WASHINGTON — Two former FBI intelligence officials who specialized in foreign election interference were charged on Friday with making false statements to Congress about their roles in investigating Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides surrendered Friday and made their first appearance in federal court in Washington, where their lawyers pressed for a speedy hearing at which they could contest the allegations against them.
The Department of Justice says Floris and Benavides lied to Congress in 2023 about the involvement of a specialized foreign-influence task force in investigations into Biden as well as their knowledge of the laptop.
Floris’ attorneys called her “a patriot” and said she has “served our nation as a dedicated FBI intelligence officer for nearly 20 years.”
“Yet today, the DOJ has accused her falsely of a crime on the say-so of politicians, not on the facts,” her attorneys said in a statement. “It’s no coincidence the government is filing these nonsense charges now, years later, on the eve of an election.”
The case was filed 10 days before the Nov. 3 elections and marks the latest in a series of splashy and politically charged investigative actions the Department of Justice has undertaken in the run-up to the midterm contests.
The prosecution, a rare Department of Justice criminal case against a former employee, revisits a tangled and peculiar saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race. It also comes amid a broader, backward-looking effort by FBI Director Kash Patel, who before taking over the nation’s premier law enforcement agency was a harsh critic of it, to scrutinize high-profile episodes from the bureau’s recent past that for years have animated President Trump’s conservative base.
“Lying to Congress by senior FBI officials strikes at the heart of our system. No one is above the law,” Patel said in a statement posted on X.
The revelation of the laptop’s existence in October 2020 injected a thorny storyline in the race between Trump, the Republican incumbent, and Hunter Biden’s father, Joe Biden, Trump’s Democratic challenger, who went on to win the race.
The laptop’s contents were publicized by the New York Post, which said it had obtained from Trump ally Rudy Giuliani a hard drive of a computer dropped off by Hunter Biden at a Wilmington, Delaware, repair shop. The laptop contained emails that appeared to show discussions of the younger Biden’s foreign business dealings.
The peculiar circumstances of the laptop’s discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about the possibility of Russian disinformation, particularly when the Trump administration’s own intelligence community was assessing that Russia was attempting to interfere on Trump’s behalf in the election and as Giuliani had traveled abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens.
Hunter Biden was subsequently charged with, and convicted of, gun and tax offenses during his father’s administration. President Biden pardoned him in his final weeks in office.
The Justice Department historically looks to avoid public and overt investigative acts in the direct lead-up to an election that involve candidates or that risk influencing an outcome. But officials in the last two weeks have made a series of bold moves in cases with political undertones, including a search of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s house in an immigration fraud investigation and a corruption indictment unsealed Thursday against powerful Democratic Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas.
Floris and Benavides, two experienced intelligence officials, led the FBI’s since-disbanded Foreign Intelligence Task Force, or FITF, when the laptop was discovered. They are accused by the Justice Department of making false statements in Congress in 2023 by saying that the FITF was not involved in investigations related to Hunter Biden when contemporaneous messages proved otherwise, according to a criminal complaint filed against them.
The case brings renewed attention to the work of the 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. The task force became a magnet of congressional Republican criticism during the Biden investigation and was disbanded in February 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in one of her first acts on the job.
Voters in Brazil are headed to the polls for the second time in one month, as Senator Flavio Bolsonaro and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva square off in a run-off election to decide who will hold the presidency for the next four years.
While Bolsonaro outperformed expectations during the first round of voting on October 4, when he beat Lula by less than two percentage points but failed to secure the majority needed to avoid a run-off, the leftist president has sought to rally supporters ahead of the second round.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The vote on Sunday will decide whether Brazil joins a growing list of countries across Latin America that have handed victories to far-right candidates promising closer ties with the United States, a hard hand on crime and insecurity, and market-friendly economic policies.
Brazil under Lula has emerged as a key holdout against that shift, and a Bolsonaro victory on Sunday would galvanise conservatives in the region seeking to extend their winning streak to the largest country in Latin America.
When is the second round of voting?
The run-off will take place on October 25, 2026.
What happened during the first round?
The first round on October 4 saw Bolsonaro win 47 percent of the vote compared with just more than 45 percent for Lula, with the remainder of the votes distributed among several largely conservative candidates who did not advance to the next round.
While most polls had anticipated a close race that would go to a run-off, Lula had been slightly favoured to win the first round of voting. While Bolsonaro’s margin of victory was small, his overperformance indicated a level of enduring appeal for the political right that caught many Lula supporters off guard.
In addition to Bolsonaro’s success, even as his father, former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, serves a 27-year prison sentence for his involvement in a coup plot following his loss to Lula in 2022, right-wing candidates also racked up wins in legislative races across the country.
Who is Lula?
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, simply referred to as Lula, is the incumbent president and the candidate for the Workers Party, or PT.
His time in office has been defined by an effort to pair political democracy with material improvement for the country’s poor and efforts to build ties between developing, non-Western countries on the global stage.
The 80-year-old is seeking his fourth, non-consecutive term, hoping that his record of popularity and support for social programmes, credited by supporters with transforming the country, will help stave off a Bolsonaro win.
Lula clinched a third term in 2022, marking a dramatic comeback following a stint in prison based on corruption charges that were later overturned following revelations of prosecutorial impropriety.
But a highly polarised political landscape has hindered Lula’s ability to usher in ambitious and sweeping reforms during his third term.
Notable successes, such as sharp drops in unemployment and poverty and tackling deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, have been countered by rising household indebtedness that has strained families across the country.
A corruption scandal centring on disgraced banker Daniel Vorcaro has also implicated powerful figures and institutions across the political spectrum, including Bolsonaro himself as well as several members of the country’s Supreme Court, a target of right-wing ire for the conviction and sentencing of the elder Bolsonaro.
Who is Flavio Bolsonaro?
Senator Flavio Bolsonaro is running as the candidate of the right-wing Liberal Party.
The 45-year-old has emerged as the de facto leader of the country’s political right, filling a role previously held by his father before his conviction for a plot to remain in power despite his loss to Lula in 2022.
The younger Bolsonaro has sought to project a more polished image than his father while pledging continuity with many of his beliefs and policy priorities and promising to fight for his release from prison if elected.
He has pledged a militarised approach towards crime and insecurity posed by organised gangs in close partnership with the administration of United States President Donald Trump, who has sought to expand US military involvement across Latin America through ties with right-wing allies in the name of combatting crime.
Bolsonaro has also promised to rein in inflation and government spending, with an adviser stating that he would implement a debt ceiling if elected.
In the days after the first round, Bolsonaro has said he would “redemocratise” Brazil by reforming the constitution. The constitution was put in place after Brazil’s return to democracy in the 1980s, and Bolsonaro’s father has long expressed open nostalgia for the dictatorship period. There’s heavy speculation that Bolsonaro could be seeking to reform the judiciary, after his father’s legal setbacks. He has also promised to restore tax cuts for the events sector.
What has happened since the first round?
While many members of the PT were despondent following Bolsonaro’s first-round victory, Lula quickly urged his supporters to rally for the run-off and threw himself into campaigning.
He has also taken credit for his party’s long-sought constitutional amendment to reduce the six-day work week and promised free public transport on weekends.
Pro-Lula demonstrations in cities across the country have attracted millions of people, helping galvanise the president’s voters and cut into Bolsonaro’s lead. Bolsonaro has held his own rallies, hoping to capitalise on momentum and consolidate support from other conservative parties.
The two candidates held a combative debate on October 18, exchanging insults and accusing each other of corruption.
Questions of outside intervention have also been a theme in the campaign’s closing days, with US social media giant Meta facing allegations that it restricted pro-Lula activity online in a bid to support Bolsonaro.
Concerns about foreign interference, in particular from the US, have loomed over the campaign since the beginning.
The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to intervene in Brazilian politics, previously introducing steep tariffs and penalties against judicial officials in a bid to have the case against the elder Bolsonaro tossed out and mirroring rhetoric on the Brazilian right to cast doubt on the reliability of the country’s voting system.
Trump has himself used false claims of widespread fraud to ignore unfavourable election results, and observers have expressed concern that the US could throw its support behind Bolsonaro based on such claims even if he were to lose the race.
What do polls show?
After his victory in the first round, Bolsonaro emerged as the race’s de facto frontrunner. But polls continue to show a close race, with Lula cutting into Bolsonaro’s lead but continuing to trail within the margin of error.
Speculation that Bolsonaro might pull ahead decisively following the first round, after other conservative candidates failed to advance to the run-off, has not yet appeared in new polls.
A Nexus poll released on Monday showed Bolsonaro winning 46.5 percent of the vote in the second round, with Lula taking 45.9 percent. A poll from the previous week had shown Bolsonaro with 47.9 percent and Lula with 45.1 percent.
Another poll by AtlasIntel and Bloomberg, also released on Monday, showed Bolsonaro with 49.8 percent versus 47.6 percent for Lula. An October 9 poll had shown Bolsonaro with 51.1 percent and Lula with 45.7.
A Quaest poll released on October 21 showed Bolsonaro’s lead continuing to drop, with Lula winning 44 percent and Bolsonaro 45 percent.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit to block certification of the Senate race in Alaska if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses the contest while another candidate with the same name is on the ballot, kicking off what many have feared could become a lengthy battle between the U.S. government and states over certifying an election where the president’s party is struggling.
Many in both parties believe the fight could come down to Alaska, where Sullivan faces Democrat Mary Peltola. Also on the Alaska ballot is a Daniel J. Sullivan from the tiny fishing community of Petersburg. He has said he decided to run on his own, but Republicans have contended he’s a Democratic plant to siphon votes away from their candidate.
On Thursday, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court in Alaska demanding that the state be blocked from certifying a Peltola win if the other Sullivan remains on the ballot. “The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska,” the lawsuit alleges, contending that federal law requires states to protect the integrity of federal elections.
The Alaska Supreme Court rejected previous Republican efforts to remove the other Sullivan from the ballot, and the state’s Republican officials made the decisions about how to list him on the ballot. The other Sullivan will appear without a party designation next to his name, while the senator will be listed as the Republican incumbent. Alaska’s ranked choice voting system also will allow voters to select both of the men if confused.
The Trump Department of Justice has increasingly been used to bolster the president’s political operation, targeting his enemies and filing lawsuits against Democratic-controlled states in the run up to the election. Democrats and many voting rights advocates have long feared the Trump administration will try to block certification of elections the president’s party loses much as Trump unsuccessfully tried to do when he lost the 2020 presidential election.
Earlier Thursday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters that was unlikely outside of extreme circumstances. “It is not DOJ’s intention to and it’s never our intention to improperly interfere with elections or the state certification process,” the attorney general told reporters in Virginia.
Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, said the lawsuit will likely only kick in if Republicans narrowly lose the Alaska Senate race and that it does not seem to have legal merit. “The statute simply doesn’t let the Department of Justice enjoin certification,” he said.
The federal government has stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers, state officials said in recent court filings.
Minnesota officials sued President Trump’s administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings during Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis earlier this year. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.
The state is still seeking the cell phones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.
State prosecutors announced in July that the federal government had begun turning over evidence in the cases, including police body camera video and hard drives containing statements. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said at the time that the state expected to receive “all the evidence.”
But Minnesota investigators said in October court filings that the transfer of evidence stopped soon after the July announcement. Moriarty said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota told her on Sept. 10 that evidence sharing would be on pause indefinitely “in light of challenges with D.C.,” according to the documents.
State prosecutors have again asked a judge to order federal agencies to hand over the evidence, arguing they “have identified no legal authority or rational basis justifying their obstruction of state criminal investigations.”
In a reply filed Tuesday, attorneys for the Justice Department argued it’s within their discretion to decline to share information with state authorities. They cited the department’s rules for responding to record requests, known as the Touhy regulations, which apply only when formal legal proceedings are underway. The attorneys said there was no active court case when Minnesota made its requests.
Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said in a legal declaration that federal authorities still have Good’s clothing, the cell phone of the officer who killed her and interview recordings that state authorities have never been able to view.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, while she was leaving a Minneapolis protest on Jan. 7. Bystander video shows Good in the driver’s seat of an SUV, repeatedly honking the horn, when masked immigration officers order her to step out of the vehicle. She starts to pull forward, and an officer standing in front of the car fires at her windshield. The officer, now standing about an arm’s length from the open window on the driver’s side, fires twice more, according to an analysis of the videos by The Associated Press and others.
Federal officials at the time said the officer acted in self-defense.
Good’s death and that of Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse who was killed weeks later by a federal officer in Minneapolis, ignited nationwide protests against the Republican president’s immigration enforcement efforts.
No criminal charges have been filed in connection with the fatal shootings.
Evans said the federal government also has not shared a recorded statement from an officer who shot Pretti, the firearms used by the officers, their phones, projectiles and casings, and a gun taken from Pretti before he was shot.
WASHINGTON — President Trump has alleged that elections, public benefit programs and federal grants to nonprofits are rife with fraud. Now, he is increasingly focusing on fraud in his effort to detain and deport more immigrants.
Recent, high-profile flash points include 28 lawful permanent residents accused this week of illegally voting in California and the federal investigation into Somali-born Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
The broader crusade takes many forms, including allegations of fraud in immigration applications, illegal voting by noncitizens and misuse of federal benefits by immigrants who don’t qualify.
“This administration has purposefully mischaracterized immigrants and asylum seekers as fraudsters,” said Royce Murray, a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden administration. That, she said, “serves a narrative that immigrants are not to be trusted and are here to take something rather than contribute, with an end goal of trying to make Americans less welcoming and more comfortable with a mass deportation agenda.”
On Tuesday, Trump and Vice President JD Vance announced a $25-million program under the Justice Department to encourage the public to report suspected fraud in the U.S. government.
This administration has purposefully mischaracterized immigrants and asylum seekers as fraudsters
— Royce Murray, former Department of Homeland Security official
The White House said the first check, for $10,000, will go to right-wing influencer Nick Shirley, who posted a video last year alleging that Somali residents in Minnesota were running fake child-care centers to collect federal subsidies. Dozens of people were convicted in connection with a sprawling, $250-million children’s food assistance scheme that predated this administration, though more charges have been announced in recent months.
Also Tuesday, administration officials launched another nationwide anti-fraud crackdown, this time targeting immigrants who they allege have illegally collected SNAP benefits. Homeland Security highlighted the arrests of five people, calling them “the opening salvo in a sustained, large-scale ICE operation.”
“From day one of my administration, we’ve waged an unprecedented war on corruption and fraud, and will not let our country be looted and plundered by thieves and pirates and foreign fraudsters and basically scum,” Trump said during a news conference announcing the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program.
The focus on fraud has noticeably accelerated in the weeks leading up to the election.
In California, some of the green card holders arrested this week over voter fraud said they didn’t remember registering to vote. The daughter of one defendant, Omar Muñoz, 72, of Belize, said she wondered whether her father had been confused with his U.S.-born son of the same name, who is a registered voter.
California officials pounced on the small number of people alleged to have cast illegal ballots. Illegal voting by immigrants “is so rare that the Trump admin is parading around town about .0001% of California voters,” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office wrote on X.
In the last seven weeks alone, the State Department said, 112 noncitizens across 20 states have been charged with illegal voting and registration offenses. Overall, since Trump returned to the White House, 155 people have been charged with voting fraud-related offenses.
Mullin and Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said earlier this month that Homeland Security agents had secured 10 convictions and detained 100 others for civil immigration violations since August.
During the Biden administration, voter fraud charges were brought in just 13 cases, Blanche added.
Studies and audits of state voter rolls have repeatedly found that voting by noncitizens is rare and hasn’t swayed any elections.
Ballot machines at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder in Norwalk this week. Early voting has started for the 2026 midterm election.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Last week, with mail-in voting already underway, the Justice Department sued California, asking a federal court to bar the state from counting the ballots of 20,000 voters who were flagged by federal officials as “likely noncitizens.” Los Angeles County officials reviewed a sample of 200 of those voter registrations and found that nearly 40% indicated they were born in the U.S.
That number of flagged ballots — 20,000 — is a substantial reduction from the 190,000 noncitizens the administration alleged were on state voter rolls earlier this year, though federal authorities this week said they had found a “separate batch of 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens.”
California leaders pointed to other states, such as Nevada, where similar accusations have proved meritless.
Murray, the former Homeland Security official, said she believes the administration is “trying to sow the seeds of doubt that the midterm outcomes will be trustworthy, so that if the Republican Party loses as badly as they’re predicted to, they can characterize it as due to fraud.”
Murray said the Trump administration has largely misconstrued what it means to commit fraud.
“Fraud is a very specific thing — it’s essentially lying,” she said. “Because you don’t get asylum does not mean you committed fraud, it just means you were ineligible.”
In September, a Homeland Security whistleblower told Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) that hundreds of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees had been tasked with quickly reviewing the voter information of thousands of people in search of suspected noncitizen voters, and were given a quota of investigating 40 subjects per day.
On Wednesday, a federal judge restricted Homeland Security agents from carrying out sweeping field operations aimed at rooting out voter fraud in nine states, including California.
It is against federal law for immigrants who are not naturalized citizens to vote or register to do so. Penalties can include fines, jail time and even deportation, though authorities rarely pursued that option.
Eric Balliet, a former special agent with Homeland Security Investigations, the criminal investigative arm of ICE, said he takes no issue with investigating fraud, but the timing of this operation and significant resources dedicated show it is “highly politically charged.”
Balliet worked for various administrations, including Trump’s first, before retiring in 2024. Homeland Security Investigations agents typically focused on transnational criminal investigations such as drug smuggling and human trafficking.
Instead of initiating investigations based on tips or specific information, agents are now taking aggregated data and using algorithms to produce suspect lists, Balliet said. That’s not how law enforcement should operate, he said, calling it a massive privacy overreach against millions of law-abiding citizens.
“It’s the epitome of Big Brother,” he said.
Beyond the allegations of voter fraud, the Trump administration has also increasingly targeted immigrants on suspicion of lying to obtain a visa, green card or citizenship.
Omar’s family fled civil war in Somalia and immigrated to the U.S. in 1995 when she was 12. After agents searched her residence this month looking for evidence that her immigration paperwork contained falsehoods, she called the allegations baseless.
Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Muillin suggested the outcome of the investigation could be deportation. Years ago, the agency declined to move forward with a probe based on similar allegations against Omar, according to the Washington Post.
The congresswoman is not alone.
Emiliano Andrade-Covarrubias, 56, who died of unknown causes last week at an ICE facility in Texas, was arrested because the agency alleged he had fraudulently obtained his green card. ICE sought to deport him, saying he had failed to disclose a 2004 arrest for theft, but his daughter told the Texas Tribune that he did bring up his criminal record during the application process for his permanent residency.
Immigration lawyers say their clients are facing more intense scrutiny and that some have battled false accusations of fraud after applying for a green card or citizenship.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesperson Zach Kahler blamed the Biden administration for lax vetting that allowed bad actors to exploit immigration programs.
“These abuses are not harmless,” he wrote in a statement. “Meritless claims clog the system, drain limited resources, and delay relief for legitimate victims of crime. USCIS is taking aggressive action to identify, expose, and eliminate fraud.”
Erin O’Neil, an attorney based in Connecticut, said some of her clients are now in deportation proceedings triggered by allegations of fraud over minor inconsistencies that have no bearing on the case. In one case that resulted in a denial based on fraud, she said, the allegation was simply that her client failed to disclose a two-week work assignment in another state.
“In the past, the worst that would happen is your citizenship application would be denied,” O’Neil said. “Now we have seen through several of my clients that, not only is the citizenship application denied, but they are placed into removal proceedings.”
HM Passport Office is reminding people of the rule
14:08, 23 Oct 2026Updated 14:24, 23 Oct 2026
HMPO issued a social media alert on Friday(Image: clubfoto via Getty Images)
HM Passport Office has moved to explain a two-year rule some people may not know about.
Whether you’re applying for a new passport for a child or an adult, it’s likely you’ll need someone to confirm your identity. This is also the case if you’re replacing a lost, stolen, or damaged passport, renewing a child’s passport, or if your appearance has changed significantly. In a new alert on X, formerly Twitter, HMPO moved to explain the rules for ‘referees’.
Part of the post clarifies that “a referee must have known the person applying for at least 2 years and confirm their identity”. Additional guidance on GOV.UK outlines who is eligible to verify a person’s identity.
To qualify, a referee must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the UK, and currently hold a British or Irish passport. They must also have been acquainted with the applicant for a minimum of two years (this refers to the adult submitting the application if the passport is for a child under 16), and must know the applicant as a friend, neighbour or colleague, rather than someone they know purely in a professional capacity.
Content cannot be displayed without consent
Referees must also be employed in, or retired from, a “recognised profession”. These include:
accountant
airline pilot
articled clerk of a limited company
assurance agent of recognised company
bank or building society official
barrister
chairman or director of a limited company
chiropodist
commissioner for oaths
councillor, for example local or county
civil servant (permanent)
dentist
director, manager or personnel officer of a VAT-registered company
engineer with professional qualifications
financial services intermediary, for example a stockbroker or insurance broker
fire service official
funeral director
insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company
journalist
Justice of the Peace
legal secretary (fellow or associate member of the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs)
licensee of a public house
local government officer
manager or personnel officer of a limited company
member, associate or fellow of a professional body
Member of Parliament
Merchant Navy officer
minister of a recognised religion (including Christian Science)
nurse (RGN or RMN)
officer of the armed services
optician
paralegal (certified paralegal, qualified paralegal or associate member of the Institute of Paralegals)
person with honours, for example an OBE or MBE
pharmacist
photographer (professional)
police officer
Post Office official
president or secretary of a recognised organisation
Salvation Army officer
social worker
solicitor
surveyor
teacher or lecturer
trade union officer
travel agent (qualified)
valuer or auctioneer (fellow or associate members of the incorporated society)
Warrant Officers and Chief Petty Officers
You cannot confirm someone’s identity if:
you’re related by birth or marriage
you’re in a relationship with them or live together
you work for HM Passport Office
you work for UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) on British citizenship or right of abode applications
you’re a doctor – unless you know the person who has asked you well (for example, you’re a good friend)
The U.S. government seems to be coming for California (again). Big surprise.
But scratch the surface of the recent Department of Justice voter fraud blitz and the ugly truth peeks through — this is an attack on immigrants of color, no different than accusing the Haitians of Ohio of eating cats and dogs or the aggressive escalation of detaining and deporting Black and brown people with no criminal record.
Just a few days ago, the White House posted on social media that “If you import the third world, you become the third world.” Not be be outdone, the fine Americans at the Department of Homeland Security responded with what seems to be a problematic mission statement that may wind up in court documents: “Reject the third world. Export the third world.” So far in President Trump’s second term, only 20% of the nearly 1 million people deported had a criminal record, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Speaking of court documents, wow, do we have a lot to go through. Turns out not a lot of judges are into voter suppression.
There’s the U.S. Justice Department case claiming California is somehow stopping the feds from enforcing federal voting laws, despite those 28 cases. There’s a ruling in a different case that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from going door-to-door in California and other places checking on immigration status and voter registration — a terrifying overreach of power meant to intimidate legal voters.
And there’s the ongoing lawsuit from the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in a Washington courtroom — a case that could take the lead in protecting the midterms.
Here’s what you need to know about all three, and what comes next.
Stop the knocks
Starting around August, Homeland Security began knocking on the doors of residents in California and eight other states in what it dubbed a “surge” in investigations on voter fraud.
These in-person checks were based on lists of folks the government thought might not be legally allowed to cast a ballot — and focused on naturalized citizens, according to court documents. They were also, according to the court, unreliable and included “instances where DHS simply did not have data to determine that the individual did not engage in voter fraud,” the California judge in the case wrote, meaning it was a giant fishing expedition.
In addition, Homeland Security was apparently investigating nonprofits and other organizations that help get out the vote, including interrogating the staff and covertly infiltrating their operations, according to court documents.
