Midterm Elections

Sept. 4 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed two executive orders aimed at strengthening the country’s ranching industry.

Trump has been facing criticism from beef producers since he waived tariffs on up to 300,000 metric tons of imported beef in an effort to ease rising costs as the nation heads into the midterm elections.

Trump’s first executive order directs the Interior Department to study removing gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act list, allowing ranchers to kill them on their properties. Gray wolves are a major threat to herds in the West.

The second executive order would allow ranchers to process their beef and sell directly to consumers, instead of going through USDA inspections.

“People have been asking for this change for decades, and we’re getting it done,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “This is the largest-ever government effort to change all federal rules and regulations necessary to support our ranchers and our farmers.”

Beef prices have risen this year due to drought and high feeding costs. The United States currently maintains the smallest herd since the 1950s.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said it was “disappointed” by Trump allowing more foreign beef to flow into an industry already under severe stress.

“While America’s cattle producers share the goal of keeping groceries affordable for consumers, flooding the market with government-subsidized, below-market beef is not the way to rebuild the American cattle herd,” the association previously said in a statement.

“Cattle markets have already turned sharply lower this morning, to the detriment of farmers and ranchers.”

Sept. 4 (UPI) — In a setback for Republicans, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against the use of a GOP-favored congressional map in this year’s midterms, directing that a referendum on redistricting be put on November’s ballot.

The ruling came down Thursday, two months before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and after Missouri already using the use of the now blocked maps.

GOP-led Missouri was seeking to use a state legislature-approved redrawn map that was expected to increase the number of Republican-held districts from its 6-2 majority to 7-1, but the state’s high court on Thursday ruled that the opposition had the the right to have the issue put to a referendum.

The state’s General Assembly passed the redistricting bill in September 2025. In December, organizers who submitted a referendum petition collected more than 300,000 signatures in support of the effort.

But then last month, an hour before the statutory deadline, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins issued a “Certificate of Insufficiency of Petition,” stating that the state’s Constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly,” prompting Missouri voters to sue.

The state’s high court ruling on Thursday overturned a circuit court’s judgment, ordering Hoskins to issue a certificate of sufficiency as to the referendum petition to place it on the November general election ballot and enjoining him from implementing the General Assembly-approved map.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise. HB 1 did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters,” Judge Ginger Gooch wrote in the ruling. “The congressional redistricting the General Assembly established in 2022 remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said the state will appeal to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election. This unprecedented decision clearly violates federal law and has thrust our state into a full-fledged constitutional crisis,” she said in a statement.

“We are confident that the federal courts will not allow every Missouri voter to be disenfranchised — which is what today’s decision does.”

President Donald Trump also lambasted the decision on his Truth Social media platform.

“Not only was the ruling horrible, ridiculous and unConstitutional, but there won’t be enough time to change the map back with the Election coming up in a very short period of time,” he said in a statement.

“The Election Process, as usual, is being disturbed in America! Missouri must be able to use the map that was in effect just a couple of months ago, in the Primary. This is a Dark Day for ‘Justice’ in Missouri!”

The midterms have been a focus of Trump, who has warned Republicans that if they lose control of the House, Democrats will impeach him.

To improve their chances of holding on to the House, Trump has encouraged GOP-led states to conduct unorthodox mid-decade redistricting efforts, with Texas last summer being the first to redraw its maps to create additional GOP-favored districts. This kicked off a gerrymandering arms race, with Democratic-led states saying they would do likewise to counter the Republican efforts.

To date, 10 states — all but one being Republican-led — have changed their congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though several others have tried or are in the process of redistricting.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to permit enforcement of its mail-in voting restrictions, arguing it will suffer irreparable harm because two states will begin sending ballots to voters before the block is to expire next week.

Filed Thursday by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the request for an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order comes in protracted litigation over a Trump administration rule giving the U.S. Postal Service authority to screen outbound mail-in ballots for compliance with envelope standards and verify recipients have been entered on their state’s USPS Mail-In and Absentee Participation list.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts sided with the League of Women Voters in Massachusetts, which has been fighting the rule it says is unlawful and violates federalism principles of the Constitution, issuing a 14-day block against enforcing its key provisions while she considers the request to impose a longer, more restrictive preliminary injunction.

