politics

Today we discuss board games, snacks and boomerangs.

So where do things stand less than a week from election day?

With the usual caveats, about no certainties in life or politics …

Of course …

…. it seems pretty darned certain that Democrats are going to take control of the House next week, notwithstanding the delusions (or professed confidence) of Speaker Mike Johnson and his Republican allies. The only question is the margin.

Democrats need to flip just three seats, and even the most conservative handicappers (in terms of circumspection, not political views) see them netting more than half a dozen, at a minimum. From there, forecasts climb into the double digits.

“In the best-case scenario,” Erin Covey wrote in a recent analysis for the Cook Political Report, Democrats “could enter the new Congress with more seats than they had after successfully flipping control of the House in 2006 and 2018.”

Didn’t Republicans gerrymander several states to boost their chances?

They did, starting in Texas. Then California moved to gerrymander its political map, to boost Democratic chances.

That helped precipitate a nationwide redistricting war which, once the haze cleared, resulted in a third of the nation’s 435 House districts being redrawn to at least some extent. But that only marginally increased Republicans’ advantage. And there are signs the rejiggering of political lines may have backfired, or boomeranged, on the GOP.

How so?

By spreading their reliable voters thin and counting on support from 2024 Trump backers who’ve since soured on the president. In particular Latinos. In doing so, Republicans have put several House seats into play, most notably in Texas and Florida.

That’s what’s known in the business as a “dummymander.”

A knife’s edge

What about the Senate?

That remains a toss-up, which few would have imagined at the start of this election season.

Virtually all the contests that will decide control of the Senate are being fought in states that President Trump carried — several by landslide margins — making them not exactly friendly Democratic territory. But war, inflation and Trump’s wretched approval rating have dragged GOP candidates down in states such as Kansas, Mississippi and Texas, which, a year ago, would have required hallucinogens to appear remotely competitive.

So what’s the math?

Democrats need to hold on to all of their seats and gain four to flip the Senate.

While incumbent Jon Ossoff seems certain to win in Georgia, Democratic-held seats in Minnesota, New Hampshire and, especially, Michigan are more problematic. In terms of pickup opportunities, the aforementioned Kansas and Texas are toss-ups, along with Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Maine. North Carolina seems ready to flip Democrats’ way.

And, who knows, there might be a surprise or two — which, obviously, wouldn’t be a surprise if we’re talking about it here.

One thing to bear in mind: Close races all tend to break in favor of one party or the other. Think of dominoes falling, not checkers hopscotching across the board.

Polls look good for Democrats.

They do. But as both of my faithful readers know, your friendly political columnist can’t stand the constant chattering about polls.

It’s not just how surveys understated Trump’s support the two times he won the White House. (In their defense, pollsters did pretty well in the last two midterm elections, in 2018 and 2022.)

It’s that too many people — including folks who should know better — ascribe a false precision to polls, which at best offer nothing more than an educated guess.

Are the polls again overstating Democratic support?

Could be.

In a recent analysis, the Economist found that polls tend to underestimate a party’s strength in states they dominate. That could mean surveys showing toss-up races in red states such as Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas could be overstating Democratic strength.

(Research also has shown that dispirited voters are less likely to participate in a poll, which could mean an oversampling of Democratic sentiments despite quite conscious attempts to adjust and weight the data.)

All of which is to say, ignore the polls and don’t let your hopes get too high, or your mood too low. We’ll have election results soon enough.

What does the early voting tell us?

Nothing dispositive. (That’s a fancy way of saying, again, don’t read too much into those numbers.)

Democrats are evidently way more enthused about voting this election than Republicans. And there have been some eye-popping turnout numbers among Black and Latino voters. But maybe Republicans are holding back to cast their ballots closer to or on election day.

Things will be abundantly clear after the fact, as they always are.

Table stakes

How about all the money Republicans — and Elon Musk — are pouring into the election?

It’s gross. But money alone is not determinative.

Just ask Tom Steyer, who spent the GDP of a small country on his failed run for California governor. Or Trump, who was outspent by Hillary Clinton nearly 2-to-1 when he was elected in 2016.

A certain amount of money is necessary to compete; it’s like the table stakes required for a serious competitor to get into the race. Beyond that, factors like candidate performance, external events and, especially, the overall political climate matter a good deal more.

The big Republican money advantage can help drive turnout, which is no small thing, especially if it helps coax reluctant GOP voters to the polls. But elections aren’t like vending machines, where the more money you put in, the more you take out.

Thankfully, we haven’t reached a point where public office can be purchased automatically like soda or a candy bar. At least not yet.

So get out and vote, or make a plan to, if you haven’t already.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Many Latinos are done with Trump. The shift is especially striking in Texas
The deep dive: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal:” Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth tax supporters
The L.A. Times Special: Skelton: Need help deciding on the state ballot measures? Here are my recommendations
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Nithya Raman slowly recited the start of her handwritten message to Angelenos.

Llegué de la India con mi madre a los seis años. Sé lo que cuesta empezar de nuevo.

I came from India with my mother when I was 6. I know what it takes to start over.

The mayoral hopeful was in the green room of Univision’s Westchester studios on Thursday, waiting for an interview with anchor Guad Venegas. He would ask each question in both English and Spanish, and Raman could respond in English.

But she hoped to do better than that.

Since the start of her campaign, Raman has sprinkled Spanglish into her speeches and sometimes offered whole sentences in softly accented, lightly stilted Spanish. It’s part of an effort to win over Latinos, nearly half the city’s population and a crucial swing vote , with less than a week to go before election day.

“Can you say the whole thing for me?” Raman asked Lauren Perez-Rangel, her Latino outreach senior director, who read the full message in effortless Spanish. Raman repeated it word for word, accent for accent, with no flubs or pauses.

“You got it!” Perez-Rangel told her boss.

“I hope,” Raman replied.

It was showtime.

Raman, who serves on the L.A. City Council, grinned when someone said “me vale madre” — I don’t give a damn — on the walk to the studio. She cracked in English, “I doubt that’s true!” when I told an Univision producer in Spanish that no one likes my work.

A cameraman proclaimed “¡Muy bien!” when Raman rattled off an “uno, dos, tres” mic check. Venegas responded in English, “It’s always like that” to Raman’s comment in Spanish that her pronunciation is better than her comprehension.

During the interview, Raman raised her eyebrows when Venegas talked about streets filled with “basura,” the word for “trash” that became an insulting pun on Bass’ name hurled by then-candidate Spencer Pratt during the primary. Raman answered questions in English even when Venegas only asked them in Spanish, fully understanding what he said. And she kept saying “sí” to acknowledge Venegas’ points, as a native speaker would.

She never got a chance to read her Spanish-language statement, but that was OK. I saw enough to know that while she isn’t going to write the next “Don Quixote,” she isn’t limited to ordering at Casa Vega.

Supporters have praised her efforts en español. Critics dismiss them as pandering. I see something more interesting at work.

Raman spoke Tamil and Malayalam in India before moving to the U.S. as a child. If she wins, she would be the first immigrant mayor since Canadian-born Frank Shaw in the 1930s. She’d also be the first mayor whose native tongue wasn’t English since Bernard Cohn, who grew up speaking German in Prussia and served as mayor for two weeks in 1878.

Having a non-native English speaker in charge of a world capital such as L.A. — and one who wants to express herself in the city’s second tongue — wouldn’t just be symbolic. A person who’s earnest about learning a language is forever trying to decipher something new, failing far more often than succeeding in the early going — yet always working to master the task.

Isn’t that what we want from any politician, especially in a city where 56% of residents live in a household that speaks a language other than English?

