Elections

Andy Burnham, who becomes the United Kingdom’s next prime minister on Monday, faces a roster of challenges as the country’s seventh leader in a decade.

Burnham was overwhelmingly backed as Labour leader on Friday after current Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigned last month.

It has been a whirlwind month for the former Greater Manchester mayor, with his vision for the country and his cabinet still unclear.

“This has gone faster than he thought. It’s only been four weeks since he won the by-election. I don’t think he knows all of the answers yet; he hasn’t had the thinking time,” Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Experts say the incoming prime minister will inherit an economy that has barely grown in two decades and a challenging geopolitical environment. He also has to deal with a marked decrease in Labour’s popularity, with the party trailing the right-wing Reform UK in the polls for 18 months.

“Burnham has relatively little fiscal room for manoeuvre,” said Anand Menon, director of UK in a Changing Europe.

New spending will have to be raised via taxation rather than borrowing, though there may be scope for “hypothecated spending” tied to a clear purpose, such as defence bonds, Menon said.

“If you make it absolutely clear what these things are for, the markets will be more permissive. But the fiscal situation is tight,” he noted.

Manchester model

The government spent around 110 billion British pounds ($148bn) on debt interest in 2025-26 alone, about eight percent of all public spending. Borrowing has run higher than planned this year, and taxes are forecast to reach their highest share of the economy since World War II by the end of the decade.

Gareth Dale, associate head of Social and Political Sciences at Brunel University, points to Burnham’s record in Manchester, including the city’s fare-capped bus network, as proof that “meaningful reforms needn’t always come with a big price tag”.

Whether that scales up nationally will hinge on his willingness to confront the bond markets.

“What Burnham did in Manchester might be harder to do at a national level,” warned Menon. “He’s got to get the balance right between showing he’s aware of the fact that there’s a country outside of London and that isn’t just Manchester.”

Menon doubts fiscal manoeuvring alone will shift the public mood. He says that living standards have stagnated and services have eroded since 2008 so “people don’t just want to listen to what you’re saying, they want to see changes for the better in their lives”.

Burnham’s in-tray is complicated further by a diplomatic dispute that flared days before he is slated to take office. The government fully nationalised British Steel’s Scunthorpe works, a year after taking control of the loss-making plant when Chinese owner Jingye Group said it planned to close it.

Jingye has vowed to pursue “full compensation through legal means,” while China’s Ministry of Commerce accused London of undermining Chinese investor confidence.

It leaves Burnham managing a strained relationship with China from day one, after Starmer went to great efforts to reset relations between the two countries.

Beyond borders

Menon argues that much of what shapes a prime minister’s fortunes lies outside their control and outside Britain’s borders.

“Sometimes the drivers of political success and failure are utterly out of your hands,” he said. He cited the war in Ukraine, Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic as reminders that a “medium-sized open economy” is exposed to forces it cannot direct.

That extends to Washington, where personal chemistry with US President Donald Trump will matter “at least for a while, until he goes off people”, Menon said.

Dependence on the US for defence and technology rules out any dramatic reconfiguring of British-US ties.

Menon expects European Union relations to get less attention than under Starmer, predicting Burnham to be “more avowedly domestic” focused.

This could still be tested by Gaza, where Burnham has apologised for the previous government’s stance. Menon cautions that turning words into policy “depends heavily on events”.

“He’s given some hints he’ll be less knee-jerkly supportive of Israel than Starmer was, but whether that carries over into power, we’ll have to wait and see,” explained Menon.

He also doubts whether Burnham would risk a rupture with Washington regarding US bases in Britain, which could be used, indirectly, in US-Israel war on Iran.

Defence first

Reports suggest that Burnham is likely to put defence above welfare spending, which will again rankle some in his party.

“He’ll probably prioritise arms spending over welfare… while dialling down the ‘net zero’ programme,” warns Dale, with Burnham expected to allow for new North Sea oil and gas drilling.

“And he voted to make the asylum system more brutal. If he does set policy in these directions, it’ll put wind in the sails of the far right, and probably accelerate the shift of voters from Labour to Green,” Dale said.

Burnham has moved from Labour’s Blairite wing to its soft left, but “commands widespread support among Labour MPs” and “gets on with various factions”, he noted.

But that unity masks deeper erosion: Labour’s vote fell from 12.9 million in 2017 to 9.7 million under Starmer.

The centre-left party’s support base is also “narrowing towards wealthier, less diverse parts of the electorate, with the Greens now drawing disillusioned voters on the left”, said Dale.

Political divides

That erosion is bound up with a wider polarisation in the country that Katwala says no government can avoid.

“I don’t think it’s enough to say we’d like to talk about jobs and devolving power and therefore we won’t talk about identity, immigration, race,” says Katwala.

He argues that fairness should be framed as universal rather than a concession to certain groups of society.

“Whether it’s tackling anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism generally, these are issues for everybody in society. It’s not for the minority group itself to work out how to challenge the prejudice it faces,” Katwala said.

“The people who are hostile to Muslims are the people who know the least Muslims and live furthest away. It’s the government’s job to get to that really tough end of attitudes and perceptions that are making people feel less safe.”

Menon sees a narrow opening on the right-wing narratives popularised by the Reform UK party.

Labour entered government in 2024 with 33 percent of the vote against Reform’s 14 percent, a gap that has since collapsed following the right-wing party’s links to George Cottrell, a convicted fraudster.

Recent polls put Reform around 24-26 percent and Labour close behind it, a marked turnaround from polling earlier this year.

By-election results also suggest a broad anti-Reform coalition and tactical voting exist, which should strengthen Labour.

“Even if 30 percent of people are willing to vote Reform, almost 70 percent are willing to do whatever it takes to stop them being elected,” Menon noted.

Whether that holds, he said, depends on how Burnham performs once the difficulties of government set in.

“It becomes a very different game when things are going badly, and if he ends up being a lucky general, then Reform self-destructs,” Menon said.

Political analyst Eric Ham argues President Donald Trump’s renewed focus on election security and his push for the SAVE Act are attempts to expand federal authority over US elections ahead of November’s midterms.

July 17 (UPI) — Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, voted to dissolve on Friday after pushing through controversial legislation favorable to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s supporters.

The Knesset is expected to be in recess until the Oct. 27 election in which Netanyahu is seeking re-election.

Analysts told CNN most of the legislation passed in the government’s closing days was meant to appease Netanyahu’s far-right and ultra-Orthodox — or Haredi — allies, thus ensuring his success in October’s election.

The motion to disband parliament was tacked on to a financing bill that increases public funding for political parties during elections, The Times of Israel reported. Opposition leader Avigdor Liberman said the legislation was an abuse of taxpayer money, calling it a “contemptible attempt to tie the end of the session to increasing funding.”

The Knesset voted 62-0 in favor.

Political analyst Nadav Eyal said Netanyahu is trying to show his ultra-Orthodox allies that he’s the only leader who will support their issues.

“Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival, and the Haredi parties are essential to it,” Eyal wrote.