That’s McCarthyism-level scary. The California Nurses Assn. and its parent union, National Nurses United, filed a lawsuit to stop the Homeland Security surge, arguing in part that one of their core missions is political organizing and turning out voters, and that the operation directly harmed them by scaring their members away from that work.
They also have a lot of members who are naturalized citizens. Four union members told the court that they didn’t want to participate in the union’s election work because they were afraid of being targeted by the government, citizens or not.
The court found that fear “objectively reasonable” and ordered Homeland Security to stop the door-knocking until after the election. The judge then stayed that order until Friday to give the government time to appeal. So far, the government hasn’t filed that objection.
“So many people in the United States are suffering under Trump’s corrupt and cruel policies on behalf of the billionaire class that he knows cannot hold onto power in these upcoming elections without illegally suppressing our vote through outright harassment, intimidation, and even detention,” said Puneet Maharaj, executive director of the two nurses groups.
Emergency relief
At the same time, the Department of Justice this week filed a suit against California seeking an emergency order to force the state to segregate 20,000 ballots of folks it claims may not be citizens — an unprecedented ask in furtherance of the long-running conspiracy theory that immigrants who lack legal status are in a scheme with Democrats to vote en masse.
State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has asked the court to throw out the case, in part because the federal government can’t prove it’s actually being harmed in any way by state law. The feds have already filed charges in those 28 cases claiming voter fraud, so it’s hard to argue that state law is preventing them from going after illegal voters.
But the feds are arguing that the state is aiding and abetting illegal voting by not segregating those ballots, even though there is no proof they are in the hands of noncitizens. A review by the Los Angeles County registrar’s office found that about 40% of those on the list were born in the United States.
Attorneys general from other states filed a friend of the court brief siding with California, arguing that the Justice Department is basically trying to create a new law where “the executive branch can invent new election requirements, unmoored from any constitutional or statutory authority, and demand that States enforce them in the middle of an election.”
The court will rule on that next week.
Beyond Nov. 3
Our final case takes us to Washington, where the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, are asking for their own temporary restraining order — this one stopping the government from carrying out its ballot segregation scheme and from using its flawed, janky methods for supposedly identifying noncitizen voters.
I’ve written about this lawsuit before, and how the Voting Rights Project beat back Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to snatch ballots. The court will probably make a ruling in that one next week as well.
But election day is less than two weeks away, and many have already voted. So what does it all mean?
It means we’re in for a rough ride. The Trump administration is not dumb. Midterms might not go the way Republicans would like, potentially even giving control of both the House and Senate to Democrats. Some experts and legislators are concerned that all these ballot drama is posturing for that midterm loss — creating a reason to potentially question results or even refuse to seat newly elected Democrats when the time comes.
And almost certainly, no matter what voters decide, Trump will spin it back to that white nationalism — the idea that “true” Americans are being replaced through fraud, violence and vote stealing, a trio of conspiracies glued together by the sticky, tricky manipulations of a man who will do anything for power.
SoFi Stadium is going strong. The deal that built it is in a smoldering heap.
A decade ago, Rams owner Stan Kroenke and Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr. happily dug ceremonial shovels into the dirt at Hollywood Park, celebrating the impending construction of the world’s most expensive stadium.
Electronic billboards are seen along Century Boulevard in Inglewood on Tuesday, Oct. 20.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Now they’re on opposite sides of a court fight that has spilled onto the Nov. 3 ballot and threatens further development on the nearly 300-acre site.
The feud started over billboards. Last year, Inglewood signed a deal with WOW Media to put electronic advertising all around the city — 60 digital signs carrying 108 screens. Some are bus-shelter-sized kiosks, while others are street displays up to 22 feet tall and positioned on sidewalks and medians.
Those present problems for SoFi Stadium, Intuit Dome and the Forum because they have their own advertising deals and sponsors who paid for exclusivity. Those venues collectively sued Inglewood and WOW Media to block the deal, raising this scenario in a court filing: “Will Pepsi want to sponsor the Super Bowl, knowing Coca-Cola could pay WOW to put up full-motion billboards next to the stadium?”
Skip Miller, lead attorney for the city, said the kiosks are “quite nice and blend in with the surrounding areas,” and that they are connected to a network that provides critical traffic and safety information to thousands of drivers and pedestrians.
Electronic billboards are seen on along Century Boulevard on Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026 in Inglewood, CA.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
A judge sided with Inglewood, and an appeal is under way.
In the meantime, those opposed to the billboards are taking it to the voters. On the ballot is Measure BB — as in “Billboard Blight” — which would restrict billboard advertising on public property. Miller said the city will challenge it in court if it passes, calling it free-speech discrimination.
The signs generate as much as $7.4 million a year, according to Inglewood budget records.
A consultant hired by the Yes on BB campaign estimated the city’s digital kiosk deal with WOW Media would generate $280,000 to $1.1 million a year, roughly 0.1% to 0.5% of Inglewood’s $238-million general fund.
John Shallman, a Los Angeles-based political strategist managing the “Yes on BB” campaign, also pointed to the unusual length of the billboard deal, which is 20 years plus two 10-year options.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke, right, talks to team president Kevin Demoff before a game against the New York Giant at SoFi Stadium on Sept. 21.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
“It’s biblical in length,” Shallman said. “You go back 40 years. We didn’t even have the Internet. We didn’t have cellphones.”
The billboards are part of the fight, but there’s a lot more. Back when the development agreement was signed in 2015, the deal was that Hollywood Park — interchangeable here with Kroenke’s companies — would pay up front for all the improvements around SoFi Stadium and eventually be reimbursed by the city. That means all the road upgrades, water lines, streetlights and the like. Same for event-day police and emergency services.
Over the years, that ran up a significant bill. Kroenke’s companies now want $448 million from the city. Inglewood, which last year wired Kroenke $20 million, is demanding that money back.
So how could that chasm be so wide? A turning point came last month when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David K. Reinart ruled the 2015 development agreement “void from the beginning and unenforceable.”
To understand why the judge ruled that way, it’s important to go back a decade and examine how the agreement was constructed.
One of the appealing aspects of building an NFL stadium in Inglewood was the speed with which a development agreement could be assembled and approved. Los Angeles went 20 years without an NFL franchise, during which all sorts of stadium ideas were proposed and eventually died. One of the stumbling blocks for those was the environmental-review process, which could take months or even years.
But at that time in California, there was an opportunity for Inglewood to fast-track the process. Instead of negotiating a new development agreement — there was one from 2009, when Hollywood Park was still a racetrack — supporters of the NFL stadium could bring it to the Inglewood City Council as a voter initiative.
People cross Century Boulevard near an electronic billboard in Inglewood.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
The council then had the choice to either adopt the initiative word for word, or send it to voters. No new environmental review required. Sure enough, in February 2015, the council approved the initiative, 5-0.
Now Kroenke had an approved stadium plan and not just fancy renderings to bring to fellow NFL owners, who 11 months later gave the thumbs up to a state-of-the-art venue at Hollywood Park. There was a competing stadium plan in Carson backed by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders that was taking the same fast-track approach with its city.
Regardless, the Hollywood Park plan won and the stadium was ultimately constructed, a $5-billion marvel that in February will play host to its second Super Bowl. It has also played host to the World Cup, major concerts by Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, and will be the swimming venue for the 2028 Summer Olympic Games. The Chargers moved to Los Angeles as tenants in the stadium.
“Inglewood loves SoFi Stadium,” said Miller, the city’s attorney. “Nothing is ever going to happen to SoFi Stadium. … As far as the rest of Hollywood Park, the developer has to follow the law, just like any other developer. This developer, who’s a very powerful, very wealthy person, has to follow the law just like anybody else.”
That’s not something you would have heard in 2015 when Kroenke and the city were pulling in the same direction. Something happened in 2018 that changed the landscape in California, and gave Inglewood an argument for why it shouldn’t be required to reimburse the developer for nearly half a billion dollars in public improvements.
It was a court decision involving Moreno Valley, a city about 75 miles east of Inglewood that planned to build a major development through the same approval process that was used in Inglewood. But environmental groups challenged that in court and won. A judge determined that type of development agreement requires negotiations and public hearings, not just a voter initiative. The agreement was voided.
SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, home of the Los Angeles Rams, hosts events throughout the year.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Meanwhile, everything was moving forward in Inglewood. SoFi Stadium was constructed. The big events rolled in. Promises made, promises kept.
All the while, there was the outstanding issue of the city paying back Hollywood Park for all those improvements, but that arrangement was configured to ensure Inglewood could do so without going into the red. The deal said the city could keep the first $25 million in tax revenue from the stadium every year, then use the revenue generated beyond that to reimburse Kroenke’s companies.
In May 2025, Inglewood made a payment of $20 million.
Two months later, pointing to the Moreno Valley decision, the city deemed the development agreement invalid and demanded its money back.
Hollywood Park found that especially galling because four times over the past decade the city signed assurances to Kroenke’s lenders that the money would be paid back — and three of those times were after the Moreno Valley decision.
In the view of Hollywood Park, Inglewood welcomed the jobs, tax revenue, increased property values and heightened prestige for a decade, then walked away from the deal when the bills came due.
“Now that it’s time for the city to essentially uphold its end of the bargain, now that it’s received all the benefits, it’s saying, ‘Well, actually, we consider this agreement void. Thank you for the stadium, thank you for everything else, but we’re not going to uphold our end of the deal,’” said John Quinn, outside counsel for Hollywood Park in the matter.
An electronic billboard on Century Boulevard in Inglewood.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Hollywood Park’s argument is that it followed the rules in 2015 in getting the development agreement unanimously approved by the City Council, and the results — a bustling stadium district and development around it — speak for themselves.
The city’s side said it connected the dots on the Moreno Valley case only after the lawsuit was filed against Inglewood and WOW Media last year.
And the city is backing a ballot initiative of its own, Measure AT, which would eliminate a $15-million cap on the 10% admission tax on ticket sales the stadium pays. Venues with fewer than 20,000 seats, including Intuit Dome, would for the first time be charged a 2.5% admission tax on ticket sales.
The ballot measure could generate an additional $47 million to $50 million annually, a city of Inglewood impact report states. Olympic events at both venues in 2028 could be especially lucrative for the city.
Hollywood Park sees that as punishment for challenging the billboard deal.
Also on the ballot, the contentious Inglewood mayor’s race. Butts is running for a fifth term, and his main challenger is Gloria Gray, an Inglewood City Council member.
Meanwhile, Hollywood Park’s legal losses are stacking up. The judge last month rejected the argument that because Inglewood is a charter city, one that operates under its own constitution, it should abide by the original development agreement.
The city is billing the fight as a billionaire versus the people. Those representing Kroenke’s interests say Inglewood should honor its commitment and provide the reimbursements it long promised.
An attorney representing Hollywood Park says changing the rules midstream could have a chilling effect on future developments in California.
“It’s going to seriously discourage new development throughout the state, and we’re not just talking about stadiums,” said Quinn, chairman and founding partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. “We’re talking about all kinds of planning and zoning decisions — including affordable housing projects.
“This just creates a really damaging cloud of legal uncertainty over all development in California.”
Growing up without “two nickels to rub together,” John McKinney never thought he’d be a lawyer.
At the beginning of 2026, sitting in his office as one of the highest-ranking prosecutors in Los Angeles County, McKinney had no designs on trying to become L.A.’s city attorney.
But if he can beat progressive darling Marissa Roy next month and finish off an upstart campaign that barely had a pulse six months ago, McKinney would complete a lifelong underdog story that saw him go from working as a house painter and substitute teacher to pay for college to serving as the top lawyer for the second-largest city in America.
A highly regarded trial lawyer, McKinney, 58, claims an undefeated record in homicide trials and has won convictions in some of the region’s most infamous crimes, including the murder of beloved L.A. hip-hop star Nipsey Hussle. He reached his longtime perch in the district attorney’s office’s major crimes unit after a lifetime of struggle. Both of McKinney’s parents died before he was 5, and he was raised by his oldest sister in a cramped household with half a dozen other children in Passaic, N.J.
