midterms

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

WASHINGTON — An acutely contentious and historically expensive midterm campaign barrels to a finish Monday, on the eve of elections that will set the nation’s course for the remaining half of President Trump’s second term.

Republicans are bracing for a backlash from voters as Democrats prepare for gains — but the magnitude of any “blue wave,” and whether it could sweep not only the U.S. House but also the Senate into Democratic control, will be the key question as Americans finish casting ballots Tuesday.

Early voting had already seen strong turnout, including among influence blocs such as Latino and Black voters. Candidates spent the weekend crisscrossing their states and pulling in surrogates to make a final push for voters still on the fence.

Capping a turbulent first half of Trump’s second term, the campaign has been defined by affordability and economic issues that have created headwinds for Republicans and spurred a possible turn toward Democrats by voters. And as Trump has pushed the limits of executive power, the midterms could act as a consequential check on his presidential reach.

In recent polls, voters have consistently put Democrats several points ahead on the generic ballot and given a historically low approval rating to Trump.

Eyes are now on Senate control, as an unexpected competitiveness by Democrats in a handful of red states has put the majority into play. It would require a “massive” wave for Democrats, but the fact that it is a possibility at all reflects an “extraordinary situation,” said Thaddeus Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor.

With seven toss-up seats, tough math for Democrats and tough polling for Republicans, the outcome is far from certain. There may not be a large difference between the Democrats eking out enough seats for the majority or Republicans succeeding at holding it, said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll.

“Just a little bit better night for the Democrats, and they pick up quite a number of these very close seats,” Franklin said. “Just a little bit better night for the Republicans, and Democrats fall slightly short in several of these competitive seats.”

The outcome in competitive races will not only set the dynamic between Trump and Congress for the next two years, but also hold signs for the 2028 presidential campaign. Both parties are closely watching how well Democrats can do in red states, how Republicans perform in Michigan and how far to the left Trump-voting districts swing.

The party out of power typically wins House control in midterm elections. This year, fatigue with Trump — fueled by the war in Iran, immigration policy, tariffs and other issues — merged with concern about prices, housing and AI issues to drive that movement toward the minority party, analysts said.

“This is an opportunity for the American people to try to put some brakes on the government,” said Todd Belt, a professor of political management at George Washington University.

The midterms are designed to function as a potential check on every presidency, said Christopher Warshaw, a Georgetown University public policy professor.

“The reason we have a democracy is in part because the out party does well in midterm elections,” Warshaw said. “That function of midterms is really important regardless of who’s in power.”

In many races, the quality of individual candidates also is poised to be a deciding factor, including in Texas, where Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton has struggled to gain traction, and in Maine, where Democrat Troy Jackson has labored to confront Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ staying power.

The campaign has held significant twists, among them the unexpected death of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; the dropping out of Democrat Graham Platner from Maine’s Senate race; and the questions about the alleged involvement of operatives aligned with Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign in the presence of a spoiler candidate on the Alaska ballot.

And Trump gambled on a largely dismissive approach toward voters’ affordability concerns; in recent days, he has also drawn attention with off-script comments at his rallies about Republican candidates’ rear ends and for lashing out at a reporter who questioned why he had canceled his final two rallies, which Trump later rescheduled.

Voter turnout could also have a significant effect on results; both parties have worked to reach independent voters while turning out their bases.

Across the country, nonpartisan groups are holding last-minute voting events, encouraging people to fill out their ballots. A hotline run by a nonprofit coalition organized by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is receiving hundreds of calls a day about how to vote.

Brandon Waithe, 42, an Air Force veteran who has organized get-out-the-vote events through Project HALO, a voting initiative, said he hoped to help raise turnout.

He hosted a line dancing event in a Cleveland public plaza last month aimed at reminding people to vote — and to “tie some positive emotion to the act of voting,” he said.

“It’s like, ‘Ah, cool, all right, voting’s not so bad,’” Waithe said. “There’s no pressure. … We’re not telling you which party to vote for or which candidate. We’re just like, ‘Thank you for participating in voting.’”

The speed with which results are known Tuesday will partly depend on how large a blue wave might occur. The House majority could become clear Tuesday night, but the margin could take a little more time with swing races in slower-counting states such as California and Pennsylvania.

If the Senate majority comes down to Maine or Alaska and if those races are very close, the outcome will probably take some days to verify, Kousser said.

“What I’ve been telling people is you’re going to have to buckle up and wait,” he said.

And, of course, one of the few certainties of an election is that no one knows exactly what will happen. The electorate is volatile, said Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan, and there are always wild cards.

“There will be a surprise on election night,” McCuan said.

With one day to go before the United States midterm elections, campaigning has reached a fever pitch with Democratic and Republican leaders pulling out all the stops to mobilise voters.

Democrats are hoping to flip control of both chambers of Congress, which is currently controlled by US President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats are up for grabs on Tuesday. Voting will also be held to elect governors in 36 of the 50 US states.

With the cost-of-living crisis, exacerbated by the US-Israel war on Iran, becoming one of the key talking points of these elections, here’s where things stand as of Monday:

What’s happened on the campaign trail in the past 24 hours?

In a dramatic political development on Sunday, Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens threw her support behind Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over her own party’s nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, in Michigan – one of the most closely watched races of the US midterm elections. Stevens had lost Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary in August to El-Sayed.

Her announcement followed weeks of tension with El-Sayed over US support to Israel, which has been accused of committing genocide in Gaza. El-Sayed has opposed military support to Israel, arguing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed the US into the Iran war. Stevens has accused El-Sayed of anti-Semitism for his criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza.

El-Sayed said a vote for his rival Rogers “is going to be a vote for Donald Trump” as his campaign reportedly saw a fundraising surge after Stevens crossed party lines.

Democratic leaders have rallied behind El-Sayed, who has faced Islamophobic attacks during the campaign.

The chairman of the Democratic Party in Michigan criticised Stevens. “She does not speak for that larger community,” Curtis Hertel said in an interview with CNN.

The leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, slammed Stevens over her endorsement of the Republican candidate.

“This is a despicable betrayal from Representative Stevens,” he posted on X.

“Senate Democrats are united in our support for Abdul El-Sayed, because we know he will fight for the economic interests of working families in Michigan, unlike Mike Rogers, who is a tool of Donald Trump and billionaire donors.”

Meanwhile, the advocacy group Michigan Jews for Democracy has backed El-Sayed.

“Haley Stevens does not speak for Michigan’s Jewish community,” it said in a statement, which rejected her “attempt to divide our community” two days before the election.

While Democrats have been angered by Stevens’s action, Trump celebrated her decision.

During a rally in Iowa later on Sunday, the US president said he would “love” it if Stevens joined the Republican Party. “Haley said what few people are willing to say,” Trump added. “It’s a thing called bravery.”

The question now is whether Stevens’s endorsement could persuade some of her supporters to back Rogers or discourage them from voting altogether.

Polling suggested El-Sayed has largely consolidated Democratic support, according to the Reuters news agency.

Judge dismisses Trump’s Alaska election lawsuit

Meanwhile, a ⁠federal ⁠judge has thrown out a Trump administration ⁠lawsuit seeking to block Alaska from ⁠certifying a loss by Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. The administration has argued that a rival on the ballot with the same name could change the outcome.

Sullivan pledged to accept the election outcome, days after the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit seeking to decertify the results of the Senate race if he loses.

“I’m going to accept the election results,” Sullivan, an ally of Trump, told CNN on Sunday.

Alaska’s Senate race is one of seven key toss-up races that will likely decide whether Republicans keep their majority in the upper chamber of the US Congress.

How many Americans have already voted?

This year, out of about 210 million registered voters, 54.5 million had voted early as of 10am US East Coast time (15:00 GMT) on Sunday, according to a University of Florida analysis. This includes 30 million in-person votes and 24 million mail-in ballots.

In the 2022 midterm elections, 46 million people voted early.

Early voting enthusiasm has been higher among Democrats this year with more than 11 million registered Democrats having voted early, compared with about 8 million registered Republicans, according to the university’s analysis.

Early voting has particularly surged in the state of Texas, a key battleground, where more than 7.7 million people have voted early.

According to an Associated Press polling analysis, in South Carolina, where Trump won by nearly 18 percentage points in 2024, early voting has surged 83 percent compared with the same point in 2022. The state has open races for governor and US Senate this year.

Kansas, Michigan and Maine have also seen a surge in early voting.

Early turnout figures, however, don’t show which candidates voters have chosen or what the final results will be.

As Americans head to the polls on Tuesday in the much-anticipated midterms, the record number of voters identifying as independent could prove decisive for control of the US Congress and state legislatures.

Nearly half of US voters – as many as 117 million adults – now identify as politically independent, with the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, jockeying for their votes.

At the same time, independent or third-party candidates win few federal or state seats. The Democratic and Republican parties have dominated US politics, from state legislatures to the US Congress and the presidency, for generations.

“The whole [electoral] system is built to frustrate the independence of voters,” says Rick Bennett, the former Republican Party chair in Maine, where he is running to become only the third independent governor in the state’s history.