If he stays in power until the October election, Netanyahu will be the first Israeli prime minister to complete a full term in office since 1988.

Among the legislation pushed through in the final days of the 25th Knesset were laws reducing the powers of the attorney general, easing actions against Haredi draft dodgers and increasing government oversight of media companies.

In a speech to the nation Thursday evening, President Trump said Americans deserve secure elections, and he claimed to be using federal authority to prevent them from being “stolen.”

In fact, one of the strongest security features of U.S. elections is the fact that they aren’t conducted at the federal level. America votes in more than 10,000 different election jurisdictions, each with different rules set by state and sometimes local governments.

That structure makes the nation’s elections extraordinarily complicated — and also safe from widespread fraud. And when misconduct does happen — rarely — security protocols frequently catch it.

Decentralized elections date back to the nation’s founding

America’s highly decentralized system of voting exists because the nation’s Founding Fathers gave authority over elections to the states, rather than the federal government. While Congress has the power to regulate elections — and has used that authority to pass such laws as the Voting Rights Act — the Constitution makes clear that states have primary authority to set the “times, places and manner” for elections.

There also is no national election agency that administers the presidential contest, something that’s different from many other countries. And when it comes to doing the day-to-day work of running an election, the responsibility falls to officials at the local level — usually a clerk or election supervisor — with help from staff and volunteers.

While differences in election laws can get confusing, election security experts say this structure is a strength. That’s because to pull off stealing a presidential election — as Trump falsely claims was done to him in 2020 — it would require large numbers of election workers in the most competitive counties across the country who are willing to risk prosecution, prison time and fines while working with officials from both parties willing to look the other way. And everyone somehow would have to keep quiet — a highly unlikely scenario.

There are also shared practices and security measures in place across the country that together work to ensure that only eligible voters can cast a ballot and only one ballot is counted for each.

Voter fraud can happen, but it’s rare and there are safeguards to catch it

Most Americans by now have probably heard stories about someone casting multiple ballots, or voting in the name of dead relatives, or stealing mail ballots from mailboxes.

When these incidents happen, they are often caught and prosecuted.

Voting more than once, tampering with ballots, lying about your residence to vote somewhere else or casting someone else’s ballot are crimes that can be punished with hefty fines and prison time. Non-U.S. citizens who break election laws can be deported.

For anyone still motivated to cheat, election systems in the United States are designed with multiple layers of protection and transparency intended to stand in the way.

For example, for in-person voting, most states either require or request voters provide some sort of identification at the polls. Others require voters to verify who they are in another way, such as stating their name and address, signing a poll book or signing an affidavit.

For absentee voting, all states require a voter’s signature, and many states have further precautions, such as having bipartisan teams compare the signature with other signatures on file, requiring the signature to be notarized or requiring a witness to sign.

That means even if a ballot is erroneously sent to someone’s past address and the current resident mails it in, there are checks to alert election workers to the foul play.

AP review found there was too little voter fraud to tip the 2020 election

Trump has spent six years insisting he won the 2020 election, a campaign he lost to former President Joe Biden.

An Associated Press review in 2021 dug into every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states that Trump disputed. It found fewer than 475 cases — a number that would have made no difference in that race.

Allegations from Trump of massive voting fraud have been refuted by a variety of judges, state election officials and an arm of his own administration’s Homeland Security Department. In 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, told the AP that no proof of widespread voter fraud had been uncovered. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” he said at the time.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday convened leaders from more than 60 countries to take part in the Trump administration’s latest effort to quell what it calls “left-wing” political terrorism, a marquee issue for Republicans heading into the midterm elections.

This focus comes even as studies show that there are very few reported cases of such incidents in the U.S., especially compared to historically higher levels of far-right violence.

With sweeping statements about the “alarming rise” of political violence by the left, Rubio and other U.S. officials painted a dark image of the future if the “communists and Marxists” perpetrating these supposed acts are not defeated. He urged officials in attendance — mostly from European and Latin American countries — to unite to address the issue, which he says has been a “blind spot” in counterterrorism doctrine.

“So many people in positions of power have repeatedly dismissed acts of violence and even terrorism as legitimate forms of political expression, so long as they served a left-wing cause,” Rubio said in opening remarks. “A bomb planted by a neo-Nazi group was ‘a nefarious and murderous act of evil.’ It is, but a bomb planted by a Marxist revolutionary, well, that’s just merely a tragic excess of idealism.”

A report published last year by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that left-wing terrorism attacks as of July 4, 2025, had surpassed those from the far right for the first time in more than 30 years. However, a closer look at the data reveals that the uptick reflects a very low starting level and a concurrent drop on the far right.

There was an average of 0.6 left-wing incidents annually from 1994 through 2000, compared with an average of 20.6 on the right, the report shows. From 2016 to 2024, there was an average of four per year on the left and 22.7 per year on the right. Those numbers had dropped dramatically on the right as of early July 2025, with only one incident. Meanwhile, there had been five from the left.

But the report’s authors note that right-wing terrorism could easily return to elevated levels and that it is important to fight terrorism on both sides of the political spectrum.

President Trump and his allies have prioritized talking points against the far left ahead of the congressional elections this November. Trump has repeatedly stated that the Democratic Party’s ascendant left are communists who want to “completely destroy the traditional American way of life” and even engage in assassinations.

Vice President JD Vance has similarly called out communism as a political shift that is “something we haven’t seen in the U.S.” House Speaker Mike Johnson has decried “radical candidates” who are “self-described, self-identifying Marxists.”

For Rubio, his worldview on this issue has been largely shaped by his own history: he is the son of Cuban immigrants who arrived in Miami in May 1956, a few years before communist leader Fidel Castro rose to power in Havana. The former Florida senator said Thursday that it was that same government’s sprawling intelligence and ideological network that “helped to build the far left in our country and in our hemisphere.”

Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff and main architect of the administration’s immigration policy, followed Rubio’s remarks, aiming to drive home the immediacy of the perceived threats he saw to American institutions coming from the left, and what response is needed in return.

“If your civilization is your home, you must defend it with the same passion and force as if an enemy intruder is inside your own house where your family lives,” Miller said. “That is the level of dedication and urgency that is required.”

This ideological focus has repeatedly conflated democratic socialism — which often centers on securing universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter corporate regulation — with communism, under which private ownership is largely eliminated.

It has only intensified in the last year, after the election of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City mayor and several of his proteges who won their New York City congressional primaries last month, beating out incumbents.

One of the ways the administration has started to target left-wing efforts is through sanctions. In November, the State Department designated four antifa or anti-fascist groups in Europe as foreign terrorist organizations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in his remarks Thursday that targeting these entities’ financial networks is the best way to circumvent their efforts.

“We have spent decades developing the world’s most sophisticated financial counterterrorism capabilities, and now we are mobilizing some of the same tools that we have deployed against terrorists abroad to confront this emerging threat here at home,” he told the conference.

