weeks, also did not respond to questions about his office’s election work.

Essayli did say Saturday, in response to Gov. Gavin Newsom touting new state laws aimed at safeguarding California elections from Trump administration interference, that no state law can prevent the Justice Department from investigating voter fraud and that his office “will continue to investigate, arrest, and prosecute all violations of federal election laws.”

Additional information, including how the subpoenas may relate to Mullin’s claims, wasn’t immediately available.

Mullin in July alleged in a letter to Weber that a federal review of unspecified data found “as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote in California.”

Weber responded in writing that she had “serious doubts about the reliability” of that analysis, as California election officials “work every day to maintain accurate voter rolls” and have never shared their rolls with the Trump administration — despite the administration’s failed lawsuit demanding them.

Weber criticized Mullin for having made such claims with “no detail whatsoever that my office can use to evaluate the veracity of your allegations,” and asked that he provide a “detailed description” of the data and methodology used to reach such conclusions.

Weber’s office said Mullin’s letter was “part of a broader effort to intimidate Californians and make it burdensome to participate in our democracy.”

In a statement to The Times, a Homeland Security spokesperson said the department offered to meet with Weber and her staff “to engage in a collaborative good faith discussion” about identifying noncitizens on state rolls, which she declined.

The spokesperson said Mullin’s count of potential noncitizens on California rolls was based on “publicly available data from states’ voter rolls” that was cross-referenced with its own lists of “known” noncitizens. “It’s not rocket science; it’s an easy step to secure our elections.”

Independent experts also have questioned Mullin’s claims, pointing to investigations elsewhere — including in Texas — that found Homeland Security data on alleged noncitizen voters were substantially inaccurate. A federal judge recently blocked the use of a Trump administration database known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program based on the likelihood that it could lead to legitimate voters being purged from rolls.

Last week, Padilla and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released a Homeland Security whistleblower report alleging that department leaders, under a new “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” were requiring poorly trained employees to identify at least five potentially illegal voters per hour — one every 12 minutes — using questionable data the department said it compiled using “magic.”

In a letter to Mullin, the senators demanded the initiative be halted, arguing that work at such a “breakneck pace” is bound to produce errors and that agency officials appeared to be circumventing court orders blocking their access to state vote rolls by gathering such information “by any means, regardless of state laws.”

Padilla on Friday asked California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office to investigate the whistleblower’s claims. A spokesperson for Bonta’s office said the allegations “describe yet another fishing expedition by the Trump Administration to uncover evidence of widespread voter fraud despite repeated findings that there is none,” but otherwise declined to comment.

The Homeland Security spokesperson rejected the whistleblower claims, saying its work has been “conducted diligently and professionally” as part of a “commonplace law enforcement” effort. The spokesperson said that the agency cannot comment on active investigations, but that its investigative branch — Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI — is “actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found.”

“There is no quota on criminality. DHS will pursue each and every illegal voter to the fullest extent of the law,” the spokesperson said.

Fears and reassurances

Recent polling has shown that fewer than half of Americans expect the midterms to be “free and fair,” and that Californians are more concerned about Trump administration interference than voter fraud.

Election experts said some of the worst threats have already been blocked, but acknowledged remaining worries.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said he is concerned the Trump administration will try to deny the outcome or seize ballots in close congressional races — but only if control of the House or Senate rests on them.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College and co-director of Bright Line Watch, said he worries that isolated incidents of federal agents intimidating voters or seizing ballots in key races will throw the legitimacy of the entire election into question — and that the Trump administration will capitalize on that to serve its own agenda.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), part of a Democratic task force preparing for such issues, said that Trump and other administration officials are trying to interfere in the election because they know they have “failed to deliver for the American people” and the Republican Party stands to lose power as a result.

Schiff said that Democratic leaders are fighting back “and largely succeeding,” but that “the best way to uphold the integrity of our elections” remains voters making their voices heard.

Padilla said the attempt by Homeland Security to push its way into elections has been “shoddy” in part because “they don’t have the expertise [and] it’s not their charge,” but also because Trump has put Mullin and other election “conspiracy theorists” in charge.

“If you install a conspiracy theorist into these roles, then they’re gonna come out with these claims that are not based on facts, not based on evidence, not based on any data,” he said.

Padilla said Trump and his supporters are “absolutely laying the groundwork” to question November election results they don’t like, but voters should know that “there’s even more of us standing up and fighting back and protecting their right to vote.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has cast the vote as a test of support for his ongoing war in Ukraine.

Polls have closed in Russia’s first wartime parliamentary elections, with the ruling United Russia party on course to win the tightly controlled vote.

The Kremlin wants the elections, the first parliamentary vote since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, to showcase popular support for the war and legitimise its action.

Russian government officials accused Ukraine of trying to disrupt voting after Kyiv launched hundreds of drones at Moscow and other regions in what the TASS state news agency said was the biggest attack of its kind since the war began.

The drone strikes on Sunday killed at least three people in the Moscow region and two more in the Russian-held part of Ukraine’s Kherson region, including an election official, according to the region’s governor and the election commission.

Russian authorities also reported attacks on the country’s electronic voting systems and communication lines during the polls, but said the electoral process was mostly smooth.

Initial results showed the United Russia party comfortably ahead, and Russia’s Central Election Commission said turnout at the close of polls stood at 56.66 percent.

The first official results and turnout are expected on Monday morning.

Voting in Russian-held Ukrainian areas

The vote, which began on Friday for 111 million eligible voters, included residents of four Ukrainian regions that Moscow illegally annexed after the war began, but still doesn’t fully control, as well as those in Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula that was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014.

Authorities in Kyiv denounced the voting in the Russian-held areas as illegal and urged foreign governments not to recognise the result. The European Union on Friday called the action a “blatant violation of international law”.

Voters cast two separate ballots, filling half of the lower house’s 450 seats by selecting political parties listed on the ballot. The rest are contested in single-seat constituencies, with voters choosing individual candidates.

The main Kremlin party, United Russia, is widely expected to retain its overwhelming control of the State Duma. Several smaller parties of the “systemic opposition” that vote in sync with Putin’s views on all key issues are also expected to maintain their presence.

A massive state media campaign and tight control over the elections in the absence of genuine opposition all but assure the Kremlin will keep tight control of Russian politics amid mounting economic costs and increasing Ukrainian drone attacks deep inside the country.

The liberal Yabloko party, the only registered political entity that dared to publicly criticise the war, was removed from the ballot last month by Russia’s Supreme Court. It only has a few dozen candidates in the single-constituency races.

Additionally, some anti-war politicians were imprisoned or forced to flee abroad ahead of the campaign.

Russia didn’t invite election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Russian Foreign Ministry has accused the body of “double standards” for its criticism of Russia.

WASHINGTON — Several of the nation’s largest voter engagement and racial justice organizations are facing steep funding shortfalls and staffing cutbacks just as voting is getting underway in an election that will determine control of Congress for the final two years of President Trump’s term.

The shortfalls are setting off alarms among Democratic strategists, who are betting on high turnout and robust voter protection efforts to boost the party’s chances this fall. They are worried that many grassroots groups will not be able to mount effective registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, much less protect against the possibility of election interference from the administration given Trump’s efforts to restrict voting access and assert federal control over the election.

America Votes, a coordinating hub for more than 400 progressive groups, has fallen “well below” the level of funding it had during the 2022 midterms, the group’s executive director, Daria Dawson, said in a statement to the Associated Press. America Votes has acted as a nerve center for the voter mobilization efforts of groups such as the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, the AFL-CIO and SEIU labor unions, as well as local groups focused on racial justice, climate and civil liberties.