Bennett’s candidacy runs headlong into one of the most stubborn contradictions in US politics: While millions of eligible voters reject Republican and Democratic labels, far fewer will cast their ballots for independent candidates.

“For decades, candidates outside the Democratic and Republican parties have struggled to achieve [a high] level of support,” political scientist AJ Simmons said. “[But] 2026 is shaping up to be one of the strongest election cycles for independent candidates in recent memory.”

Who are independents and how will they vote?

According to the Pew Research Center’s annual National Public Opinion Reference Survey, 44 percent of US adults identify as politically independent. This is in contrast to 29 percent who identify as Democrat and 28 percent as Republican.

But there is a caveat: Most self-described independents still gravitate towards one of the major parties. Independents who express absolutely no partisan leaning make up only about 7-10 percent of the total electorate.

These “true” independents are sought after by candidates because they are persuadable, the core of the coveted so-called swing vote in a deeply divided and partisan electorate and political system.

In the 2026 midterm elections, 52 percent of likely independent voters are supporting Democrats, while 39 percent back Republicans, polling firm Marist suggests.

Frustration with President Donald Trump is permeating the midterm electoral landscape, with independent respondents more than three times as likely to say their vote is mainly against the president, and 28 percent saying they are voting for “change”.

Why does the US have a two-party system?

The US does not legally restrict elections to two parties, and many local officials are not party-affiliated.

But for more powerful federal and statewide seats like Tuesday’s House of Representatives and Senate races, the winner-take-all electoral system and single-member congressional districts work against outsiders and can discourage voters from backing them.

Even substantial support for a minor party is rarely concentrated enough in one district to win a congressional seat.

Voters, too, can unknowingly reinforce the system.

Polling trends and data further suggest that voters who identify as or prefer an independent will often instead back a Republican or Democrat they see as more politically viable. Voters are also reluctant to support “spoilers”, who may peel away votes from one of the two major-party candidates.

Why do third parties struggle to win US elections?

Bernard Tamas, a political scientist at Valdosta State University who studies third parties, said that although laws are often blamed for keeping third-party candidates off the ballot, “there is very little evidence that legal barriers are undermining these candidates”.

The real barrier, he says, is money.

A total of $14.8bn was spent on federal elections during the 2024 presidential cycle, and the 2026 midterms are projected to surpass that, reaching up to $11.6bn in political advertisement spending alone.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), which heads the Democratic Party, raised nearly $252.3m during the 2026 midterm campaign cycle while the Republican National Committee (RNC) took in about $341m.

Unlike other democracies, the US “offers virtually no public support” or funding to political parties and does not set limits on campaign spending”, Tamas said. Independent candidates “raise very little money” and are less well known by voters.

Why don’t more Americans vote independent?

Lesley Shedd, a Republican strategist, told Al Jazeera that the surge in voters identifying as independents obscures their support for one of the two major parties.

“When somebody says they are independent, they really are a Republican or Democrat but they maybe don’t agree with the party on absolutely every issue,” Shedd said. “Or they [just] don’t want to feel as though they are part of the culture of the swamp of [Washington] DC.”

The real test for independent candidates is persuading Americans to vote for them, not just a “protest vote” against the system. And voters are reluctant to cast a “wasted” ballot, Simmons said, given the most competitive candidates are Democrats or Republicans.

There are efforts to support independent candidates. The Independent Leadership Council, launched in July by former Democrat-turned-independent Senator Joe Manchin, provides donors and campaign resources for independent congressional candidates. The project has raised more than $10m.

But the longer-term test, analysts maintain, is whether independent candidates can be viable across multiple races and election cycles.

Will third-party candidates influence the 2026 midterms?

There is currently one independent in the US House and two in the US Senate. None holds a state governor seat.

Bennett, the independent Maine candidate, is one of just 11 independent or third-party candidates vying for gubernatorial or US Senate seats whom Simmons expects to surpass the 5 percent vote threshold often used to gauge electoral viability.

Additionally, Simmons sees several ways independent congressional hopefuls could throw the midterm map into disarray, mainly in two key states: Nebraska and Montana.

He identified Nebraska’s independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn, a 51-year-old Navy veteran, as the “most likely alternative candidate to win” across the country, given the race has been deemed a toss-up by RealClearPolling, an election analysis website.

The Nebraska Democratic Party chose not to field a replacement nominee after its candidate withdrew, leaving Osborn as the principal challenger to Republican Pete Ricketts.

In Montana, Simmons sees another opening for an independent, though the race is complicated by the possibility of an unpredictable “spoiler” effect.

Seth Bodnar, a former University of Montana president and Army veteran, is running against Republican Kurt Alme for the US Senate seat. He is being backed by the Independent Leadership Council, which is also supporting California Congressman Kevin Kiley, who left the Republican Party to seek re-election as an independent.

Democratic US Senate candidate Alani Bankhead could siphon off support from the same centre-left and anti-Republican pool of voters that Bodnar draws from, risking a three-way vote and potentially leaving the Republican to collect the spoils.

“Montana is the second most likely,” Simmons said, adding that “if that were to happen, the Republican Party would be having an extraordinarily bad night”.

In Idaho and South Dakota, independent candidates are not forecast to win, but they are expected to make Republicans pay for treating those seats as safe, diverting money, campaign time and attention to races Republicans may have otherwise taken for granted.

The greatest impact of independents may be the pressure they have historically brought to bear on the major parties to “implement a new policy or govern more effectively”, Simmons said.

Canadian PM Carney announces progress in Canada-US trade deal talks ahead of US midterm elections on November 3.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced progress towards a future trade deal with the United States, which could help ease tensions between the two North American neighbours.

The Sunday announcement came just two days before the November 3 US midterm elections, which will determine control of the US Congress.

“Good conversation with US President Donald Trump on the future of Canada-U.S. trade,” Carney posted on X on Sunday.

Ties between Ottawa and Washington have been strained by an escalating trade war, with Canada and the US imposing billions of dollars in tariffs on each other’s goods in recent months.

“Teams from both countries will be working in the coming weeks to deliver that outcome,” Carney said. “This builds on recent constructive discussions on the outlines of a mutually beneficial trade deal.”

In his second term, Trump has upended global trade by imposing tariffs on many of the US’s allies, including Canada – one of the US’s biggest trading partners.

In August, high-level trade talks between Ottawa and Washington broke down, and Trump imposed a 50 percent levy on $20bn of Canadian goods, or 5.5 percent of its exports. Canada responded with equivalent tariffs on US steel, dairy, appliances, farm equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics.

Trump said last week that he expected a new trade agreement with Canada to be reached “pretty soon”, but offered no details.

The trade tensions with Canada have become an issue in the midterm elections, particularly in Michigan and Maine, where Republican candidates have faced pressure over tariffs that have hurt local businesses.

Canada has sought to diversify its trade options and recently welcomed a European Union offer to become an “associate member”.

Carney praised the proposal’s ambition, describing his goal as a “unique alliance” rather than conventional EU membership.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats are being contested on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON — The specter of a Democratic wave on Tuesday and retreat of Republican power has quietly sparked conversations within GOP circles about President Trump’s eventual exit from the political stage — and the future of a party that has revolved around him for the past decade.

Heading into the vote, Trump faces the lowest job approval ratings of his career. Factions of the Republican Party long loyal to his brand are beginning to break ranks. Candidates who have aligned themselves most closely to the president are among the most imperiled. From the shores of Lake Ontario to rural Kansas, signs point to a voter coalition under strain, as Republicans grappling with a troubled economy question the party’s direction.

Recent polls show that 67% of Trump’s 2024 voters approve of his job performance, down from 95% early in his second term. The steepest drops are among younger voters and Latino support, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

While a majority of Republicans still want to see the next leader of the party follow Trump on most issues, a third want to see the next GOP presidential nominee take a different approach, according to a New York Times/Siena poll in May.

President Trump throws MAGA hats to supporters during a midterm campaign rally at Lubbock Memorial Civic Center in Lubbock, Texas, on Oct. 27.

(Kent Nishimura / AFP via Getty Images)

Marc Short, who served as Trump’s first White House director for legislative affairs, said that Republicans were “essentially in triage mode” entering the midterms, citing “inflation challenges” and an “avalanche of corruption stories.” Bryan Lanza, a former communications director for Trump, expressed concern last week that Republican enthusiasm has reached such lows that races in Mississippi and Texas are genuine toss-ups.

The Republican reckoning tests a party infrastructure reshaped around the president since his insurgent rise in 2015 transformed the GOP.

At the top of the party, warning signs of a splintering coalition have not changed the view that Trump still maintains the grip on the GOP’s future — and that any future decisions should take that into account.

“I think he’ll help decide who the next president is going to be,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said. “I think he’ll be super involved with not only the party but the process, and I welcome that as the chairman.”

Gruters called Trump “the single most important person in the Republican Party” and said he doubts the movement will reshape itself into a different kind of coalition based on the outcome of Tuesday’s election.

“I think it will continue to be Trump’s movement for as long as he’s alive,” he said. “It will be Trump’s movement.”

