trump

The District of Columbia (DC) and the state of Virginia have filed a joint lawsuit to halt the construction of a large triumphal arch sought by United States President Donald Trump.

Filed on Saturday, the lawsuit denounces the project as “flagrantly unlawful” and “legally indefensible”.

It calls on the federal court system to bar construction before it starts.

Otherwise, the lawsuit warns, Trump could claim that pausing construction already under way would pose a national security risk, as he has done with other controversial projects in the past.

“This is not the first time that Defendants have rushed to dramatically remake the District too quickly for courts to intervene,” the lawsuit reads. “This Court should not allow this effort to escape judicial scrutiny.”

Saturday’s complaint brings the total number of lawsuits against the arch to three.

Trump has championed the prospect of building a triumphal arch, similar to the Arc de Triomphe built in Paris during Napoleonic times.

Trump’s arch, however, is designed to stand 30 metres (100 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. It would tower from the Memorial Circle in Washington, DC, at 76 metres (250ft).

That colossal scale has prompted outrage, particularly from veterans’ groups who fear the arch would block views of Arlington National Cemetery, a hallowed military grave site.

White House officials maintain that ground could be broken as early as next week, on or around November 5.

On Friday, the administration unveiled a 106-page proposal for the arch to be a 12-storey megastructure, featuring a winged bronze statue of Lady Liberty lifting an eternal flame.

The arch would include two mezzanines and an observation deck with panoramic east-west views, as well as programme spaces, offices and a “fire command centre”.

Trump has previously said the arch would double as a military hub with snipers and drone capabilities.

Construction on the arch would also result in significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic to nearby roads.

In Saturday’s lawsuit, Attorneys General Brian Schwalb of Washington, DC, and Jay Jones of Virginia pointed to the project’s disruptive footprint as a major concern.

“As soon as defendants break ground on this project, they will inflict irreparable harm on both the District and Virginia,” the lawsuit said.

It warns that the anticipated three-year construction project will stymie commuter traffic, slow down emergency vehicles and generate significant pollution, including “stormwater runoff into the Potomac”.

The lawsuit calls on the court to force the Trump administration to get congressional authorisation before any construction can begin.

The new legal challenge comes on the heels of an October 8 filing by Arlington County, which was the first governmental body to mount a legal action against Trump’s planned monument.

In that lawsuit, the county’s governing board argued that the project would cause “significant harm” to its residents and likely require changes to nearby flight paths.

The first complaint came in February, when a group of Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian launched an effort to stop the arch.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing that case, and she is weighing whether to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily freeze any construction plans while the court hears arguments.

At a hearing on Friday, Chutkan deferred an immediate ruling but signalled that she would be issuing a decision expeditiously.

She previously ordered the administration to give the court 48 hours’ notice before undertaking any activities related to the construction of the arch.

The monument has already received early approval from the US Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all tapped by Trump.

In a cascade of rulings in the days before Tuesday’s elections, federal judges have rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to wrest control over state voting processes, pressure state and local elections officials into complying with their demands and turn the midterm vote into another opportunity for immigration enforcement.

In Northern California late Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson granted labor unions representing California poll workers a sweeping order barring the Trump administration from an array of election-related actions, including demanding that those workers set aside ballots from voters whose eligibility the administration has questioned, and threatening them with criminal sanctions if they refuse to do so.

“Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

A Justice Department spokesperson criticized Thompson for ruling “without even waiting to hear from the United States,” and said her decision was part of a “two-track system of justice” in which other federal judges have delayed the Trump administration’s “own urgent election claims” until after election day.

“The Department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options,” the spokesperson said.

The ruling followed three others — one in district court in Los Angeles and two in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — in which federal judges blocked the administration’s effort to force California elections officials to immediately set aside the ballots of 20,000 voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens, instead setting a schedule for more fact-finding in the case after polls close.

It followed a ruling in a separate case in Washington, D.C., in which a federal judge demanded that the Trump administration turn over its list of alleged noncitizen voters to advocacy groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Data analysts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project wrote in court Saturday that their review of the provided list found it “contains extensive errors” and includes citizens and thousands of others who are not on California’s voter list.

And it came about the same time as a decision late Friday by the full 9th Circuit not to reconsider a ruling by a smaller three-judge panel upholding an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin in Oakland. She had barred federal immigration agents looking for noncitizen voters from conducting door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states.

The administration’s losses — in cases with broad scope and real implications in an election that will determine control of Congress — are the result of legal challenges from a coalition of liberal states such as California, localities such as Los Angeles County, and immigration, voting rights and labor groups.