“There is still time to reach voters and bring them into this election, but we are no longer talking about a future opportunity,” Dawson said. “The window to engage them is open now, and it is narrowing every day.”

Racial justice activists feel betrayed

Wealthy donors and philanthropic groups have reduced their support of many liberal causes since the 2024 presidential election. That pullback has been especially stark for voting groups geared toward engaging communities of color.

While multiple organizers said some funders had expressed an interest in adopting different strategies, racial justice organizers have felt that as a betrayal.

A retreat in donor support is “handcuffing our ability to persuade our communities to vote in a year where there is no Voting Rights Act,” said Esosa Osa, a veteran Democratic strategist and founder of Onyx Impact, a research group focused on combating misinformation in Black communities.

A Supreme Court ruling this year knocked out one of the last remaining pillars of that landmark 1965 law, essentially gutting it.

“We are watching surrender, not strategy,” Osa said.

A July memo that circulated among major Democratic fundraisers warned that “the organizations that registered and persuaded millions of voters to participate in the 2018 and 2022 midterms are drastically underfunded. They have raised nearly 40% less than they had at this point in those cycles.”

It further warned that funding voter mobilization groups was especially critical “given that the Democratic brand is underperforming on generic ballot tests relative to historical comparisons and the president’s approval ratings.”

The shortfalls have led organizations focused on engaging and mobilizing key voting groups to scale back operations and staffing over the last year. That has included programs aimed at registering and mobilizing lower-propensity voters, voters of color, and rural and younger voters.

The Democratic National Committee, which has faced its own funding challenges, has consolidated voter engagement efforts this year partly in response to the ecosystem’s past shortcomings. The DNC in a statement said it was making “historic investments” in its organizing but did not address the weaknesses among allied groups.

“We are expanding our voter protection infrastructure to defend Americans’ sacred right to vote, hold Trump and Republicans accountable in court, and register and mobilize voters across the country,” said Angelo Fernández Hernández, a DNC spokesperson.

‘Being Black … again has become a bad word’

The reasons for the troubled funding landscape are varied and at times unclear, according to nearly two dozen fundraisers and organizers who spoke with the AP. Some donors, still disappointed with the Democratic Party and some of its allies following the 2024 presidential election, have closed their pocketbooks to liberal causes entirely.

While a small group of liberal megadonors has continued to bankroll progressive causes, most focus their support on liberal legal organizations that have taken the Trump administration to court, rather than political or voter engagement groups.

Others, including major philanthropic institutions, have pulled back out of fear of retribution that giving to political or racial justice causes could draw the administration’s ire. Organizers who have engaged with potential donors said the administration’s targeting of political opponents and diversity initiatives seems to have put a chill on fundraising for their causes.

Tameka Ramsey-Brown, founding director of the Michigan Coalition on Black Civic Participation, said multiple donors since the 2024 election had asked whether her group could remove the word “Black” from its name or find financial conduits to mask the source of donations for fear of retribution from the administration.

“Just being Black in this country again has become a bad word, and it has made it that much more difficult just to raise money because funders don’t want the added pressure and stress or attacks on them by funding us,” she said.

Smaller budgets, shifting strategies

Many of the nonprofit groups that traditionally have conducted the registration, voter education and organizing say they are trying to adapt to their new, leaner reality.

Vamos a Votar, an initiative of the largest civil rights and advocacy groups focused on Latino communities, has had to readjust its ambitions this year due to a lack of investment from funders.

“This is shaping up to be a cycle where investments haven’t gone to the Black and brown communities that will ultimately decide this election,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a member of the initiative.

In a September pitch circulated among donors, the coalition said it aimed to invest $27.5 million in voter engagement and persuasion efforts this year, but still required $5.4 million from donors to fund voter turnout efforts across 10 states and 17 House districts. Even that investment reflected reduced ambitions from previous pitches to donors early this year.

“It has been extremely disappointing to see that progressive donors are not meeting the moment,” said Héctor Sánchez Barba, head of Mi Familia Vota, one of the affiliated organizations. “We are not waiting. We are always on the front lines for our democracy and our communities.”

To counter the funding cutbacks, some groups have begun relying more heavily on artificial intelligence to provide voter registration guides, share information in multiple languages and track potential election issues. Some groups have increased their partnerships with ride-sharing companies to provide free rides to polling places instead of bus shuttles.

With fewer in-person organizers, some groups are also focusing on social media and partnering with liberal content creators to boost their messages.

“In my more than 30 years of organizing, it has never been this bad to raise money to support Black causes of any kind,” said Melanie Campbell, president and chief executive of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, a nonpartisan civil rights group.

“We’re going to do the work, our state affiliates are doing all that is possible. … But the bottom line is that those who believe that democracy matters should make sure they fund the work.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche is blurring traditional boundaries between politics and federal law enforcement with recent speeches at political events that mark a sharp departure from norms meant to protect the Justice Department from the appearance of partisan bias.

Blanche took the stage this week at an event for a Republican Senate candidate in North Carolina days after speaking at a GOP midterm convention, where he praised Trump and touted the administration’s tough-on-crime approach.

Blanche’s participation at the rallies has drawn scrutiny from critics who say it threatens to undermine public faith in law enforcement decisions that are supposed to be made free of political interference. It has added to critics’ concerns about Blanche’s loyalty to Trump and White House influence on Justice Department matters against the backdrop of investigations into numerous perceived foes of the president.

“It lends credence to the arguments that the Justice Department is hopelessly politicized,” said Richard Painter, who was a White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. “And that’s not where we want to be right now.”

Blanche has brushed aside norms

Attorneys general have typically stayed away from political rallies and at arm’s length from the White House to prevent the appearance of law enforcement interference in elections and to protect the perception of impartiality in prosecutions.

Blanche, a former personal lawyer for Trump, has brushed aside such norms and fiercely defended the president’s interests in the department, which brought two criminal cases against Trump under President Joe Biden. Blanche has rejected allegations that the Trump administration has politicized the agency and accusations that the White House is improperly involved in department matters.

Blanche has used his speeches at the rallies to promote the administration’s efforts to bring down violent crime, illegal border crossings and drug trafficking as Republicans put their tough-on-crime policies at the center of the midterm elections. In another unusual move, he held a press briefing at the White House this week, fielding questions from reporters on a host of matters including the Iran war.

At an event Wednesday in North Carolina for Republican Senate nominee Michael Whatley, Blanche told the crowd, “More of your family, more of your friends, more of your community members, more of your loved ones are safer than they were just two years ago.”

“And that’s President Trump and Vice President Vance delivering on a promise that they made to you,” said Blanche, calling Trump “the greatest president of our generation.” His speech also veered into topics outside his law enforcement portfolio such as the stock market, inflation and wage growth.

Blanche says he is not endorsing candidates at political events

The Justice Department said Blanche’s appearances at political events are made in his personal capacity, and noted that his speeches have addressed the administration’s efforts broadly but do not get into agency policies or official business.

“His appearances are reviewed and cleared by the Department’s ethics officials,” spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in an email Thursday. “Travel expenses are reimbursed by the Attorney General in accordance with federal law, regulations, and policies.”

In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Blanche dismissed criticism about his appearance at a Long Island event where Trump sought to boost Republican candidates in closely contested races.

The watchdog group Public Citizen filed a complaint accusing Blanche of violating a law that limits political activity by government workers by participating in that event alongside Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, the Trump-endorsed Republican challenging Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul.