Others in Trump’s inner circle are making the same bet. His team is still staking Trump’s movement on the same thing that has defined it in the past: Trump himself.

“We’ve been with him for 10 years,” the official said. “Do you think he’s going away after the next two? No.”

What comes after that, the official wouldn’t say.

A person wears a sequined jacket as President Trump speaks on stage during an election rally on Oct. 9 at the Oncenter in Syracuse, N.Y.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

“Everyone wants to jump ahead and ask what 2028 looks like and what does beyond look like,” the official said. “I think the really smart thing about the president, and he’s even admitted it about himself, he’s always focused on the now, and he just works his a— off at the task at hand.”

The question of who inherits the movement is already taking shape, but Trump has avoided saying much when asked who he thinks should be the heir apparent.

Asked in the Oval Office last month whether he would endorse Vice President JD Vance — who had said a day earlier that he expected Trump’s backing if he decides to run for president in 2028 — Trump called Vance a “very talented person” and a “very good person,” but would not commit.

“I don’t think we’ve ever talked about it,” Trump said. “It’s early, very early right now. We have to get through the midterms.”

A New York Times/Siena poll released last week found that Republican primary voters favor Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio to be the party’s next nominee. Underscoring Trump’s grip on the party, the poll found, 8% said they want it to be Trump, who cannot run because of term limits.

The challenge for Republicans in the future will be to figure out a way to capture the MAGA base without isolating themselves from more mainstream Republican voters, said a GOP lobbyist with ties to Trump speaking on condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

“I think it would be foolish to ignore the MAGA base for any future candidate,” the lobbyist said. “The movement can evolve, but you need those voters to come out and vote.”

People wait for President Trump to arrive at a political rally at Freeman Coliseum in San Antonio on Oct. 7.

(Sam Owens / San Antonio Express-News via Getty Images)

Mike Madrid, a longtime Republican political strategist and co-founder of the Lincoln Project, which staunchly opposes Trump, argued that the future of the GOP will be influenced more by right-wing media personalities than policy because Trump consciously upended the party’s ideology over the last decade.

“The Republican Party is far, far more likely to balkanize than split along ideological lines because there is no ideological glue holding the GOP together anymore,” he said. “That’s gone.”

Madrid doubts Trump will change course even if Republicans suffer big losses on Tuesday night.

“Donald Trump is not going to adjust. He’s not capable of that. He never has. He never will,” Madrid said. “It doesn’t even occur to him. And even if it did, he wouldn’t know how to do it.”

If Democrats win a majority in Congress, history shows that it can be an opening for a president to pivot.

“What often happens in the last two years [of a term] is presidents bounce back,” said Christopher Warshaw, a Georgetown University public policy professor.

Presidents who “lose control of Congress and get shellacked in the midterms” often pivot to the political center, and tell voters “we’re going to try a new approach,” Warshaw said.

“MAGA” merchandise is for sale as supporters listen to President Trump speak at a midterm campaign rally at Guardian Centers of Georgia in Perry, Ga., on Oct. 24.

(Brendan Smialowski / AFP via Getty Images)

President Clinton did that after Republicans swept Congress in 1994, Warshaw said. President Biden did not after the 2022 midterms, a choice Warshaw said probably hurt Democrats in 2024, when Trump was elected. If Democrats win on Tuesday, Trump has signaled that he would be open to working with them to get things done.

“I hope that won’t be the case, but if it is, that has happened before with many presidents,” he told reporters. “You have strong veto and you end up working out deals.”

However Trump might deal with a divided Washington, the coalition he built is unlikely to dissipate when he leaves office, said Lynn Vavreck, a political science professor at UCLA.

“They want to build a very specific kind of world,” Vavreck said. “Those desires are not going to go away next Wednesday, or in 2028.”

Times staff writer Justine McDaniel contributed to this report.

Fabricated political polling has forced its way into the spotlight during the midterm election period in the United States.

Revelations that a small number of fraudulent firms have released fictitious results – some of which were picked up by news outlets and polling trackers – have raised concerns about how easily false information can acquire credibility.

Those datasets can be used to cast doubt on the electoral process. And when bad actors are unmasked, their existence can be leveraged to undermine voter confidence in election information overall.

The latest example occurred earlier this month, when Wedgewood Polls released a statement on social media admitting its statistics about a bevy of battleground states – like Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas and Maine – were fake.

Wedgewood described its work as “an experimental project” designed to highlight the “vulnerabilities, lack of oversight and overall low barrier to entry” in the US polling industry.

“Having previously worked in the polling and research sector, we watched as the public’s trust in polling eroded alongside a rise in unverified, low-quality methodology,” the firm said in a statement posted to its social media account, which has now been deleted.

It justified its false data as a test to see how easy it would be for fabricated polling to gain traction among voters and the media.

“The short answer: Far too easy,” Wedgewood said.

But Wedgewood’s admission came after its surveys had already circulated through the political information ecosystem, reaching prominent media outlets like The New York Times.

The incident was the second such scandal in the 2026 election cycle, following the exposure of another operation, Median Strategies, which acknowledged in August it had also faked results as a “short-term social experiment”.

In an increasingly polarised US political environment, the incidents have roiled a polling industry – and a public – struggling to adapt to an ever-changing information landscape.

How fake polls gained credibility

Wedgewood, which launched in June, published surveys covering competitive races across several states. Its results attracted attention from political campaigns, commentators and organisations that compile polling data.

The New York Times said its polling tracker had listed 15 Wedgewood surveys between June and October. The newspaper subsequently removed them.

In the wake of the scandal, it explained that the firm had answered questions about its personnel, methodology and funding before its results were included.

While the Times said Wedgewood’s surveys were not incorporated into the newspaper’s own presidential approval or national congressional polling averages, the case revealed a vulnerability in the process by which polling information becomes established as credible.

Polling aggregators help journalists and voters make sense of a crowded field of surveys by collecting results from multiple research organisations. Their value depends partly on their ability to distinguish reliable research from poorly conducted or fraudulent work.

Wedgewood’s success in passing some of those checks suggests that transparency on paper is not necessarily proof that research has been conducted as claimed.

According to FiftyPlusOne, a polling and forecasting website that investigated the firm, inconsistencies in the raw data and the technical identifiers associated with survey responses helped raise suspicions about its authenticity.

The investigation prompted Wedgewood to acknowledge that most of its results were fabricated.

Though Wedgewood has denied trying to mislead the public, some pollsters are not convinced, suggesting the group could was up to something more nefarious.

“We were investigating Wedgewood for faking their data,” said data journalist G Elliott Morris, who was involved in FiftyPlusOne’s probe. “They are trying to cover up for their fraud with the ‘we were doing a social experiment’ excuse.”

How fake polling has impacted elections

The consequences of fake polling extend far beyond the polling industry.

Mallory McMorrow, who ran unsuccessfully in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, has argued that a Wedgewood survey showing her support in the single digits damaged her campaign.

McMorrow said the poll left her volunteers demoralised, and journalists repeatedly contacted her to ask whether she should abandon the race.

Donations, she added, also evaporated, with Democratic supporters looking to other campaigns to invest.

In a social media post, McMorrow described the poll from Wedgewood – and another from the firm Mitchell Research and Communications – as a “one-two punch” that “killed her campaign”. She suspended her Senate bid in July.

“By that point, we took a risk and we spend our money. We put our ads up. They were working. But the damage was done. And I was drowned out by outside spending and the narrative that we had completely collapsed,” she wrote.

Experts say McMorrow’s account illustrates a broader problem: Even when a poll does not accurately measure public opinion, its findings can still influence the decisions of people who believe it does.

Why it matters

The Wedgewood controversy demonstrates how fraudulent data can become ammunition in an already polarised political environment.

Researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public tracked how discussion of Wedgewood’s admission spread across social media.

Initially, much of the conversation was concentrated among polling experts and people who followed election data. But the story subsequently gained traction among influential political commentators and partisan accounts.

Some posts focused on the fact that prominent outlets and polling aggregators had listed Wedgewood’s results. Others used the revelation to question polling more broadly, particularly surveys suggesting that Democrats were competitive in closely contested races.

The researchers found the controversy became intertwined with claims that polling was systematically misleading voters or understating support for particular political parties.

“Within 24 hours, the right-wing media ecosystem had succeeded in drawing attention to the story and setting some of the most salient frames: that poll numbers around the midterms, especially poll numbers favoring Democrats, cannot be trusted,” the Center for an Informed Public wrote in its analysis.

President Donald Trump, who has regularly made false claims about US election integrity, seized on the revelations to criticise the Times for including Wedgewood’s surveys in its polling tracker.

“The New York Times got caught,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “Everything about The Failing New York Times is ‘ARTIFICIAL’.”

He also suggested the Wedgewood case would help his $15bn defamation suit against the Times.

“Our powerful Lawsuit against them is getting stronger and stronger everyday,” he added.

What can be done?

No laws exist in the US that criminalise fake polls outright.

Some advocacy groups and law scholars have argued that the publication of fake polls constitute commodities and wire fraud, warranting federal prosecution.