But they are also the product of a bipartisan stable of federal judges — including appointees of President Trump — who have described the administration’s efforts as unconstitutional and a threat to one of the most core functions of American democracy.

Those judges weighed that threat against the alleged threats to election integrity from noncitizen voters that the Trump administration claimed, and found the former to be greater than the latter.

“To be sure, there are countervailing public interests at stake. There is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of elections. But as discussed, the district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California’s established voter-eligibility procedures,” wrote the 9th Circuit majority — one Trump appointee, one President Biden appointee — that refused to block the 20,000 votes. “In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County’s entire election.”

Those in the coalition resisting the administration’s efforts celebrated the rulings and praised the courts.

“The judicial smack down on Trump’s unlawful efforts to undermine our elections continues,” wrote California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has litigated several of the cases, in response to Thompson’s Friday night ruling in favor of the labor unions. “Trump is racking up loss after loss as he enters the final death throes of this election and desperately and wildly lashes out against the will of the voters.”

“4 DAYS UNTIL ELECTION DAY. Remember: Your vote matters. Don’t be intimidated. Keep voting as normal,” wrote Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in response to the same ruling. “The courts are upholding the rule of law, and states — not Donald Trump — run our elections.”

“We said we would not let the Trump administration bully election workers, and today we won a critical court order blocking those threats,” SEIU International President April Verrett said. “This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve.”

The flurry of rulings has been prompted in part by the administration itself, as Justice Department officials have worked to push the cases through the courts at breakneck speed in search of relief ahead of election day.

The 9th Circuit has already ruled twice in the case over the 20,000 California ballots, for instance, because Justice Department lawyers appealed the matter before the district court ever ruled, on the notion that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was taking too long to make a decision.

When the 9th Circuit rejected that effort and kicked the case back down to Carter, he issued one of the most striking rulings of the week.

“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection. Individuals who have met the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors,” Carter wrote. “The public interest also favors the protection of election staff, who are working diligently to ensure that all citizens can cast their votes.”

When the Trump administration appealed that ruling once more to the 9th Circuit, the same panel majority — Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — slapped it back again. They wrote that the administration’s arguments were legally flawed in multiple ways, not least in that they sought clearly unconstitutional executive authority to intervene in an election.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” they wrote.

The Trump administration’s immediate response was striking — in that there was none.

After weeks of denouncing California officials for continuing to tabulate ballots and stressing to the courts that such counting constituted an emergency from which it required immediate relief, rapidly appealing adverse rulings and arguing over the merits of each twist with California officials on social media, the administration was silent.

The administration missed a deadline for requesting that the three-judge panel’s ruling be revisited by the full appellate court. It made no immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A. who argued the case before Carter and has vociferously defended the case on social media, was silent. Neither the Justice Department nor Essayli’s office responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

Four more days.

Time is rapidly running out for Mayor Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who are preparing for one last grueling push to reach voters in the mayoral election by Tuesday. With the UC Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll showing a dead heat, the two are expected to fan out across the city over the weekend, hoping to generate some free news coverage, a burst of social media posts and face-to-face contact with voters.

Bass is planning another appearance Saturday with real estate developer Rick Caruso, who was a ferocious critic of the mayor in the wake of the Palisades fire but mended fences with her in recent months. She also has a rally that day in Westlake with organized labor and a tour of small businesses in Boyle Heights with state Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles).

Raman heads Saturday to a Halloween block party in the San Fernando Valley and an event in downtown L.A. featuring workers from Unite Here Local 11, which has sent canvassers to knock on doors on her behalf. On Sunday, her agenda includes a church service in Boyle Heights and a door-knocking event in Northridge.

“This movement is reaching every corner of Los Angeles, and this weekend, we’re taking that energy all over this city,” Raman said.

Mayor Karen Bass speaks to volunteers who are phone banking at her campaign headquarters on Oct. 25, 2026, in Los Angeles.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Bass and Raman had already ramped up their schedules in recent days. The mayor appeared Thursday evening with Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, one of her endorsers, at a news conference about streetlight repairs in Hollywood. The following morning she was in Encino, talking to residents frustrated with Raman’s performance in their district.

In an interview with The Times, Bass summed up her packed itinerary using a single word over and over.

“Voters, voters, voters, voters. And that’s what I’ve been doing,” she said. “I’m just exhausted. Voters and media, from early morning until late at night.”

Raman, for her part, tried to develop an overarching theme around her events, standing outside Department of Water and Power headquarters in downtown L.A. on Tuesday to highlight the issue of soaring electrical bills and heading to Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday to ding the mayor over her oversight of SkyLink, the elevated airport people mover that is behind schedule and $1.4 billion over budget.