“I will always say yes to speak when the president of the United States asks me to,” Blanche told the AP last month. “I was there purely thanking cops, law enforcement, for doing their jobs. The idea that that’s turned into somehow criticism is laughable.” Blanche said he was not endorsing political candidates but instead “talking about the great work that President Trump is doing.”

Federal law and Justice Department policy limit political activity

The Hatch Act prohibits government officials from using their official positions to influence elections. That includes supporting candidates while acting in their official capacities. Watchdog groups have long complained that the law isn’t a strong deterrent and enforcement has been inadequate and uneven.

The Justice Department under Biden in 2022 tightened its restrictions on employees’ attendance at political events after then-Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins attended a fundraiser that featured first lady Jill Biden. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired by Trump in April, later rescinded those restrictions.

Rollins’ attendance at the fundraiser sparked an outcry from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, who sought an investigation and wrote a letter asserting that U.S. attorneys are supposed to act as nonpartisan law enforcement officials rather than as partisan politicians. Rollins resigned in 2023 after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog accused her of broad misconduct.

Before those changes, longstanding department policy had allowed political appointees — who are hired under presidential administrations rather than making long careers at the agency — to attend political events in their personal capacities if they participated “passively” and obtained prior approval.

Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, barred their attendance at fundraisers and other campaign events altogether, saying it was necessary to ensure that politics “both in fact and appearance” won’t affect how the law is enforced or inquiries are carried out.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Russians head to the polls from Friday to Sunday to elect members of the State Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, in the first parliamentary election to be held since the country launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The vote comes as Russians face a slowing economy as well as Ukrainian drone strikes on refineries and warehouses far from the front line.

United Russia, the governing party that backs President Vladimir Putin, is expected to keep its dominant position.

The authorities are presenting the election as a chance for voters to have their say. Critics argue that with no genuine opposition on the ballot, the result is largely settled in advance.

So why are the elections worth watching? Here is what you need to know:

How do Russia’s elections work?

Starting Friday and lasting through Sunday, Russians will elect members of the lower house, the State Duma.

They will also cast ballots in local elections.

Voters in 11 regions will elect their governors, and 39 regions will elect members of regional legislatures.

Voting is spread over three days to boost turnout among the 111 million eligible voters and includes areas Russia occupies in Ukraine. Electronic voting is allowed.

Half of the Duma’s 450 seats are filled by party lists and the other half are contested in single-ballot races.

What is United Russia?

Russia’s governing party, formed in 2001 from a merger of pro-Kremlin parties, has backed Putin and dominated the parliament ever since.

United Russia won more than two-thirds of the Duma’s seats in the 2021 election. It is again poised to dominate the body.

The party’s list is led by political heavyweights: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s top diplomat for 22 years, and Sergei Sobyanin, Moscow’s powerful mayor.

In an apparent bid to add fresh faces to what is widely seen as a party of bureaucrats, its third-highest-ranking official is war correspondent Yevgeny Poddubny, who was badly wounded by a Ukrainian drone.

Members of United Russia have pledged to back the war effort and Putin’s maximalist goals in what the Kremlin calls the “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Who else is running in Russia’s elections?

Alongside United Russia, other “systemic opposition” parties that vote in sync with the government on key issues are also expected to remain.

The liberal Yabloko Party, the only registered political party that opposes the war, was initially on the ballot, but the Supreme Court ordered it removed in August.

It cited, among other reasons, that the antiwar stance was akin to seeking the violation of Russia’s territorial integrity. Yabloko now runs only single-ballot races.

The Communist Party has been a leading force in the Federal Assembly since the 1990s, led for more than three decades by 82-year-old Gennady Zyuganov, a former Soviet official.

Throughout Putin’s rule of more than a quarter-century, the Communists have criticised some aspects of government policy but carefully avoided any criticism of him. They steadfastly support the war in Ukraine.

Alexander Bratersky, a political analyst and independent journalist, told Al Jazeera that the race for second place is worth watching.

If the Communist Party nab second, it would “suggest voters are angry about economic hardship and falling living standards”.

The Liberal Democratic Party, an ultranationalist force that has been a significant presence in the legislature since the early 1990s, will also likely retain some influence in the Duma.

Like the Communists, it staunchly supports the war and boasts of having multiple veterans as members.

Other smaller parties round out the ballot.

The party known as A Just Russia has been on Russia’s political scene for 20 years. A social-democratic party, it competes with the Communists for older and middle-aged voters nostalgic for the Soviet past, and it supports the war in Ukraine.

The New People Party was founded shortly before the last parliamentary election in 2021, seeking to position itself as a liberal voice representing younger voters and technocrats. It won just more than 5 percent of the vote, allowing it to form a small faction.

Bratersky described the party as “a liberal-leaning party backed by some Kremlin people who are more technocratic and more pro-peace”.

He said it appeals to the “middle-class audience”, and after the Kremlin banned Yabloko, it has been viewed as its substitute.

“So, if they come third with a good number of votes, this is a sign that those who are antiwar used them as their legal avatar,” he said.

Other parties seeking seats include Communists of Russia, a small rival of the main Communist Party; the Party of Pensioners; the Green Party; the Party of Direct Democracy; and the Motherland Party.

Why do the elections matter to the Kremlin?

While these elections may seem routine, the fact that they are the first since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is what makes them important, Bratersky told Al Jazeera.

He said that Putin has linked the elections to support for the war: Endorsing United Russia at its party congress in August, Putin said the party’s duty was “to do everything for victory” in the war in Ukraine.

“This shows that the Kremlin is a bit worried since the elections are the only legal way to show disrespect for the Kremlin,” Bratersky said. “Even Putin’s core fans hate United Russia as a corrupt force.”

How have past elections gone?

Since Putin first came to power in 2000, United Russia has won every Duma election, usually by a wide margin.

The results have repeatedly been disputed.

In 2011, allegations of vote-rigging set off the largest street protests of Putin’s rule.

After the 2021 vote, independent monitors and statisticians said the party’s real support was far lower than the official count.

The authorities have rejected claims of widespread fraud. Opposition parties and critics of the war have increasingly been kept off the ballot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASHINGTON — A bold military push by Iran and its proxies to create a choke hold on global oil supplies has once again caught the Trump administration off guard, threatening a market shock and a steep political backlash in the U.S. midterm elections.

A drone attack on Saudi Arabia’s most crucial pipeline, which siphons crude oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, has led to the line’s closure, potentially taking 4% of the world’s supply off the market.

And a lightning advance by Iran-backed Houthi rebels along Yemen’s Red Sea coast threatens commercial traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, second only to Hormuz in its importance to regional shipping.

The strikes put the Trump administration in a newly precarious position less than two months until the November midterms. President Trump’s military advisors have warned him that any retaliation could lead to a further depletion of critically low U.S. munition stockpiles, endanger American personnel in the field and risk escalation that could spiral out of Washington’s control.

A semi prepares for departure from a Pilot fuel station Monday in Buda, Texas.

(Brandon Bell / Getty Images)

On Tuesday, the global price of oil topped $107 a barrel — the first time in U.S. campaign history that an incumbent president has faced rising pump prices at this stage of an election.

The Iranian strikes come as Europe and the United States are facing increased energy needs entering the fall and winter months, and as Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure have surged, pushing diesel prices up to record highs.

Signs are emerging that the latest attacks could trigger an acute market panic, with Brent crude buyers paying a steep premium for early delivery — an indication that the industry fears an impending supply crisis.