Amiri and Kinnard write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from New York and Kinnard from Columbia, S.C. AP writer Melissa Goldin in New York contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — Election officials in Arizona’s most populous county reached an agreement this week on how to jointly oversee the vote, ending a prolonged legal battle.

Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap sued the predominantly GOP board of supervisors in June 2025, alleging it illegally took control of certain aspects of election administration. The board called the lawsuit frivolous and said Heap was wasting taxpayer money.

They reached a settlement this week to resolve the lawsuit after mediated negotiations, and the board approved it.

“This deal gets us out of the courtroom,” board Chair Kate Brophy McGee, said after Tuesday’s vote. “I’m sick of drama. We are done with being on the front page going forward.”

Heap said his objective was simple: to ensure his office’s statutory responsibilities are carried out lawfully.

“I am pleased we have reached an agreement that, when implemented, will restore those responsibilities and establish a clear framework for administering elections moving forward,” Heap said in a statement jointly released with the board.

Under the agreement, an interim plan proposed by Heap and approved by the Arizona Supreme Court will govern the July 21 primary. Early voting began in late June.

Heap will oversee much of early voting, selection of ballot drop box locations and other duties. The board will handle other areas, including Election Day voting, ballot tabulation and voting location equipment maintenance. The board also will fund a new $15 million information technology system and related positions for the recorder.

Heap was backed in the lawsuit by America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, a deputy chief of staff in the White House. Heap had claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of drop boxes and establishment of early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor.

Heap defeated incumbent recorder Stephen Richer, in a GOP primary, and won the 2024 general election.

The two were at odds over election administration in Maricopa County. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen. But he has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it is poorly run. Richer, also a Republican, relentlessly defended the legitimacy of the vote.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo, a Democrat, did not vote to approve the settlement and criticized Heap during Tuesday’s board meeting.

“Honestly, I don’t think he wants to have an election that is conducted transparent or even an election that’s not compromised,” Gallardo said. “Now, with this, he owns it.”

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

It was a Capitol Hill mystery. For nearly a month, United States Senator Mitch McConnell was not seen or heard from in public.

Little was known about the 84-year-old’s condition, other than that he was hospitalised on June 14. Conspiracy theories began to bubble online. One prominent right-wing influencer, Laura Loomer, even spread rumours that the Republican leader was brain-dead.

But after weeks of silence, McConnell confirmed on Sunday that he was on the mend after suffering a fall.

Still, the Kentucky Republican has increasingly appeared frail on Capitol Hill, freezing in front of cameras and walking unsteadily when not in a wheelchair.

Members of Congress are typically on the older side. The average age for a US senator is around 65.

McConnell’s poor health — and the sudden passing of his Senate colleague Lindsey Graham, 71, on Sunday — have reignited the question: What would happen if McConnell were unable to serve the remainder of his term?

The answer is the subject of intense scrutiny, as Republicans seek to preserve their majority in the Senate.

Who is Mitch McConnell?

A seven-term senator from Kentucky, McConnell is the longest-serving party leader in the history of the Senate.

He first entered the Senate in 1985, and in 2007, he became the head of the Republican Party in the chamber, a position he held until 2025.

He continues to serve as a senator, though he is not seeking re-election in November’s midterm elections. His term ends in January.

What is wrong with McConnell’s health?

On Sunday, McConnell said in a statement that a fall on June 14 rendered him “briefly unconscious” and landed him in the hospital. The senator also said he had dealt with a mild case of pneumonia.

But McConnell has long struggled with health and mobility challenges. As a toddler, he survived a severe bout of polio, though it left one of his legs partially paralysed.

McConnell indicated his condition was improving, but that he would not return to the Senate yet.

“With signs of continued progress, I’ve been able to move from hospital care to a rehabilitation center where I’ll keep regaining my strength,” he wrote.

His statement was accompanied by a smiling photo of the senator in a hospital bed, with what appeared to be a copy of Sunday’s Washington Post newspaper.

Has McConnell been hospitalised before?

This is not the first time the senior senator’s health has been a source of concern in recent years.

As recently as February, the veteran lawmaker was hospitalised for flu-like symptoms.

Also, in 2019, McConnell tripped and fell in his Louisville home, fracturing his shoulder.

According to reporting from the Louisville Courier Journal, he also collapsed three times in 2023, suffering a concussion and a broken rib that ultimately led to him using a wheelchair.

It was during that period that McConnell had several instances where he inexplicably appeared to freeze while speaking in public, prompting questions about his fitness to serve.

Why does his presence in the Senate matter?

Republicans have a controlling majority in the Senate — but only by a few seats.

With McConnell absent, the number of Republicans available to vote shrinks from 53 to 52 in the 100-seat Senate.

That could influence the outcome of divisive bills, when every Republican vote matters.

McConnell’s absence has already helped Democrats pass a resolution against President Donald Trump’s war on Iran, with four Republicans crossing party lines to vote for it.

McConnell also sits on the all-important Senate Appropriations Committee, which helps decide discretionary government spending.

The US government has a looming funding deadline on September 30, and McConnell’s continued hospitalisation could muddle efforts to pass funding measures.

What does McConnell’s absence reveal about Republican Party unity?

The Republican majority in the Senate has weakened over time, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

Moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — alongside wild cards like Rand Paul — have shown willingness in the past to join with Democrats during critical votes.

But that small proportion of “swing” Republicans has grown during the midterm primary season.

A number of lame-duck Republicans have lost their re-election bids to party rivals, backed by President Trump. That makes them more willing to buck their party leadership from time to time.

“McConnell’s absence could become inconvenient depending on what sort of policy battles we see in coming months,” said Voss.

What has been the reaction to McConnell’s absence?

News of McConnell’s hospitalisation sent alarm rippling through the US political sphere.

Republican leaders attempted to reassure the public that the senator would soon return to his post. But as the weeks stretched on, questions about McConnell’s condition mounted.

Ultimately, on July 8, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear sent a letter to McConnell’s office, requesting an update on the senator’s health status.

Beshear has since called McConnell’s written statement on Sunday a “step in the right direction”, but he continues to push for more transparency, suggesting the Republican senator release a video update instead.

Some critics have called on McConnell to step down altogether, questioning his fitness for office. They include Democrat Charles Booker, who is running to succeed McConnell in the midterm elections.

Tres Watson, a Republican strategist and host of the Kentucky Politics Weekly podcast, sees no reason to doubt McConnell’s ability to serve, despite the recent health scares.

“I’ve been around the senator several times in the last year. His brain is functioning fine, his wit is there, his intellect is there, but the body is failing him, and he made the understandable decision not to run for another term,” Watson said.

What happens if Mitch McConnell is unable to serve the rest of his term?

If McConnell were to vacate his senate seat before his term ends, it may be tempting for Democrats to think Beshear, the Democratic governor of Kentucky, could appoint someone from his own party.

That’s not the case, however, because of a recent change in state law. Kentucky is now one of four US states where the governor does not have authority to fill Senate vacancies.

In 2024, Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a law requiring Senate vacancies to be filled by a special election, which must be called by the governor.