In his filing Thursday, Sauer argued that the federal government will be irreparably harmed if the restraining order is not lifted before North Carolina and Alabama send out their mail-in ballots next week, saying a court decision would come too late for those ballots.

“With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud,” he said.

Sauer continued that despite Talwani’s order allowing the Postal Service and states to take steps to ensure their envelopes meet the rule’s requirements, her block “risks sowing confusion and chaos because it makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.

“Thus, if the order is eventually stayed and the rule takes effect for this year’s elections — as should occur — there is a grave risk that states may not have taken the necessary steps to comply due to the false sense of latitude created by the court’s improper order, potentially depriving those states’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail,” he said.

Despite using the mail to vote himself, Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots, claiming them to be a source of voting fraud, though studies have found no evidence that mail voting produces higher overall rates of voter fraud.

The USPS rule is one of several actions Trump and his administration have taken ahead of November’s midterm elections, which the president has become increasingly focused on as he has warned Republicans that losing the House to Democrats could lead to his impeachment as well as investigations. While the moves generally have widespread Republican support, Democrats and critics say they are efforts to rig the midterms.

The new USPS rule being litigated comes in response to an executive order Trump signed in March to expand federal control over mail-in ballots, including authorizing the USPS not to send them to voters unless certain conditions are met.

Two weeks ago, the high court lifted an injunction blocking Trump’s mail-voting executive order, stating the challenge to the USPS provisions was premature as the agency had yet to issue a final rule. After the final rule was published Aug. 26, two dozen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued, resulting in the two-week block the Trump administration is now contesting.

Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can begin implementing measures from an executive order intended to restrict mail-in voting in many states and Washington, D.C.

However, legal challenges to that order could still cause issues for that plan before the midterm elections in November.

The ruling Monday means that the Department of Homeland Security can begin moving forward with compiling state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the states — all led by Democrats – that had challenged the executive order.

Another part of the executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to submit lists of eligible voters with information allowing those ballots to be tracked by the government. A lower court had blocked that policy nationwide in a separate case, meaning that more legal action will be needed before the postal service can continue.

The high court’s ruling did not address the overall legality of the executive order.

“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, theymay challenge that rule,” the ruling said.

The postal service entered an unpublished version of that final rule into the Federal Register late Friday despite the court injunctions against it.

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail-in voting is “inherently corrupt” and full of fraud, although voting experts have criticized the order and say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, NPR reported.

The high court handed down the ruling in an unsigned order over the dissent of three of its members: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a dissent, Jackson said the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” CNN reported.

She noted that, in the past, the Supreme Court has turned away challenges to election law because they were too close to elections. “Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring.”

Aug. 22 (UPI) — The United States Postal Service has prepared a final rule changing how mail voting is administered under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump despite a pair of court injunctions against it, documents show.

An unpublished version of the rule was entered into the Federal Register late on Friday, indicating the USPS intends to press ahead with implementation of a measure the administration says is necessary to prevent fraud in mail-in voting — a popular method of casting ballots that Trump has called “inherently corrupt.”

But critics contend actual fraud in mail-in voting is exceedingly rare and have denounced the measure as one of the most serious attempts by the administration to federalize control of elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves such power for the states.

A federal judge 10 days ago expanded an earlier injunction against Trump’s executive order, under which the USPS would be required to decide who will get mail-in ballots.

The injunction blocked it from implementing Section 3 of the order for this year’s midterm elections, which most polls shows will likely favor Democratic congressional candidates.

Despite the court rulings, USPS promulgated the final rule with Friday’s filing, thus making it available to be officially published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. After that it would theoretically take effect immediately, even though it will be blocked for this year’s midterm elections unless a court decides otherwise.

The current filing is an amended version of the initial proposal which received more than 200,000 comments during its review phase.

Trump signed the order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a list of citizens from federal data, which would then be sent to state election officials.

The USPS would then only send absentee or mail-in ballots to people it has determined are eligible to vote, and the U.S. Attorney General would investigate and prosecute election officials who issue federal ballots to those ineligible to vote.

Twenty-three mostly Democratic-led states sued to block the order and U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed with the plaintiffs.

The administration appealed the decision and failed. It appealed again on July 27 to the Supreme Court, which has yet to make a ruling.