“Deterring this sort of fraud before it can happen – and raising awareness of it – is vital,” Tyler Yeargain wrote for the Missouri Law Review in 2020.

He argued that enforcement of election-related laws against fake pollsters has “not been fully utilized”.

“Prosecution would serve a strong federal interest,” he wrote. “The interest at stake is weightier than concerns over how fake polls can shade the accuracy of an academic endeavor in prediction markets. It is instead to deter other wrongdoers, the sort who would weaponize fake polls to manipulate elections.”

Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), which regulates broadcasts in the US, said there has been “a significant surge” in fake polls during the 2026 midterms, urging networks not to amplify them. Otherwise, Carr said, they could lose their licence to operate.

“Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes,” Carr wrote on social media. “It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations.”

But the FCC’s sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, disagreed with Carr’s assessment.

“Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it, but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong,” she wrote on X. “FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith.”

Without a clear legal remedy against fake polls, experts argue the onus is placed on media outlets and voters themselves to evaluate the quality of the election data they see.

Mark Baldassare, the survey director of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), said there are ways to quickly spot which surveys are real – and which are not.

“Look for transparency,” Baldassare told PPIC’s Stephanie Barton in an interview. “A credible survey will list its mission, the purpose of its polling, and its sponsors or funders.”

“A poll guided by partisan groups or campaigns that is publicly released may have a message to relay to the public.”

With four days to go before the United States midterm elections, Democrats are leading in national polls as both parties make their final push for votes.

Meanwhile, a legal dispute threatens to delay the Senate result in Alaska, and President Donald Trump has cancelled two weekend rallies in favour of campaigning by phone.

Here’s what you need to know.

What do the latest US midterm polls say?

Democrats lead Republicans by 51.4 percent to 43.2 percent, according to RealClearPolling, with a difference of 8.2 percentage points.

Charles Franklin, professor of law and public policy and director of the Marquette Law School Poll in the US, said Trump’s declining approval ratings and economic concerns are alarming Republicans.

The latest Marquette Law School poll, conducted in Wisconsin from October 14 to October 22 and released on October 28, put Trump’s approval rating at 37 percent and disapproval at 61 percent.

Only 16 percent of respondents said they were better off financially than a year ago, while 42 percent said they were worse off and another 42 percent said things were about the same.

“Democrats are more enthusiastic and more certain they will vote,” Franklin told Al Jazeera.

“That is giving Democrats an important edge, and reflects Republican disappointment in current national conditions,” he added.

In Arizona, where voters are experiencing increasing living expenses, a retiree told Al Jazeera that the cost of groceries had become a major concern.

“We’re retired, and every time we go to the grocery store, it makes me wonder what the heck is going on,” the voter said.

In Texas, Democrat James Talarico is polling at 49 percent against Republican Ken Paxton’s 43 percent, according to a CNN survey released on Thursday. In Michigan, the same pollster found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed ahead of Republican Mike Rogers, 49 percent to 42 percent.

However, Franklin warned: “Polls are not perfect predictions of outcomes.

“We could see those close races go either way, either due to polling errors or due to voters moving just a little more in one direction or the other.”

In Alaska, however, there is also a complication: a legal dispute that could delay the result of a Senate race.

What is happening in Alaska’s Senate race?

The battle for Alaska’s seat could continue in court after ballots close on November 3. The dispute centres on two candidates named Dan Sullivan: the incumbent Republican senator and an independent candidate with the same name, who is also registered as a Republican.

Trump has accused Democrats of recruiting an independent candidate to confuse voters and take support away from the Republican senator.

“It was a scheme. It was an election fraud. Total election fraud,” Trump said.

The Justice Department has taken legal action over the dispute, while Democrat Mary Peltola denied the accusations.

“I feel like this is yet another diversion from the issue that Alaskans want to talk about, which is affordability,” she said.

Al Jazeera’s US correspondent Alan Fisher said the dispute could have consequences beyond Alaska if the Senate’s control depends on the result.

“If this becomes the key seat in the battle for the Senate, we might not actually know who has control there for several days, maybe even weeks after November 3,” Fisher said.

What has happened on the campaign trail in the past 24 hours?

Trump travelled to South Carolina to campaign for Republican senator Darline Graham – sister of the late Lindsey Graham – who is running against Annie Andrews in a closely contested race.

In Rock Hill, Trump encouraged voters to cast their ballots and cautioned his supporters not to take the election outcome for granted. About Graham, Trump said that she was in the lead but that he still had to campaign there. “In politics you never know, right? So you got to get out and vote.”

He also addressed his supporters directly and asked the crowd to pretend that he was on the ballot.

“And I am on the ballot because all of these things that we’ve done, all of these incredible successes that we have,” he added.

In Texas, Vice President JD Vance attended a rally in Weatherford, near Dallas, alongside Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, as Republicans called on supporters to vote.

“Texas ain’t surrendering. Texas is not becoming California. It’s going to stay Texas, ain’t that right?” Vance told supporters.

Well-known Democrats have also joined the campaign trail.

On Wednesday, former President Barack Obama gave a speech in Georgia supporting Senator Jon Ossoff, criticising Trump’s management of the economy and his approach to the war with Iran.

When Al Jazeera asked about Obama’s visit, Ossoff’s Republican opponent, Mike Collins, said it showed “the desperation of Jon Ossoff because he knows he’s losing”.

“If he was winning so big, he wouldn’t have brought anybody in,” Collins said.

Democrats also campaigned in Texas and Georgia on Thursday.

In Dallas, Senate candidate James Talarico held a rally as part of his final campaign tour, while former Vice President Kamala Harris joined Ossoff at Clark Atlanta University, urging young people to vote.

Harris also campaigned in Macon, Georgia, where she criticised the Trump administration over rising living costs.

“We have a moment now to turn pain into purpose,” Harris told Democratic volunteers. Harris also urged supporters to participate in local and statewide contests.

Later, at Clark Atlanta University, she asked students to stay engaged.

“Don’t overlook those races, because those are the folks who make decisions about your life every day,” she said.

What happens next on the US midterms campaign trail?

Trump has cancelled weekend scheduled appearances in Kansas and Iowa, replacing them with telephone rallies across nearly 20 states in the final days before Tuesday’s elections.

Trump had been set to appear in Salina, Kansas, on Saturday and Dubuque, Iowa, on Sunday.

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said the change would allow Trump to reach more voters than he could with in-person appearances.

“Voters across the country want to hear from President Trump before Election Day, and this 72-hour sprint will be a huge boost in the closing days,” Gruters said.

Asked about the cancellations on Thursday, Trump questioned the need to travel to Kansas, where Republican Senator Roger Marshall is facing Democrat Adam Hamilton.

“I don’t feel I have to go to Kansas,” Trump said.

When a Reuters reporter asked whether the decision had anything to do with fatigue from travelling, Trump rejected the suggestion. “I feel perfect,” he said, before insulting the reporter.

Trump is still scheduled to hold a rally at the Ocean Center in Daytona Beach, Florida, on Friday at 23:00 GMT.

At the same time, Harris is due to address the Fulton County Democratic Party’s Fulton Forward dinner in Atlanta, Georgia.

Vance had also planned a news conference with the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud in St Cloud, Minnesota, on Friday, but the visit was cancelled on Thursday. No reason was immediately given.

When Paul McKinney, a farmer in northeast Arkansas, thinks of his son’s childhood, he remembers a small boy playing in vast fields.

To a child, a flooded rice field is “like a giant, 40-acre swimming pool”, he said.

Rice has been a staple on McKinney’s farm for four generations. Next year, however, the family plans to plant much less. Instead, they will focus on soya, a crop that is cheaper to produce.

Like farmers across the United States, McKinney is making tough decisions this year in response to higher fuel and fertiliser costs, which have skyrocketed since the start of the war on Iran.

This week, farmers also face tough choices at the polls. Democrats are expected to make gains in the midterm elections, as voters react to high prices economy-wide by switching parties or staying home.

Observers are watching farm country closely. Texas and Kansas could send Democrats to the Senate for the first time in decades. In the House of Representatives, two majority-rural districts, Wisconsin’s Third and North Carolina First, could become tipping points for Democratic control.

Still, many of the country’s most rural areas, like Arkansas, are also its most safely Republican.

That leaves an uphill battle for Democrat Hallie Shoffner, who quit farming last year to challenge Republican Senator Tom Cotton in a campaign squarely focused on rising costs.

How high costs hurt farmers

Even before the US-Israel war on Iran, high input costs were straining farmers, said Ryan Loy, an extension economist for the University of Arkansas’ Division of Agriculture.

Loy pointed to a trade war with China that began in 2018, the ongoing war in Ukraine and disruptions related to the 2025 tariffs as factors driving up input costs and disrupting markets. A drought across the US heartland, made worse by climate change, has added to the strain.

Farmers across the country are working to adapt. In Arkansas, many farmers skipped rice in favour of soya. Soya is “the least input-intensive crop, and perhaps can break even or have the shallowest loss”, Loy said.