But experts say holding a special election this year would be fraught with challenges, one of which is timing.

The new law says the governor must give 63 days’ notice before the special election. Senate hopefuls would have to file their candidacy no later than 56 days prior to the vote.

Even if McConnell’s Senate seat were vacated immediately, the earliest a special election could occur is September.

But experts say that cobbling together a special election would not make sense, since November’s midterm elections are barely three and a half months away. McConnell’s Senate seat is up for grabs in that race.

“Setting up the process would take time, so we wouldn’t get a senator in office very quickly, even if this process kicked off soon,” said Voss, the political science professor. “The probability that we’d get a replacement ahead of time is pretty low.”

Watson, the Republican strategist, agrees. He questions the efficiency of rushing to hold a special election, when the midterms are on November 3.

“We’re getting pretty close to Election Day,” Watson said. “They’re not going to put the commonwealth through the expense of having another special election just so someone could be a US senator for effectively one month.”

Could there be challenges to filling McConnell’s seat?

Yes, a significant challenge could be litigation. Kentucky’s 2024 law is largely untested, and it would almost certainly attract legal challenges.

“I think there’s a decent chance the issue could end up in the courts,” said Joshua Douglas, a University of Kentucky law professor who teaches election law.

Douglas believes there may be a contradiction between the new law and parts of the Kentucky Constitution.

“The 17th Amendment says the legislature may authorise the governor to appoint a temporary replacement, Section 152 of the Kentucky Constitution says the governor appoints one, and the Kentucky legislature now says there must be a special election after the new law,” Douglas said.

Voss explained that the legal challenges could delay any special election to fill McConnell’s seat.

“This is the sort of thing that lawyers know how to tie up in litigation,” Voss said. “There would be people involved who know how to slow walk the process.”

Why can’t the governor pick McConnell’s replacement?

The 2024 law stripped the governor’s authority to select a temporary replacement for a US Senate seat.

Governor Beshear vetoed the bill, but the state legislature, which has a Republican supermajority, overrode his opposition.

The measure is part of a broader strategy of Republican lawmakers to shift powers away from the governor since Beshear’s election in 2019.

“We’ve seen an overall attempt by the Kentucky General Assembly to shift power from the executive to the legislative branch,” Voss said.

But the 2024 law was not the legislature’s first attempt at limiting the governor’s ability to fill Senate vacancies.

Initially, in 2021, Republican lawmakers passed a bill that required the governor to choose a temporary replacement from a list of three provided by the executive committee of the former senator’s party. After filling the vacancy, a special election would be held.

According to Watson, Republicans passed a new version because they were concerned about legal challenges to the 2021 law.

Republicans in the state argue that the 2024 update is more democratic and aligns with the process for filling other vacancies.

Beshear is the only Democrat to hold a statewide office in Kentucky. The state has not elected a Democrat to the US Senate since 1992.

Who is running to replace McConnell in the midterms?

In the general election, Democrat Charles Booker, a former state legislator, is running against Republican Representative Andy Barr to succeed McConnell.

US President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official, Jay Clayton, evaded directly stating that Trump lost the 2020 election. During his Senate confirmation hearing Clayton said only that Biden had been ‘certified’ as president, adding ‘I am not an election denier’.

United States President Donald Trump is promising “really big news” in a rare primetime address on Thursday night, though he won’t say exactly what it is.

The surprise speech was announced on Tuesday. But when pressed by reporters about what he planned to talk about, Trump only revealed that the speech would be about elections and “a couple of other things”.

“It doesn’t get bigger, because without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country,” he told journalists in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Asked to elaborate, Trump said he wanted to “save it” for the speech.

“We’ll be discussing other things, too,” he added. “It’s going to be a very big announcement.”

The White House has since confirmed that the address will focus on elections, including information related to the 2020 presidential election, which Trump has falsely claimed he won.

The speech is also expected to discuss what the White House describes as vulnerabilities in US voting machines.

Here’s what we know about the upcoming primetime presidential address.

When is Trump’s speech?

Trump is expected to speak from the White House on Thursday at 9pm US Eastern Time (01:00 GMT Friday).

How can you watch it?

Major US television networks are expected to carry the address live. The Trump administration has requested airtime from major broadcasters.

It will also be livestreamed on WhiteHouse.gov and on the White House’s YouTube page.

Why is the timing significant?

Trump’s speech comes three and a half months before the November 3 midterm elections.

At stake is control over the US Congress. Currently, Trump’s Republican Party holds slim majorities in both of Congress’s chambers.

But Democrats are seeking to tip the balance in their favour, leveraging backlash to Trump’s second term.

Critics fear Trump may use his primetime address to erode voter confidence in the upcoming elections, or to assert federal influence over election administration, which is run at the state and local level.

There is also speculation that Trump may be angling to fire up his base amid drooping poll numbers. The research firm YouGov suggested this month that more than 57 percent of US voters disapprove of the president’s second-term performance so far.

What is Trump expected to talk about?

So far, much remains unknown about Thursday’s speech.

Administration officials say Trump will discuss newly declassified intelligence connected to its investigations into the 2020 presidential election.

They have also suggested that Trump will discuss alleged vulnerabilities in voting machines that could allow foreign cyber intrusions.

Trump has revealed little else. When asked this week whether the speech would focus on voting machine integrity, he replied simply: “It will concern that subject.”

What happened in the 2020 elections?

Trump was a first-term incumbent when he ran for a second term in the 2020 presidential election.

He faced Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who had previously served as vice president under Barack Obama.

Biden defeated Trump, winning both the Electoral College vote – which determines the presidency – and the popular vote, an important symbolic metric.

The Democrat scooped up 306 Electoral College votes and more than 81 million individual ballots, compared with 232 Electoral College votes and 74 million ballots for Trump.

Critically, swing states like Georgia, Michigan and Arizona voted in Biden’s favour.

After the election, Trump repeatedly rejected the results, and his supporters attacked the US Capitol during the Electoral College certification on January 6, 2021.

What is Trump’s history of questioning US elections?

Trump has spent years casting doubt on the integrity of US elections, even before 2020.

Before the 2016 election, he refused to say whether he would accept a loss to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

After winning his first term in office, he created a presidential commission to investigate his claims that he lost the popular vote due to widespread fraud. The commission was disbanded after finding no evidence to support those claims.

After losing the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly alleged that the vote had been stolen despite numerous investigations finding no evidence to support those claims.

In Georgia, he urged the state’s secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes”, the number needed to overturn Biden’s victory there.

Trump and his allies later faced two indictments – one on the state level, one on the federal level – over allegations they attempted to overturn the 2020 election results.

The federal case was dropped when Trump was re-elected in 2024, in accordance with Department of Justice norms not to prosecute a sitting president.

The state-level case, meanwhile, fell apart after Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting the case.

Trump, however, has continued to assert he was the rightful winner of the 2020 race, despite there being no evidence to support the claim.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a federal cybersecurity watchdog, has called the 2020 election “the most secure in American history”.