Los Angeles mayoral candidate and city councilmember Nithya Raman prepares to speak at a “Latinos Con Raman” rally at La Cita Bar in downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 18.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Familiarity with Spanish has become a prerequisite for L.A. mayors. Antonio Villaraigosa famously took classes to improve his assimilated Spanish. Eric Garcetti described his fluency as “good community meeting Spanish” and often delivered remarks in Spanish. Bass, who was married to a Chicano and treats her ex-husband’s children as her own, isn’t fluent but has a robust Spanish-language outreach for her campaign, complete with ads, mailers and websites.

For Raman, though, learning Spanish isn’t just a way to reach out to constituents. It’s a reminder of “what it means to grapple with a bureaucracy that wasn’t intended for you.”

We spoke outside Univision’s studios after her interview. I asked to speak about her experience with Spanish as a way to show a private side of her to Angelenos. (I had asked Bass to sit down with me and talk about food. The interview was initially scheduled, then campaign spokesperson Alex Stack said it was canceled so Bass could attend a news conference assailing Raman for saying that former LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates was a “gold standard” in protecting immigrants. Bass’ campaign didn’t reschedule the interview and didn’t provide comment on her Spanish skills in time for publication.)

In 2022, Raman co-authored a motion that introduced live Spanish translation services at city council committee meetings. She wants the city to research whether it can provide the information that’s being lost as the Trump administration increasingly deletes Spanish-language versions of federal websites.

“You have to show them that you’re trying,” Raman told me. “And even if you go out there, and you speak broken Spanish, and you mess it up, and you don’t conjugate it properly, and you get all the endings wrong — ‘a’ versus ‘o’ — the fact that you show up and you say it, and you try it in Spanish, means something to the people that I’ve been talking to.”

Her Spanish journey began with four years of classes at a suburban Boston high school. She chose Spanish instead of French because she felt it “would be more useful for me in the world.”

Raman forgot most of it while attending Harvard and MIT but started practicing with her brother, a Spanish major at UCLA, when she moved to L.A. 13 years ago. She read bilingual books for beginners and streamed shows such asNetflix’s dark comedy “La Casa de las Flores” (“The House of Flowers”) and podcasts such as “Chill Spanish.”

Those lessons have happened “pretty regularly” since she joined the city council in 2020, Raman said, although she scaled back once the mayoral campaign intensified.

I wondered what languages are spoken in her household. Her husband, whose Tamil-speaking parents are immigrants from India, only speaks English. Her twin 10-year-olds “can kind of follow along” when she speaks to her parents in Tamil, but she is no longer fluent in Malayalam.

“I have friends like who speak a different language, and they’re, like, religious about speaking it to their children,” Raman said. While she would love for her children to learn other languages, “life is too stressful trying to make every moment of your time with your family into almost a chore.”

I asked about the pandering charge. Throwing out Spanish phrases in an effort to appeal to Latinos is a political cliché as weak salsa as eating tacos in East L.A. or cruising in a lowrider.

Raman shook her head.

“To try and communicate to people in the language that they speak doesn’t feel like pandering. It feels like what the city should do,” she said. “Why shouldn’t elected representatives here also speak Spanish, or do their best to communicate to people in their language?

“If there was a lot of Tamil speakers here,” Raman continued, “I would appreciate that for me and for my family and for my grandparents.”

Mayor Karen Bass speaks during the “Latinos Con Bass” campaign at Ernest E. Debs Regional Park on Sunday, Sept. 20, 2026 in Los Angeles.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Then I tested her Spanish.

Had she heard of one of my favorite words: convenenciero? Someone who goes with what will help them and doesn’t stand for anything but themselves. Haters have never outright called Raman a convenenciera, I said, but that’s what they’re insinuating in almost every other sentence.

In fairness, most politicians have a bit of convenenciero in them.

“People say, ‘She doesn’t stand for anything,’ but people also criticize me for being ideological, so which is it?” Raman calmly responded. “I try and learn. And I don’t come and say, ‘I know what you want.’ I say, ‘I’m trying to learn what you want, and I want to make the city work for you. How can I make it work?’”

So you’re not a convenenciera?

“I don’t feel that,” Raman said, repeating the phrase two more times.

I told her I’d ask three questions in Spanish. First: how was she doing?

“Bien. Un poco nervioso.”

“Poca nerviosa,” I corrected. A bit nervous. She thanked me for correcting her and said, “Sí, sí, nerviosa.”

What was she doing to try and relax during this campaign?

“Yo quiero estar con mi familia. Mis hijos …” I want to be with my family. My children …

She thought about the right phrase.

“… son mi vida.” Are my life.

What’s a word she loves in Spanish?

Perez-Rangel suggested chisme — gossip.

“I do like chisme!” Raman said with a laugh. But that wasn’t it.

“I like the word tomar [to take] and how many different meanings it has,” she said in English, then rattled off definitions and tenses in Spanish. Tomar bebidas. Tomar su tiempo.

“Tomar City Hall?” I asked.

She laughed again and said something that needs no translation: “Yes.”

Trade and security are expected to be on the agenda as delegations and leaders from dozens of African countries gather in Moscow for a two-day summit with Russia.

The third instalment of the Russia-Africa Summit will run through October 28–29 and will be chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the current African Union chair, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye.

Russia has boosted security and trade cooperation with African nations as it grapples with Western sanctions imposed in response to its war against Ukraine.

So who will be attending and what is at stake?

Here’s what we know.

What is the Russia-Africa Summit?

The Russia-Africa Summit is a two-day diplomatic and economic meeting being held in Moscow on Wednesday and Thursday.

Leaders and delegations from 48 African countries are meeting to discuss bilateral cooperation spanning politics, defence and technology.

This high-profile forum is the third of its kind. The first summit took place in October 2019 in Sochi, marking an unprecedented turn in Russian-African relations.

What’s on the agenda for the summit?

The event’s official theme is Developing Mutually Beneficial Cooperation and “unlocking the potential of every African country”.

More than 40 sessions and about 100 speakers will cover trade, investment, technology transfer, food and energy security, healthcare, education and youth exchange.

There will also be a business programme, culminating in a plenary session.

Who is attending?

Representatives from 48 African countries will participate, as well as 22 heads of state, according to Kremlin presidential aide Yury Ushakov. Heads of state from 17 countries attended the last summit in 2023.

Fewer leaders came to the last two summits, compared with the first gathering in 2019, when 43 took part, a decline which Moscow blamed on Western pressure.

Russian President Putin is scheduled to meet with his Egyptian counterpart Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

The guest list includes leaders closely tied to Russia’s growing security role in Africa, including Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traore and Niger’s Abdourahamane Tchiani.

Kenya’s William Ruto, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Namibia’s Netumbo Nandi-Ndatiwah are also expected, as well as Sudan’s Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed al-Menfi, the chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya.

What is the relationship between Russia and Africa like?

Russia has gained far more influence in Africa through security than trade, according to a report by the African Security Analysis group (ASA), a security consultancy.

Russia’s security presence has risen significantly in the region. In 2023, Russian forces, mostly from the Wagner Group, operated in only a few African countries, but the ASA now counts Russian missions or troops in at least nine countries.

Trade between African countries and Russia has exceeded $28bn. It was estimated to be about $16.8bn in 2019, when the first summit was held. But trade is mainly concentrated in a few countries and overshadowed by that of China and the European Union.

Russia’s strongest ties to the continent are in energy, fertilisers, defence and nuclear power, where the state-owned firm Rosatom has signed a string of agreements.

Russia has been an essential supplier of fertilisers and wheat to many countries in the region.

In 2023, Russia exported 200,000 tonnes of grain to Mali, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Eritrea and Zimbabwe. 

Why does this summit matter?

This is the first summit since 2023, so it will be an indicator of how far the relationship has developed and where it is heading, analysts say.