John McKinney speaks at a news conference at the Los Angeles Police Protective League in May.
(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)
McKinney beams with pride while discussing his hardscrabble East Coast upbringing — whether praising his sister’s hustle for working “six days a week,” or refusing to turn in his Yankees hat in a Dodger blue city. In interviews, he’ll sneak in a verbal jab at Roy, then finish the insult with a wry smirk. McKinney notes he’s been a prosecutor almost as long as his 34-year-old opponent has been alive.
“She’s never tried a case,” McKinney said. “When you’re running for city attorney overseeing trial lawyers and having to make high-impact decisions on whether to settle a case for $20 million or not, you should at least know what it’s like to go through a jury trial.”
Roy was part of the team that secured a $17-billion settlement from Meta in a landmark case this year, and has tried many cases decided by judges, rather than jury panels. She’s pushed back on McKinney’s barbs, noting he has no experience handling civil cases, a core component of the job.
McKinney has focused his campaign on lessening the city’s homelessness crisis by leveraging people into treatment, tackling quality-of-life crimes, and reducing the city’s out-of-control legal costs.
But he faces an uphill battle. Roy, a deputy state attorney general, has been campaigning for more than a year and raised more than twice as much money as McKinney. With the backing of both the county’s Democratic Party and the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter, Roy won June’s primary easily, outpacing McKinney by 15 percentage points. Both finished far ahead of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto.
Marissa Roy, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, is running against John McKinney to become L.A.’s next city attorney.
(Gary Coronado/For The Times)
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman leads a strong coalition of law enforcement support for McKinney, who has also been endorsed by four former city attorneys, two prior district attorneys and several City Council members, including Traci Park.
McKinney has emphasized the word “Democrat” in his ads, a nod to Roy’s attempts to cast him as the preferred choice of Republicans who won’t stand up to the Trump administration if elected. Although McKinney rubbed elbows with Republicans during efforts to recall then-Dist. Atty. George Gascón and employed fundraisers who worked with Trump, he says he “despises” the president and was disgusted by immigration raids in the city last year.
McKinney thinks Roy’s emphasis on fighting Trump speaks to a misunderstanding of the job. Across the country, it has been state attorneys general, not city attorneys, who have spearhead litigation against the White House, said McKinney, who dismissed the partisan attacks as a “misleading smear campaign.”
“Her lack of management experience and jury trial experience has not gone unnoticed by voters and her platform of wanting to turn the city attorney’s office into the country’s largest public interest law firm is out of alignment with the issues important to voters: public safety, homelessness and protecting taxpayer dollars,” he said.
Long before he was concerned about winning an elected office, McKinney was simply worried about survival.
The youngest of seven children, McKinney lost his mother to cancer when he was only 2. His father passed away unexpectedly three years later. His oldest sister, Ora, was recently divorced with three kids of her own but took in McKinney and his sister. He remained especially close to Ora — whom he described as his “mother, father and best friend” — until she passed away last year.
With his caretaker working nearly round the clock, McKinney said, he easily could have run in the streets with friends caught up in the crack cocaine boom of the 1980s. But McKinney said his sister’s determination inspired him to choose a better path.
“My sister made me believe there was really no limit to what I could do in life if I worked hard enough for it,” he said.
McKinney isn’t seeking sympathy, but believes sharing his backstory shows he’s “lived a life that mirrors a lot of the adversity Angelenos face every day.”
For much of his career in L.A., McKinney was seen as one of the district attorney’s office’s premier trial lawyers. He said he had no interest in management or politics until Gascón was elected in 2020. McKinney was one of several prosecutors to publicly criticize and sue Gascón. His involvement in the failed bid to recall Gascón put him in a political spotlight for the first time. He frequently spoke at recall events — which sometimes overlapped with rallies against Gov. Gavin Newsom and promoted conservative causes — and later joined the crowded field vying to replace Gascón in 2024.
Colleagues said McKinney has a history of being able to reach across ideological and cultural aisles. Bobby Grace, a veteran prosecutor who has worked with McKinney for decades, said he had a knack for getting people to take risks to take the stand in important cases.
“I think that’s where he made his reputation as a good trial lawyer,” Grace said. “To be successful, particularly in gangs, you’ve got to be able to convince witnesses who don’t want to come forward, and I think that was really his strength.”
Although he failed to gain traction in the race to unseat Gascón, finishing far behind Hochman, he caught the future district attorney’s eye and the two became allies. When Hochman took office, he put McKinney in charge of specialized prosecutions, giving him oversight of a wide range of cases, including cop killings, juvenile crimes, gang homicides and child abuse.
McKinney said he wasn’t even thinking about getting into the city attorney race until the middle of January, when a number of people approached him about entering.
City attorney candidate John McKinney, left, walks through Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles on July 1.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
By March, McKinney was scrambling to get a campaign together, and Hochman was quick to lend the fundraisers and managers who helped him oust Gascón.
He soon ascended from nonfactor to legitimate contender. Frustrated with ballooning legal costs and her handling of a department data breach, the city’s powerful police union abandoned Feldstein Soto and backed McKinney. Independent expenditures — political interest groups that can spend unlimited amounts in campaigns if they don’t coordinate with candidates — doled out $3 million to support McKinney.
In total, records show those groups have spent nearly $5 million on McKinney. More than half of that money has come from a venture capitalist who has publicly praised Elon Musk and a political action committee run by Airbnb, the rental giant currently facing a lawsuit from the city for price gouging during the wildfires.
McKinney insists campaign support won’t influence his decision-making in office. He has vowed to sue Airbnb if it engages in price gouging, and he knows the Los Angeles Police Department is a major factor in the city’s rising litigation costs. Given his law enforcement background, he argues he’s better positioned to influence police than Roy.
“I think because they know I’m not coming at them from a vindictive point of view, trying to underfund them or undermine them, that my criticism will be taken for what it’s worth, which is to make them stronger, to make them more trusted and more effective,” he said.
Whereas Hochman often compared L.A. to crime-plagued “Gotham City,” McKinney acknowledges the city’s more recent struggles are not with violence, but with quality-of-life crimes: unchecked homeless encampments, street racing, animal abuse on Skid Row.
Walking around Skid Row this summer, McKinney spoke with several people who approached from tents and other jerry-rigged structures. He listened closely as they explained their struggles and pleaded for help in a part of the city few residents ever set foot in. He describes his approach to the city’s homeless crisis as one of “compassionate accountability.”
“Every person who is living on the street has had some tragic circumstance in their life,” he said that day.
McKinney acknowledged he can’t do anything about a lack of housing as city attorney, but he can better manage the way L.A. throws resources at the problem. That includes more sophisticated audits of community-based organizations that have contracts with the city to aid unhoused people, he said.
Ultimately, he does not want to punish people who are suffering, but thinks the city attorney’s office can use its power of prosecution to pressure homeless defendants suffering from addiction or mental health issues into treatment. The mission is a personal one for McKinney, who grew up with a schizophrenic nephew whose slow decline he watched for years.
“When I talk about compassionate accountability, it’s not just a campaign slogan for me,” he said. “It’s real. These are real people.”
Thousands of Venezuelans have taken to the streets in several cities to demand free elections and other political changes, in the first nationwide opposition protest in nearly two years.
US President Donald Trump and acting President Delcy Rodriguez have said there would be elections, but no date has been set for a vote to decide on a successor for Nicolas Maduro, after the former Venezuelan president was captured by US forces in a military raid in January.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who has been outside the country for nearly a year after living in hiding following a contested 2024 election, has said elections must take place by July 2027.
Her Vente Venezuela movement organised the protest, which took place in the capital Caracas and other cities, including Valencia, Maracay, San Cristobal and Maracaibo.
“Seeing this makes me happy because I know change is possible,” said 18-year-old cosmetology student Leosmary Hernandez, as she gathered with hundreds of others in northern Maracay. “I’ve been through so many hardships, so many problems because of the dollar, and difficulties studying. I have high hopes for my country and for our next leader and president, Maria Corina.”
“I went out to protest before, when things were much tougher, and I’m even less afraid today because I want my voice to be heard,” she added.
Since January 3, the country has been led by interim President Delcy Rodriguez of the long-governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).
PSUV leaders have been accused of carrying out human rights abuses against political dissidents, including arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.
After the United States launched a military operation to abduct and jail former President Nicolas Maduro, the PSUV remained in power with the support of the White House.
US President Trump has backed Rodriguez’s leadership, despite her having been Maduro’s vice president.
A supporter of Venezuela’s opposition waves a flag over a highway at a demonstration in Caracas to demand elections in 2027 [Fausto Torrealba/Reuters]
Minimal security presence
Venezuela’s socialist movement, in power since 1999 under late President Hugo Chavez and then Maduro, has in the past deployed security forces against protesters, but government forces had minimal presence at protest sites on Thursday, and in many smaller cities demonstrators dispersed before dark.
The ruling Socialist Party called for its supporters to march from Caracas’ Plaza Venezuela, the same place the opposition planned to gather two hours later, to a location near the presidential palace to commemorate Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, known for his close ties to the security services, was pictured on state television attending the march, while the opposition supporters moved their protest to a nearby location.
The negotiations, backed by the US, do not include Machado’s political movement, though she has said she will not stand in the way of their progress.
Machado’s proxy Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia claims to have won the 2024 election according to vote tallies by the opposition. But the government, which never released full counts, backed Maduro, as did the country’s legal and electoral institutions.
Machado has for years sought US support, aligning with hawks in the Trump team who argued that Maduro, through alleged links to drug gangs, represented a direct threat to US national security. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are facing drug and torture charges in the US. They have pleaded not guilty.
Assemblyman Burt Margolin (D-Los Angeles) was so concerned about reelection in his heavily Democratic 45th District that he scheduled his wedding and honeymoon in Hawaii in the midst of the campaign.
Margolin was married Sept. 27 to Dr. Laurie M. Post, a Beverly Hills clinical psychologist and daughter of motion picture director Ted Post. The couple is honeymooning in Hawaii, according to Margolin.
The 35-year-old assemblyman, elected in 1982 and reelected in 1984 with more than 60% of the vote both times, said that his marriage and honeymoon a month before the election does not mean that he is overconfident.
‘Do What Is Necessary’
“The key point is that I am not taking anything for granted,” he said in an interview. “I will be back in time to do what is necessary to win reelection. If my opponents mount a campaign, I will be in a position to respond.”
Less than a month before the Nov. 4 election, Margolin could probably just as well spend the rest of the month in the islands.
Jana Olson, the Republican candidate for Margolin’s job, is not optimistic about her chances of defeating him. “The race probably is not winnable, based on the way the district is laid out,” said Olson, a 28-year-old Toluca Lake businesswoman, adding that she expects to raise only $5,000 for the campaign.
By contrast, Margolin has amassed $55,000, none of which is as yet earmarked specifically for his reelection.
Olson’s pessimism is based on, among other factors, the registration figures. Of the 151,846 voters registered as of Sept. 23, 88,630 (58.4%) are Democrats, compared to 45,509 (30%) Republicans.
Long a Democratic stronghold, the 45th Assembly District extends from Hancock Park on the south to Burbank on the north, and includes the Fairfax and Pico-Robertson areas and portions of West Hollywood, Hollywood, the Hollywood Hills, Los Feliz, Universal City, Studio City, Toluca Lake and North Hollywood.
The district has served as the launching pad for and seemingly private reserve of the so-called Berman-Waxman organization, a Democratic political alliance named after U.S. Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).
In 1968 Waxman was the first member of the organization to win the 45th District seat. He was followed by Herschel Rosenthal, now a state senator, who was succeeded by Margolin.
Margolin was an aide to both Waxman and Berman before winning his first election in 1982. He is a member of the organization and Waxman’s father works as an aide in Margolin’s office, which is just down the hall from Waxman’s district office in the Miracle Mile.
A Progressive Liberal
A self-described progressive Democrat, Margolin said it is not easy for someone of his political background (generally liberal on issues, including opposition to the death penalty) to score victories against the conservative Administration headed by Gov. George Deukmejian.