Investigations, including several by Trump allies, have produced no evidence that vote-machine rigging or foreign cyber intrusions changed the outcome.

What has the administration done lately to advance Trump’s 2020 claims?

In January, FBI agents descended upon Fulton County, Georgia, to execute a search warrant to collect election materials related to the 2020 race.

Officials in Fulton County, which contains the state capital, Atlanta, have protested against the search and called for the return of the confidential election materials.

They have also claimed they were not given an inventory of what was taken.

An FBI memo obtained by US media this month indicates the agency has diverted hundreds of agents to the case, which officials say is about “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election”.

Trump has called on Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, to declassify documents related to the 2020 vote.

What do Trump’s claims have to do with the midterms?

Trump appears to be ramping up his election fraud claims as the November midterms approach.

According to a review published by the Reuters news agency in May, Trump claimed the 2020 vote was stolen more than 107 times over the preceding six-month period.

Already, Trump has suggested that California’s primary vote in June was “rigged”.

Just last week, he invited defeated Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt to the White House after crediting Pratt’s loss to voter fraud. “What they did to that guy was unbelievable,” Trump told Fox News on Sunday.

Trump has expressed fear he could be impeached if his party does not retain control of Congress in the midterms. Major Democratic victories in the midterms could also stymie his legislative agenda for the final two years of his presidency.

What has Trump done to advance his election reform agenda?

Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has pushed to overhaul voting procedures.

Under the US Constitution, election administration falls to the states. It is not within the federal government’s control.

But critics say Trump is attempting to nationalise the election and tighten voter access.

Trump has championed election restrictions like those in the SAVE America Act, a bill that would require voters to produce in-person proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or passport.

Already, non-citizens are barred from voting. But opponents argue that the SAVE America Act would present a hurdle to legal voters who do not have access to such documents. Many states allow voting with other forms of identification, like a state driver’s licence or a Social Security number.

Trump has also sought to limit the use of mail-in ballots through bills like the SAVE America Act and executive orders. But federal courts have repeatedly blocked his attempts.

In June, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that states can continue to count mail-in ballots after election day, so long as they are postmarked on or before that date.

Trump has also faced legal challenges against his attempts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls and create a national voter file. And he has threatened to withhold funds – including from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – if states fail to comply with his demands.

Earlier this month, his administration issued letters to election officials nationwide, warning that they “could be criminally prosecuted” if there are instances of non-citizen voting.

But non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare, as is voter fraud overall.

How have Democrats responded to Thursday’s upcoming speech?

Democrats have warned against giving Trump airtime for his unsubstantiated claims.

“Trump is going to use a primetime address to stoke misleading claims about our elections in order to justify interfering in our midterms,” Senator Mark Warner wrote on social media on Wednesday.

“It’s on all of us to follow the facts and not accept his constant stream of misdirections and lies.”

Another senator, New Mexico’s Ben Ray Lujan, pointed to Trump’s second impeachment as evidence of his willingness to subvert elections.

“This is the same man who was impeached after inciting an insurrection to overturn the election,” Lujan said, calling Trump “corrupt”.

NEW YORK — Former President Biden will publish a memoir, “Promise Me, America,” which he says will touch upon everything from the economy to his decision to drop his bid for reelection.

The memoir is scheduled to come out Nov. 17, publisher Little, Brown and Company told The Associated Press. The timing of the book — two weeks after midterm elections in which Democrats seek to regain control of Congress — could raise concerns within Biden’s party by putting him back into the spotlight.

Democrats remain divided on Biden’s legacy, with many blaming his ill-fated determination to seek a second term for Republican President Trump’s return to the White House. Leaders hope to keep the fall campaign focused on Trump and his record, and any leaks or promotional efforts before votes are cast could draw frustration.

“‘Promise Me, America’ is about the challenges we faced as a nation. It’s about the decisions I made and why I made them,” Biden said in a video statement accompanying Wednesday’s announcement. “It’s about why I chose to run for reelection and why I chose to step aside.”

Reports of Biden’s book have circulated for more than a year, and the former president himself has referred to it during public remarks, appearing to suggest it would be released before November’s election.

Biden, who will turn 84 three days after the publication of “Promise Me, America,” has long presented himself as an upholder of standards and traditions; presidential memoirs are one of them. With a handful of exceptions, modern presidents since Harry Truman in the 1950s have published books about their White House years. Little, Brown declined to release financial details for ”Promise Me, America,” although presidents have usually reached deals worth at least seven figures.

The book’s title echoes a 2017 memoir by Biden, “Promise Me, Dad,” which centered on the death of his son, Beau Biden.

Vowing as a candidate to “restore the soul” of his country, Biden was sworn into office in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters seeking to stop his certification as president. Biden’s term was defined by a wide range of conflicts and achievements, from his handling of wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to the passage of ambitious infrastructure and economic aid bills. But many readers will likely want to know more about his health while president, including the disastrous debate in June 2024 against Trump that led to his giving up his reelection bid. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who ran instead, lost decisively to Trump.

Former first lady Jill Biden wrote in her own book that her husband seemed so weak and disoriented during the debate that she feared he was having a stroke. In “View from the East Wing,” published in June, she noted that the White House had initially said he was suffering from a cold.

“The biggest lesson for us, I think, was that if you don’t explain something well enough then the question won’t go away,” she wrote. “There was never a satisfying enough explanation offered for Joe’s debate performance, and a lot of people never got over it.”

Biden was the oldest man to serve as president and his health was a source of speculation for much of his term; Biden and his White House advisers have faced intense criticism from Democrats and Republicans for allegedly concealing the extent of his problems. A notable book release from 2025, Jake Tapper’s and Alex Thompson’s “Original Sin,” was subtitled “President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.”

That year, Biden announced he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Biden’s previous books also include “Promises to Keep,” a campaign work published to boost his run for president in 2008, when Barack Obama was the eventual nominee and Biden his running mate. ”Promise Me, America” comes out during a year when nonfiction sales have declined and few political books have caught on, although recent bestsellers have included Vice President JD Vance’s “Communion” and an inside account of Trump’s second term, by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, “Regime Change.”

A Little, Brown spokesperson said that Biden plans to tour on behalf of the book and give interviews. In his video announcement, Biden said that many people had been asking him how he was doing.

“I’ve been spending a lot of time with my family. I’m dealing with a cancer diagnosis, been getting treatment, and it’s going really well,” he said. “I want to thank all those who have offered their prayers and support and well-wishes. It’s meant the world to me and to Jill.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

July 14 (UPI) — The Wisconsin Elections Commission has sent two complaints to prosecutors accusing businessman Elon Musk of violating anti-bribery law when he gave out millions to people to encourage them to vote last year.

The bipartisan commission voted 5-1 to forward the complaints to the Brown County District Attorney, WISN-TV in Milwaukee reported.

Musk’s American PAC wrote $1 million checks to two voters in the 2025 election as part of tens of millions he invested in the failed campaign of conservative Brad Schimel, who sought a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He lost to Susan Crawford, a liberal, who previously served as a circuit court judge in Dane County.