A final declaration and a Russia-Africa Partnership Forum plan should be adopted by the end of the Summit to cover 2027-2029.

Analysts have said that meetings on the sidelines could be more important than the main event, as talks between African delegations and Russian defence officials can illustrate where Moscow plans to expand its military ties.

The recruitment of Africans to fight in Ukraine could also be a growing problem for Moscow, as it has already caused diplomatic concern in countries such as Kenya.

Amnesty International has used the run-up to the summit to raise the issue of Africans being recruited to fight with Russia.

In an open letter, the directors of Amnesty’s African section urged leaders attending the summit to demand that Moscow end what the group describes as deceptive and coercive recruitment of Africans to fight in its war in Ukraine.

Buried in the language of Proposition 45, the initiative that would overhaul California’s powerful law on environmental review, are provisions that would mean government agencies have to consult only with certain tribes in the state, and not others when they develop major projects.

Tribes that are federally recognized would be consulted; those without recognition would not.

This effort mirrors similar ones supported by tribes that have federal recognition to limit the say of tribes without it in recent years. Non-recognized tribes see it as another move by economically powerful tribes to protect their own interests and avoid having to negotiate with other local tribes over territorial disputes and how to best protect important sites.

“Our concern is that wealthy casino interests and political influence are being allowed to outweigh ancestral connections,” Andrew Salas, chairperson of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, said in a statement to The Times.

Proposition 45 on the Nov. 3 California ballot would create a streamlined environmental review process for projects deemed “essential” — including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, education, internet access and clean energy projects. The streamlining would mean stricter deadlines for review and court challenges, would bar local governments from requesting repeated analyses and allow developers to propose a single alternative with less environmental impact rather than several.

One of the largest contributors to the Yes on Prop 45 committee is a federally recognized tribe, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, which contributed $750,000.

“Federal recognition is the legal and constitutional foundation of tribal sovereignty and establishes a government-to-government framework for consultation,” Amelia Matier, spokesperson for Yes on Prop 45, said, noting tribes without recognition still can still meaningfully participate alongside members of the public.

The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation reaffirmed its support for the measure in a statement to The Times but did not respond to specific questions.

Critics, meanwhile, say moves such as this would give federally recognized tribes the power to consult on development projects hundreds of miles outside their homelands, overriding local tribes.

“Proposition 45 is part of a much longer struggle over whose voices California chooses to hear,” Salas said. “For decades, non-federally recognized ancestral tribes in Southern California have fought to protect our homelands while facing pressure to accept a ‘lesser role’ than federally recognized tribes.”

“Our rivers, habitats, and the animals that depend on them lose their protection when the people who know these places are removed from the table,” he said.

None of the Gabrieleno and Tataviam tribes within the greater L.A. area have federal recognition.

Last year, three tribes with federal recognition championed a bill that would have significantly limited how tribes without it could participate in the consultation process for all projects — not just the ones deemed “essential” ones under Proposition 45. A few months later, the small state agency that maintains the official list of tribal contacts unveiled a proposal that some non-recognized tribes argued would effectively exclude them. Multiple federally recognized tribes supported the effort.

The environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act, better known as CEQA, is one of the primary ways that tribes have a say over how the state and local governments develop land within their ancestral territories. It allows tribes to comment on how a proposed housing or infrastructure project might harm graves, ceremonial grounds or ancient villages. A separate law lets tribes comment on general plans that outline where developers can propose housing, and commercial and industrial facilities.

Tribal consultation differs from general public comment. It allows Indigenous leaders to discuss the location and details of sensitive information — such as burial sites — confidentially, before draft environmental reviews are published.

The Kizh Nation has used the CEQA process to consult on hundreds of land development projects a year around the Los Angeles Basin. In one instance, the process generated extra protections for one of the oldest living plants in the world, a more-than 13,000 year-old oak tree in the Inland Empire, that Indigenous people have taken care of for millennia. It also resulted in the Kizh Nation winning one of the largest land returns in Southern California history for a tribe without federal recognition — while still creating a development of nearly 1,700 homes and industrial and business parks.

There are over 100 tribes in the state with federal recognition, a status that brings protections, funds and services from the federal government, including funding for Indigenous elementary and secondary schools, access to healthcare and the potential for a reservation. Yet dozens more remain unrecognized.

Federal agents negotiated treaties in the 1850s with more than 130 Indigenous communities in the new state of California, setting aside roughly 7% of the state for reservations. But Congress refused to ratify the very treaties it had ordered and failed to notify tribes of its decision.

The federal recognition process today is long and grueling. Only 18 tribes have successfully achieved recognition through it since it was created in 1978. Only one was in California — Death Valley’s Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.

Tribes along the coast who were coerced into building the missions, including the Gabrielino, have had an especially hard time gaining recognition. They endured three waves of settlers: the Spanish, Mexican, and American. With these came death, forced displacement and cultural suppression. When the federal government sent agents to create reservations for California’s mission-affected tribes in the 1890s following reports of dire circumstance, the agents inexplicably overlooked the Gabrieleno.

At least one-third of tribal cultural resources protected under CEQA are in the homelands of tribes without federal recognition, Jonathan Cordero, executive director of the Assn. of Ramaytush Ohlone, estimates.

If Proposition 45 passes, “that means that hundreds of sacred sites and thousands of invaluable and irreplaceable tribal cultural resources would be destroyed in subsequent years,” he said in a statement.

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.

Oct. 28, 2026 3:13 AM PT

Donald Trump could be in the White House for as long as another 26 interminable months, which is beyond depressing. But Democrats are mobilizing to use that time wisely if they win at least one congressional majority in midterm elections next week.

The odds are good that as of January 2027, they will be in charge of the House, and they’re slight favorites to run the Senate. If voters punish Republicans with a thumping (George W. Bush’s description in 2006) or a shellacking (Barack Obama in 2010), a few GOP lawmakers might even decide to help Democrats undo some of the damage inflicted by their president and party.

Steep cuts in federal healthcare money, price-hiking tariffs across the globe and Trump’s inflationary war on Iran are among the targets ripe for rapid action in the first 100 hours of a Democratic House, and potentially in a Democratic Senate as well.

Who knows what Trump would do or say if an actual bill were to land on his desk. When Congress passed a major bipartisan bill to lower housing costs this year, he called it a yawn and let it become law without his signature. But in 2019, he refused to work with Democrats on an infrastructure bill — purportedly one of his own priorities — unless they stopped their “phony investigations” of him. They did not stop, and we did not get an infrastructure package until the Biden administration.

If those first-term investigations annoyed Trump, he’ll be livid at what’s on tap for the next two years. Constant reports of corruption and profiteering are a hallmark of his second term, and Democrats are readying literally countless investigations of him and his family, and their businesses and associates. Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Robert Garcia of California know each other well (Garcia says he sees Raskin as a mentor) and are discussing their plans in the likely event they become chairs, respectively, of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

The to-do list is daunting, starting with Trump’s scandalous and seemingly pay-to-play pardons, his foreign gifts, and the Trump family’s government contracts and cryptocurrency cash haul. Other areas of interest include vindictive government prosecutions, penalties and threats; foreign influence-buying; rising authoritarianism; civil liberties; abusive immigration enforcement; corporate corruption; unfinished inquiries involving Jeffrey Epstein associates; and suspect tariff deals, conflicts and profits.

Former Republican Kurt Bardella was a senior House Oversight Committee advisor and communications specialist from 2009 to 2013, during California Republican Darrell Issa’s tenure as chair. A Democrat since 2017, these days Bardella is closely following Trump-era corruption and how Democrats are handling it in his newsletters, “The Watchdog Report” and “The Agenda.”