“Yesterday’s new mail-in voting rule is an attempt to weaponize USPS as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to take over elections,” Michael McNulty of the bipartisan political reform group Issue One said in a statement issued Saturday.

“If it holds up in court, it would mean postal workers shift from neutral transporters of a state-led process to a federal gatekeeper of states’ outbound mail ballots — requiring states to provide USPS with voter-level ballot information and giving USPS authority to reject ballots that do not meet the new federal requirements.”

He dismissed Trump’s oft-stated concerns about voter fraud as “tired, debunked conspiracy theories to justify gaining control over secure, verified, and effective methods of voting, including mail-in voting, to tilt the playing field” in favor of Republican candidates.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A Missouri judge ruled Wednesday against voters seeking to put a Republican redistricting effort in the state to a referendum, stating that the new GOP-favored maps can be used in November’s midterm elections.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that referendum provisions in the state’s constitution do not apply to congressional redistricting.

“The Missouri Constitution does not supply any statement — let alone a clear one — reallocating authority over congressional redistricting away from the General Assembly to a referendum process,” Green wrote in his ruling.

The People Not Politicians coalition that filed the lawsuit told UPI in an emailed statement that what was important was that a ruling had been made, while accusing the Republicans of stalling the litigation process and stating that the case can now move forward toward the Missouri Supreme Court.

“The most important thing that happened today is that there was a ruling,” PNP Executive Director Richard von Glahn said.

“The state has tried to slow down the judicial process for months and now that we are out of Cole County, the real decision will be made. Our case now moves forward.”

Missouri Republicans spearheaded efforts to redraw the state’s congressional map last summer as part of President Donald Trump‘s push for GOP-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections.

The map, signed into law in September, redraws a Democrat-held district in Kansas City to be more rural, positioning it to lean more favorably toward Republicans. Of the state’s eight House seats, two are currently held by Democrats. The redraw is expected to reduce that to one.

Voters have challenged the redistricting effort. In December, PNP submitted more than 300,000 signatures to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, to trigger a statewide referendum on the issue. While PNP contended that delivering the signatures would pause use of the new map, Hoskins disagreed.

In May, the state Supreme Court upheld the new map, while rejecting an argument that submitting referendum petitions automatically suspended the map.

On the day of the Aug. 4 primary, Hoskins issued a certificate finding PNP’s referendum petition was insufficient, stating the state’s Constitution does not permit referenda on congressional maps, prompting PNP to file a lawsuit that evening.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, celebrated Wednesday’s decision in a social media statement, calling Green’s decision a “quick, common-sense ruling.”

“Missourians voted for candidates using this map in August, and they deserve the ability to elect those candidates in November,” he said.

The Republican Party also cheered it as a “resounding victory for Missouri voters and election integrity.”

“The court rejected Democrats’ latest scheme to overturn lawful congressional maps and create chaos ahead of the election. Missouri’s maps were fairly enacted by the legislature, upheld in court and used in this year’s primary. Today’s ruling makes clear those maps will stand,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement.

The nationwide GOP effort to redraw maps comes as Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House in November. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while strengthening the Republicans’ ability to advance Trump’s agenda.

Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.

Since summer 2025, 17 statesMike Kehoe have moved to redistrict, with 10 states having changed their maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those 10 states, eight adopted GOP-favored maps while two adopted maps expected to benefit Democrats.

Aug. 18 (UPI) — Two counties and two cities are suing the Trump administration over conditioning national security funding on local governments adopting sweeping election procedures, calling the requirement illegal federal overreach.

The Brennan Center for Justice filed the lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., Harris and El Paso counties, Texas, and Columbus, asking it to declare the decision to impose election administration conditions on grants unlawful and enjoin its enforcement.

“This is the kind of federal overreach we’ve come to expect from the Trump administration,” Harris County Attorney Abbie Kamin said in a statement emailed to UPI. “To threaten law enforcement and public safety funding our agencies rely on, to withhold dollars that protect our communities for a partisan power grab is not only improper, it’s dangerous.”

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has taken a series of actions he says are to improve election integrity and security but that Democrats and civil rights advocates have described as efforts to interfere with and undermine U.S. elections.