“Obviously, it is more difficult to get what you want,” he said, “but it is not impossible. I have managed to get results, although they are more modest because of the governor.”
Medi-Cal Improvement
He mentioned a bill, enacted into law, that established perinatal care for low-income women under Medi-Cal. “That is the only significant increase in Medi-Cal to get by the governor,” he said.
He also authored the so-called “bottle bill” that eventually became law and established deposits for beverage bottles and cans to encourage people to return them for recycling rather than discarding them as litter.
Olson said that she “leans to conservatism” and would bring a sense of fairness, sound business practices and help to the “truly needy” if she is elected.
“I oppose rent controls because they create an artificial market whereby rents are forcibly increased,” she said. “I favor free-market principles, whereas my opponent is very liberal on all the issues.”
Like Olson, the other two candidates in the race are not optimistic about their chances. Both Sylvia F. Kushner, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate, and Donald P. Meyer, the Libertarian Party candidate, said in interviews that they do not expect to win.
Kushner, 75, a human rights organizer, said she entered the race to support programs for low-income people and senior citizens and to register her opposition to the country’s foreign policy.
“We need a state jobs program, improved health care programs and state-supported housing for low-income people,” she said. “I have also been in the peace movement for many years.”
Meyer, 36, a courier with a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Minnesota, said he would like to see government reduced to the smallest possible size.
“I am opposed to most taxes,” he said. “Government should exist to prevent people from taking your money, rather than assuming the role of taxer.”
Demonstrators gathered on the sixth anniversary of a near-total abortion ban imposed by Poland’s highest court.
By AFP and The Associated Press
Published On 23 Oct 202623 Oct 2026
Thousands of people have protested in more than 20 towns and cities across Poland, calling for access to free and legal abortion services.
Demonstrators gathered on the sixth anniversary of a near-total abortion ban imposed by Poland’s highest court.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Currently, abortion is only legal in Poland when a pregnancy results from a criminal act like rape or incest, or when it threatens the life or health of the mother.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government promised to liberalise abortion laws ahead of its 2023 election victory, but divisions within the coalition have slowed progress.
The demonstrations come days after parliament passed two bills that would ease abortion restrictions in the mostly Catholic country, but are likely to be vetoed by Poland’s conservative President Karol Nawrocki.
Passing the draft laws now, a year before the next parliamentary election, is a case of “token gestures” rather than a genuine effort to reform abortion law, said Zofia Marcinek of the Abortion Dream Team, a reproductive rights activist group in Warsaw.
She said the liberal government knew the draft laws stand no chance of withstanding Nawrocki’s veto, and has merely tried to create the impression of taking action because it needs women’s support to win elections next year.
In the capital, Warsaw, about 1,000 protesters demonstrated in front of parliament despite rain.
“Over the last six years, nothing has really changed,” said 36-year-old Emilia Niemiec, who manages the AboTak abortion centre, which provides women with access to resources, including pills, and a space to be able to seek support or carry out a pharmacological abortion.
Two young women demonstrate with placards reading ‘How much longer do we have to wait?’ as they attend a nationwide pro-abortion rights protest [Mladen Antonov/AFP]
Abortion laws tightened
Restrictive abortion laws have been in place in Poland since 1993, with Polish women leading calls for the legalisation of abortion ever since. In 2016, nationwide demonstrations took place, with women donning black as a sign of protest.
But rather than being relaxed, Poland’s abortion laws were tightened further, banning abortions of foetuses with congenital defects in 2020 under the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government.
Despite the laws, abortions remain common in Poland, with the overwhelming majority carried out by women at home using pills obtained from outside the country. Women who undergo abortions, including by taking pills, do not face criminal responsibility under Polish law. But people helping them, including doctors and family, can potentially be prosecuted.
Polish hospitals performed 573 abortions in the first half of 2026, compared with 452 in the whole of 2022 before Tusk came to power, according to data from the National Health Fund. But activists say tens of thousands of abortions happen yearly outside of hospitals.
Campaigners organising Thursday’s protests are claiming the Tusk government has betrayed Polish women – and that Tusk’s claims that women’s access to abortion has improved during his administration have actually complicated getting care for some women.
“The government’s promises act as a type of disinformation,” Marcinek said. “Women getting pregnant hear the prime minister say that everything is OK, that there is access to abortion, and then they end up in the hospital and see that is not the case. So they come to us when it’s very late and very complicated and expensive to help them.”
RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, was charged Thursday with leading what authorities alleged was a wide-ranging criminal enterprise that acquired and distributed large quantities of marijuana and laundered the proceeds.
Lucas, who has been in elected office for decades, used her political power to insulate the operation from scrutiny, according to an indictment charging her and six other defendants, including several of her relatives. She “put her own financial interests before the people she was elected to serve,” said U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who spoke at a news conference with FBI Director Kash Patel.
Lucas surrendered, the Justice Department said. She made a brief appearance in federal court on Thursday afternoon, where she was released on her own recognizance, according to court records. She left the court without addressing media gathered outside and went straight into a waiting vehicle.
The charges, including drug trafficking and money laundering, came after the FBI searched Lucas’ hometown office and a cannabis shop in which she has a stake in May. At the time of the search, Lucas — who has been a vocal critic of Republican President Trump’s administration — characterized it as an attempt to intimidate her.
“This is the circus we always expected it to be,” said Brian Woolfolk, chief counsel for the L. Louise Lucas Legal Defense Fund.
Lucas says she won’t be bullied by the federal government
A statement attributed to Lucas posted on her social media account did not directly address the substance of the charges but said Thursday’s actions amounted to the federal government wielding its “full weight” against a great-grandmother.
“I will not be intimidated. I will not be bullied. And I will not back down,” Lucas said in the statement.
The brash 82-year-old lawmaker has spent decades ascending the ranks of Virginia politics and has served since 1992 in the state Senate, where she’s the president pro tempore, overseeing the chamber in the lieutenant governor’s absence. More significantly, she leads the powerful Senate finance committee, through which all legislation with any budget impact must flow. She’s used the position to kill legislation she opposes.
Justice Department denies politics played a role
The indictment comes as Trump’s Justice Department has faced intense scrutiny over investigations and prosecutions against foes of the president that critics have called politically motivated.
Blanche rejected any suggestion politics played a role in Lucas’ case, noting the investigation began well before the second Trump administration started in January 2025.
“We don’t do political paybacks,” Blanche told reporters.
A person familiar with the May search told the Associated Press at the time that the probe was opened during Democratic President Biden’s administration. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a continuing criminal investigation.
FBI alleges a ‘criminal marijuana enterprise’
Patel said in a statement that “Lucas and a close-knit group of family members and associates orchestrated a multi-year scheme to enrich their own criminal marijuana enterprise, ‘the Lucas Enterprise’ — using Lucas’ position as Chairwoman of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee to insulate the enterprise from criminal scrutiny and influencing legislation to financially benefit themselves.”
The indictment describes Lucas as the “leader of the enterprise” who “approved and directed criminal activities,” including arranging for the acquisition and distribution of marijuana and supervising the laundering of the proceeds.
The indictment alleges Lucas worked this year with another of the defendants to use her political position to obtain a recreational marijuana license for him, with the understanding that the proceeds from sales under the license would be shared with her to support the “enterprise.”
Since 2021, marijuana has been legal to possess in Virginia, and many shops across the state have sold cannabis-derived products. But full recreational sales are not yet underway; legislation enacted earlier this year will allow them beginning in July 2027.
Law enforcement made multiple controlled purchases of marijuana from Lucas’ shop, which purported to sell hemp products, in 2024 and 2025, the indictment said.
In addition to drug and money laundering charges, Lucas faces a charge of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and maintaining a drug-involved premises. An arraignment is scheduled for next month.
Among the other defendants who face a mix of those and other charges are two daughters of Lucas and a grandson. It was unclear if they had obtained legal representation. They were also scheduled to make an initial court appearance Thursday afternoon.
Virginia officials react
A forceful advocate of legalizing marijuana, Lucas partnered in opening the shop, The Cannabis Outlet, in 2021. She has publicly spoken about her ownership stake as recently as June, though her most recent financial disclosure forms do not list the business by name.
At the time of the search — when marijuana was recovered at The Cannabis Outlet, according to the indictment — many Democrats spoke up to defend Lucas.
On Thursday, Scott Surovell, the Democratic leader of the state Senate, said in a statement that the indictment contained “serious allegations” but emphasized that “Senator Lucas has the right to defend herself, and she has my full support as she does so.” Atty. Gen. Jay Jones, a Democrat who is close with Lucas, said the allegations against her must be tested in a “full and fair” legal process.
House Speaker Don Scott, Lt. Gov. Ghazala Hashmi, and Gov. Abigail Spanberger, all Democrats, echoed those sentiments, with Spanberger adding that the timing of the indictment so close to the midterm election would “further erode” Americans’ trust in the Justice Department. Lucas herself is not on the ballot this year.
Ryan McDougle, the Senate Republican leader, said he would not comment while the court proceedings play out.
The senator draws comparisons to Trump
Lucas, who represents a district that includes her hometown of coastal Portsmouth, operates with a sometimes-profane, unapologetic style that’s drawn comparisons to Trump.
She amassed a six-figure following on X and national attention, using the social media platform to advocate forcefully for her priorities and to bash her critics, including former GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin. She’s also occasionally blasted members of her own party, including Spanberger, with whom she’s had disagreements.
Earlier this year, Lucas helped lead Democrats’ ultimately unsuccessful plan to gerrymander the blue-leaning state’s congressional districts into a map intended to elect 10 Democrats and only one Republican. Along the way, she posted quips about four GOP members the intended map sought to oust, joking that they soon would be working at McDonald’s. She and other Democrats defended the maps as a reasonable response to Trump-backed efforts to boost the GOP’s midterm advantage in other states.
Lucas has been in politics for decades
Lucas has notched several historic firsts in her career. According to a biography from the state library, in 1971 she became the Norfolk Naval Shipyard’s first female shipfitter, a physically demanding job that involves working on metal assemblies for vessels.
She launched her political career in 1984, when, the biography said, she became the first Black woman elected to the Portsmouth City Council.
In the state Senate, Lucas has been a staunch advocate for abortion rights and increased public school funding and a leading voice on issues of racial justice and civil rights.
In 2019, after Democrats flipped control of the chamber, her peers elected her to serve as president pro tempore. And in 2024, she was tapped to lead the chamber’s budget committee, gaining enormous sway over any legislation tied to the state budget.
Richer and Rankin write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington and Rankin reported from Richmond, Va. AP journalists Eric Tucker in Washington and Steve Helber in Norfolk, Va., contributed to this report.
MIAMI — A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Trump to sit for a deposition in his $10-billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC by Dec. 11.
The order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett came as the BBC’s lawyers complained that Trump had delayed his appearance. Attorney Charles Tobin said that with two months left in the discovery period, “we still haven’t been able to depose the plaintiff.”
He noted there was an agreed-upon date of Oct. 16, but that the Republican president canceled it for a “matter of national importance.” Tobin said Trump was in fact campaigning in Georgia that day.
“He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” Tobin said.
Lett said Trump must sit for a deposition by Dec. 11, or face sanctions up to dismissal of his lawsuit — unless the discovery period was extended past Dec. 18.
The BBC asked the judge last week to compel Trump to appear. The British broadcaster says Trump is trying to delay his appearance until January 2027. The judge has threatened sanctions if Trump fails to comply with the court’s schedule.
Trump, who has often avoided depositions, filed his lawsuit against the BBC last December, seeking $10 billion in damages. He accused the publicly funded broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices related to a documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance.”
The BBC acknowledged that filmmakers spliced together quotes from different sections of the speech Trump delivered to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before the storming of the U.S. Capitol, to make it seem he was directly urging violence. The broadcaster apologized over the editing, and the head of the BBC and its top news executive both resigned. The BBC has denied Trump’s claims that it defamed him.