“The success of these investigations really comes down to how you message and communicate to the American people,” Bardella said in a weekend interview. “You have to spend the first part of this building the case. Telling the story.” The story, he said, is “the level of corruption we’re seeing” and its cost to every American. As one of his newsletter headlines reads, “Every Trump investigation needs a price tag.”

Bardella has suggested that House committee chairs report to an “oversight czar” to avoid chaos and competition. He has also prescribed a “Special Select Committee to Investigate Trump Family Finances” to coordinate the many committees that would need to be involved in addition to Oversight or Judiciary — for instance, Armed Services (sweetheart defense contracts), Ways and Means (Trump’s IRS slush fund and other tax shenanigans), and let’s not forget Don Jr.’s Bahamas wedding, bankrolled by a Russian oligarch (Foreign Affairs, or maybe Intelligence?).

Democrats should also hire former special counsel Jack Smith as top investigator for the Oversight or Judiciary panels, or for both as a joint employee, Bardella wrote in July: “Let him assemble an anti-corruption mod squad that’ll shake up the status quo, send MAGA media into a nervous breakdown, and restore checks and balances to our government.”

That may remain a Never-Trump fantasy, but Democrats are taking appropriate steps for a complex mission. They are organizing their work through a House Litigation Task Force formed to fight unlawful or unconstitutional Trump actions, demanding answers as new corruption issues arise, and preparing to build cases based on information from whistleblowers, private-sector players and other sources.

The investigations will unfold as the 2028 presidential race takes shape. It seems inevitable that, like the Jan. 6 investigation, they will generate revealing hearings and a stream of viral moments. “We are going to hold the crooks accountable,” likely Speaker Hakeem Jeffries pledged last summer in Pennsylvania.

Democrats can also pass message bills that put their legislative priorities on blast — ICE restrictions, a stock trading ban, a higher minimum wage — even if they can’t yet become law. Depending on results Tuesday, the messaging could extend to a Democratic Senate that can block Trump judicial nominees, Supreme Court justices included, and tell America exactly why they’re nonstarters.

Ideally, what happens on Capitol Hill for the next two years will give Democratic White House hopefuls bragging rights on programs and policies most people actually want, as well as a foundation — and launchpad — for the sweeping, urgently needed accountability that has been such a long time coming.

I’m itching to conclude here with “bring it on.” It’s too soon, but in a week or so it might not be.

Jill Lawrence is a journalist and the author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” Bluesky: @jilldlawrence

Israel has only ever been governed by coalitions. Can you put one together that reaches 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats?

Israelis voted on October 27, but there appears to be no clear winner.

The next government, like every government in Israel’s history, will have to be a coalition.

The question now is who can secure at least 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats to form a government and become Israel’s next prime minister.

Al Jazeera has built an interactive tool that lets you test different combinations of parties. Start with any of the four exit polls or enter your own seat numbers. Then add parties until your coalition reaches 61 seats. You can add an entire bloc at once or select parties individually.

Who is ahead?

Initial counting by the Central Elections Committee put Likud ahead as the largest single party, with 27 seats.

Netanyahu’s bloc was projected to win 54 seats, against 50 for Eisenkot’s.

Four exit polls published on election night showed how close the race is.

Kan 11 and Channel 13 put Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc and Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition bloc level at 51 seats each. Channel 12 gave Netanyahu 52 seats to Eisenkot’s 49, while Channel 15 was most favourable to the incumbent, projecting 55 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc against 49 for the opposition.

How many seats are needed?

Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, has 120 seats. Parties win seats in proportion to their share of the national vote, provided they clear the 3.25 percent threshold to enter parliament.

A government needs the support of at least 61 politicians to secure a majority.

Neither of the main blocs has reached that number in the exit polls or the initial count. The next step is to find enough parties willing to join forces to make up the difference.

Why is forming a government so difficult?

The Arab-led parties Ra’am and the Joint List could hold the balance of power, with exit polls putting their combined support at between 16 and 19 seats.

But the political obstacles are considerable. Netanyahu has described a coalition with Arab parties as “shameful”, while leading figures in the Jewish-led opposition have also ruled out governing with them.

That leaves potential coalitions that may work on paper but face serious political barriers.

Which parties belong to each bloc?

Netanyahu’s bloc spans Likud, the ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, and the far-right parties Religious Zionism, led by Bezalel Smotrich, and Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Eisenkot’s opposition bloc includes his Yashar party, the Together list associated with former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu and Yair Golan’s Democrats.

What happens next?

Once the results are certified, the president gives the mandate to the member of the Knesset considered most likely to assemble a majority.

That politician has 28 days to form a government, with a possible extension of up to 14 days. If they fail, another lawmaker can be given a chance. If no one can form a government, Israel may have to hold another election, as it did repeatedly between 2019 and 2022.

Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, with 19 years in office across three stints, remains caretaker prime minister while coalition negotiations unfold. He is also standing trial on corruption charges, which he denies.

Official results are due on November 4. Negotiations to form a government could take considerably longer.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi surprised observers when he recently announced his intention to leave office after his third presidential term ends in April 2030.

El-Sisi had been widely suspected of moving to amend the Egyptian constitution to allow him to serve another term, or possibly indefinitely.

But speaking at a graduation ceremony at the Egyptian Military Academy, el-Sisi insisted that his departure was a settled matter and that “no one would tamper with” the constitution.

So what is behind the decision? There has been much speculation that el-Sisi may use this declaration to rally popular support for a fourth term or preempt a move by the military against him. But there is also the possibility that he is setting up the next phase of military rule in Egypt.

It is important to point out first that voluntarily leaving power is a risky proposition for any authoritarian leader.

In el-Sisi’s case, his 2030 departure would leave open the possibility that a future Egyptian government could seek to use him as a scapegoat for the country’s problems, possibly even holding him to account for alleged crimes committed during his presidency.

El-Sisi led a coup in 2013 against Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, which was accompanied by massacres and the jailing of tens of thousands of politicians, activists, and journalists.

El-Sisi’s economic record has also been the subject of criticism, with detractors accusing him and his government of corruption, poor fiscal policy and lavish spending on vanity projects. Egypt’s debt stands at 81 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with interest payments alone exceeding combined spending on healthcare, education, wages and subsidies. Meanwhile, the Egyptian pound has lost more than 80 percent of its value against the US dollar since 2014, while cumulative inflation exceeds 460 percent.

In this context, el-Sisi’s announcement that he plans to step down in 2030 was rather unexpected. Some have speculated that he has no intention of actually leaving office and could go back on his statement, as he has done before.

In 2013, following Morsi’s overthrow, el-Sisi denied that he would run for president.

After telling the media in 2017 that he was committed to “preserving [the constitution’s] two four-year terms and not changing it”, he helped lead the drive to amend the constitution in 2019.

A judicial source told Mada Masr last week that el-Sisi’s announcement left open the door for a “popular call” for the president to remain in office.

A second possibility is that with this move, el-Sisi may be attempting to preempt a possible military intervention, which could become more likely if the economy continues to falter.

In 2011, the military responded to popular protests against former President Hosni Mubarak by forcing him to step down.

The army could attempt to defuse public anger by presenting el-Sisi as a scapegoat, forcibly removing him from power, and replacing him with someone who can preserve a measure of stability as well as secure its vast economic interests.

In that context, a member of parliament said recently that he has heard el-Sisi say in private meetings that he would rather step down than wait for the military to force him out.

But a third and much more likely possibility deserves particular attention: el-Sisi may be preparing to leave the presidency while ensuring that Egypt’s military-dominated political system survives his departure.

It is perhaps not coincidental that during the announcement, he cited Article 200 of the constitution, which gives the armed forces an extraordinary role in Egyptian politics.

The article, amended in 2019, makes the military responsible for maintaining the country’s “democracy” and the “gains, rights and freedoms” of the Egyptian people.