Now Arkansas, usually the country’s top rice producer, has its lowest rice acreage since the 1970s. Many farmers hoped 2026 would bring economic recovery so they could return to rice.

Then, the war on Iran hit. With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, fertiliser costs jumped just as farmers were fertilising during the spring planting season.

Loy tracked the increase in a sample budget that he maintains for Arkansas row crop farmers. “Urea fertiliser specifically peaked about 39 percent over our budgeted amount,” Loy said. Diesel costs came in about 72 percent more than budget averaged across the planting, growing and harvesting seasons, Loy found.

Those changes represent a significant economic hit. “For our state alone, it’s an additional cost of about $343m,” Loy said.

Last week, US President Donald Trump announced an $8bn fuel relief programme for farmers, following $12bn in tariff-related aid in 2025. If the fuel relief payment were divided equally between the 50 states, it would cover less than half of the extra costs that Loy estimates Arkansas’ farmers paid this year.

McKinney, a member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said the announcement was welcome. Still, he hoped for longer-term solutions that would prevent “this constant battle for survival”.

For many farms, survival is indeed getting harder. Farm bankruptcies for the first three quarters of 2026 were up 19 percent compared to this time last year, according to a recent analysis by the University of Arkansas’ National Agricultural Law Center. They were up 73 percent compared to 2024.

‘We can’t keep doing this’

McKinney’s son, who grew up playing in muddy rice fields, now helps his dad farm their 24,000 acres. So does McKinney’s nephew, who this year is driving a combine.

“As has been done for us, we would love to be able to hand that down to the next generation,” said McKinney. “But you also have to think about what is going to be best for them.”

McKinney questions how long farming will provide a sustainable living. “It’s some heavy things to think about,” McKinney said.

For Shoffner, a sixth-generation Arkansas farmer, that reckoning came last year.

Higher costs, lower crop prices and the uncertainty of trade wars and tariffs “made the numbers stop working” for their 2,000-acre farm operation, Shoffner told Al Jazeera.

“I know what it feels like to work hard, make every adjustment you can, and still have to sit down with your family and say, ‘We can’t keep doing this,’” Shoffner said.

To protect her parents’ land and retirement, Shoffner closed the family’s farm. That “heartbreaking” decision helped spur her Senate run.

“I decided that if I can’t farm, I will fight,” Shoffner said.

If elected, Shoffner wants to end the war on Iran, build trade policies farmers “can actually plan around”, invest in local processing and distribution, and pass a robust Farm Bill — strategies she hopes will help farmers and rural economies more broadly.

“If we want rural communities to have a future, the people producing our food have to be able to make a living doing it.”

Cotton did not respond to a request for comment.

How will farmers vote?

Economic pain may not change farmers’ votes, however, in Arkansas or nationwide. Michael Shepherd, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, said many farmers, like many rural voters, are committed Republicans.

Committed voters tend to view the economy through a partisan lens, according to Shepherd. “Their political behaviours, their voting choices, things like that, are not particularly responsive to changes in the agricultural economy,” he said.

Some polling this year, however, did suggest the potential for movement. A poll by the Farm Journal in April found that 35 percent of farmers who “usually” vote Republican and 15 percent who “always” vote Republican were still considering how they would vote.

And September polling from Purdue showed that, for the first time this term, a majority of farmers surveyed think the country is “on the wrong track”.

Even if farmers are swayable, of course, Shoffner still may not be the one to sway them: her campaign has been far outspent by Cotton’s, an established lawmaker who has received funding from interest groups like AIPAC and leaders at companies like Anthropic and Palantir.

“If one side has a massive war chest, and the other side has very limited resources, then that game of tug of war can be won much easier than it should be,” Shepherd said.

And even if farmers do change their votes, they may not decide elections.

McKinney, who is now farming one of the Shoffner family’s former fields, said farmers represent a shrinking percentage of rural voters — their strength now is in organising, not numbers.

Still, even where candidates like Shoffner don’t win, their campaigns might signal to funders that similar races may be competitive in the future or help Democrats win down-ballot seats.

In Arkansas’ second congressional district, for example, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is betting on Democrat Chris Jones. It’s a long-shot campaign, but across the country, at least some long-shot candidates are expected to win.

“All indications are that this is gonna be one of the biggest shifts away from the president’s party that we’ve observed,” Shepherd said.

The United States midterm elections appear stacked against the ruling Republicans, with polls suggesting the Democrats average an eight-point lead in the House of Representatives and the Senate. But if Democrats take one or both houses, could they affect upcoming elections in Europe?

Not fundamentally, analysts and observers have told Al Jazeera, but besides a welcome improvement in transatlantic relations, they point to two potentially adverse effects.

First, a Democratic Congress might produce complacency among Europeans regarding their own far-right movements.

Second, it might spur US President Donald Trump to raise pressure on Ukraine to make a deal it doesn’t want to make with Russia.

“If the Democrats win the House, let alone both houses, it will be read as, ‘you see democracies bounce back,’” said Catherine Fieschi, a nonresident scholar at Carnegie Europe, specialising in European far-right politics. It would introduce “the idea that these things don’t mean the advent of a fascist regime”, she said.

From her vantage point in Paris, Fieschi said she imagines a Democratic win leading to “a whole discussion about whether we should fear a Marine Le Pen election as much as some people say we should, or whether, in fact, it’s swings and roundabouts and, at some point, if people are really bad and really incompetent, then elections right the way,” she said.

French right-wing politician Marine Le Pen is currently leading the field in polling for presidential elections scheduled for April 18, with surveys indicating she has about 34 percent of the popular vote.

There is a precedent for the complacency Fieschi alludes to. In June 2025, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a think tank, polled Europeans following Trump’s first six months in office. Clear majorities in Western Europe said the US political system was broken. In Eastern Europe, majorities said it was working well – though they were weighted towards right-wing voters.

Greek Migration Minister Thanos Plevris warned against giving too much credit to the US for what Europeans think and do, however.

He said he believes European public opinion hardened against asylum and economic migration independently, but the US marked the shift by expressing it more violently, with military deportation flights and armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents sweeping American cities.

“I think there was a European about-turn on migration. We saw this in Germany, which had a welcoming attitude [to refugees] for many years, and they went to a more controlled policy. All northern European governments saw societies change,” he told Al Jazeera.

“But the US provided a change in tone, from induction and integration and benefaction to deterrence, border protection, increased returns and consequences if asylum is denied. I do think that pivot played a role in Europe,” Plevris added.

The fallout for Ukraine

Should French voters decide that the only way out is through electing Le Pen – “like some kind of strong medicine that would wake us up to what we might lose”, as Fieschi put it – they would have to contend with three controversial propositions – cutting French financial contributions to the European Union’s federal budget to pay for earlier retirement, cutting military aid to Ukraine and possibly leaving the single currency, the euro, in favour of a devalued franc.

Any one of those policy moves would be a major setback for the European project, which has coalesced around trade, money and now security. A cut in assistance to Ukraine would remove 3.5 percent of its foreign military aid, according to the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker, which other allies would have to make up.

At the same time, “we could end up in a situation where Trump is basically clinching deals with Putin as fast as he can,” said Fieschi, referring to the US-Russian strategy to coerce Ukraine into a peace agreement that involves sacrificing its eastern Donbas region – something Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said would be a strategic error leading to renewed war, and which a majority of Ukrainians are against.

Trump has already leveraged US early warning on incoming ballistics and Starlink satellite navigation against Ukraine. He has twice echoed Russian calls for Zelenskyy to be replaced.

Compounding this renewed pressure from a beleaguered White House, Russia could intensify its “all-domain war”, which many European governments believe it is already waging against them, said Victoria Vdovychenko, a Ukraine expert at Cambridge University’s Centre for Geopolitics.

“Cognitive warfare never stopped on the European continent, and Russians are already using existing vulnerabilities to the utmost,” she told Al Jazeera. “I hope that the European partners will be staying very strong.”

What Europeans think

Trump’s abandonment of the world order the US and Europe established after World War II, his disregard for democracy and human rights, and his betrayal of Ukraine have already transformed European public opinion, observers say.

Only 31 percent of Europeans see the US as Europe’s “most trustworthy ally”, down from 51 percent in 2024, when Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, was in office, according to a poll for the German think tank Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Seventy-three percent of Europeans across all age groups say Europe should “go its own way” rather than continue a close cooperation with the US, up from 63 percent in 2024, and that figure includes a clear majority among those on the centre-right and right.

In this year’s Spring Eurobarometer, a regular pulse-taking conducted by the European Commission, 68 percent of respondents wanted the EU’s role in protecting Europeans from global crises and security risks to increase, while 39 percent wanted it to be a top priority.

In a June poll for the European Council on Foreign Relations, the description of the US as an “ally” fell from 22 percent in November 2024 to 11 percent across all territories polled in Eastern and Western Europe.

In a June poll for the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based think tank, 76 percent of people polled in 36 countries, of which nine were EU members, expressed no confidence in Trump, and 57 percent expressed unfavourable views of the US.