Trump’s lawyers say Jack Smith ‘lacks personal knowledge’ of issues in the case
To bolster its defense, the broadcaster subpoenaed former special counsel Jack Smith earlier this month. Trump’s lawyers argued, in a joint filing asking for a hearing on the matter, that there was no good reason for Smith, who is not a party to the case, to appear.
“Smith lacks any personal knowledge regarding the issues in this matter,” they argued in the filing. “He was not present when President Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech … was made, nor did he participate in its preparation. Smith does not have any personal knowledge regarding President Trump’s state of mind at the time the Speech was given.”
Trump’s side also argued that “Smith’s testimony would be duplicative,” because he published a lengthy report on the events of Jan. 6 and also testified for many hours. “The entirety of his testimony is publicly available,” it argued.
The BBC countered, in the same filing, that there were few more knowledgeable sources about the events of Jan. 6 than Smith, who studied and investigated them for years.
“It is difficult to imagine a more authoritative source on these issues than Mr. Smith, who spent years gathering evidence on those topics with the force of the Justice Department and the power of the grand jury behind him,” the BBC’s lawyers argued.
“No one forced Plaintiff to file this lawsuit and to dispute that his speech on January 6 incited the violence that followed at the Capitol. But as long as he chooses to maintain the case, he cannot commit the fundamental injustice of preventing the BBC from obtaining the evidence it needs to robustly defend itself on every element of his claim…”
When will Trump sit for a deposition?
In a filing Oct. 13, the BBC’s lawyers said they first requested dates for a deposition in July, and followed up repeatedly, with both sides eventually agreeing on Oct. 16.
After weeks of silence, they wrote, “Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 28, 2026, indicating that ‘the President is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance’ and that counsel would ‘endeavor to provide you with a replacement date by the end of this week.’ He did not.”
They said they were then told that Trump “has no availability whatsoever for a deposition” before discovery is set to close on Dec. 18, and that Trump would instead make himself available the second or third week of January.
Tobin wrote in the filing, “Those delays have flouted the cooperative spirit of discovery and precluded the BBC from obtaining the evidence necessary to robustly litigate its defense.”
Fischer and Noveck write for the Associated Press. Noveck reported from New York.
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration is on track to deport about 660,000 people over the past year, a new report released Thursday shows, as arrests ramp up across the country fueled by billions of dollars meant to supercharge his immigration agenda.
The report by the Migration Policy Institute shows deportations increased from 620,000 during the first year of Trump’s second administration. The numbers fall short of previous highs in the early 2000s and fail to meet the Trump administration’s promise, made when it received the billions from Congress, that the money would allow for 1 million deportations annually.
The report, based on publicly available data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, comes after the Trump administration in January 2025 stopped publicly releasing similar figures compiled by the Department of Homeland Security.
Trump, a Republican, returned to power last year promising to stanch crossings at the southern border and crack down on immigration. His administration has pushed through restrictions on both legal and illegal immigration and launched high-profile arrest operations in its bid to force migrants out.
More people being deported, but not at all-time highs
The analysis found that the Department of Homeland Security carried out 980,000 deportations during the first 18 months of the second Trump administration.
During the last fiscal year — when the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement mechanisms were shifting into high gear — an estimated 660,000 people were deported.
According to MPI’s analysis, that’s a 26% increase from the yearly average from 2021 to 2024 during the administration of President Biden, a Democrat, but well below the 1.86 million deportations recorded in 2000, under President Clinton, another Democrat.
Despite the surging arrests, the report details some of the challenges to the Trump administration reaching its deportation targets.
Historically, many immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization were from Mexico and didn’t often seek asylum. But in recent years, migrants have come to the U.S. from a wide range of countries, which can make it more complicated to deport them. And immigration courts, which ultimately decide whether someone can be removed from the country, face more significant case backlogs.
Voluntary departures are increasing as are interior arrests
The report said voluntary departures — when people give up their cases in immigration court and agree to leave the country — were at an “all-time high,” with 170,000 choosing to do so since Trump returned to office in January 2025. People who choose voluntary departure could one day return to the U.S. But some immigrant advocates and lawyers say that people give up their court fight and agree to leave simply to get out of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention.
The Trump administration was also increasingly deporting people it arrested in the country’s interior, the report said, reflecting how it was stepping up enforcement against migrants who have been in the country for a long time. In 2025, about 28% of the people deported were arrested inside the country, but by July of this year that had risen to 39%.
Migrants arrested at the southern border still make up a large number of deportations, the report said — 69% of all deportations between Jan. 20, 2025, and July 31, 2026, were of people initially intercepted at the border.
People in the country longer may have more opportunities to contest their removal while the government typically has greater authority to fast-track deportations for people arrested at the border.
The analysis said most people deported have never been convicted of a crime, despite the Trump administration claiming to be targeting the “worst of the worst.” Previous data has showed the same.
In response to the MPI report, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “President Trump has delivered the largest reduction in illegal immigration in modern history.”
Trump administration no longer regularly releases immigration data
Homeland Security stopped releasing similar data when Trump took office, making it difficult to track one of his key campaign promises. Figures the Trump administration has released are inconsistent and unverifiable.
The administration says it is transparent. On Tuesday, it released some of its own figures as part of a document boasting of its achievements on immigration, including that 1.2 million migrants have been deported or removed during Trump’s second term. The discrepancy could not immediately be reconciled.
In the absence of regular data, analysts and activists interested in immigration trends have relied on information obtained through lawsuits or limited and sporadic information released by federal agencies to track deportation data.
Homeland Security targets nine states in a push to identify voting fraud, a move critics denounce as tantamount to voter intimidation.
Published On 22 Oct 202622 Oct 2026
A United States federal judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt operations aimed at finding non-citizen voters in nine states ahead of the midterm elections.
The ruling by US District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said the investigations likely violate a provision of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits voter intimidation. She further said the DHS may have relied on flawed data in its investigations.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
That leads to “an objectively reasonable fear of law enforcement entanglements that intimidates citizens from urging or aiding others in exercising their right to vote”, she wrote.
The order applies to federal efforts targeting California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.
The DHS has publicised what it has described as a push to identify individuals who have committed voter fraud, with some local offices posting photos of agents knocking on the doors of suspects.
The operations come as the administration of US President Donald Trump has sought to highlight instances of voter fraud ahead of the November 3 midterm vote.
While there are recorded instances of fraud in every election cycle, such isolated cases remain exceedingly rare.
There has been no evidence to indicate that non-citizen voters have influenced the outcome of any election at any level in the country.
In a statement following Thursday’s ruling, the DHS maintained that its investigations were aimed at “removing aliens who vote and dilute the votes of US citizens”.
“We have no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be US citizens,” it said.
In their lawsuit challenging the DHS’s efforts, the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, along with the Voto Latino Foundation, San Francisco and Santa Clara County, said that some US citizens felt they were wrongly identified and questioned as part of the investigations.
A lawyer representing the groups said it was “clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people’s homes weeks before an election”.
Benjamin Farley, the supervisory counsel for democracy defense at the National Immigration Law Center, said the ruling sent a strong message about voter intimidation ahead of the midterm vote.
“Yesterday’s decision is a clear rebuke of the government’s efforts to scare voters away from the polls this November and a reminder that all US citizens – regardless of color, place of birth, or the nationality of their family members – have the right to participate in American elections free of intimidation,” he said.
“No armed federal agent is going to stop us from casting our vote.”
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.
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.”
COLUMBUS, Ohio — President Trump said Thursday that Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee for Ohio governor, should keep running a controversial ad featuring the estranged mother of Democratic opponent Amy Acton, posting on social media that it was “hitting pay dirt.”
Trump also denounced Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who criticized the ad as “deeply, deeply troubling” earlier in the day. Acton previously served in DeWine’s administration as a health official. Her mother lost custody of Acton and her brother after her husband — the children’s stepfather — was indicted on a charge of raping Acton.
“He strongly suggested that Vivek should, ‘take down the Ad,’ ” Trump wrote. “He probably wants a Dumocrat to win, and certainly doesn’t want someone who will do a much better job than he is capable of doing. I suggested, on the other hand, that Vivek should keep it up, and let everyone listen to the mother of a defective, dishonest, and incapable Candidate, explain how the daughter is a DISASTER who, uncontrollably, lies, cheats, and steals!”
At a gathering with reporters at the Ohio Statehouse, DeWine recalled the painful experiences of rape victims he dealt with as a county prosecutor and state attorney general.
“It’s wrong to run this ad,” he said. “And, even at this late time — my wife, Fran, saw the ad just run this morning on TV — I would just urge the Ramaswamy campaign to take this down.”
The term-limited DeWine’s remarks place him at odds with Ramaswamy, whom he has endorsed. The biotech entrepreneur and former presidential candidate plans to spend $4 million to broadcast it online and on television.
DeWine stops short of pulling his endorsement
But the governor stopped short of pulling his backing of the Republican for now. DeWine recalled a previous line of attack by the Acton campaign had mentioned Ramaswamy’s mother and said that also was wrong — “family members have always historically been off limits” — though he noted it was never used in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign.
That critique from the summer cited an investigative report into Geetha Ramaswamy’s role at a pharmaceutical company run by her son, whom Acton and Democrats described as “hiring his own mother to manipulate clinical trial data.”
The Ramaswamy campaign called those claims “slanderous” and said he’s being held to a different standard than Acton and other Democrats who have attacked Republicans’ families.
“Governor DeWine is correct that the first and only candidate to attack the mother of her opponent in this race was Amy Acton,” spokesperson Connie Luck said in a statement, adding, “We refuse to accept the media’s double standards.”
Ohio Republicans divided over the ad
By chiming in, DeWine has entered the fray of a growing rift among Ohio Republicans over the advertisement — as both the governor’s race and a race for U.S. Senate appear far tighter than expected in a state Trump won handily three times. The video features Acton’s birth mother, Donna Arthur, calling her “a liar” and insinuating she has mental health issues.
Acton, Ohio’s COVID-19-era health director, has made no secret of facing homelessness and abuse as a child. Arthur lost custody of her children after their stepfather, Arthur’s husband, was indicted on a charge of rape involving Acton. Acton’s campaign on Tuesday posted a video of her brother, who supported her backstory about living in a tent and being abused.
Republican Vice President JD Vance, an Ohio native son, expressed disgust during an Ohio campaign swing Wednesday with Republicans “whining” about the ad as low and in poor taste. But Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, DeWine’s former lieutenant governor — running in a tight retention race against Democrat Sherrod Brown — has said he would not have run the ad, as has Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is running for state auditor.
Another influential Ohio Republican, former U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci, posted a lengthy essay on X overnight, suggesting that “the floor may have just fallen out from under the Republican campaign for Ohio Governor” and urging every Republican to distance themselves from it.
Amid the turmoil, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Alex Triantafilou posted what sounded like a warning, or a threat.
“The final days of a tough campaign are always the best time to find out who is really with you and who just posts and pretends,” he wrote. “Yes—we are keeping score.” The quote was followed by a winking-eye emoji.
Ad has faced bipartisan rebukes, support in conservative media
The ad is also dividing Republicans nationally.
Nikki Haley, who sparred with Ramaswamy during the 2024 Republican presidential primary over the personal nature of his attacks, called him “a bad guy” in a social media post Tuesday. “It’s a shame he continues to get away with it,” she wrote.
At the same time, Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog group, has reported that many within the national conservative media are promoting and praising the ad. Ramaswamy’s campaign manager, Jonathan Ewing, characterized it as “a campaign-ending moment for Amy Acton.”
Wayne Allyn Root, of Gateway Pundit, called it “absolutely hilarious” and Daily Wire host Michael Knowles described it as “brilliant.”
Police and court records show Cledith Arthur was arrested and charged with the rape of Acton in July 1978, when she was 12, after her biological father lodged a formal complaint against him. The abuse allegedly happened from December 1976 to April 1978. Cledith Arthur failed to show for a court appearance and became a fugitive.
Donna Arthur remained married to him until his death in 2004.
The mayor of the small Central Valley farm town of Kerman pulled up to a bakery, her cellphone camera recording, and confronted federal immigration agents conducting an early-morning operation in which multiple people were detained.