According to el-Sisi, the aim of the article is “to protect the Egyptian state from any attempt to infiltrate it or allow people to take it over who cannot handle the responsibility of this country or who do not even understand the meaning of ‘state’”.

Article 200, combined with Article 234 — which requires that a president secure approval from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces before appointing a defence minister — gives the military significant control over Egyptian political life.

El-Sisi’s vision for the selection of Egypt’s next president gives the military an outsized role. His proposal includes setting up a committee of experts to draft legislation for selecting hundreds of highly educated Egyptians to undergo specialised training at the Egyptian Military Academy.

Applicants, el-Sisi proposes, should hold doctoral degrees, be between 40 and 50 years of age, and be prepared to spend 30 months at the academy learning about the Egyptian state.

The programme would also train future ministers, governors and members of parliament.

Combined with Articles 200 and 234, this proposed mechanism seems intended to preserve the military’s dominance long after el-Sisi leaves office. It could be favourable to him as well.

A genuinely independent, civilian president could seek to investigate massacres overseen by el-Sisi, allegations of corruption, or other alleged crimes. A transition process closely managed by the military is highly unlikely to yield such a result.

The open question now is how an increasingly frustrated and critical Egyptian public will respond to a political process managed by the military that effectively wipes out the need for a popular mandate.

For now, el-Sisi and the military appear determined to shape Egypt’s political future. But the people may have the last word.

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

Khalil returned to Columbia University to discuss memoir detailing his arrest and detention by ICE agents.

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil says campus advocacy has shifted public perception and encouraged a generation of leaders to question their views on Israel, speaking as he returned to Columbia University for the first time since his arrest.

The 31-year-old Columbia graduate, who became a figurehead of the campus movement that swept the United States in 2024, returned to campus on Tuesday to discuss his new memoir, No Land to Stand On: Notes from Detention, marking his first visit since his arrest on March 8, 2025.

“The American public is finally changing, is finally looking at the Palestinian as an equal human,” he told the AFP news agency in an interview.

While Khalil described the event, attended by about 100 people, as a “victory”, he accused university leadership of seeking “to erase me, to erase any Palestinian voices on campus”.

Some Jewish groups on social media opposed his return to campus. In response, a Columbia spokesperson said the university is “committed to rigorous debate, inquiry, and respectful dialogue across differing perspectives”.

“Columbia supports the right of faculty members to organize academic events,” the statement carried by US media read. “An invitation to speak does not signify university endorsement of a speaker’s views.”

Khalil helped lead student demonstrations at Columbia in 2024, which became the epicentre of nationwide campus protests against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. He was later arrested by immigration authorities at the height of a federal crackdown on foreign student activists and held for three months without criminal charge, despite holding permanent US residency.

He has repeatedly slammed the university for its handling of the demonstrations, which included authorising the New York Police Department to clear protesters from the Manhattan campus.

“They chose brutality. They chose repression,” Khalil told AFP.

Columbia maintained at the time that the demonstrations presented a safety threat. Khalil also accused the university of failing to protect him from harassment prior to his detention.

Despite the personal toll, Khalil credited Palestinian student advocacy with driving broader political shifts in the United States, pointing to gains by progressive candidates.

“Also, we can see on the ground that we have more progressive candidates being elected into US Congress and positions of power,” he said, citing candidates like Dr Abdul El-Sayed, running for the US Senate in Michigan, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Khalil was released from immigration custody on June 20, 2025, though the Trump administration continues to seek his deportation.

“A big part of my fight is like fighting for normalcy,” he said. “To go back to being the young father who would go to the park with his son and wife, and no one would bother them.”

Despite the ongoing legal battle, he expressed resolve over his public role.

“My fight is not only about whether I get to stay in this country,” Khalil said. “It is about whether, you know, people in this country can speak their minds.”

A federal judge on Tuesday seemed skeptical of a Trump administration request to immediately block California officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the administration questions, but said he would not issue a ruling until Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter questioned how the administration had derived its list of suspect voters, worried about disenfranchising eligible voters, said the demands would represent a “monumental change” to California elections and suggested federal prosecutors bringing the case had other means of holding illegal voters accountable.

But just one day after a federal appeals court rejected the same request, Carter said at the conclusion of a 3½-hour hearing in Los Angeles that he needed more time to rule — except on one related issue.

“This court believes it would be wise — that it would be wise — that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately,” he said — a clear reference to federal authorities threatening elections officials with criminal penalties if they count any of the flagged ballots.

After the hearing, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, said he had made it “abundantly clear that American voters are being disenfranchised in real time,” and that the administration will wait to see what Carter says Wednesday but was likely to appeal the matter back up to the appellate court.

He also denied threatening state officials, despite the Justice Department having sent formal letters to election officials statewide last week warning them of criminal punishments, and Essayli reiterated that position Tuesday.

Carter’s hearing came after Monday’s decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the reverse of what’s normal — because Justice Department attorneys had tried to go over Carter’s head after he didn’t acquiesce to a deadline they’d set for him to rule on their request for a temporary restraining order against the state last week.

However, when the three-judge appellate panel — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 Monday that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case given Carter hadn’t yet had the chance, the case returned to Carter’s courtroom.

And there, Carter — an appointee of President Clinton — seemed loath to rush to judgment, despite the Trump administration’s claims of urgency. He said the administration’s method for arriving at its list of potential noncitizen voters was unclear and that he would like to develop the record further, including by bringing in an expert for the court.

“What are these systems? What are the algorithms? How was this derived?” he said.

He also seemed unmoved by the Justice Department’s argument that the ballots must be segregated immediately to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted, and more focused on whether noncitizens who illegally vote can be identified and held accountable while avoiding disenfranchising legitimate voters in the process.

For those who do vote illegally, “you’ve got a remedy, for goodness sakes,” he told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”

The Justice Department sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter gave Weber and Logan 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters, whom McCotter described as “likely noncitizens.”

During the hearing, Essayli argued on behalf of the Trump administration that its demands on California and L.A. County were not onerous, could be complied with easily and did not call for ballots to go uncounted. Essayli said the federal government was in court “on a very narrow request for an injunction to separate ballots of those suspected of being noncitizens” only until the state can prove their citizenship.

He argued that the “reliability and credibility” of the federal government process for flagging the 20,000 voters is unquestionable — while also telling Carter, “We’re never going to stand here and tell you that everything is 100%.” He said every vote counts, as some elections “are decided by a handful of votes,” and that the federal government is simply asking California not to break existing federal law barring noncitizens from voting.

“We’re not telling California what they have to do. We’re telling them what they can’t do, which is just count these ballots without doing more to ensure whether they’re citizens or not,” Essayli said.

Essayli — who has aggressively sparred with California officials on social media for weeks — also argued to the court that the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since first asking the state to segregate the ballots, and that he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials have been on the issue.

Attorneys for Weber and the state said the Trump administration’s demand on the state “distorts several legal doctrines beyond recognition” and is clearly illegal, particularly during an ongoing election. They said the administration has provided no evidence that the 20,000 voters aren’t citizens, and has used “data and methods known to be unreliable.”

Michael Cohen, a deputy attorney general for the state, said the Trump administration questions California law that allows voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, while ignoring the fact that standard was set not by the state but by Congress.

Anne Bellows, another deputy attorney general, said California has an established framework for running elections, and the Trump administration is trying to “sweep it off the table and replace it with a new, unclear procedure in which the federal government can issue a list and require California to change the way a subset of its voters’ ballots are received, and whether or not they are tabulated,” which she said was illegal and a “recipe for disenfranchisement” of thousands of legitimate voters.

“The stakes here are enormous,” she said.