“I fear there is a considerable risk of much higher gas and diesel prices in the weeks to come,” said Michael O’Hanlon, director of research of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution.

“No one is quite sure how to predict the fuel markets,” he added, “but the military dynamics are seriously worrisome.”

Last week, Trump told reporters that the Iranian government is “desperate to try and affect the election” and could be trying to keep oil prices elevated to hurt Republican prospects.

“Right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward,” Trump said. “I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterm.”

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Monday morning.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Polls have found that likely voters are prioritizing the economy far beyond any other policy matter going into the fall election season, with a New York Times poll published Tuesday showing voters trusting Democrats to handle the economy more than Republicans.

“There’s no quick fix,” said Simon Henderson, the director of the Washington Institute’s Gulf and Energy Policy program. “The main question is whether it is a big shock to the oil market or just another more minor shock. The answer depends on whether the damage to the East-West pipeline cable is repaired quickly.”

Region on edge

The latest Iranian campaign threatens Saudi Arabia’s economic core, straining a long-standing alliance built on robust U.S. defense of Riyadh’s vital interests.

The attack on the East-West oil pipeline originated in Iraq, where Iran continues to operate proxy militias, according to government officials in Riyadh and Baghdad. Saudi Arabia agreed not to retaliate militarily against targets on Iraqi soil, temporarily staving off a regional conflagration.

While the Iraqi militia group denied involvement, it also praised the Houthi advance in Yemen and the militants’ “ongoing battlefield victories against Saudi forces.”

Israel has been providing Saudi Arabia with intelligence to help thwart further attacks, using American military intermediaries, according to Israeli media reports.

Active combat in the war between Iran and the United States eased after a ceasefire was brokered in June. While that truce collapsed in July, the two sides have opted for asymmetric tactics over the resumption of direct attacks, with the United States maintaining a full naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The Trump administration has since focused instead on targeting Iran’s economic partners with aggressive secondary sanctions, seeking to further pressure Tehran into a meaningful peace agreement. But negotiations have failed for months to get back off the ground.

When he first launched the war in February, Trump projected the mission would last roughly six weeks. He said the goal of the U.S. operation was to incapacitate Iran’s ballistic missile program, its navy and its nuclear program.

Trump was warned ahead of the war by his joint chiefs of staff that Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz in response. But he dismissed the threat, anticipating Tehran would quickly back down from a direct confrontation with the United States.

More than six months on, Iran’s ballistic missiles continue to pressure U.S. defense systems across the Middle East. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted and discussions on Iran’s future nuclear work have broken down. In private, Trump administration officials fear the war could drag through the remainder of the president’s term.

NEW YORK — A last-ditch Trump administration effort to hunt for noncitizen voters ahead of November’s elections is requiring federal employees to misrepresent themselves on voter lookup tools in a way that likely violates state laws, according to a federal whistleblower’s statement released Monday.

The Department of Homeland Security probe known as the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” also asks employees to create federal law enforcement records about voters based on unreliable data, the account warns. That could potentially wrongly implicate U.S. citizens in official documentation that could spur further investigation.

The anonymous, nearly 30-page disclosure was published Monday by Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California, the ranking member of a Senate committee overseeing federal elections.

It features screenshots and transcripts of a DHS training for a group of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services staffers, who it says were forced in late August to drop their other work, complete a less than two-hour training session and begin running DHS-provided lists of individuals through state voter registration systems to find “unlawful voters.”

The whistleblower contends that agents have been asked to review 40 individuals per day, giving them about 12 minutes to determine whether each person is a legal voter and create federal records of anyone who is not.

Padilla and Schumer said Monday the initiative was an example of President Trump attempting to interfere in elections and the short timelines would impede officials from conducting proper investigations. They noted that the data DHS has on voters can be unreliable and differ from state records, making any federal findings based on that data potentially problematic.

“We just got more proof of Trump’s vile schemes to rig our elections,” Schumer told reporters in a news conference. “The lengths Trump will go to cheat, lie and steal in this upcoming election are simply beyond the pale.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has been targeting noncitizen voting to allege it could be a source of significant fraud during the midterm elections, even as research shows voting by people who are not citizens is extremely rare. Trump has been pushing for the U.S. Postal Service to send mail ballots only to voters verified as U.S. citizens, and his Justice Department has sued to force the release of detailed voter data in 30 states and the District of Columbia, though it has not yet succeeded in those cases.

The whistleblower report details an effort by the federal government to work around a lack of data from the states by directing Citizenship and Immigration Services employees to pose as individual voters to access their state voter records.

Some states, such as Virginia, explicitly limit their voter lookup tools to individuals who attest under penalty of law that they are looking up their own records. In other states, like California, personally identifiable information such as a driver’s license number or partial Social Security number is needed to look up individual voter records.

The whistleblower said that when officers raised concerns about liability for searching the tools against state guidance, agency leaders told them to proceed with the searches anyway.

Schumer and Padilla on Sunday sent a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin requesting more information about the initiative and demanding that it be stopped.

Asked about the whistleblower report, a DHS spokesperson said it is “laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote and preventing the dilution of the votes of U.S. citizens.”

“The department accessed publicly available data from states’ voter rolls and cross referenced them with known aliens in our systems,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “It’s not rocket science; it’s an easy step to secure our elections.”

In response to complaints about the timing, limited training and quotas for agents, the spokesperson said that “far from being rushed or untrained, these investigative efforts are conducted diligently and professionally.”

The New York Times first reported on the DHS initiative in early September.

The whistleblower account released Monday was produced by the watchdog group Democracy Defenders Fund. The group, which said it represents the whistleblower as a client, said the person is anonymous because of “an extreme fear of retaliation but they feel an obligation to speak up about the misconduct and gross mismanagement they have witnessed.”

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has blocked President Trump’s plan to restrict voting by mail, ruling it is too late to impose new postal service rules for the November election.

The justices on Monday turned down an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers, who argued the government needed a new and untested system of unique bar codes to track all the ballots of the tens of millions of people who vote by mail.

Instead, the justices left in place a judge’s order that prevents the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing the new rules for the midterm elections.

Concurring, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed it was too late to enforce the new rules for this election.

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision in USPS vs. California is a victory for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and the attorneys general for 22 other Democratic-led states who sued to block the new rules.

Last week, they warned there would be chaos and confusion if Trump’s rules were put in effect now.

Bonta cheered the decision late Monday, calling it “a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law” in a case where the stakes “could not have been higher.”

“Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all 50 states allow ballots to be cast by mail in some form. In California and several other states, mail voting is the primary way elections are conducted,” Bonta said. “Had this rule been allowed to take effect, the consequences would have been catastrophic.”

He said his office “will remain vigilant in safeguarding our elections,” and urged voters to make their voices heard.

Under the proposed rules, state and county election officials across the nation would be required to enroll each voter with a unique bar code and submit this data to a new online portal that, as of last week, was not yet functioning.

Without the individualized bar codes, states could not send ballots through the mail. In California, that would mean election officials would have to enroll 23 million voters with new bar codes before state ballots could be mailed.

“Compliance with the USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the state attorneys general told the court last week.

The impact would not be limited to Democratic-leaning states. Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said it would be “an unmitigated disaster” if the new rules were put into effect now. About 30% of the nation’s voters — and 80% of Californians — cast ballots by mail in 2024.

But Trump has maintained, without providing evidence, that voting by mail leads to widespread cheating and fraud.

In March, he issued an executive order that called on the postal service to do more to “enhance election integrity.”

“Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots,” he said.

Elections experts say there is no evidence of such widespread fraud, despite robust audits and other searches for it.

State attorneys general argued that the Constitution entrusts states, not federal officials, to conduct elections. While Congress may impose new rules, it is not done to limit voting by mail or to empower the postal service to do so, they said.

Trump and his lawyers maintained the administration had a duty to combat fraud, including in elections.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer described the new rules as “modest measures that will help prevent and restrain potential gross abuses of the mails to perpetrate a fraud on the Nation.”

And he said the federal government, the states and the voting public would face irreparable harm if the new Postal Service rules were not allowed to be applied to the coming election.

But U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, in Boston, ruled the postal service may not put its new regulations into effect for the Nov. 3 election. She found the Trump administration had presented no evidence to the court of widespread fraud existing, while the states had presented ample evidence that implementing such a system on such a fast timeline posed tremendous risk.

The 1st Circuit Court affirmed her order and said the administration’s lawyers “have not even seriously challenged the … detailed findings about the chaos and widespread disenfranchisement that would occur between now and November 3 should the USPS rule take immediate effect.”

On Sunday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols — a Trump appointee — also blocked the new Postal Service rules from being implemented in separate cases brought by the NAACP and Democratic groups, finding they clearly exceeding the Postal Service’s authority in elections.

What the future will hold is unclear. The courts did not declare the new rules to be illegal or unconstitutional, though multiple lower courts have suggested that parts of the plan likely would be — including by exceeding the Postal Service’s authority to intervene in elections.

Much of the debate before the appellate and high court related to the rushed timeline under which the Postal Service was seeking to implement the changes. With that set aside by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the rules will not apply this election, the debate in the lower courts may shift focus to whether the new regulations can be applied to the 2028 elections.

Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, chair of the Democratic Assn. of Secretaries of State, said the high court’s ruling was a clear loss for Trump, and that state election officials are ready to continue their fight to protect U.S. elections if necessary.

“This ruling affirms what our Constitution has always held: Elections belong to the American people, not a desperate man in Washington,” he said.

Opposition bloc leads in tight Swedish election with 95% counted.

Sweden’s centre-left opposition bloc has held a narrow lead as the far-right party saw its support slip, with about 95 percent of the districts counted.

The Swedish Election Authority reported on Monday that the four opposition parties were projected to hold 176 seats in the 349-seat parliament, called the Riksdag, while the remaining 173 would go to four parties that make up or support the current conservative-led government.

Results may not be clear until early votes and overseas ballots are counted on Wednesday. If the left-leaning bloc emerges victorious, it could take even longer to form a government because of ideological tensions among its parties.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is seeking a second term and has been leading the country since 2022 with a centre-right coalition that relies on the Sweden Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi roots. He could remain in office if the left-wing bloc wins its thin majority but fails to form a government.

The Sweden Democrats saw an unexpected drop in support, losing three percentage points compared with the 2022 general election, slipping from 20.5 percent to 17.5 percent. This marked the first time the far-right party suffered a loss in voter backing since it entered parliament in 2010.

Magdalena Andersson’s Social Democrats held onto first place, but a 28.1 percent share registered as one of their worst performances in more than 100 years, complicating any bid to assemble a working majority.

While the result appears somewhat out of step with recent far-right gains across parts of Europe, including Germany and Italy, the Sweden Democrats remain firmly entrenched as a dominant force in parliament.

The dip in support could be tied to changing voter priorities. In the past, many people voted for the far right, “simply because they liked their stance on refugees”, without necessarily agreeing with other policy positions, Anders Sannerstedt, a political scientist at Lund University, told AFP.

Even with a reduced vote share, the Sweden Democrats retain substantial leverage.

A closely divided legislature leaves any future government with a fragile working margin, ensuring the party remains an unavoidable force in parliament.

More broadly, the Sweden Democrats have already rewritten the boundaries of Swedish politics. Over the past decade, its once-fringe demands for strict asylum caps, easier deportations and tougher policing have been absorbed into the mainstream, with both the centre-right coalition and the Social Democrats shifting rightward to match public sentiment.

STOCKHOLM: Sweden’s national election results showed a dead heat ​on Sunday, with a partial count by the election authority indicating a one-seat majority for the opposition center-left bloc that could halt the Nordic nation’s drift away from its liberal heritage.

The bloc, headed by the Social Democrats’ party leader Magdalena Andersson, was expected to win 175 seats in the 349-seat parliament, the Riksdag, based on votes from 4,853 of Sweden’s 6,312 election districts, the election authority said.

The right-wing governing bloc of Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson was seen winning 174 seats, with ballot-counting continuing.

The election, while unlikely to change the course of Sweden’s pro-Western and pro-Ukraine stance, will decide whether Kristersson’s push toward a hard-right clampdown on migration continues.

Given the closeness of the race, ‌the winner may ‌not be known for several days, after all overseas ballots have been ​counted.

In ‌a ⁠pre-election pledge, ​Kristersson ⁠broke a longstanding taboo and said he would bring into government the Sweden Democrats, a far-right party with roots in the Nazi fringe, as he aims to create a majority-right coalition.

Many voters on the right say a win would amount to an endorsement of policies that have helped to curb gang violence and cut immigration dramatically.

But some Swedes have expressed wariness, saying Kristersson’s invitation to the far right was a step too far.

“I think it will be a long night,” said Maria Malmer Stenergard, minister for foreign affairs and a member of Kristersson’s Moderate Party. “Maybe we won’t even ⁠have the results until Wednesday when the votes that have been cast abroad arrive.”

Kristersson, who ‌has trailed in opinion polls throughout his four years in office, ‌had been catching up in the final weeks of campaigning, with Andersson ​and her Social Democrats losing ground.

Critics say the Kristersson ‌government’s immigration policies, whose incentives and penalties press migrants either to conform more closely to Swedish cultural norms ‌or leave the country, are undermining civil liberties.

Electoral success for the Sweden Democrats would be welcomed by Europe’s ascendant far-right parties, which were bolstered by the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany’s win in a German state election last week.

The far right hopes for gains in upcoming elections across Europe, with the National Rally’s bid for the French presidency next year potentially its biggest prize.

‘DOESN’T ‌LOOK LIKE SWEDEN’

While voting on Saturday in Rinkeby, near Stockholm, the Sweden Democrats’ longstanding leader Jimmie Akesson said the suburb, home to one of the country’s biggest ⁠Swedish-Somali populations, “doesn’t look like Sweden.”

Sweden ⁠was long one of Europe’s most welcoming countries for immigrants until Kristersson came to power four years ago. His government abolished permanent residency for refugees, tightened welfare rules and stepped up expulsions of those without a right to stay.

The Sweden Democrats acknowledge that their party was founded in part by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the 1980s, but say they have eliminated such extremists from their ranks and have apologized for their past.

Cheers broke out at the Sweden Democrats’ election party after an updated projection from Swedish broadcaster SVT showed a much narrower gap than an initial exit poll, which had put the center-left opposition ahead with 51 percent of the vote.

“You cannot imagine how nervous I am right now. It feels like my life’s work is hanging in the balance,” said Ludvig Aspling, a member of parliament and immigration spokesperson for the Sweden Democrats. “It is going to be super tight. ​We still have a chance,” he said.

On Monday, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in the Philippines will hold its first parliamentary election since it was established in 2018. The vote will officially mark the end of the transition period under the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA), an interim regional government appointed in 2019.

The election is a significant milestone in the Bangsamoro struggle. It is the outcome of decades of armed conflict and negotiations between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the government of the Philippines.