“You’re not welcome in my city,” Maria Pacheco told the masked agents, identifying herself as the mayor. “You’ve taken enough people yesterday. We don’t want you here. You need to leave.”
As the men wearing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement vests drove away, she shouted: “How can you make a living kidnapping people? How can you sleep at night doing what you’re doing? … You are a sorry piece of sh—!”
Pacheco, who is running for a seat on the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, posted video of the Oct. 8 confrontation in Kerman — a mostly Latino city of 17,000 west of Fresno — on social media, labeling it: “Mayor Maria Pacheco Stands Up to ICE.”
The footage went viral. TikTok commentators praised her bravery. Comedian and actor George Lopez posted about it on Facebook — writing, “We need more politicians like Maria Pacheco!” — and she shared her campaign fundraising link in the comments.
A few days later, Pacheco allegedly drove through Fresno, closely following a vehicle driven by a man she assumed was an ICE agent.
Except, he wasn’t one.
Eric Bridges, a Fresno hairdresser, has accused Pacheco of closely trailing him in an orange Nissan Altima for more than 20 minutes on Oct. 14 and taking photos of his vehicles as she followed him to his sister’s house.
“I’m looking for ICE, and you look like ICE,” Pacheco told him, according to a signed statement submitted to the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office this week in which Bridges wrote that he wanted “to press charges to the fullest extent of the law.”
Bridges’ attorney, Roger Bonakdar, told The Times that Pacheco used his client “as a political trampoline so she could create social media clickbait” to benefit her political campaign.
“There are real concerns as to whether or not she is acting as some sort of vigilante law enforcement person, that she’s wrongfully abusing her position as an elected official,” Bonakdar said.
Bonakdar added that he filed complaints about the incident with the Fresno Police Department and county prosecutor.
Taylor Long, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said in an email that the information provided by Bonakdar had been referred to its Public Integrity Unit, which investigates public officials for potential crimes related to their office, but that “the receipt and review of information” does not mean a crime had occurred or that charges were warranted.
No charges had been filed by the district attorney’s office in connection with the incident as of Wednesday, Long wrote.
In an email to The Times, Pacheco wrote: “Regarding recent allegations, my only comment is this: If he wants to go to court, we will go to court.”
“Meanwhile, the Kerman Food Bank and other local organizations are experiencing food shortages as families face fear and uncertainty caused by recent immigration enforcement actions,” Pacheco wrote. “Parents are afraid to go to work or leave home, even to buy groceries, leaving more families struggling to put food on the table. … That is where our attention belongs, and where my time, energy and heart will remain.”
The encounter comes at a tense time in the Central Valley, where a surge this month in federal immigration operations and detentions has rattled agricultural communities, causing workers to stop showing up to farm fields and construction sites and families to keep their children home from school.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for information about the Oct. 8 operation outside La Princesa Real Bakery in Kerman, where Pacheco filmed her interaction with agents. Pacheco told the Fresno Bee that four of the bakery’s customers had been detained and that one was eventually released because he had lawful immigration status.
In his signed statement, Bridges wrote that he was driving near Kearney Park just west of Fresno on the afternoon of Oct. 14 when he noticed an orange car “pull behind me quickly and follow me into the park.” Bridges said he stopped his vehicle and was on the phone with his sister, telling her that he was being followed and that the driver was taking photos of him.
As he sat in the parking lot, he wrote, the car circled him for five minutes, and he could overhear the driver on the phone through her vehicle’s speaker system.
He then drove to his sister’s neighborhood, where the car tailed him into a cul-de-sac and stopped beside his white Mercedes sport utility vehicle — an encounter recorded by a home security camera.
When the female driver rolled down her car window, Bridges wrote, she asked who he was and he did the same. According to Bridges’ statement, the driver told him he was “in [her] ‘hood driving an unmarked car.”
Bridges wrote that he had a California Department of Motor Vehicles print-out affixed to the back of his vehicle and asked if she was a police officer or DMV employee.
She replied, “Don’t worry about who I am; I’m someone important” then accused him of being an ICE agent, Bridges wrote. Outraged, he began filming her.
In the home security footage, Bridges can be heard from a distance saying, “I didn’t know you owned the neighborhood,” and shouting in apparent surprise: “I look like I’m ICE?” after the woman speaks to him.
A close-up video that Bridges recorded shows a woman in sunglasses smiling as she drives away, with him saying, “Don’t you ever in your … life follow me, you weird-ass b—.”
Bridges wrote that she flipped him off as she left and that he learned she was the mayor of Kerman after reviewing the video footage.
Bonakdar, his attorney, said Bridges is a grandfather and hair stylist who has never worked for ICE or the Department of Homeland Security. When the driver of the orange vehicle saw him, Bonakdar said, Bridges was not wearing a face covering, as immigration agents often do, or a badge or tactical vest.
Pacheco “claims to be an advocate for minority groups, or to somehow have an interest in helping those people,” Bonakdar said. “I mean, she just victimized somebody who is a member of two minority groups. [Bridges] is a thin-framed, middle-aged Black gay man.”
Bonakdar said Bridges had received threats from people accusing him of being an undercover ICE agent and that some had told him he was not welcome in certain places.
On Oct. 15, the day after the alleged encounter with Bridges, Pacheco wrote a Facebook post about a street corner near agricultural fields just west of Fresno city limits: “I have spotted ICE on Shaw and Dickenson. White SUV. No plates. Driver is masked and hooded.”
Two days later, she took to Facebook again, writing: “I never imagined we’d live in a time when communities would fear masked men in unmarked vehicles. It’s exhausting living on constant high alert, watching for out-of-state or missing license plates, never knowing who’s next.”
Bianna Golodryga, a longtime international anchor and senior global affairs analyst for CNN, is leaving the network.
Golodryga, the co-anchor of the CNN International program “One World with Zain Asher,” announced her departure Thursday in a post on X. She will make her final appearance on the network Friday, according to a CNN representative.
“After nine wonderful years at CNN, I’ve decided to leave for an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up,” Golodryga said. “I’m grateful for the experiences, friendships and support from fabulous colleagues during my CNN years. Exciting news to share very soon!”
Golodryga’s exit comes three days after Christiane Amanpour, the network’s best-known international journalist, stated her intention to leave CNN next June.
In the short term, CNN and Skydance’s CBS News are operating independently under their current leadership. But consolidation is expected at some point with international bureaus being an expected early target. There is also anxiety among the CNN rank and file over how involved CBS Editor in chief Bari Weiss will be in the combined operations.
Weiss has been a polarizing figure at CBS since Paramount acquired her contrarian digital news site the Free Press last year and gave her oversight of the network’s storied news division. She has made major changes at “CBS Evening News” and the top-rated newsmagazine “60 Minutes,” where several correspondents were fired after accusing her of pushing them to add right-wing talking points to their stories.
Golodryga, 48, arrived at CNN as a contributor in 2017 and joined the network full time two years later. She previously served as co-host of “CBS This Morning,” and was an anchor for Yahoo! Finance. She also worked for ABC News as a correspondent and co-anchor of the weekend edition of “Good Morning America.”
Golodryga, who immigrated to the U.S. as a refugee from the Soviet Union in 1980, is the co-author of a young adult novel, “Don’t Feed the Lion,” which dealt with antisemitism.
TOPEKA, Kan. — At 94 years, the Kansas GOP’s streak of one-party dominance in Senate races is the nation’s longest because even in the toughest years, disaffected Republican-leaning voters have reliably drifted back to the party’s fold before Election Day.
But Republicans fear this year could be different, setting the race between Republican Sen. Roger Marshall and Democrat Adam Hamilton on track to be the most expensive in state history.
Hamilton, founder and senior pastor of the nation’s largest United Methodist church, has raised significantly more money than Marshall, who is seeking his second term. Hamilton’s candidacy — and voters’ disapproval of President Trump’s handling of the economy — have upended GOP hopes of seeing Marshall coast to victory as the GOP tries to hold its Senate majority.
Kansas, which Trump carried in three presidential races, is an unlikely Senate battleground. Republicans redirected money from the North Carolina Senate race to help Marshall, and Trump flew to Kansas this week to hold a rally for him, calling Marshall “one of the greatest senators in our country”.
Stalwart GOP voters sensed a serious threat even before Trump announced his rally.
In Topeka, 81-year-old Julie Adamson has been praying about the election, but she’s also knocked on doors for Marshall, about 200 by her count. She said if Hamilton wins and Democrats control the Senate, “We’ll see, ‘impeach, impeach Trump.’”
“And nothing will get done for our country,” she added.
A formidable candidate emerged in a tough year for the GOP
Before entering the race, Hamilton already had a public profile in vote-rich suburbs through building his Kansas City-area Church of the Resurrection into a 25,000 member congregation. Churchgoing Protestants also knew him as the author of several dozen books, and he’s honed his speaking skills through weekly sermons.
Hamilton has positioned himself as a moderate and made rising prices, particularly for fuel, a key issue. During a debate Wednesday, both he and Marshall endorsed barring transgender girls and women from female sports teams. Hamilton called for local officials to make such decisions but suggested Marshall and other Republicans have been bullying transgender people by making the issue prominent in campaigns.
Marshall, a mostly retired doctor, portrays Hamilton as too liberal — radical, even — for a state where less than 26% of the 2 million registered voters are Democrats, while more than 44% are Republicans.
During Wednesday’s debate, Marshall repeatedly said a Hamilton victory would put Democrats in charge of the Senate and that Hamilton would vote with liberal Democrats.
“We need to remind everybody that control the Senate goes through Kansas,” he said.
There are signs that voter enthusiasm is with the Democrats as advance voting has surged across the U.S. compared to the last midterm. In Kansas, it has more than doubled for the same period.
Amanda Chavez Thomson, who is part owner of a small home-restoration business, said she believes change has been needed “for quite some time.”
“I think we finally have a candidate that can give us that energy and that surge that we need from people who may be on the fence or may not have voted in the past,” she said.
Fundraising emerges as a key concern for Republicans
Since the state’s August primary, Republican groups have committed to spending more than $26 million on television and digital advertising to boost Marshall, more than what they spent in his first race in 2020, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. Including Marshall’s campaign, total GOP ad spending would exceed $32 million.
But Hamilton and Democratic groups together have committed to spending more than $38 million, according to AdImpact. Total ad spending — involving more than 40 groups outside the campaigns — would be about $71 million, a record for Kansas.
One of the reasons the GOP is pushing money towards Marshall may be that the incumbent has proven a lackluster fundraiser. Between the state’s August primary and Thursday, Hamilton has collected more than 10,000 contributions from Kansas residents, while raising $8 million from across the U.S., online campaign finance reports show. Marshall has about 200 contributions from Kansans while raising $905,000 total.
“People are crying out, saying, ‘Come on, Roger Marshall, speak up for us,’” Hamilton said during Wednesday night’s debate.
Marshall talking about liberal Democrats and ‘wokeness’
Marshall’s campaign and GOP groups have tried to knock any shine off Hamilton’s public image by attacking how he’s led his church and using snippets of his own sermons to portray him as too “woke.” During Trump’s rally, Marshall called Hamilton “the most radical liberal Democrat to ever get through a Senate primary in the history of Kansas.”
But such attacks aren’t resonating with at least a few disaffected Republicans. Don Hineman, a western Kansas rancher and former GOP state House majority leader, said he’s tired of “woke” being as an insult.
Hineman, who has signed on to the Republicans for Hamilton group, added that no one “was more ‘woke’ than Jesus Christ.”
Democrats have countered with television ads over Marshall’s pursuit of unpaid patient bills from the practice as an obstetrician that he gave up a decade ago. State court records online show that from 1996 through 2016, Marshall or his practice filed at least 700 debt-collection lawsuits, occasionally 10 or more a day.
The New York Times first reported the extent of the litigation. It said that in 81 cases, patients were arrested for missing court dates and quoted two experts who called Marshall’s tactics extreme. During Wednesday’s debate, Marshall said he’s faced a “gross mischaracterization” of his actions.