Attorneys for Logan said the Trump administration has made its demands “without any credible argument” as to how it is legal, that the “proposed remedy” it is demanding from the state is “vague and unworkable,” and that if it wants to question California’s existing processes, “the proper audience for that argument” is Congress — not the federal court.

Several attorneys for voting and civil rights groups also argued against the Trump administration during the hearing, including by arguing that its reliance on third-party data sets — including from Lexis Nexis — was not a trustworthy way of identifying whether voters are citizens.

The litigation is just one part of a much wider battle by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections nationwide, and particularly in California, including on the notion that state elections have insufficient guardrails to prevent noncitizens from voting. Elections experts say such fraud occurs, but is exceedingly rare.

While the 9th Circuit panel’s unsigned ruling Monday rejected the Trump administration’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, both judges in the majority — Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — wrote independently to make clear that they would have rejected the case on its merits too.

They said it ran afoul of federal law barring interventions in voting in the immediate lead-up to elections, and the U.S. Constitution, which reserves control of elections for the states and oversight for Congress, not the executive branch.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, also wrote independently in dissent — arguing the federal government must “have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections.”

Carter previously rejected an administration lawsuit demanding California’s unredacted voter rolls as “unprecedented and illegal” — a decision similar to those made by dozens of other federal judges in other states. Federal prosecutors recently charged 28 lawful permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote. Some of those charged expressed confusion, said they had no recollection of registering or had never voted.

There are more than 23 million registered voters in California.

Last week, Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials in counties across California demanding they sequester any flagged ballots in their jurisdictions, and warning them that they could face criminal penalties if they don’t. State officials denounced the letters as a legally baseless intimidation tactic.

Federal judges also have slapped back executive orders in which President Trump demanded new nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements, and blocked a Trump administration plan to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots for the first time.

Beyond the courts, Democrats and voting rights groups have been strategizing for months on how to prevent the Trump administration from interfering in the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. The Trump administration has said it is merely trying to enforce the law and ensure that noncitizens do not illegally vote and negate the ballots of U.S. citizen voters.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The official results are due to be published on November 4, more than a week after the vote.

Exit polls following what many pundits and voters have billed as the most pivotal election in Israel’s history indicate no clear winner in the hard-fought contest.

According to exit polls, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is projected to secure 50 seats, while the bloc led by opposition candidate Gadi Eisenkot is expected to win 52 or 53 seats. Sixty-one seats are needed to form a majority government. Arab parties are projected to collectively win 18 seats.

Polling stations closed at 10pm (20:00 GMT) local time. Preliminary results are expected on Wednesday, followed by a final tally on Friday. The official results are due to be published on November 4, eight days after the vote.

Exit polls are based on interviews with voters immediately after they have cast their ballots. The interviews help project the election’s outcome and have in previous elections tended to anticipate the results closely.

Voter turnout in the Israeli election reached 74.3 percent as of 8pm (18:00 GMT), according to data released by the Central Elections Committee. By comparison, turnout in the 2022 election was 70.63 percent.

Polls predicted a tight race between incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leading opposition candidate Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the Yashar party and a former army chief.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee rejected a request by Netanyahu’s Likud Party to extend voting hours.

The election is the first since Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza three years ago, following Hamas-led attacks on the country, and is widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s handling of the events on October 7, 2023 and the conflicts that followed.

Oct. 27, 2026 12:06 PM PT

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday scolded the Justice Department for its unorthodox handling of a criminal case against two former FBI officials accused of making false statements to Congress about their knowledge of a laptop the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of former President Biden.

U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui struck from the record an amended criminal complaint filed in the middle of the night by the Justice Department that added a new obstruction charge against the two former officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides. Such charging documents require sign-off from a judge that probable cause exists that a crime was committed by a defendant, and this complaint lacked that.

“It is not our court’s practice — and I think it is appropriately not our practice — that unsigned complaints are filed on the docket,” Faruqui said.

He later added: “I want to know why the United States is reticent or averse to putting before a probable cause determination that you must believe is righteous. Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?”

The dismissal of the superseding complaint was an embarrassing setback for a Justice Department that has undertaken a series of splashy and politically charged investigative actions in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections. But the original false statements case against the former officials, announced Friday, remained intact as Faruqui proceeded Tuesday with a preliminary hearing.

The case says officials falsely minimized what they knew

The case accuses the former officials of falsely playing down their knowledge about a laptop the Justice Department says Hunter Biden abandoned at a computer repair shop in 2019.

But beyond that, it represents a Trump administration broadside against a since-disbanded FBI task force that was set up to monitor foreign influence. Congressional Republicans have long criticized the task force, saying it tried to discredit their own investigations into the Biden family.

Defense lawyers were set to challenge the case at the preliminary hearing Tuesday in Washington’s federal court, including by highlighting the unusual fact that the ex-FBI officials were charged via a criminal complaint signed by a magistrate judge rather than an indictment voted on by a grand jury. The Justice Department repeatedly has struggled in high-profile cases to persuade grand juries in the nation’s capital to return indictments.

Hours before the hearing, the Justice Department added a new obstruction charge that said the former officials’ alleged false statements allowed them to avoid questioning about their knowledge of Hunter Biden and impeded an investigation by House lawmakers into the Bidens.

“What is going on at the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office?” lawyers for Floris asked in a statement early Tuesday. “In the middle of the night, the government filed an unsigned and unsworn complaint attempting to fix the issues with their original charge against Ms. Floris and adding a new charge just as meritless as the first one.”

“In our combined decades of DOJ service,” the lawyers said, “we have never seen or even heard of something like this being filed.”

It is a very intricate saga

The prosecution, a rare Justice Department criminal case against a former employee, revisits a tangled saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race after the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop it said had been dropped off by the younger Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop about a year earlier.

The Post said it obtained a hard drive of the laptop from Rudy Giuliani, a close ally of President Trump, and reported on some of the contents of the computer, including emails that appeared to show some of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.

The curious circumstances of the laptop’s discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about the possibility of Russian involvement, particularly when the Trump administration’s own intelligence community had assessed that Moscow was attempting to undermine the candidacy of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who went on to defeat Trump in 2020, and as Giuliani had traveled abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens.

But Trump’s then-national intelligence director, John Ratcliffe, quickly sought to quell speculation about the laptop’s provenance by saying there were no signs it had anything to do with Russian actors. The FBI said it had nothing to add to Ratcliffe’s statement and investigated the younger Biden on gun and tax charges that later resulted in felony convictions. President Biden pardoned his son in late 2024.

The accused led the Foreign Influence Task Force

The FBI officials under scrutiny, Floris and Benavides, were leaders of the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was established in the first Trump administration to police influence campaigns staged by Russia and other nations aimed at sowing discord, undermining democracy and spreading disinformation.

In that capacity, the FBI officials briefed Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson in August 2020 as the lawmakers were doing their own investigation into Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. News of the briefing leaked, and the senators lashed out at the FBI, saying their efforts to scrutinize the Biden family had been discredited and falsely linked to Russian disinformation.

The criminal complaint accuses them of lying to lawmakers in 2023 by denying contemporaneous knowledge of the Biden laptop or participating in internal FBI conversations about it. Their lawyers have denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

The task force was disbanded in February 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Tucker, Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is attempting to prosecute James Comey for what it calls a decade-old leak of classified information, an effort the former FBI director’s lawyers immediately dismissed as legally invalid and outside the legal time limit for when the Justice Department can file a criminal indictment.

The allegations from the Justice Department were revealed Monday in newly unsealed court documents that shed light on a closed-door fight that represents an unmistakable escalation in the administration’s targeting of Comey, a longtime critic and foe of President Trump who has faced two other criminal cases since the Republican returned to the White House last year.