Musk also gave out other prizes ranging from $20 to $100 for those who signed the “Petition in Opposition to Activist Judges,” Forbes reported.

The commission said Musk’s post on X offering $ 1 million to those who voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election to induce them to vote showed probable cause that he violated state election law banning bribery.

This July 14th appears to be one of the key days in the political process that Venezuela has been experiencing since January 3rd. Early in the morning, the 2015 National Assembly announced a joint work agenda starting August 1st “as a roadmap to promote stability, democracy, and national recovery.”

The US president suggests he is considering a potential candidate to fill the late senator’s seat in South Carolina.

The disadvantage that the Republican majority in the United States Senate has suffered from the death of Lindsey Graham is likely to be short-lived.

Currently, Republicans hold 52 seats in the 100-member chamber, after losing Graham to a “brief and sudden illness” late on Saturday, according to his office.

But South Carolina’s election laws give Republican Governor Henry McMaster the authority to immediately appoint a replacement to fill Graham’s seat.

“In case of a vacancy in the office of United States Senator from death, resignation or otherwise, the Governor may fill the place by appointment,” the law says.

Graham’s term was set to expire in January. He was running for re-election in the November midterm vote.

A primary will be held next month to determine who will take his place as the Republican nominee. The first round of voting is set for August 11, and if no candidate wins a majority of the votes, a run-off would take place on August 25.

McMaster has released a brief statement mourning Graham, without mentioning plans to replace him. The law does not set a timeline for the appointment, but the governor is likely to fill the seat quickly to ensure that President Donald Trump’s agenda is not disrupted in the Senate.

Graham was one of Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill.

In his statement, McMaster called the late senator the “fiercest of fighters for South Carolina and America and a loyal and steadfast friend”.

“We grieve with Darline, his family and his devoted staff,” McMaster said, referring to Graham’s sister. “May God hold him gently in the palm of his hand. We shall not see his likes again.”

It is so far unclear who McMaster might select as Graham’s replacement. The governor might appoint a placeholder candidate who would fill the seat without seeking a full term in November’s midterms, to avoid influencing the election process.

He may also opt for someone who would run for the full term, which would give his pick the incumbent status that would boost their profile — and therefore, their chances at the ballot box.

Other governors have faced similar dilemmas. In California, for instance, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom pursued both paths in separate appointments in recent years.

When Kamala Harris vacated her Senate seat to serve as US vice president in 2021, Newsom picked state legislator Alex Padilla to replace her. Padilla won a special election for the seat the following year.

But in 2023, when Senator Dianne Feinstein died, Newsom appointed political operative Laphonza Butler, who did not end up running in the 2024 election.

In Graham’s case, however, the White House might weigh in. Trump has suggested that he is considering backing a candidate to replace the senator.

“I have somebody that I think would be great, but I don’t want to say it now because it’s just too soon with Lindsey,” the US president told NBC News.

“I don’t want to even talk about anybody, but I do have somebody that I think is really good.”

South Carolina, a southern state on the US’s Atlantic coast, has been a Republican stronghold for decades. Trump won the state by nearly 18 percentage points in 2024.

But polls have suggested that Graham was not cruising to re-election. His Democratic opponent, paediatrician Annie Andrews, was closing the gap on him.

A June poll by Impact Research showed the late senator leading by only three percent.

Graham had become a polorising figure even within the Republican base, due to his staunch devotion to Israel and support for the US-Israeli war on Iran.

On Sunday, Andrews praised Graham without mentioning elections or politics.

“I hope that South Carolinians will join me in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude to Senator Lindsey Graham for his service to the great state of South Carolina,” she said in a statement.

A United States federal court has dismissed the seditious conspiracy cases against four members of the Proud Boys, the far-right group involved in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On Friday, Judge Timothy J Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be revived in future.

But Kelly made it clear that the defendants — Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — had been “convicted of serious offences”.

He wrote in his seven-page ruling that his decision was ultimately rooted in the separation of government powers, not in the merits of the case.

“As the Court has said many times, the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a perilous event. It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured,” Kelly wrote.

“It was an attack on the Constitution’s mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next,” he added.

Inside the January 6 riot

Friday’s ruling was yet another milestone in Trump’s efforts to end the prosecution of January 6 rioters.

The attack on the Capitol came shortly after Trump lost his bid for re-election in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden. But in the aftermath of his loss, Trump spread false claims that the election had been rigged.

January 6, 2021, was the day Congress was scheduled to certify the Electoral College votes, confirming Trump’s defeat.

His vice president at the time, Mike Pence, held a ceremonial role overseeing the certification that day. But behind the scenes, Trump reportedly pressured Pence to reject the results of the election.

At midday, Trump held a “Save America” rally in front of the White House, repeating to his supporters that he had won “by a landslide”.

“If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election,” Trump said at one point. At another, he said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Afterwards, some of his supporters marched to the Capitol and broke into the building, attacking police officers and causing millions of dollars worth of damage. Participants signalled their aim was to stop the vote certification, with some chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

The attack proved to be deadly. One rioter was shot by police as she climbed through a broken window to enter the House Speaker’s Lobby. An officer died from a stroke the following day after being beaten. Others died by suicide after the attack. Members of Congress had to be led to safety.

Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice opened criminal cases against nearly 1,600 people involved.

But Trump has long defended the rioters and called their prosecution a “national injustice”.

Trump himself faced two criminal indictments — one at state level, the other federal — over his alleged attempts to subvert the election results, though the charges were dropped upon his re-election in 2024.

Unravelling the prosecutions

Calling the January 6 prosecutions an example of government “weaponisation”, Trump had campaigned during the 2024 race on a promise to pardon the rioters.

He followed through with that pledge on the first day of his second term. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order granting “a full, complete and unconditional pardon” to most of the defendants involved in the Capitol attack.

Trump also commuted the sentences of 14 people, including Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Pezzola. Under his authority, the Department of Justice also proceeded to seek the dismissal of ongoing January 6 cases.

Judge Kelly cited that series of events in Friday’s ruling, though he appeared to express a measure of scepticism.

“No one should mistake the Court’s granting of the Government’s motion for its agreement with those decisions,” Kelly wrote.

In May 2023, a jury in Washington, DC, found Nordean, Biggs and Rehl guilty of charges including seditious conspiracy, alongside Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.

Pezzola, meanwhile, was found not guilty of seditious conspiracy, but he was convicted of several felonies, including assaulting a police officer. At sentencing, the four men received prison terms ranging from 10 to 18 years, with Pezzola receiving the lightest sentence of the group.

But in weighing the future of the case against the four men, Judge Kelly explained that it was “hard to see” any other course forward other than dismissal.

The court system, Kelly explained, cannot “compel” the executive branch to pursue prosecutions. Trump’s executive order had also required the Department of Justice to seek the case’s dismissal.

“The Court will grant the motion because there are no grounds for it to withhold leave for the Government to dismiss the case with prejudice,” Kelly concluded.