The vote will test the Philippine government’s commitment to the peace process and the MILF’s commitment to the democratic process.

The struggle for self-determination

BARMM is located on Mindanao, the second-largest island in the Philippine Archipelago, and it covers roughly the territories inhabited by the Moro people, a native Muslim-majority group. For centuries, the Moro enjoyed self-governance in independent states and resisted Spanish colonialism. Following the Philippines’s independence in 1946, they continued their struggle for self-determination.

In 1989, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created by Manila to give some devolved rights to the Moro. However, ARMM largely failed to address local grievances and demands due to its weak structural power. It was given limited autonomy in political and fiscal decision-making, but it did not manage to improve socioeconomic conditions in the region. The MILF continued the armed struggle.

In 2012, President Benigno Aquino III recognised the ARMM as a “failed experiment”. Under his administration, the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro was signed between the government and the MILF, paving the way for a new political entity.

Six years later, under President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was promulgated. This legislation granted the region greater fiscal autonomy, a regional government, a parliament, and a justice system.

Then the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro was concluded to outline the mechanism of transition from ARMM to BARMM and set up the MILF-dominated BTA to lead it. All of this is culminating in the parliamentary election, which will determine the makeup of the region’s first legislative body.

A contested election

The vote comes at a time of heightened tensions in BARMM and internal divisions within the MILF. Two camps have emerged within the movement – one loyal to MILF Chair Al Haj Murad Ebrahim and another supporting Chief Minister Abdulraof Macacua.

Last month, Macacua joined the newly formed Bangsamoro Federalist Party (BFP), which will compete in the elections against the MILF’s political wing, the United Bangsamoro Justice Party (UBJP). Shortly after, his convoy was attacked, but he survived unscathed.

In early September, Macacua and 40 commanders were dismissed from the MILF’s military wing for alleged insubordination.

These tensions have prompted increased public anxiety about possible post-election unrest. There are other factors that could overshadow the vote.

In past elections, vote-buying was widespread, election-related violence was rampant, and electoral fraud and manipulation were pervasive. If these practices repeat at a large scale, the electoral outcome may not necessarily provide a straightforward measure of the will of Bangsamoro’s people. It may also not be an accurate reflection of whether they are satisfied with the transitional government or not.

The MILF presents itself as a champion of moral governance. If it is to retain this label, it should not give in to widespread vote-buying and electoral manipulation. It should also not let internal rivalries turn violent.

But there are already some alarming signs. Prominent MILF figures have conveyed that if the UBJP, the front’s political wing, sees manipulation and fraud, its members are ready to fight. They have also suggested that since the MILF led the transition, it should remain in power. On social media, some citizens have condemned the MILF camp’s threats, calling such tactics un-Islamic.

Before the vote, Manila has deployed military forces in key areas. This has heightened people’s fears that fighting with the MILF may erupt. The tense situation might lead to a low voter turnout.

Under these circumstances, the future of the Bangsamoro is riddled with uncertainties.

Whatever happens in the election, we must remember that the future of BARMM is a shared responsibility. The Philippine government and the Bangsamoro parties are duty-bound to honour the peace agreement. In addition, the people must exercise their civic rights and responsibilities to help sustain the peace achieved after a long and painful armed conflict and to move toward a prosperous Bangsamoro land.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

ATLANTA — Security researchers say rapid advances in artificial intelligence are making it more critical to address a flaw in Georgia’s voting equipment that can allow voters to be matched to their ballots after they have been cast.

The system’s vulnerability has been drawing increased attention, with election security advocates criticizing state election officials for failing to fix it before the November elections. Georgia election officials say they have taken steps to address the potential harm, but some advocates say the state is not going far enough.

The vulnerability does not allow votes to be changed or cast doubt on election results, but it could let someone see how others voted. That is important because ballot secrecy is a fundamental right under the state constitution, and violations could create an opening for legal challenges.

The development comes in an election season of uncertainty, as President Trump threatens to interfere with the midterms, and he has long demanded that states turn over voter rolls. Georgia has been a particular focus, as Trump continues to deny he lost the state in 2020 to Joe Biden. Earlier this year, the FBI seized ballots cast in that election from a Fulton County election hub.

While the flaw in Georgia has been known for a few years, the widespread adoption of AI tools and the blistering pace of its sophistication have election security experts raising alarms.

This is “a bit of a wake-up call because it illustrates how much more easily vulnerabilities can be exploited now that AI can do all of the technical work for you,” said J. Alex Halderman, a voting technology specialist at the University of Michigan who was part of the team that exposed the flaw.

Other jurisdictions across the country use the same voting equipment made by Liberty Vote, which was known as Dominion Voting Systems before the company was sold. But many have applied a software update to fix the flaw, and some other states do not allow the public release of records that are needed to exploit it, said Mark Lindeman, policy and strategy director at Verified Voting, a nonpartisan group focused on election technology.

Georgia, a presidential battleground with one of the nation’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races this year, is the only place where the system is used statewide. Lindeman said that, combined with an open records law that has allowed access to key documents, creates a “perfect storm.”

“It’s really embarrassing that this is still a possibility,” Lindeman said.

How does voting work in Georgia?

Georgia voters make their selections on touchscreen voting machines that print paper ballots voters insert into scanners to tally the votes.

Such cast-vote records detail the votes from each ballot. Those records and electronic ballot images created by the scanners are randomized. But the software flaw allows them to be put back in the order they were cast, according to a report by researchers who discovered it in 2022.

Along with other publicly available data, that information could be used to match voters to their ballots, the researchers wrote.

Max Springer, a Princeton University researcher who was not involved in the original research and studies AI, said he gave a publicly available AI assistant that research. He said it was able to reverse the shuffling of electronic ballot records from Georgia’s May primary and then tell him what other records it would need to match names to ballots.

He then gave the AI assistant the early voting list for the counties he examined and the cast-vote record file, which could be obtained through a public records request. It was able to create “buckets of ballots and potential voters,” he wrote in a blog post. In many instances, that made it possible to match voters to their ballots.

In cases where ambiguity remained, he wrote, he got the public audit log for the ballot scanners and precinct check-in records and was able to match most ballots to specific voters.

“AI coding tools are essentially supercharging laymen people to exploit vulnerabilities,” Springer said in an interview.

Why does ballot secrecy matter?

Georgia’s Constitution says elections “shall be by secret ballot,” and state law requires voting machines to “permit voting in absolute secrecy so that no person can see or know any other elector’s votes.”

A lack of ballot secrecy can make it easier to buy or sell votes and increase the danger of coercion to vote a certain way by family members, political organizations, employers or government officials. It also is information that could be invaluable to political campaigns.

Gabriel Sterling, special projects manager in the secretary of state’s office, pushed back on the concerns. He said it would be easier to use mail ballots if vote-buying or coercion was the goal and that it probably would be cheaper for campaigns to just increase outreach to voters who fit a certain profile than try to identify voters this way.

State Election Board member Salleigh Grubbs proposed a rule during the board’s August meeting that would have required the secretary of state’s office to apply the software update recommended by the manufacturer by Tuesday.

“Each [voter] has one vote, and no one is entitled to know how it was cast,” Grubbs said. “That privacy protects more than the individual voter. It protects the integrity of the entire election.”

In a letter to the election board, an agency lawyer argued that the update has not been certified by the secretary of state, the implementation would take months, and the Legislature has not provided necessary funding. The board rejected Grubbs’ proposal. Some members said they did not believe they had the authority to order the secretary of state to act and they raised concerns about the short timeline before the November midterms.