In June, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the Department of Homeland Security, updated compliance requirements for Homeland Security Grant Program funds, which are to help local governments prevent terrorism. Conditions added include creating a plan for transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, conducting a 5% post-election manual audit and citizenship verification for all poll workers and registered voters, among others.

FEMA said it will withhold 20% of the recipient’s total HSGP funding until receipt of proof of compliance with the new requirements.

The jurisdictions suing the administration described the withholding of funds as FEMA holding their money “hostage” and its new election-related conditions “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Never before has FEMA purported to regulate how states and counties run elections,” they said in the lawsuit, stating that such a change would require congressional authorization, which FEMA does not have.

“The power to administer elections belongs to the states, subject only to conditions imposed by Congress — not the president, not the secretary of Homeland Security and not FEMA.”

The plaintiffs state that FEMA has not provided a “reasoned explanation” for the change in funding administration while ignoring the legal, financial and logistical “chaos” the new conditions will cause with midterm elections less than two months away and the potential harm withholding anti-terrorism funds could cause.

“Holding cities hostage by threatening anti-terrorism funding if they don’t go along with the president’s absurd election manipulation is as dangerous as it is illegal,” Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said in a statement.

“We’re fighting back to protect public safety and election integrity. We will not be bullied by this president and his administration.”

Aug. 12 (UPI) — Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are escalating their criticism of Paramount Skydance’s attempt to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, with one lawmaker accusing the Paramount CEO of “colluding” with President Donald Trump and his administration.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent Paramount CEO David Ellison, a letter Wednesday, inviting him for an interview to “answer the committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels and streaming stations.”

Raskin opened his letter referring to a New York Times opinion piece by Ellison in which the CEO defended the deal and said he would stay silent “no more.”

“This is great news,” Raskin wrote. “Over the past 12 months, I have sent you four letters. You have responded to none of them.”

“I have repeatedly sought answers from you about the Paramount Skydance merger and your planned acquisition of Warner Bros.Discovery in light of troubling reports that your company is colluding with President Trump and his administration to curtail media independence, spread political censorship and suppress dissent.”

Raskin also wrote that he’s sought answers about alleged political interference in CBS News reporting and that he has “significant concerns” that the acquisition would “dangerously” consolidate power in a single conglomerate.

Paramount had not commented on the letter Wednesday afternoon. However, Makan Delrahim, during a summit this week hosted by Politico, said the company is “transparent” and responsive to lawmakers’ concerns.

As of now, Raskin cannot require Ellison’s cooperation. However, if Democrats win control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections, Raskin — who is expected to become committee chairman — could subpoena Ellison.

Raskin previously told Politico that he plans to increase oversight of the merger and that “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their roll in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

In 2025, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit (which many called “meritless”) brought by Trump, and Democrats have said the money could be considered a bribe to allow the Paramount-Skydance merger, which was approved shortly afterward.

However, the merger has been postponed because of an antitrust lawsuit brought by attorneys general of 12 states and the Writers Guild America. A trial is set for March.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate passed a stopgap funding bill Saturday that would fund the government through Dec. 11 to prevent a government shutdown in September.

The bill was put in place to avoid a shutdown before November’s midterm elections. It’s unclear if the bill will pass the House of Representatives. The Senate passed the bill in a bipartisan 90-6 vote, with Sen. Darline Graham , R-S.C., voting present.

The Senate is now on a five-week recess and is scheduled to return Sept. 14.

The House passed a similar bill on July 22.

The Senate bill includes a section that would bar President Donald Trump from transferring funds to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a provision that Democrats demanded.

It would also delay a ban on intoxicating hemp products, which is scheduled to go into effect in November. The ban was made law in November 2025 with a one-year delay. The law redefined hemp and would make most hemp products illegal, including CBD, Delta-9 and others. The new delay would push implementation back until December.

A group of Republican Senators, led by Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., tried to block the delay of the law, but failed.

“After three unnecessary lapses in funding during the fiscal year 2026 cycle, putting the possibility of yet another harmful shutdown off the table should be a priority for each and every one of us,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Collins is the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Democrats lauded the measure to prevent backdoor funding of the Border Patrol.