It would appear that such shifts against the US and especially Republicans, formed over two Trump terms, would be difficult to reverse in a single congressional election, especially with a Russian war ongoing in Europe.

With six days to go before the November 3 midterm elections in the United States, Democrats are leading Republicans in national polls, but several key Senate races seem too close to call.

President Donald Trump has stepped up his campaigning, holding two Republican rallies in Texas on Tuesday before heading to Ohio on Wednesday. Ex-President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris are also hitting the campaign trail in Georgia for the Democratic Party.

Here is what the latest polls say, what happened on the campaign trail and what to expect on Wednesday.

What do the latest polls suggest?

With less than a week to go before the midterms, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests the Democrats are ahead of the Republicans by nine points.

According to the October 22-26 survey, 47 percent of voters support the Democrats, compared with 36 percent who support the Republicans. When undecided voters’ leanings were taken into account, Democrats lead with 50 percent compared with Republicans’ 41 percent.

Trump’s approval rating improved by a percentage point to 32 percent, with 73 percent of US adults saying the cost of living was going in the wrong direction.

In Texas, where Democrats have not won a Senate election since 1988, James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton are virtually tied in the polls.

Trump has made several trips to the state ahead of the midterms, but the polls indicate a much tighter race than the president has suggested.

“The good people of Texas have probably never seen so much of President Trump. Four visits in seven weeks, which, to put that into context, is twice as many as we saw at the comparable period leading up to the 2024 election, which perhaps shows just how concerned Republicans are,” Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle said, reporting from the Texas coastal city of Corpus Christi.

Lavelle said local analysis suggested more Republicans have voted early than Democrats, but Talarico has also been courting Republicans dissatisfied with Trump.

“That doesn’t mean Republicans are voting for Republican candidates,” Lavelle said.

In Michigan, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers are also competing in a closely contested Senate race.

“I was a Republican forever, but I became an independent in the last two elections,” Michael Alexander, a Native American backing El-Sayed, told Al Jazeera.

“I don’t really vote for a party any more. I vote for who I think will do the best job.”

Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, but Republican incumbent Roger Marshall now faces a close contest against Democrat Adam Hamilton.

The race has brought Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, to the state.

“There’s a reason why we’re seeing not only US President Donald Trump but also Vice President JD Vance heading to Kansas because it’s actually in play,” Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane said.

According to The Associated Press news agency, both parties and their allied groups have committed about $71m to campaign advertising in the Kansas race, making it the most expensive Senate contest in the state’s history.

What happened in the US midterm campaigns over the past 24 hours?

Trump addressed two campaign rallies in Texas on Tuesday in support of Paxton.

In Corpus Christi, Trump pointed to a tanker that he said was carrying one million barrels of Venezuelan oil and called it a win for his administration. He also suggested the idea of making Venezuela the 51st US state. The Trump administration has signed an oil deal with Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, after abducting socialist President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in January.

Trump also announced plans to roll back the Biden-era restrictions on methane emissions from oil and gas production, stating that it would help bring down energy prices.

Fuel prices have become a huge election issue as the US-Israel war on Iran continues. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also joined Trump for a rare campaign-trail appearance in Texas.

In Alaska, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has backed Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins for governor rather than Bernadette Wilson, the Trump-endorsed candidate.

What’s next for Democrats and Republicans on Wednesday?

Trump heads to Ohio on Wednesday for his third rally in the state this month, as Republicans try to defend a Senate seat being challenged by former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown.

The US president is scheduled to speak in Chillicothe at 23:00 GMT. Republican Senator Jon Husted, who took over Vance’s seat when he became vice president, is facing Brown, who is seeking a return to the Senate after losing his seat in 2024.

The two are in a closely contested race, with more than $400m spent or reserved for campaign advertising as of October 8, according to an Axios report.

Republicans are particularly concerned in Texas, Ohio, Kansas and Iowa, where even a few percentage points for a third party could swing the outcome.

Trump is scheduled to hold rallies in Ohio on Wednesday and Iowa on Sunday.

Vance will be in Kinston, North Carolina, campaigning for Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley, who is running against former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. The vice president is expected to speak at 16:30 GMT.

In Georgia, former President Obama will campaign in Atlanta alongside Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff and gubernatorial candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms at 20:00 GMT.

Ossoff is running against Republican Mike Collins, while Bottoms faces Republican Rick Jackson in the governor’s race. Trump won Georgia in the 2024 presidential election.

Former Vice President Harris also begins a three-day visit to Georgia on Wednesday, with early in-person voting due to end on Friday, October 30.

In Wisconsin, Marquette Law School will publish its latest statewide poll at 18:15 GMT.

Wednesday’s poll will also examine voters’ views on inflation, tariffs, the US-Israel war on Iran and Trump’s presidency.

WASHINGTON — President Trump offered $1 million Monday to anyone who reports voter fraud that leads to an arrest and conviction, escalating his efforts to cast doubt on the midterms as Republicans risk losing control of Congress.

“Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The offer comes as the Trump administration has moved more aggressively to intervene in the midterms, including an effort in Alaska to invalidate a potential Democratic victory in a U.S. Senate race and a push in California to segregate ballots from voters the administration considers likely non-citizens.

Trump did not say how the tips should be submitted to the federal government or who would decide whether a claim qualifies for a reward. The White House declined to comment beyond Trump’s social media post.

Last week, the administration launched a separate program that is meant to pay people for providing information to the administration to combat fraud. When announcing it, Trump said he would personally decide who gets paid.

“I will be the arbitrator of all of these decisions,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving, and I’ll determine, and I will be very generous.”

It is unclear whether Trump, who has spread false claims about the nation’s voting systems and routinely questions the integrity of the elections, intends to play a similar role over the voter fraud tipping system.

In the lead up to the midterms, Trump has tried to assert more control over the elections, calling on Republicans to “nationalize” voting and pushing for restrictions on mail-in ballots. Trump has also cast doubt over the integrity of California’s primary election, claiming without evidence that Democrat cheated — an allegation that was investigated by the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is run by a Trump loyalist.

Even as Trump says he wants “honesty in our elections,” the president told supporters at the Republican Party convention in Dallas in September to “cheat like hell, like they do.”

Trump’s efforts to cast doubt over voting come as polls show Republicans facing headwinds heading into the Nov. 3 election as Trump’s popularity sags amid voter concerns over the economy.

As Trump has tried to rally supporters in red states, he has also vowed to give every American adult $5,000 if Republican retain control of Congress. The promise drew bipartisan criticism, with some even calling the idea a potential bribe.

A sweeping campaign by federal immigration agents to identify voter fraud by noncitizens through door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states must be reined in ahead of the Nov. 3 election, after a federal judge in Northern California ruled it has intimidated U.S. citizens and interfered with the work of voting rights groups.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin said in a ruling Wednesday that limiting the Department of Homeland Security’s surging operations in those states — which she wrote “sweep in U.S. citizens for investigation” — does not prevent the Trump administration from “exercising their authority to investigate voter fraud by lawful means.”

A Homeland Security spokesperson said the agency is “laser focused on identifying, prosecuting, and removing aliens who vote,” and has “no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be U.S. citizens.”

The ruling was the latest to come out of an unprecedented legal war playing out between the Trump administration and California in recent days, in which an array of election cases are working their way through the federal courts at breakneck speed.

There is, for example, the lawsuit the U.S. Justice Department filed against California and state and local elections officials last week, demanding that they set aside any ballots from a list of 20,000 individuals identified by immigration officials as “likely noncitizens.”

There are also two cases out of Washington, D.C., in which a coalition of Democratic leaders, immigrant rights groups, voting rights experts and naturalized citizens in California are challenging the Trump administration’s use of Homeland Security data to target voters.

The litigation is playing out amid an intense political debate about election security at the national level — driven in part by President Trump, a longtime election denier — and a sweeping campaign by his administration to root out and parade examples of alleged voter fraud in the final days before the election.

White House, Homeland Security and Justice Department officials have all defended the administration’s efforts as necessary to ensure that noncitizens are not illegally diluting the votes of U.S. citizens. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, has claimed to have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are doing so in California.

‘That is not normal’

Democratic leaders and prominent elections experts, meanwhile, have cast the administration’s claims as baseless and intentionally exaggerated to stoke uncertainty about election security and ultimately challenge midterm results the president doesn’t like, and the Justice Department’s legal arguments as fundamentally flawed and wildly out of line with long-established department policy to stay out of elections in the lead up to voting.

“That is not normal. We have literally never experienced that in American history. Not once,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former Justice Department elections attorney. “The fact that the administration appears poised for the first time to act as an adversary to the states and counties who have [the] undisputed constitutional authority to run elections? That is unusual.”

At the same time, Becker and other experts stressed that those efforts to date have failed, and state and local elections have largely proceeded in recent weeks without incident, with millions of Americans having already cast their ballots.

“California voters need to know that they’re in good hands, that we have leaders at the state and local levels who are protecting our ballots and are ensuring that these attempts by the federal government to root out supposed noncitizen voting are not going to prevent Californians from casting our ballots,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. “Part of the strategy here is to distract people and scare people and raise fears, and the important thing is to continue to stay focused on … making a plan to vote.”