But he ended his decision with a word of warning about protecting the future of American democracy from further attacks.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

The dismissals leave the federal election body vacant as Trump presses for broader changes to US voting rules.

President Donald Trump has removed the last remaining members of an independent federal commission that helps support United States elections, leaving the bipartisan body with no sitting commissioners.

The White House confirmed the news on Friday, with only months to spare before November’s midterm elections.

“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections,” the White House said in a statement.

It added that the administration had been “working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse” in the run-up to the midterms.

The decision concerns the Election Assistance Commission (ECA), an independence office created by Congress in 2002 to support state and local election officials. Among its duties are creating non-binding election guidelines, certifying voting systems and maintaining the national mail voter registration form.

Four commissioners typically helm the agency. But on Thursday, the two Democratic appointees — Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland — were fired by email, according to the news agency Reuters.

The lone remaining Republican, Christy McCormick, resigned. A fourth commissioner, Republican appointee Donald Palmer, had already left in April.

The commission is required by law to be made up evenly of Democrats and Republicans, and it was put in place to help after the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Trump’s decision to fire the remaining commissioners has further raised concerns that he may seek to intervene in the upcoming midterm elections, which will decide control of Congress for the rest of his term.

Under the US Constitution, election administration is the responsibility of the state, not the federal government.

The Election Assistance Commission had previously declined to implement part of Trump’s March 2025 executive order that called upon it to require proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form.

A federal judge later blocked that part of that executive order, ruling the president had exceeded his authority. Trump has appealed the ruling.

Voters are already required to affirm their citizenship before voting, as non-citizen voting is illegal in the US. Instances of non-citizen voting are rare.

The firings are the latest in a broader effort by the president to reshape how elections are conducted.

The Trump administration has pushed to tighten vote-by-mail rules and threatened to withhold some federal funding from states that refuse to adopt new election requirements. Many of those efforts have been challenged in court.

Earlier this week, the administration also sent out letters warning election officials that they could face prosecution if they fail to remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

Trump has defended the actions as necessary to protect election integrity. He has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 election was the result of fraud, a claim not backed by evidence.

The latest firings come after the US Supreme Court last month expanded the president’s power to fire members of independent agencies, even without cause.

The court ruled six to three in Trump’s favour, arguing that “neither Congress nor the courts may saddle” the president with executive-branch leaders he does not approve of.

The president is allowed by law to appoint replacements to the commission. It is not yet clear whether Trump plans to nominate replacements or leave the seats vacant.

WASHINGTON — President Trump dismissed all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission this week, his latest move to assert control over national elections in the final months before midterm voting.

The White House defended the move as justified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision handing the president greater authority to reshape independent government agencies, including by replacing appointed leaders.

Democrats and some independent elections experts blasted it as politically motivated, counter to the interests of voters and foolhardy with the November election so close.

“Purging commissioners just months before the midterm elections and further gutting support for our state and local elections officials is a blatant part of his plan to politicize our elections and enable more unlawful and dangerous election interference,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections.

Padilla alleged the dismissals are an attempt by Trump “to dismantle yet another independent guardrail of our democracy designed to keep elections fair and secure.”

A White House official framed the dismissals in starkly different terms, saying the departing commissioners were “not totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted.” It did not say when the president planned to appoint new commissioners.

The four-member commission was created by Congress in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act to help states improve their voting systems and voter access. By law, no more than two commissioners may belong to the same political party.

Historically, it has provided voluntary guidance and best practices for voting systems, and served as a sort of clearinghouse for election performance around the country — so that states and localities can learn from each other.

Since 2018, the panel has also disbursed more than $1 billion in election security grants, according to a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Those grants are then used to protect IT systems from foreign and domestic cyberattacks, update voting systems, ensure the accuracy of voter rolls and protect the integrity of ballots after they are cast.

Without leadership, the panel cannot take any official action until new members are nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

Benjamin W. Hovland, one of the Democratic commissioners removed by Trump, told NBC News that taking away a key federal agency designed to help state and local election administrators will have a negative effect on already strained elections officials.

“When you’re asking more and more of people without giving them the necessary resources, you know, mistakes happen,” he said.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, in a statement to The Times, said Trump was “injecting unnecessary chaos, confusion and instability into the very systems that Americans rely on to make their voices heard,” but that California “will not be intimidated or deterred” from maintaining elections “in which everyone can fairly and securely participate.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said on X that “Newsom’s election protection efforts become more important by the day” — a reference to his recent push for state legislation that would make it a felony in California for anyone to seize ballots before a vote has been certified.

Newsom had said Thursday that Trump’s efforts to seize control over elections represented a “five-alarm fire” that must be confronted.

“We will lose this country unless we are vigilant about what’s going on in terms of election security,” he said.

Trump’s dismantling of the commission comes as he wages a much broader campaign to rewrite voting rules. He has sought to place new restrictions on mail ballots, to enhance voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements for voters, to subject state voter rolls to federal oversight and purges, and to assert federal control over how and whether the U.S. Postal Service delivers mail ballots.

Much of that agenda, pushed through executive orders and other administrative actions, has been stymied by the courts, while stalling out in Congress, where it lacks support.

Whether Trump’s move to dismantle and reconstitute the commission will prove an effective path to instituting his election agenda — or will face its own court challenges — remains unclear, experts said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, wrote that Trump could try to illegally direct the commission to “do his bidding” by amending the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

“If he tries anything like this, it will be high profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer,” Hasen wrote.

Michael Waldman, president and chief executive of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said in a statement that Trump’s terminations were “deeply concerning” in light of his “relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections.”

But he also said that the “guardrails” Congress put on the commission remain intact, require it to be made up of a bipartisan group and preclude Trump from directing it to enforce his voting agenda.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Trump’s firing of the commissioners was part of a broader effort by the president to “sow distrust in our voting system so he can contest the results if they are not to his liking.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the very name of the commission makes it clear that it was “designed to assist states and localities, not dictate what states and localities must do” with elections. She said California has “the most robust standards” for elections in the country, which won’t change with the removal of the commissioners.

Still, she said word of the firings rocketed around a conference of county elections officials in San Diego on Thursday — with some wondering whether the dismissals would threaten federal funding for election administration moving forward, and others lamenting the loss of the current commissioners’ deep experience.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that “any sudden change to the support structure for elections in the middle of an election cycle is concerning,” but that California “has a strong local and state foundation for election administration and voting systems support, and that will minimize any potential disruption caused by this action.”

In recent months, Trump has leveraged federal agencies to overhaul the nation’s voting rules in ways no previous president has attempted. He has repeatedly pressured Republican lawmakers to pass a federal law that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, show identification when casting a ballot and force states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.

Republican leaders have said the proposed SAVE America Act does not have enough votes to pass in the Senate. The GOP resistance has angered Trump, who on Friday said he was refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill in protest.

The housing bill, which Trump called a “yawn” this month, would become law at midnight Friday without Trump’s signature.