Board member Sara Tindall Ghazal, who voted against the proposal, said it is “intensely frustrating” that the software update has not been applied. But she pointed out that it is a felony to reveal how someone voted, which should serve as a deterrent.

“I hate the fact that it’s even physically possible, but there are very, very severe penalties if somebody were to actually do this,” she said.

What’s being done?

The secretary of state’s office sent guidance to county election officials instructing them to refer open records requests for certain records to the secretary of state’s office. It will release them with the problematic information blacked out and decline to release other information and documents.

Sterling said the office is working with a vendor to scramble the original order of ballot images and cast-vote records before they are made public. Halderman said that precaution would be necessary to keep someone from reconstructing the order.

While some other jurisdictions have applied the software update that reportedly fixes the problem, some have done what Georgia is now trying to do by restricting public access to the records needed to exploit the flaw.

Marilyn Marks is executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, which advocates for election transparency and security and raised the alarm about the vulnerability. She argued that withholding documents is not the solution and that steps need to be taken to ensure ballots cannot be traced to voters in the first place.

“When Georgia’s election records contain identifiers that can be used to trace ballots to voters, the only legal and acceptable answer is to stop recording that information — not restrict public access to sensitive unlawful information to insiders and commercial vendors,” she said.

With time growing short before the elections, Marks said a workable interim solution would be to collect ballots in locked boxes at precincts and then shuffle and scan them at a central tabulating center.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

The far-right Sweden Democrats party could enter government for the first time if right-wing bloc wins.

Voters in Sweden are heading to the polls in an extremely close general election that will see either the far right enter government for the first time or the centre-left opposition reclaim power.

Opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the Social Democrats was among the first to cast her ballot after polling stations opened at 8:00am (06:00 GMT) on Sunday.

The 59-year-old, who in 2021 became the first woman to serve as Sweden’s prime minister, voted with her husband at a school in her home municipality of Nacka, south of Stockholm.

Pre-election opinion polls have long credited the four parties in her left-wing bloc with a comfortable lead over conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s four-party alliance, which includes the far-right Sweden Democrats.

But the gap narrowed significantly in the final days of the campaign.

“It is now up to the Swedish people to decide which direction our country should take. Should we have a government entirely dominated by the Sweden Democrats? Something that has never happened in Sweden before? Or should we have a government led by me, which will steer Sweden in a new spirit of cooperation?” Andersson told reporters after voting.

Her party has pledged to boost the welfare state and help struggling households cope with the rising cost of living.

Outgoing Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is seeking a second four-year term at the helm of the European Union nation.

He has led Sweden since 2022 with a three-party centre-right coalition. It relies on outside support from the Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration, far-right party that has moved towards the political mainstream, for a parliamentary majority.

If the right-wing bloc is re-elected, the Sweden Democrats can expect Cabinet posts in the next government.

Kristersson has promised to focus on improving Swedes’ everyday lives, following his government’s clampdown on organised crime and immigration.

“We want to use our new and far better preconditions to improve the lives of ordinary people … to make Sweden great again,” Kristersson told news agency AFP before the vote.

The Sweden Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi roots, took 20.5 percent of the vote in the 2022 election to become the biggest party on the right.

Kristersson announced in April that his conservative Moderates would allow the party into government if the right has a majority – though he would remain prime minister even if the Sweden Democrats are the stronger party.

Voting stations close at 8:00pm (18:00 GMT) when exit polls are expected to be published, with the first reliable results expected several hours later.

Some eight million people are eligible to vote in the election, in a country of 10.6 million where voter turnout regularly tops 80 percent.

About half of voters have cast their ballots in advance.

STOCKHOLM: Sweden began voting Sunday in a general election after a tight race that will see either the far-right enter government for the first time or the left-wing opposition reclaim power.

Opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the Social Democrats was among the first to cast her ballot after polling stations opened at 8:00 am (0600 GMT).

Clad in a pale blue suit, the 59-year-old who in 2021-2022 became the first woman to serve as Sweden’s prime minister voted with her husband at a school in her home municipality of Nacka, south of Stockholm.

Opinion polls have long credited the four parties in her left-wing bloc with a comfortable lead over conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s four-party alliance, which includes the far-right Sweden Democrats.

But the gap narrowed to a dead heat in the final days of the campaign.

“It is now up to the Swedish people to decide which direction our country should take. Should we have a government entirely dominated by the Sweden Democrats? Something that has never happened in Sweden before? Or should we have a government led by me, which will steer Sweden in a new spirit of cooperation?” Andersson told reporters after voting.

Her party, which governed the Scandinavian country for the better part of the 20th century and remains Sweden’s largest, has pledged to bolster the welfare state and help struggling households cope with rising costs.

‘Make Sweden great again’

Outgoing Prime Minister Kristersson has meanwhile vowed to focus on improving Swedes’ everyday lives now that his government’s clampdown on organised crime and immigration has begun to show results.

Deadly shootings and bombings by organised crime networks have decreased significantly in recent years, and asylum applications are at a record low.

“We want to use our new and far better preconditions to improve the lives of ordinary people… to make Sweden great again,” Kristersson told AFP before the vote, borrowing Donald Trump’s famous catchphrase.

His three-party minority coalition cut a deal in 2022 with the Sweden Democrats giving them influence over government policy, in particular on immigration and crime, in exchange for their support in parliament.

Over the past two decades, far-right leader Jimmie Akesson has steered the party with neo-Nazi roots into the mainstream.

It is now hoping to enter government. Kristersson has promised the far right key cabinet posts if the right-wing wins the election.

“I think it’s a very important election this year, and hopefully a lot of people will realise that we have to change course… so that everyone will feel included in society,” store manager Linda Eriksson, 48, told AFP as she voted at a polling station.

Ingrid Rudien, a 64-year-old assistant secretary, said she hoped the country “can unite together as a nation even though we may have a close result”.

‘We’ve already won!’

Akesson was confident of victory at a final election rally on Saturday in the Swedish capital.

“We’ve already won!” the 47-year-old said to thunderous applause in Stockholm’s Kungstradgarden Park.

“Sweden is becoming safer, better, and more Swedish,” he said, surrounded by blue and yellow campaign posters blaring “Make Sweden Sweden Again”.

Agneta Andersson, a 78-year-old pensioner attending the rally, told AFP she was voting for the far right.

“Like Jimmie, I want it to be like it was when I was young, in the old Sweden. I can’t cope with all this violence in society.”

Voting stations close at 8:00 pm (1800 GMT) when exit polls were to be published, with the first reliable results expected several hours later.

Some eight million people are eligible to vote in the election, in a country of 10.6 million where voter turnout regularly tops 80 percent.

Around half of voters have cast their ballots in advance.

If the right wing were to win the election, the formation of a new government would be fairly straightforward.

But as the four left-wing parties are splintered ideologically, tough negotiations would be needed to form a government even if they hold a majority.

ANCHORAGE — Alaska prosecutors are dropping voter misconduct cases against a group of residents born in American Samoa after a state appeals court threw out felony charges against a woman who wrongly checked a box saying she was a U.S. citizen.

The state’s Department of Law announced the decision Friday, after a three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled a week earlier that state law requires proof that defendants who erroneously filled out voter registration forms had a “consciousness of wrongdoing” and intended to break the law.

The panel found flaws with a state trooper’s questioning of Tupe Smith, the woman involved in the case that was thrown out, as well as with the grand jury process that led to her indictment. It overturned a lower court’s decision that had kept the charges against her alive.