Status of cases

Federal courts have already rejected multiple Trump executive orders seeking to enforce nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements. The Supreme Court blocked an administration plan for the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots. The Justice Department has compiled a stunning record of losses in its 30 lawsuits demanding state voter rolls — with 26 of those cases, including the one in California, so far dismissed.

And election experts said they expect the Trump administration to rack up more losses in coming days — including in the Justice Department’s case challenging California officials’ refusal to segregate the ballots of some 20,000 voters based on the administration’s unsubstantiated claims they are noncitizens.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, shown in 2023, is overseeing a lawsuit in which the Department of Justice says 20,000 California ballots may have been sent to “likely noncitizens.”

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

That case was taken up — and scheduled for a Tuesday hearing — by Judge David O. Carter, an appointee of President Clinton who in January rejected the administration’s demand for California’s voter rolls, calling it a clear federal overreach that would have a “chilling effect” on voters and threaten American democracy.

California has called for the case to be dismissed outright, on the grounds that the administration has zero authority to make such demands, and that the demands are unlawful. The Trump administration has asked Carter to immediately rule in the matter.

“Every minute of [ballot] processing that occurs without segregating the ballots of suspected non-eligible voters causes untraceable disenfranchisement and dilution of the votes of United States citizens,” wrote Julie Hamill, an assistant U.S. attorney in Essayli’s office.

In D.C. federal court, Judge James E. Boasberg set an Oct. 30 hearing in a case in which UCLA Voting Rights Project attorneys, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo are challenging the administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege California voters aren’t citizens.

Carl Bergquist, an attorney for CHIRLA, said he looked forward to bringing a host of recent Trump administration actions to the court’s attention — including the administration’s lawsuit against California, the charging this week of 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, and Trump’s threats to arrest California elections officials who don’t comply with his administration’s demands.

“The events of the last few days, from threats to state and local officials, increased general immigration operations, the random knocking on doors by federal agents and the recent arrests are causing a chill in the community,” Bergquist said. “People, including naturalized citizens, are making their plans to vote and the Federal Government is doing its utmost to quash their attempts to exercise this fundamental right that they have lawfully acquired.”

The argument that naturalized citizens are being intimidated also features prominently in a second lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court Tuesday, in which top Democrats in Congress joined Nevada party officials and a California immigrant named Erick Jose Jimenez to challenge the Trump administration’s unprecedented voter fraud probes.

That lawsuit, also assigned to Boasberg, says Jimenez, a naturalized citizen since 2006, fears being “unlawfully targeted for voting and disenfranchised (or worse).”

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy advisor on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said there is “so much noise” around the election right now, in part because the administration has been making wild legal arguments about its authority over elections.

But he said “none of the federal government’s attempts to assert power that they do not have are working,” and voting “for 99.999% of the public” will remain “wonderfully normal.”

The United States has accused Canadian politicians of trying to influence its midterm elections, pointing to Canada’s efforts to push back against President Donald Trump’s tariff campaign.

In a fact sheet released on Wednesday, the US embassy accused Canada of being dismissive of its allegations of election interference.

“The Canadian government brushes off concerns about potential interference in U.S. elections, even as its ministers and premiers openly describe plans to influence American politics in official documents and public appearances,” the fact sheet reads.

The two countries have been locked in a trade war since the start of Trump’s second term in 2025, with Canada responding to US tariffs with import taxes of its own.

But the US embassy identified public statements about the tariffs as being attempts to sway the November 3 midterm election.

Among the politicians singled out in the fact sheet was Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly. The fact sheet pointed to comments Joly made in August about responding to Trump’s tariffs.

“We’re also targeting products that will target states in the US. And so we’re being wise and strategic to put political pressure,” Joly said at the time.

The embassy also took issue with Joly’s meetings with Democratic officials in Boston and Chicago in September. When asked by a reporter what she thought might happen with regard to tariffs if Democrats won the midterms, she said, “That’s exactly why I’m meeting so many governors and potential presidential candidates.”

Joly has rejected the suggestion that her actions could amount to interference, saying Canada would never meddle in US elections. She said her meetings with US politicians, both Democratic and Republican, were about building Canada’s economy.

“Fundamentally, what I’ve done in the US is to attract investments,” she told reporters on October 14.

The embassy also pointed to Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s calls for retaliatory measures on US products, as well as his government’s advertising campaign against Trump’s tariffs, launched last year.

The campaign, which featured clips of former US President Ronald Reagan criticising tariffs in a 1987 radio address, prompted Trump to call off trade talks with Canada in October 2025.

While the embassy laid out several examples of Canadian officials trying to influence US trade policy, it didn’t explain how those efforts amounted to interference.

Other instances of alleged election interference included Liberal MP Anthony Housefather saying he had campaigned in Florida on behalf of Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, ahead of her primary election in August.

The fact sheet also accused individual Canadians of illegally participating in US elections, naming 11 people who had been charged or sentenced for voting between 2012 and 2024.

The sheet did not, however, present any evidence linking those citizens to a Canadian government effort to involve itself in US elections.

“All Canadians should refrain from attempting to participate in or influence U.S. elections in any way,” the US embassy’s statement said. “Americans decide America’s elections.”

The fact sheet comes a week after US Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra said Washington was closely watching Canada for signs of interference ahead of the midterms.

“We’re monitoring it, we’re evaluating it and if some of it becomes election interference then America will respond to it,” Hoekstra said in a podcast interview on The Really Big Show, according to The Canadian Press.

The US and Canada have long been allies, but relations have frayed since Trump returned to office.

Not only has the Republican leader triggered a trade war with Canada, but he has also repeatedly threatened to make Canada a 51st state.

There have also been reports that separatist leaders from Alberta had sought support from Trump administration officials ahead of a failed referendum on the province’s independence this week.

Ahead of Monday’s provincial vote, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed concerns about potential US interference in the referendum, saying Canada expected foreign governments to stay out of its elections.

“Our expectation is, to be absolutely clear, on foreign governments, United States included, is we don’t get ourselves involved in their elections, they don’t get themselves involved in our elections,” he told Global News.

Al Jazeera has reached out to the Prime Minister’s Office and Global Affairs Canada for comment, as well as the office of Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Industry Minister Joly.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s latest embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin is deepening alarm in Washington and among America’s allies that the White House pressure campaign could leave Ukraine vulnerable as Moscow advances.

Trump’s push to end the war, which has raged since 2022, comes on the cusp of a midterm election that could give Democrats partial or full control of Congress, expanding their oversight powers, and as polls show more than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of foreign policy and support Kyiv’s fight against Russian aggression.

On Monday, Trump dismissed Russia’s ongoing assault on its neighbor, telling reporters that “they haven’t been doing much,” even as Russian forces bombed a park in Kharkiv that day, killing a mother and her 14-month-old child in her stroller.

Two days later, in St. Petersburg, Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, described Putin as a “humanitarian,” despite his invasion unleashing Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II.

“You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir,” Witkoff said after securing the release of a detained U.S. citizen from the Kremlin. At least two other Americans, both from Los Angeles, remain wrongfully detained by Russia. “I salute you, and I commend you,” he added.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) described Witkoff’s remarks as “another embarrassment” after a steady stream of entreaties to Moscow from the Trump administration.

The diplomatic push follows Trump’s decision two weeks ago to import Russian diesel, a move that could bolster Moscow’s war effort and violate U.S. law. Days later, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly condemned the move, Trump ally Elon Musk reportedly throttled the speed of Starshield, a military-grade satellite internet service from Starlink that Kyiv relies on to defend itself against Russian attacks.

The Trump administration failed to provide Kyiv with intelligence warnings of incoming ballistic missile strikes, blaming the weather. The president waived sanctions on Russia that were passed just months earlier with overwhelming bipartisan support in the aftermath of the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally and Ukraine supporter. And Trump declined to approve the transfer of interceptor missiles to Ukraine — more defensive weaponry used to protect the country from Russian strikes that have increasingly targeted civilian areas.

The developments have raised fresh questions over whether Trump has exceeded his legal authority in reshaping U.S. policy on Ukraine.

Russian diesel imports could violate a 2022 federal ban, the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act, and throttling Starshield, withholding intelligence and delaying missile transfers could breach contractual or statutory obligations set forth by Congress — all potential subjects of investigation for a willing Congress.

And Trump’s push comes at a moment of political peril, as he faces the prospect of a Democratic-led legislature and a Republican Party ready to move beyond his lame-duck presidency.

But freedom from political obligation could also allow Trump to pursue his agenda without the needs for coalitions or popular support.

The prospect of an unchecked Trump has stoked fears on Capitol Hill that the White House could abandon Kyiv altogether.

Nine senators from both parties have asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate the Starlink episode, while lawmakers across the aisle have condemned the speed restrictions. And should they take power after the midterms, Democrats are also weighing whether to make Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s resignation a condition of further defense funding, citing his criticism of Ukraine, according to a report in the newspaper the Hill.