“This is an important step forward to prevent a shutdown no one wants and provide the runway we need to negotiate funding bills in the months ahead as we fight to rein in Trump’s corruption and make life more affordable for families back home,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the committee.

The bill also blocks the Trump administration until the end of the stopgap from finalizing a rule that would put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said this week that he’s going to “fight like hell” in December to ensure Congress doesn’t further block Trump’s grant overhaul.

Collins said she will “continue to oppose” the administration’s plans “because I think they politicize the grants process, and I don’t want that to occur.” Murray said she, too, would “welcome the fight.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, praised the Senate bill for including the grant and immigration enforcement language.

“This bill is a clear improvement over the House Republican continuing resolution, but we are still nearly two months away from the end of the fiscal year and should be working together to pass full-year funding bills,” she said in a statement.

After passing the funding legislation, the Senate narrowly approved the confirmation of Todd Blanche as attorney general early Saturday morning.

July 27 (UPI) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on his way to Washington, D.C., on Monday for his eighth meeting with President Donald Trump since he returned to the White House last year.

The war in Iran will be the key topic Trump and Netanyahu are expected to discuss when they meet at the White House this week. It will be their first meeting since the war began. The two leaders have expressed differing opinions about peace agreements in recent weeks.

“In these complex times, you need to act with both great determination and great wisdom,” Netanyahu said in a video statement Monday. “We will discuss all the issues on the agenda, primarily Iran. Of course, our goal is to protect our security and also to expand the circle of peace around us.”

Fighting between the United States and Iran resumed over the past two weeks after a preliminary peace agreement between both sides fell apart. The U.S. military said it paused strikes on Iran over the weekend after a series of daily attacks.

Iran’s military said it is also halting strikes against the United States as long as the United States holds off.

It is a politically significant time for both Netanyahu and Trump. On Oct. 27, Israel’s legislative election will include all 120 seats in the Knesset, determining who will lead the government. The prime minister will be determined in consultation between the Israeli president and the Knesset, through a series of coalition formations.

Meanwhile, Trump’s focus politically is on the midterm elections in November. The elections will determine the political makeup on Capitol Hill and Trump’s path toward advancing his agenda in the final two years of his term.

July 24 (UPI) — A federal court has allowed Tennessee to use a new congressional map that eliminates the state’s only majority-Black district in November’s midterm elections, rejecting a challenge from civil and voting rights advocates.

The three-judge panel on Thursday denied a motion filed by Black Memphis voters for a preliminary injunction against implementing the map, ruling they lacked evidence of racial motivation for the map’s unorthodox mid-decade redistricting, which could be explained by a political motivation.

“The road to a reliably 9-0 map runs through Memphis. Thus, political motivations readily explain the map’s dilutive effects,” the panel, which consisted of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, wrote in its decision.

With the ruling, Tennessee may use the map in next month’s primaries.

November’s midterms have been of increasing concern for President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly voiced worries about impeachment proceedings and investigations if Republicans lose the House to Democrats, and has pushed GOP-led states to redraw their congressional maps to create additional Republican-favored districts.

Texas was the first last summer to agree to Trump’s request, sparking a gerrymandering arms race, with at least 10 states have redrawn their maps. All but Democrat-led California and North Carolina, which has a Democratic governor, are Republican-led.

Tennessee’s GOP-majority legislature passed its redistricting map to eliminate the one Democrat-held seat in May, a week after the Supreme Court issued a controversial decision that weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act, by greatly limiting the use of race in drawing electoral districts.

The three Black Memphis voters, along with the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute and the Equity Alliance sued days later, alleging that the new map unlawfully discriminates against Black Memphis voters by dismantling a district where they had long been able to meaningfully participate in the political process.

In its ruling Thursday, the court said that the plaintiffs had to show that the map redraw was racially motivated, which they failed to do.

“The map’s effects — breaking Black Memphians into three separate congressional districts — are readily explainable by political motivations,” the court said.

“It’s no secret (supported by Plaintiffs’ own statements) that city voters prefer Democratic candidates and that rural voters prefer Republican candidates. So, it makes sense that Tennessee’s legislature would split Memphis into thirds when attempting to create a map that favors Republican candidates. And it’s no surprise that the resulting map would also split the Black population of Memphis into thirds.”