The effort to prosecute Comey is also part of a series of politically charged investigative actions the department has undertaken in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections.

“Well, they’re back — again,” Comey said in a video statement Monday. “It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice — one that we cannot become numb to. Nothing’s changed with me; I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid of these people — and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”

The Justice Department said it had filed what’s known as a “criminal information” to extend the statute of limitations for charges in the case.

“Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals. This is an ongoing criminal investigation, and we will not comment further,” a department spokesperson said.

Asked about the Comey case, Trump told reporters upon arriving back to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland late Monday following his rally in Mississippi that “I don’t know much about it. I just heard about it.”

He added, “He’s a dirty cop, James Comey. But I know nothing about it.”

An information can be filed without the approval of a judge or a grand jury’s finding of probable cause to a court. Comey’s lawyers made clear that they intend to fight the charges as invalid because the Justice Department did not file an indictment, which must be voted on by a grand jury, inside the 10-year statute of limitations required under the law.

“For the third time in little more than one year, the Department of Justice has attempted to charge Mr. Comey with a federal crime. Mr. Comey steadfastly maintains his innocence,” his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in a statement.

The allegation was previously investigated

The latest allegation concerns an October 2016 New York Times story related to a secret court order that required Yahoo to scan emails for messages potentially linked to a foreign terrorist organization. The story cited two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the order from a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that Yahoo was barred from publicly disclosing.

Federal authorities, including prosecutor John Durham, began investigating the disclosure in early 2017. Durham, who later investigated the FBI’s conduct as it scrutinized potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, wrote a classified memo in December 2018 recommending no criminal charges against anyone in connection with the disclosure, Comey’s attorneys said in a recent court filing.

In January 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia opened a second investigation of the same matter under the code name “Tropical Vortex.” But that investigation was closed without any charges filed in February 2020.

“Both times the Government determined that no charges should be brought against anyone. Now, ten years after the article was published, the Government filed an “Information” against Mr. Comey that was not approved by a judge nor issued by a grand jury. It purports to charge Mr. Comey with crimes that he did not commit,” Fitzgerald said.

Prosecutors in a newly unsealed filing said investigators found evidence that Comey “sought to correct misinformation which had appeared in the press by way of Reuters the day before” that New York Times story was published, directed his staff to speak to a journalist at the newspaper related to accuracy concerns “and thereby illegally transferred classified information.”

The criminal information was filed under seal on Oct. 5, 10 years after the 2016 story was published. “But,” Comey’s lawyers said, “the applicable statute of limitations explicitly demands an indictment within 10 years of the offense; an information does not suffice.”

They have asked a judge to dismiss the information, a request that is still pending.

Trump and Comey have a long and uneasy history

The first criminal case against Comey, filed in federal court in Virginia, accused him of having lied to Congress in 2020 but was dismissed by a judge who concluded that the prosecutor who brought the charges was illegally appointed. A separate pending indictment charges the former FBI director with threatening Trump through an Instagram photo of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47,” a case Comey has sought to dismiss.

The prosecutions are part of a Trump retribution campaign that has even extended to Comey’s daughter, Maurene, who was fired from her job as a Justice Department prosecutor in New York last year in a termination that a federal judge on Monday ruled was illegal.

Comey was the FBI director when Trump took office in 2017, having been appointed by then-President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and serving before that as a senior Justice Department official in President George W. Bush’s Republican administration.

But the relationship was strained from the start, including after Comey resisted a request by Trump at a private dinner to pledge his personal loyalty to the president — an overture that so unnerved the FBI director that he documented it in a contemporaneous memorandum.

Trump fired Comey in May 2017 amid an FBI investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s campaign. That inquiry, later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller, found that while Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump team welcomed the help, there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal collaboration.

The two men have been bitterly at odds ever since Comey’s firing.

Comey in 2018 published a memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” that painted Trump in deeply unflattering ways, likening him to a mafia don and characterizing him as “untethered to truth.” Trump, for his part, has repeatedly claimed that Comey should face charges for “treason” — an accusation Comey dismissed as “dumb lies” — and called him an “untruthful slime ball.”

The Justice Department has made a series of splashy moves in recent weeks , including a criminal complaint last Friday charging two former FBI officials with lying to Congress about their participation in investigations concerning Hunter Biden, and the search by federal agents of the Washington home of Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report.

As Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva celebrated his election victory on Sunday in Sao Paulo, he placed his hand on the head of a man standing beside him and beaming in a green and yellow Brazilian football jersey.

Lula thanked him for his role in the campaign, calling him “our general”.

Andre Janones, a 42-year-old Brazilian congressman who had spent the final weeks of the presidential run-off building a mass online movement to get Lula re-elected, then embraced the president.

“He played an exponential role in this campaign in lifting the morale of our troops every day, morning, noon and night,” Lula told thousands of supporters who packed Paulista Avenue, the city’s main artery.

Just three weeks earlier, the president seemed to be in trouble. He had finished behind his right-wing rival Flavio Bolsonaro after the first round of voting, his campaign struggling to keep up with the right’s powerful social media operation.

Janones, who had also helped coordinate Lula’s digital operation in his run-off against Jair Bolsonaro in 2022, was convinced Lula’s campaign needed a change – and that he could help turn things around.

He posted a video declaring, “We are going to win this election. Lula will be re-elected president of Brazil.”

His plan centred on a WhatsApp channel he had launched months earlier.

Called Exercito do Lula, or “Lula’s Army”, it had about 60,000 followers after the first round.

By election day, Lula’s Army had grown to almost 11 million subscribers, with Janones widely credited with helping Lula stage his comeback.

How Andre Janones built Lula’s WhatsApp army

Janones is a lawyer and congressman who grew up in a working-class family in Minas Gerais. He made a name for himself through his social media commentary during Brazil’s 2018 truckers’ strike and was elected to Congress that year.

In 2022, he dropped his own presidential bid to endorse Lula, joining his run-off campaign.

“At the time, he became widely known for employing tactics similar to those used by Bolsonarism, despite operating on the left,” said Viktor Chagas, a professor at Fluminense Federal University who studies digital politics and online campaigning.

Janones coined the term “cultural Janonism” to describe his approach, which relied on urgent messages, memes and calls for supporters to take action, as well as what Chagas described as the occasional use of negative campaigning and “content of questionable origin”.

But the scale of Lula’s Army in 2026 was unprecedented, Chagas said.

In the video declaring that Lula would win, Janones urged supporters to enlist as “soldiers” by posting saluting emojis and joining his WhatsApp channel, where he assigned them what he called “missions”.

The tasks were simple, from recruiting three friends to sharing campaign videos to promoting hashtags.

They came in a relentless stream of messages from Janones himself, often written in capital letters. Supporters couldn’t reply, but they could forward the messages or react with emojis, often doing so in the tens of thousands.

Chagas described the strategy as a form of “electoral gamification”, with Janones setting targets for supporters to reach together.

For Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, the appeal of Janones’s approach was giving people something they could actually do to help Lula win.

“It became an organising platform that grew exponentially because it spoke to a desire that many Lula supporters evidently had to do something tangible to defeat Flavio Bolsonaro,” he said.

How Lula’s campaign changed its message

But the path to victory wasn’t just about mobilising supporters online.

Pagliarini credited the campaign for also finding a more effective way to tell the story of the president’s working-class past.

“The campaign’s mistake in the first round was to present this history as a finished monument, worthy of admiration but distant from the lives of the people it was meant to represent,” he wrote.

After Bolsonaro mocked the president for having nine fingers during the final televised debate, for example, Lula responded by recalling how he lost a finger at 17 while working a night shift at a factory. He then linked his experience to workers injured as a result of employers’ negligence.

“Unlike Flavio, he reminded voters, he knew the world of work because he had lived in it,” said Pagliarini.