History and loyalty have been key assets for the Kansas GOP
Democrats can hold out hope for a Hamilton victory because the state has sizable blocs of moderate Republican and independent voters who’ve regularly swung elections to their candidates for governor and who protected abortion rights in a statewide vote in 2022.
Yet Republicans still have two key assets: Kansas’ political history and the loyalty that even unhappy Republican-leaning voters show to the party.
Not only have Democrats lost every Senate race in Kansas since 1932, no Democrat has come within 10 points of winning since 1974. In both 2014 and 2020, races considered tossups in mid-October fizzled, and Marshall’s predecessor, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, won.
Leroy Towns, a former Roberts chief of staff, said many Republicans in 2014 who considered voting against Roberts “just couldn’t do it.” Towns — who switched parties because of Trump — is backing Hamilton.
Towns believes Hamilton will win, but added, “That Republican pull at the end of an election is really, really strong in this state.”
Hanna and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. Cappelletti reported from Washington. AP writer Nicholas Ingram in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.
Not too long ago, when it came to dealing with Maduro & Co., Ric Grenell was considered a key figure in Washington DC. As the US braced for Trump’s second coming, Grenell was even deemed a contender to lead the State Department. The president opted for Marco Rubio, but created a new diplomatic post exclusively for Grenell: the Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions, which had a Special focus on Venezuela and North Korea.
Given the leeway some middlemen retain in the Trump White House, Grenell’s debut was the subject of widespread speculation about who would ultimately command the Venezuela portfolio. Days into the second Trump presidency, while Maduro secured his last inauguration with an iron fist, Grenell arrived in Miraflores to meet with the dictator and his political strategist, Jorge Rodríguez, who looked delighted. Grenell left Caracas with six US citizens Maduro had held hostage, which he framed as a resounding diplomatic victory, though many more American prisoners were still left behind. He soon reaped a reward: Trump appointed Grenell to manage the Kennedy Center, an ideal hub to sow political and financial connections through grandiose social events. The president even wanted to rename the venue after himself. Grenell—widely considered a “MAGA insider”—emerged as an ideal ally to seal Trump’s imprint on the institution. It didn’t last long.
Twenty months later, he lost the job at the Kennedy Center and currently has no place in the current arrangement between Trump and Delcy Rodríguez.
Since last week, Grenell has been embroiled in a scandal of a multimillion-dollar, international dimension, which goes back to his Kennedy Center tenure. It speaks of the network of friends and contacts he had access to when empowered vis-à-vis the chavista clique. The New York Times characterizes the unfolding saga as “bitter even for Trump-era standards.” As it stands, the episode is yet another example of the broad discretion and opacity that US officials have claimed for themselves to navigate relations between Washington and political elites in Caracas, Balkan capitals, and beyond.
The Mildons and a misplaced transaction
The saga gained attention when news broke about the wedding between Trump’s former personal lawyer Alina Habba, 42, and Turhan Mildon, an obscure Turkish investor in his 20s with ties to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mildon started to operate in Venezuela’s construction industry when Maduro was still in power, after a seemingly lucrative experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Love and business drew him to Caracas, the Middle East Eye reported in September: Mildon was then in a relationship with the daughter of Remigio Ceballos, a powerful chavista military commander, while he partnered with the Venezuelan State to revive as many as 10 unproductive cement plants.
His facilitator in Caracas was no other than Alex Saab, the disgraced moneyman of Maduro who is now in US custody.
According to New York Times reporters, Mildon not only lobbied Saab for the “Vencement” deal, but also took over a once-successful shrimp exporter Maduro seized in 2024. The company’s original owner is imprisoned in Venezuela.
Regarding Mildon’s new romance, he told the MEE that he met Habba some time ago through a mutual friend, “an ambassador in the US.”
All smiles between Habba and the special envoy in the early days of Trump’s second term. Source: Grenell’s Instagram account.
The public fallout between Habba and Grenell surfaced last week, involving allegations over political favors in exchange for a multi-million-dollar contribution that was never registered. Axios first reported that Habba stormed into the Oval Office to tell Trump that Grenell persuaded Mildon, her new husband, to wire a $17.6 million donation to the Kennedy Center last year via a third-party’s bank account. Grenell denied the allegation on the spot, challenging the Mildons to submit proof.
Caracas Chronicles reached out to Grenell’s camp for comment on these developments and any reflections on his work in Venezuela, including whether he remains in contact with government officials under Delcy. We haven’t received a response. A Venezuelan opposition source who closely monitors Alex Saab’s legal case and business dealings declined to comment at this stage.
On Monday, Axios gave us an idea of the kind of evidence that Mildon’s lawyers are handing over. Grenell reportedly texted Mildon that the transaction would secure access to US officials, maybe even the president himself, through “VIP events” at the Kennedy Center. Grenell also offered to make him “the American face down in V,” which sounds like he saw Mildon as a potential poster child for US business interests in Maduro’s Venezuela.
Axios reports that a private defence company called TXAT allegedly received the payment. The transfer would not come from Mildon’s bank account, but from an account linked to the Congolese Ministry of Finance.
While revelations pile up and the Mildons build their case before President Trump, Grenell keeps witnessing his own change of luck, which began in the second half of last year, with the US military deployment in the Caribbean, and continued with Maduro’s ousting on January 3.
A bad streak
“I understand what he [Maduro] wants. I believe we can still have a deal. I believe in diplomacy, I believe in avoiding war,” Grenell claimed on September 17, 2025, during the CPAC international conference in Asunción, Paraguay.
Grenell already looked out of the loop. It was the early days of a US military campaign a few kilometers away from Venezuela, which had the stated purpose of dismantling narco-trafficking networks in the region. Grenell had become a champion of a supposedly mutually beneficial cooperation with the chavista elite in previous months. In contrast with the likes of Rubio and Mauricio Claver-Carone, Grenell pushed for the normalization of relations between the Trump administration and the Maduro regime. He portrayed his in-person meeting with Maduro and Jorge Rodríguez as a sign of what his approach could achieve. Soon, the US began deporting Venezuelan migrants and detainees in charter flights to Maiquetía, which Grenell could publicize as proof that his plan was working.
Analysts and reporters speculated over which idea would prevail: Grenell’s pitch that working with Maduro was the safe bet, or Rubio’s insistence on revoking the Chevron license and gutting the regime of financial resources. Soon enough, a tougher sanctions regime would isolate Venezuela. Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth grabbed the spotlight. Grenell found himself sidelined, but kept insisting his approach was the right one.
“I continue to talk to Maduro’s team,” Grenell told CBS after returning from CPAC, which featured the likes of presidents Santiago Peña and Javier Milei, and right-wing commentator Javier Negre, a Spanish media figure whose visibility in “Twitterzuela” has grown for praising Delcy Rodríguez and criticizing María Corina Machado’s camp.
Negre and Grenell pose together at CPAC 2025, in the Sheraton Hotel of Asunción. Source: Estado de Alarma TV.
Donald Trump shut Grenell down via telephone two weeks later, according to The New York Times, in the middle of an Oval Office meeting with senior military leaders. Grenell reportedly received orders to cease all communications with Maduro’s camp.
The aftermath of January 3 would further push him out. Rubio took an active role in handing instructions and often dealing directly with Delcy Rodríguez. In March, Grenell was relieved of his duties as president and executive director of the Kennedy Center. He formally retains the “Special Missions” post, but has stayed off the radar while other names (Claver-Carone, Alejandro Betancourt, Chris Wright and Jarrod Agen, to name a few) gained prominence over the Caracas dossier.
The unlucky colleagues
A string of successive scandals has also affected other Trump administration officials, who had to resign from their posts last week. Evidence available from open sources indicate two of them are close to Grenell.
The latest example is Katie Zacharia, the shortest-serving Press Secretary in the history of the White House. Following a clumsy first (and last) press briefing, Zacharia faced scrutiny over the false claim that she was an attorney. Some quick fact-checking from US media and observers found that Zacharia was neither licensed to work as counsel in the US nor that she worked as a lawyer in China, as she alleged at some point. Her LinkedIn page says she served as “general counsel” for Fix California, a non-profit that Grenell launched in 2021. The organization is focused on voter registration and advancing conservative causes in the Golden State, the liberal stronghold run by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom—a constant target of Grenell’s attacks on social media.
Last year, Zacharia appeared twice in conservative media hailing Grenell’s work in Venezuela. On Fox News Night in February 2025, she recounted how Grenell supposedly forced Maduro to give in:
People didn’t know these hostages [American political prisoners in Venezuela] were in Venezuela. He asked Maduro: “I want these six hostages,” and he said, “Oh, I don’t have them.” And Ambassador Grenell said: “I need them, I’m gonna go back to the airplane and you’re gonna get them for me.” And the regime brought them to him…
The other disgraced ally of Grenell is Kimberly Guilfoyle, the ex-fiancée of Donald Trump Jr. (and Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife), who served as the US ambassador in Athens until last week. Guilfoye’s dismissal was actually the only news Katie Zacharia shared during her only presser.
Guilfoyle, whose fondness for parties and luxury was no secret, faced rising scrutiny in September. The Wall Street Journal reported that a Greek-American lobbyist had become a constant presence alongside her in official meetings across the Balkans, promoting energy deals with a Greek construction company. Then, the same journalists found that Guilfoyle asked a Trump donor to pay her $100,000 credit card bill just before her confirmation hearing. Despite some initial denial, the episode went on to exhaust Rubio and Trump, who forced her to resign last week.
The president also fired Paolo Zampolli last week, who served as special envoy for global partnerships. A longtime modeling agent, Zampolli is credited with introducing Donald Trump to Melania in 1998.
Guilfoyle, Don Jr. and Grenell at the latter’s farewell party as US ambassador to Germany.Grenell, Guilfoyle and Habba in an event at the Madison Square Garden.
Public records show that Grenell has also had interests in Southeastern Europe, where association with pro-Russian autocrats and involvement in controversial deals continue to dog MAGA and Trump’s owninner circle. Having served as special envoy for Kosovo-Serbia negotiations during Trump’s first term, Grenell maintains a close relationship with Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia’s increasingly authoritarian leader, who recently resigned the presidency to run for prime minister in a bid to further entrench his power. After leaving that post, Grenell advocated for a major luxury complex in central Belgrade backed by Jared Kushner’s investment firm.
In Romania, Grenell drew scrutiny for publicly opposing proceedings against internet personalities Andrew and Tristan Tate, who face severe criminal charges including human trafficking and rape across multiple jurisdictions.
Grenell, Machado and the Rodríguez siblings
A Venezuelan opposition insider suggests Grenell’s sidelining helped put an end to media noise about the Trump administration pursuing a diplomatic and commercial understanding with Maduro in 2025.
Grenell first came into contact with Maduro associates in 2021, when Florida politician David Rivera and Raúl Gorrín coordinated a backchannel meeting in Mexico City between Jorge Rodríguez, Grenell and Erik Prince. Delcy’s brother offered to swap six American prisoners for Alex Saab, then in US custody for the first time. Rivera, who couldn’t make it to the encounter, faces a decade in prison for secretly lobbying on behalf of Maduro during Trump’s first term—an operation orchestrated by Delcy Rodríguez, who finally achieved an understanding with Washington this year.
Grenell was perceived as a nuisance for regime-change ambitions among many opposition figures and observers. María Corina Machado had contact with Grenell in early 2025, but the relationship soured before long. Two senior members of Machado’s team were approached for a comment on Grenell’s role and relationship with their camp. Neither has replied so far.
Grenell reportedly sought to meet the opposition leader in person while she was hiding in Venezuela. The New York Times reported that she refused to provide a list of political prisoners who Grenell could prioritize during negotiations with chavista representatives. Grenell later voiced his displeasure when Machado won the Nobel Prize instead of his boss, claiming in a tweet that the award had “died years ago.”
Now, both Machado and Grenell appear to lack Trump’s confidence. But Machado is expected to find her way back to Venezuela, one way or another, while Grenell could face disgrace, deprived from the opportunity of providing access to the investment rush “down in V.”