Amber Sherman, a plaintiff in the case, said the court’s decision further disenfranchises Black voters in Memphis.

“It’s painful to know we’ll head into another election under a map that was designed to weaken the Black voters in Memphis,” she said in a statement.

“We deserve the same opportunity to shape our future as anyone else.”

July 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Thursday made sweeping, largely unsupported claims of widespread problems with U.S. elections, many of which have been debunked or overstated, as he called on Congress to pass legislation he says would protect the electoral system but critics describe as voter suppression.

During his roughly 25-minute prime-time speech to the nation, Trump attempted to make his case for measures needed to address the alleged vulnerabilities, stating, “Our elections were left vulnerable to being rigged and stolen, and the trust of the American people was lost.”

“This cannot be allowed to continue,” he said.

The speech was delivered only months before November’s midterm elections, on which Trump has increasing focused, having repeatedly warned that if Republicans lose their slim majority in the House to Democrats, impeachment proceedings and investigations will follow.

Democrats and other critics have accused the president of attempting to sow confusion and distrust ahead of the midterms while pushing the election SAVE American Act, which would require photo identification to vote, documentary proof of citizenship to register and restrict mail voting to certain eligible groups. Opponents say those requirements would disproportionately burden Black and other minority voters and prevent some otherwise eligible citizens from voting.

This is a developing story.

June 17 (UPI) — Rep. Mike Collins was projected Tuesday night to win Georgia’s Republican Senate primary runoff, defeating former football coach Derek Dooley as voters cast ballots in contests across the country.

The Collins-Dooley race was the highest-profile race on a primary night.

President Donald Trump has loomed large over November’s midterm elections, encouraging GOP-led states to redraw congressional maps, warning of impeachment and investigations if Democrats win control of the House and endorsing candidates who align with his agenda.

The Georgia Senate runoff drew national attention as a race that could help decide control of the Senate and test Trump’s influence in a battleground state.

Collins of Georgia’s 10th Congressional District ran with Trump’s endorsement, while Dooley had the support of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

With all 159 localities reporting, Collins had secured 55.5% of the vote to Dooley’s 44.4%, according to unofficial results from the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Collins, speaking to supporters Tuesday night, projected an image of GOP unity, stating he had spoken with both Dooley, thanking him for running a “spirited campaign,” and Kemp “for his leadership and his friendship over the years.”

“We’re going to have some robust primaries out there. Sometimes, we got some strong disagreements, but I can tell you we stand united around one mission,” he said to applause.

“That’s right. And y’all know what the mission is: Is to put a Republican in that seat and get rid of that Jon Ossoff in November.”

Ossoff, a Democrat, won the Senate seat in 2021, flipping control of the chamber from the Republicans.

In his victory speech, Collins attacked Ossoff for voting in favor of President Joe Biden‘s landmark Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan as well as voting against banning transgender athletes from competing in female-segregated sports.

Following Collins’ victory, Ossoff attacked him on social media, calling him a “notorious bigot, antisemite and extremist” who is being investigated by the House Committee on Ethics for illegal misuse of tax dollars.

“Collins, who is only a congressman because his daddy was a congressman, voted to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians, for the Iran War and for the Trump tariffs,” he said in a statement.

Dooley conceded defeat.

“While tonight didn’t go our way, I want you to know that I’ll continue to be in this fight,” he said on social media.

“No matter who you voted for or what you believe, one thing we all can agree on is Jon Ossoff does not represent our Georgia values. In November, we’re sending him to the bench!”

Trump endorsed Collins on Friday after early voting ended, while Kemp endorsed Dooley in August.

But Tuesday night was not a clean sweep for Trump-backed candidates in Georgia. Rick Jackson, the billionaire founder of Jackson Healthcare, was poised to defeat Trump-endorsed Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones in the GOP governor runoff race.

According to unofficial results, Jackson had secured 52.65% of the vote share to Jones’ 47%.

The Georgia governor’s mansion is up for grabs as Kemp, a Republican, has been term limited. He faced Democrat Stacy Abrams in the last two gubernatorial elections.

Jones had won 38% of the vote in the primary election last month. Jackson received 32% of the vote. The runoff was scheduled as neither candidate surpassed the 50% threshold needed to win the GOP nomination outright.

Joe Fisher contributed reporting.