After the debate, Janones spread the message online, promoting the hashtag #SomosTodos9Dedos, or “We Are All Nine Fingers”. Supporters shared the slogan, with some posting photographs of their own amputated fingers in solidarity.

Janones had also publicly called for simpler, less polished campaign videos that showed a more relatable side of Lula, drinking coffee, visiting people’s homes and talking to ordinary Brazilians. Around the same time, the campaign started posting more informal, selfie-style videos.

“Lula was looser in his political communication, less mediated,” Pagliarini said.

Did Lula’s WhatsApp army help him win?

It is difficult to establish whether Janones’s digital army actually delivered votes.

“I am not sure there is a way to empirically connect the group to the outcome,” Pagliarini said.

But he believes Janones helped turn the campaign around.

“Janones himself became a kind of character in the campaign, a cheerleading strategist who seemed confident in a plan that had been missing throughout much of the race,” wrote Pagliarini.

Chagas agreed that it was “difficult to imagine the outcome we achieved without Lula’s Army”, adding that the channel brought together left-wing supporters who had previously been scattered across fragmented online communities, and gave them a way to work together.

The challenge now is keeping that momentum going, Chagas said, pointing to the far right’s use of “permanent campaigning”, maintaining the engagement of supporters between elections.

On election night, at least, Janones kept his soldiers busy.

“EVERYONE TO PAULISTA TO CELEBRATE,” he wrote, urging them to gather on Sao Paulo’s Paulista Avenue. “NOW.”

Later, he asked them not to go to sleep, adding that he’d let them go once he got back from the celebrations.

“Then we’ll discuss a few days off for you,” he joked in a message that drew more than 225,000 reactions.

WASHINGTON — An immigrant detainee died Saturday morning at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, marking the 61st such death under the Trump administration.

In an emailed statement, an unnamed spokesperson with CoreCivic, the Tennessee-based private prison company that operates the facility, confirmed the death. Per the spokesperson, a staff member at the Otay Mesa facility called in a medical emergency around 11:36 a.m. Saturday after finding an unresponsive person in their assigned living area.

Medical staff arrived quickly, began lifesaving measures and called for emergency medical services, the spokesperson said. EMS arrived and continued those efforts, but the person was pronounced dead at the facility.

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of anyone in our care,” the spokesperson wrote, adding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was immediately notified.

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment. CoreCivic did not provide information about the person’s identity.

The death was first reported by Daylight San Diego.

San Diego County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, in a statement Tuesday, wrote that ICE and CoreCivic must quickly reach the person’s family, cooperate with a thorough investigation and share what they find with the public. Aguirre said she asked the county public health officer to determine what kind of follow-up is possible under a state law that allows local public health authorities to inspect ICE facilities.

“Somewhere, a family is waiting for a phone call, and my heart is with them,” she wrote.

This is the seventh person to die while in ICE custody in California under this administration, and the first to die at the Otay Mesa facility since 2023.

Deaths have increased as the Trump administration detained record numbers of people, with the population at one point ballooning past 70,000 nationwide.

The most recent death reported by ICE was that of Luis Sandoval, 48, a Salvadoran immigrant who died of apparent suicide Friday. Staff at the Folkston D. Ray ICE Processing Center in Georgia found Sandoval with a ligature around his neck, according to an ICE news release.

ICE policy is to notify the public and Congress within two business days of a detainee’s death. More extensive reports about each death, which were typically three pages, must be released within 90 days, though those have been reduced to a few paragraphs.

The deportation was the first of its kind since a mass border crossing into the territory from Morocco in July.

Spain has deported more than a dozen migrants from its North African enclave of Ceuta, prompting criticism from Amnesty International, which said Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s left-wing government was endangering their human rights.

It was the first deportation of its kind since a mass border crossing into the territory from Morocco in July.

The Spanish Interior Ministry said on Tuesday that it had deported the migrants from Ceuta after their asylum applications were rejected, and that Morocco had agreed to receive them.

Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) told the Reuters news agency that 16 people from African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries had been deported.

About 80,000 people entered from Morocco over a 48-hour period in late July. At least 100 people died during the mass crossing into the autonomous city, which covers just 18.5 square kilometres (7.2sq miles) and has a population of about 80,000.

The crisis has evolved into a major political challenge for Sanchez, who is seeking re-election in snap polls scheduled for November 29.

Tens of thousands of protesters have gathered across Spain in recent months to denounce the government’s handling of the situation. Meanwhile, right-wing parties have used the crisis to attack Sanchez.

The leader of the far-right Vox Party, Santiago Abascal, has branded the prime minister a “traitor”.

Human rights guarantees

Amnesty International has warned that the human rights of those deported from Ceuta on Tuesday could be at risk.

“Spain, despite its [progressive] speeches in Europe, is not ensuring that human rights guarantees are met for people who cross its borders in Ceuta and Melilla,” said Virginia Alvarez, an Amnesty International researcher.

“Morocco does not respect many human rights.”

However, Madrid disputes the rights group’s accusations. In a statement, the interior ministry told Reuters that the European Union considers Morocco to be a safe country, adding that deportations are carried out “with all the necessary safeguards”.

Most of those who entered Ceuta in late July left within days. However, about 8,000 migrants still remain. Some are sleeping on the streets, while others are being housed by Spain, charities and civil society groups.

The FBI Tuesday morning raided a mansion in Beverly Hills in connection with an investigation into former Congressman Eric Swalwell, sources told The Times.

Swalwell, a Democrat from Dublin, dropped out of the California governor’s race and resigned from Congress in April after allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staffer and acted inappropriately with other young women, which he denied at the time. Before he dropped out of the race, polls indicated that Swalwell was among the front-runners.

On Tuesday, FBI agents were in Beverly Hills executing a search warrant on North Roxbury Drive in connection with the probe.

“We are executing a search warrant. Court documents are sealed. No arrests are planned,” said FBI spokesperson Lourdes Arocho.

The raid is taking place at the home of billionaire Stephen Cloobeck, sources confirmed to The Times.

Swalwell stayed at the home several times while campaigning and used it for political events before he was kicked out in April after the allegations against him became public. In one of his last acts there, Swalwell filmed a video denying the rape and sexual assault.

Cloobeck, 64, is a one-time California gubernatorial candidate and a well-known figure in Democratic politics. He got rich in the timeshare industry, eventually selling his Las Vegas-based Diamond Resorts company to a private equity firm for $2.2 billion. He immersed himself in Nevada Democratic politics, growing close with the late U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, and later launched his long-shot bid for California governor.

He quickly faded in the crowded field, failing to garner above 1% in any poll, and then threw his support behind Swalwell. More recently, he has found himself in the news for being embroiled in a criminal case with Adva Lavie, an OnlyFans model accused of seducing rich men for money.

In August, agents seized Swalwell’s electronic devices and raided his Washington home, even briefly holding the former lawmaker at San Francisco International Airport, a person familiar with the inquiry told The Times.

The source said Swalwell was held in August at SFO for search purposes and released the same day. Federal prosecutors are using civil rights law to pursue an inquiry into his conduct as a member of Congress. Authorities in New York and Los Angeles County are conducting separate investigations.

His home was also searched during the summer, the source added, based on a warrant in connection with a civil rights investigation concerning the sexual assault allegations.

Investigators sought to seize Swalwell’s white iPhone and MacBook Pro, according to court records.

They sought the devices as part of their inquiry into whether Swalwell violated a federal law that makes it a crime for anyone acting under official government authority to willfully deprive a person of their constitutional rights, according to the court filings.

Swalwell has denied any wrongdoing, but the accusations upended the California governor’s race and shook Capitol Hill, where both parties reckoned with a culture of secrecy and silence around sexual impropriety.