Acting Alaska Atty. Gen. Cori Mills said in a statement that after reviewing the decision and applying it to the facts, prosecutors concluded that they could not prove cases against Smith and the others beyond a reasonable doubt. Her husband, Michael Pese, had also been charged.

“We respect the role of the courts in interpreting Alaska law and will faithfully execute our duty to apply the law and carefully evaluate our prosecutorial decisions,” Mills said.

In a statement Saturday, Smith’s lawyer Whitney Brown said the dismissal would allow the community “to put this ordeal behind them and begin moving forward.”

Earlier in the week, she heralded the Court of Appeals decision, saying it “establishes an important safeguard against imposing felony liability for an honest mistake.”

The court “made clear that Alaska law requires more than simply showing that a statement was false — the State must prove a person acted with a consciousness of wrongdoing,” Brown said. “That distinction makes a world of difference to Ms. Smith and helps ensure that Alaska’s voter-misconduct statute is applied as the legislature intended going forward.”

Neil Weare, part of the legal team representing Smith and Pese, said Saturday that the decision to drop charges “raises questions about why this prosecution was even brought to begin with.”

“It’s clear that all along, they really had no evidence of any consciousness of wrongdoing on the part of Michael, Tupe or the other defendants,” said Weare, co-director of the nonprofit Right to Democracy.

In all, 11 people from the small community of Whittier, about 50 miles southeast of Anchorage, were charged with falsely claiming U.S. citizenship either when registering or trying to vote. Messages seeking comment were left for their lawyers.

American Samoa is the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship by being born on American soil and instead are considered U.S. nationals. Paths to citizenship exist, such as naturalization, though that process can be expensive and cumbersome.

American Samoans can serve in the military, obtain U.S. passports and vote in elections in American Samoa, but they cannot hold public office in the U.S. or participate in most U.S. elections.

Smith was arrested after winning election to a regional school board in 2023. She has said she relied on erroneous information from election officials in Whittier when she identified herself as a U.S. citizen on voter registration forms.

Smith said she marks herself as a U.S. national on paperwork. But when there was no such option on voter registration forms, she was told by city representatives that it was appropriate to mark herself as a citizen, according to court papers.

Prosecutors contended that Smith falsely and deliberately claimed citizenship, pointing to warnings on voter registration forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022 that noncitizens “are not eligible to vote.”

The Court of Appeals panel said in its ruling that toward the end of a police interview, a state trooper asked Smith “a long compound question that implied that Smith actually knew she was not eligible to vote” but wanted to be involved in the school board.

When Smith, whose native language is not English, did not respond right away, another state trooper clarified, “He’s asking you,” and the first trooper again presented his question, which the panel described as “a lengthy and complex statement containing four individual questions.”

Smith answered “Yes,” the panel said, leading to her arrest and indictment on two counts of felony voter misconduct.

The biggest news to come out of two film festivals this week stemmed from documentaries about tech moguls gone bad.

When Alex Gibney’s film production “Musk” premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, it received a five-minute standing ovation, shouts of “thank you” from the audience and endless play across social media. The nearly four-hour production chronicles the rise of the world’s first trillionaire out of the dot-com boom, and lays bare the dangers that the Tesla and SpaceX chief executive now presents as a plutocrat with questionable judgment and unchecked power.

Closer to home, at the Telluride Film Festival, it was comedian Nathan Fielder (“The Rehearsal”) and Lance Oppenheim’s “You Can See Everything” that made breaking news. Their film features unfettered access to former Theranos Chief Executive Elizabeth Holmes in the weeks before she reported to federal prison to serve a sentence of 10 years and three months. She rode the early 2000s wave of venture-capitalism consumer-tech hype, defrauding investors and the public with a bogus new way to test blood. By 2014, she was the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire.

A couple of decades ago, films about Musk and Holmes probably would have framed the pair as forward-thinking entrepreneurs and architects of a new era. Today, the pitchforks are out, and who else better represents the hubris and greed of late-stage capitalism?

There’s plenty of buzz around both films ahead of their October releases, yet the richest man in the world is helping promote the “Musk” doc by incessantly posting about Gibney and his “hit” piece.

Musk’s X posts have referred to the filmmaker as a “horrible human” and a “bitter old man” and declared, “Dogs— is worth more respect.” Always looking for a conspiracy to explain away the perfectly explainable, he wrote that the film was a “psy op.” He included in the post an image of Gibney as a puppet of the Democratic Party and George Soros. Musk also offered Trumpian prose: “Gutless Gibney’s fatal flaw of fabricating a false film.”

“Musk” is due for a theatrical release in the U.S. on Oct. 16 followed by a streaming launch on HBO Max.

Musk’s attorney Alex Spiro is threatening a lawsuit. He sent a letter to the Gibney-led Jigsaw Productions accusing the filmmaker of misrepresenting facts about the mogul. Spiro says the filmmaker suggested that Musk used his Starlink satellites to bend the 2024 election in favor of his friend and ally Donald Trump.

“You are … on notice, before release, that the insinuation is false, that the material refuting it is public, and that you chose not to be told the rest,” Spiro wrote. Spiro claimed he contacted the production “multiple times” and “requested an opportunity to present the facts in the normal fact-checking process that is the hallmark of ethical journalism. You have refused to engage.”

Gibney says Musk declined to be interviewed for the film. In his absence, the documentarian created a digital avatar of the Tesla CEO and used statements pulled from decades worth of the entrepreneur’s interviews and public appearances. The film chronicles his childhood in South Africa and his time in Silicon Valley, and suggests that Musk’s genius is not as an inventor but as an investor. His talent, the film contends, is stock-pumping.

“Musk” also reportedly explores how the trillionaire had access to sensitive techno-surveillance data when he ran the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Trump in 2025. Geoffrey Hinton , often referred to as the Godfather of AI, is interviewed in the film and explains why Musk’s potential access to the data is such a problem: “It’s fairly clear to me that Trump is hell-bent on corrupting the midterm elections,” Hinton says. “If you wanted to corrupt those midterm elections and you wanted to use AI, all you needed to do was get detailed information on U.S. citizens. And what DOGE did looked like just what you would do.”

Gibney in interviews about the film has warned that Musk’s widespread, unchecked power is “extremely dangerous to world democracy.”

“What I discovered was that the story of Musk was not [a] new tech story,” Gibney said in a news conference at the Venice Film Fest. “[It’s] really the story of an old wine in a new bottle. His story turns out to be the story of the confidence man, the stock pumper, his wealth and power comes from inflated stock, and so I had told that story before with Enron and with Elizabeth Holmes, and so it was a story that was oddly familiar to me.”

Gibney is renowned for taking on big money, corruption and anything else that reeks of injustice. He’s tackled Wall Street, big pharma, Scientology, Guantanamo, and even Theranos founder Holmes.

The new film about Holmes, “You Can See Everything,” offers a quirkier, up-close take on Holmes. Produced by A24 and set for an Oct. 16 theater release, it follows the disgraced CEO post-conviction, and she appears more than comfortable in front of the filmmakers and their cameras. Audiences at Telluride were surprised by the access she gave to the filmmakers, and that Holmes spoke openly about her plans to launch a biotech comeback and revive Theranos from her cell in a Texas prison camp.

Forget the celebrity glitz of high-profile film festivals. In these eat-the-rich times, it’s the dark side of wealth, fame and alleged genius that satiate audience appetites. Enter two new documentaries that feed the beast.