A French court ruling allows the leader of the far-right National Rally to run for president next April. It reduced and suspended Marine Le Pen’s prison sentence and ban on seeking public office, while upholding her conviction over a European Parliament jobs scam.

She will have to wear an electronic monitor for a year while on house arrest. Le Pen has said it will prevent her from campaigning and plans to challenge the decision in France’s highest court. But she is leading in opinion polls.

Will her candidacy take her all the way to the Elysee Palace? Or will voters who are wary of Le Pen’s nationalist, anti-migrant policies unite around a common rival, as they have in the past?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Bruno Cautres – Professor at the Centre for Political Research at Sciences Po

Rim-Sarah Alouane – Legal scholar specialising in civil liberties and constitutional law

Victor Mallet – Senior editor and former Paris bureau chief at The Financial Times and author of the book Far-Right France: Le Pen, Bardella and the Future of Europe

A French court ruling has reopened Marine Le Pen’s path to the 2027 presidential election by suspending the effect of her electoral ban while she appeals. But the far-right leader says she will not campaign while wearing an electronic monitoring tag. Al Jazeera’s Reem Takieddine explains.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Appeals court rules the far-right leader ineligible to hold public office for 45 months.

A French appeals court has opened the door for far right leader Marine Le Pen to potentially run in the 2027 presidential election but said she must wear an electronic tag.

A Paris appeals court on Tuesday ruled Le Pen guilty of misusing public funds but reduced the ban on her holding elected office to 45 months, with 30 suspended.

She must now decide whether campaigning in 2027 with a monitoring bracelet as part of her sentence to be served at home is possible.

A lower court last year sentenced Le Pen, 57, to a five-year ban from public office and two years in prison over a fake jobs scam at the European Parliament.

The three-time presidential candidate hopes to run in the race to replace outgoing centrist President Emmanuel Macron in 2027.

Le Pen has said that if the sentence prevented her from campaigning, she would hand the reins over to her 30-year-old lieutenant, Jordan Bardella, leader of their National Rally (RN) party.

More to come…

EXPLAINER

The far-right leader could be prevented from running for president in 2027 if embezzlement charges are upheld.

France’s appeal court is set to deliver a key verdict on whether Marine Le Pen and other members of her National Rally party misused European Parliament funds in the hiring of aides between 2004 and 2016.

If, on Tuesday, the court upholds her 2025 conviction, which saw her barred from office for five years and sentenced to house arrest, Le Pen – one of the most prominent figures of the European far right and a frontrunner in polls for France’s 2027 contest – is likely to be unable to stand in presidential elections next year.

On Wednesday last week, Le Pen said that even if the court only upholds the order for her to wear an electronic bracelet, she will not stand. “If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided that I am able to campaign,” the 57-year-old political firebrand told LCI channel.

“Because if I’m allowed to be a candidate but am effectively prevented from campaigning freely, then you understand that wouldn’t be possible.”

What was Le Pen convicted of?

In March 2025, a Paris criminal court ruled that Le Pen was at the heart of “a fraudulent system” that her party used to siphon off EU Parliament funds worth 2.9 million euros ($3.32m).

The court also fined the National Rally party 2 million euros ($2.29m), half of which was suspended.

She had been accused of using money intended to finance the costs of parliamentary ⁠assistants to pay employees working for her political party. EU politicians ⁠are allocated funds to cover expenses, including salaries for parliamentary assistants, but are not allowed to use them for party activities.

Le Pen was ordered to stand trial in 2023, after a seven-year investigation, alongside more than two dozen other defendants. She and her party have denied the accusations, arguing the ⁠money had been used legitimately and that prosecutors had applied an overly narrow definition of what a parliamentary assistant does.

What were the political implications of the verdict?

As part of the initial verdict last year, Le Pen was given a five-year ban from holding elected office and sentenced to two years’ house arrest with an electronic bracelet. Since France will hold the first round of its next presidential election on April 18, 2027, with a run-off set for May 2, Le Pen will not be able to run if she loses the appeal.

The far-right leader has pledged to put up a fight if she’s barred from running. “If I cannot be a candidate, I will make use of every available avenue of appeal,” Le Pen said.

She could go, therefore, to France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, which does not judge the facts but checks whether the courts and court of appeal have applied the law correctly. The court could take about six months to hear the case and issue a verdict.

If allowed to run, Le Pen is widely seen as a top contender to succeed centrist President Emmanuel Macron in the 2027 election. If not, her 30-year-old protege Jordan Bardella would likely run instead.

What could the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal court could overturn Le Pen’s conviction in its ruling on July 7, leaving her free to run for president next year. Legal experts say that outcome appears unlikely, however, given the court’s findings at first instance.

The court can instead uphold Le Pen’s conviction. If it confirms the five-year ban requested by prosecutors, it will rule her out of the presidential race, paving the ‌way for Bardella to take her place. Le Pen can then appeal to the Court of Cassation.

A third possibility is that the court upholds the conviction but softens the sentence. If the ban from public office were lifted or shortened to two years or less, the door to a presidential bid would be open.

Monday’s accusations are the latest in a long string of controversies surrounding the Maine Democratic Senate candidate.

Leading US Democrats are withdrawing their support from Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner after a former girlfriend accused the politician of sexual assault.

In an exclusive interview with media outlet Politico published on Monday, Jenny Racicot alleged that Platner forced her to have nonconsensual sex in late 2021. She alleged that Platner had entered her Maine home uninvited while intoxicated and forced himself on her, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop.

Platner, whose status as a progressive outsider has gained him popularity, has denied the allegations.

Following Politico’s interview, top US Democrats and Democratic-leaning political groups have pulled their endorsements of Platner.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” California Democrat Ro Khanna, a member of the US House of Representatives, said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego also announced he was pulling his endorsement, while the Maine Democratic Party called on Platner to withdraw his candidacy.

Democratic-leaning political group End Citizens United pulled its endorsement as well, calling the allegations “profoundly disturbing and disqualifying”.

“The conduct described is fundamentally inconsistent with the standards we expect from the candidates we support,” End Citizens United said in its statement.

Hasan Piker, a leftist commentator and streamer who has backed Platner, seemed to reverse his position on Monday following the Politico report. “If new evidence presents itself, I’m going to change my perspective – it’s that simple,” Piker said during a livestream on Twitch.

“This is a clear-cut instance of verifiable sexual assault allegations. It’s completely irredeemable,” he added.

Platner won Maine’s Democratic primary in April, defeating a centrist Democrat from the party’s establishment wing. The race is a must-win for Democrats, facing off against incumbent Republican Susan Collins. Maine state law allows Platner to be replaced on the ballot if he withdraws by July 13. The replacement candidate must be named by July 27.

In a video released on social media, Platner denied the latest allegations but said he was rethinking his campaign.

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in the video.

Racicot’s accusations are the latest in the long string of controversies surrounding Platner. A Marine veteran who also worked for a private security contractor, he has a chest tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol – which he denied knowledge of and later had covered up. He has also had a history of controversial statements on social media, as well as reportedly sexting with other women shortly after getting married.