“Congress will unequivocally reaffirm that Ukraine is an indispensable ally to the United States, that Russia is a self-declared enemy of the United States, and that the United States will 100% support and defend the people of Ukraine in their fight for their own freedom against this brutal, illegal, and unprovoked Russian invasion,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

“The United States must provide any and all defensive equipment that Ukraine needs to defend itself,” Fitzpatrick added. “Anyone who attempts to limit the use of Starshield for Ukraine will be fully investigated and will be held fully accountable, to include public congressional oversight hearings.”

Marco Rubio, the president’s secretary of State and national security advisor, was initially silent on Trump’s moves. But he ultimately defended them when confronted by reporters on a recent visit to Central Asia.

“We’re no longer going to be defensive about this topic,” Rubio said. “If it were not for the assistance of the United States, including under the Trump administration, there would be no Ukraine right now. Ukraine, as a sovereign state, would not exist.”

Still, Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), a former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that Rubio’s explanation of Ukraine’s loss of Starlink access was “absolutely not” sufficient.

“This is something where there needs to be an investigation, there needs to be a congressional investigation,” Turner told CBS. “Lives are at risk, and lives are lost over these things.”

Trump has told reporters in recent days that his goal remains to secure a peace deal that ends the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II. But Mitt Romney, a former GOP senator from Utah and the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, dismissed Trump’s arguments as a break from U.S. values.

“Churchill could have shortened WW2 by years if he had just ‘done a deal’ with Hitler,” Romney wrote on social media. “George Washington could have done a deal to end the American Revolution.”

Zelensky “is in good company,” he added.

Europe, too, is preparing for a new confrontation with the Trump administration over the defense of Ukraine.

Germany’s chancellor rejected Trump’s approach, saying of Europe, “We are the firewall.” And the European diplomatic service responded with derision to Trump’s waiver of sanctions.

“When Russia escalates aggression against Ukraine,” the European Union’s diplomatic service said in a statement, “Europe responds with more pressure on the aggressor.”

Trump has floated a trilateral summit with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Shenzhen, China, next month, fueling European fears that he could strike a deal on Ukraine without Kyiv at the table.

The Russians and Ukrainians agreed this week in principle to begin peace talks at a technical level moderated by the United States. No timeline or framework has been set for the talks.

In an interview on Fox News, Zelensky said that he was prepared to agree to a peace deal that froze the existing battle lines, ceding nearly a quarter of Ukrainian land to Russian control. Over the last year, Russia has demanded that Kyiv also relinquish land in the Donbas region that it has failed to conquer through military means.

“Right now, we have to freeze. And I think this is a real way to end this war. We call this ceasefire,” Zelensky said. “This is minimum what we need from Russia today.”

“The most important is peace, and secure peace,” he added, “not to be afraid that occupation will come back, aggression will come back, killing will come back.”

Vice President JD Vance declined Monday to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for reelection a day after President Trump endorsed the embattled Israeli leader.

“The president has the most influential endorsement in American or international political history,” Vance said during an interview with journalist Mark Halperin.

“I endorse American candidates, and that’s where I’m focused on the midterms,” Vance said, while traveling Monday to campaign for Republican Senate nominee Michael Whatley of North Carolina. “So, I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections.”

Vance has campaigned for a foreign leader — then-Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, last spring before the right-wing leader’s party lost that country’s parliamentary election.

Vance’s deference to Trump on Netanyahu comes at an extraordinarily sensitive time for Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel. Concerns about antisemitism have surged across the political spectrum ahead of the midterm elections.

Republicans have been eager to portray Democrats, notably Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, as hostile toward Jews and Israel, while they deal with their own internal schisms.

Vance has faced skepticism from Jewish Republicans about his commitment to Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel.

Last month, Vance spoke privately in Las Vegas to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a leading GOP group committed to advocating for a strong U.S. relationship with Israel and against antisemitism.

Vance left a positive impression on his RJC audience while stopping short of disavowing influential conservative podcast host Tucker Carlson.

Vance has faced general questions about his association with Carlson, a former Fox News host who faced backlash last year for interviewing antisemite Nick Fuentes on his podcast.

In June, Vance sharply criticized members of Israel’s government for opposing Trump’s efforts to resolve the war with Iran.

In July, Vance said elements of the Israeli government had tried to influence American sentiment to derail negotiations.

“There are some people within their system that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely,” Vance said during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is hoping that $5,000 checks can juice Republican turnout in November’s midterm elections — but even some of his devoted fans are doubting that government payouts would arrive.

“I mean, I guess it’s good for some people. I really don’t care,” said Jamie Alvarez, who attended Trump’s recent Alaska rally in a red, white and blue outfit. “I don’t feel like your vote should be bought. I feel like you should vote for who you feel is going to do the best job.”

Joseph Eatherton was attending that same rally and said he was “not sure if it’s necessary.” When asked whether Trump could deliver on the promised money, he said, “I don’t know, and I hate being an armchair quarterback.”

The offering of government checks has become a go-to tactic for Trump when he faces a political jam. He’s previously endorsed $2,000 in dividends from tariff revenues and large refunds from spending cuts achieved by the Department of Government Efficiency, neither of which materialized. The latest example could reveal how much voters still trust Trump as they decide control of Congress in the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

Staunch supporters such as Lucy Martinez, the president of a Republican women’s club who attended a recent Trump rally in Texas, said there’s no doubt in their minds.

“I think that I will get the $5,000,” she said. Out of all the presidents, Trump is someone “who kept his promises to his people and all the United States.”

Trump has dished out payments as elections approach

However, many voters are already embittered by his economic leadership. His critics see a president who failed to tame inflation and keep America out of overseas conflicts, and whose agenda has fueled higher prices as the war with Iran appears to be at a stalemate.

“The trust on this is already gone for most people,” said Amy Frederiksen, a former Republican Minnesota Senate majority leader who now runs a public affairs firm.

“I just don’t see the energy around that line,” she added. “Most people know that’s a blatant over-the-top promise like several he’s made in the last couple of years, and they’re not buying it.”

As the midterms approach, Trump has also pledged a $90 payment to 20 million Medicare enrollees and $500 “rebates” for people the administration says were overcharged for their Obamacare plans. He has automatically enrolled every U.S. child in “Trump accounts” to invest in stocks.

The $5,000 payouts would only occur, Trump says, if Republicans keep their majorities in the House and Senate. Trump acknowledges that the cost would exceed $1 trillion, but it’s not clear that the White House is seriously engaging with the proposal’s ramifications, from the increased deficit to the likely boost to inflation.

The White House said the payments are possible because of Trump’s trade deals, investment commitments by foreign countries, government stakes in private companies and deals for oil and minerals.

The administration’s position is that the payments will help people recover from the inflation that began in 2021 under then-President Joe Biden, though Republicans, at the time, attributed that inflation to excessive government checks tied to pandemic relief.

When The Associated Press asked several weeks ago if the administration was modeling the economic impact from the checks, Christopher Phelan, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said he would “refrain” from answering.

Roughly half of registered voters say Donald Trump does not keep his promises to Americans, according to an AP-NORC poll from September. About 3 in 10 say Trump tries to keep his promises but is unable to, while only about 2 in 10 say he keeps his promises.

Republican voters are more accommodating. About half say Trump tries to keep his promises but is unable to, and about 4 in 10 say he keeps his promises.

Republican candidates aren’t echoing Trump’s promise

Trump is talking about the payments as a sure thing.

“If the Republicans win, you’ll each have $5,000 in your pocket and economic success for our country like we have never seen before,” he said at a Saturday rally in Kentucky. “And remember, ’cause they like to say, ‘Oh, well, maybe he won’t do that.’ Uh, I always do it.”

Campaign spending tracked by AdImpact suggests that Republicans are not running advertisements either on television or online about the promise. The few advertisements that do exist are from pro-Democratic groups such as Rolling Sea Action Fund that conclude with the voiceover, “Come on, do you really think he’s sending you a check? Yeah, right, we won’t get fooled again.”

At a Friday rally in Georgia, Trump noted that he had previously delivered a $1,776 “Trump dividend” to troops in the military. But those payments came from a congressionally approved housing supplement.

Trump claims the nation could not afford the payments if Democrats hold a chamber in Congress because the nation would be “flat broke.” But he said that one caveat is that the money could only be spent in the U.S., rather than in China, Japan or France. He joked that people should spend the check at his luxury club in Palm Beach, Florida.

“Let’s have lunch at Mar-a-Lago, where for $5,000, you’ll get one hamburger and a small dessert,” he told the crowd in Georgia.

Some in the crowd took Trump at his word that he would fight to get them the money. But they added the caveat that if he didn’t come through, it would not be his fault.

“I could use $5,000,” said Mike Boatman, a 58-year-old from Evansville, Indiana, who travels the country attending the president’s rallies. “I mean, he’s done everything he’s said he’s going to do.”

Boak, Bohrer and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Bohrer reported from Wasilla, Alaska, and Barrow reported from Dalton, Georgia. AP reporters Aaron Kessler and Linley Sanders in Washington and Lekan Oyekanmi in San Antonio, Texas, contributed to this report.