Those and other news conferences were built around her promise to provide greater oversight as mayor. But over the weekend, Raman is expected to dial back the policy a bit, heading to two Día de los Muertos events and going trick-or-treating with her twins.

The Garcetti gang stumps for Raman

With the battle for L.A. mayor now in the home stretch, one longtime political figure has managed to stay largely out of the public eye: former Mayor Eric Garcetti, who served at City Hall right before Bass.

We can’t say the same for many former members of Garcetti’s political and government teams. Over the last few months, they’ve been popping up at a number of Raman events, and a few have had pivotal roles with her team as she runs for mayor.

Nithya Raman, center, joins supporters including registered nurse Kerry Cavazos, left, with SEIU 121 RNs, at Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles on Oct. 20.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Raman has been relying heavily on campaign strategist Jeff Millman, who was a Garcetti advisor on and off throughout his mayoral tenure. She’s turned to Rick Cole, a former Garcetti deputy mayor now on the Pasadena City Council, for policy guidance. And she has Dae Levine, a onetime Garcetti communications director, staffing her within City Hall.

But there’s more. The city’s former heat officer, Marta Segura, who was pushed out earlier this year, appeared at Raman campaign events focused on her support from environmentalists and Latinos.

Former high-level Garcetti advisor Rick Jacobs has shown up for several Raman news conferences, including a recent one celebrating her endorsement from County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath. In 2020, a member of Garcetti’s security detail accused Jacobs of sexually harassing him. Jacobs denied harassing anyone. The city paid $1.8 million to resolve the officer’s lawsuit.

Jacobs, a consultant, counts the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters as one of his clients. However, he is not working with their independent expenditure committee supporting Raman.

Other onetime members of Team Garcetti have pitched in financially.

Renee Dake Wilson, a former Garcetti planning commissioner, has donated at least $30,000 to independent expenditure committees backing Raman, plus an additional $3,600 directly to her campaign. Former Garcetti aide Leo Daube, now working for Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, has donated $2,800 to Raman since she entered the race.

Finally, Raman has relied on Jamie York for help with research, matching funds and compliance with city and state ethics rules. York was part of Garcetti’s campaign team in the 2017 election, helping with campaign fundraising.

State of play

— CARUSO CRACKS: After months of hedging, billionaire Rick Caruso revealed that he intends to vote for Bass, following nearly two years of sharp criticism of the mayor’s record. “For the love of LA, I must put the past behind me,” he said. Caruso said it’s not an endorsement.

— RATTLED BY ROBO-RAMAN: Raman’s campaign filed a lengthy ethics complaint against Thrive LA, a pro-Bass advocacy group, over its decision to set up an AI chatbot phone line mimicking Raman’s voice and mocking her record on homelessness. Thrive LA responded by saying it played by the rules and that its satirical chatbot is protected free speech.

— BATTLING FOR SMALL BIZ: Bass and Raman have been sparring over their approach to small business, with the mayor accusing her rival of ignoring those constituents. Business owners offered a more complex picture.

— SWITCHING TEAMS: Political operative Solomon Rivera left his high-level post in the mayor’s office earlier this year, resurfacing a few months later as principal officer with Unidos Con Bass, an independent expenditure group. Ethics experts questioned whether his change in jobs runs afoul of a law prohibiting coordination between outside campaigns and their favored candidates. Rivera’s lawyer said no coordination occurred.

— DSA DELAY: The Democratic Socialists of America once again postponed a vote on whether to rescind the L.A. chapter’s endorsement of Raman, over concerns she hadn’t taken a tough enough stand against Israel.

— OIL-DRILLING BAN: The City Council voted Wednesday to phase out oil drilling over the next two decades, making L.A. the largest city in the country to do so. Bass’ office signed the ordinance Thursday.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to fight homelessness went to South L.A., focusing on two sections within Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson’s district.
• On the docket next week: Duh! Tuesday is the last day to vote in the election.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

SACRAMENTO — Xavier Becerra is poised to make history as California’s first elected Latino governor, according to a new poll.

But the survey shows voters, and Latinos in particular, have mixed views on the significance and impact of Becerra’s probable win.

According to the poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, the veteran Democratic politician was backed by 61% of likely California voters, compared with 34% who supported his Republican rival, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton. That is slightly up from a September IGS survey that showed Becerra leading by 25 percentage points.

“He’s solidified almost unanimous support now among Democrats. Republicans are almost unanimous in the other direction,” IGS Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said.

Becerra, a former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, congressman and state attorney general, “hasn’t offended any significant parts of the Democratic Party” and has united the party’s voters by “hammering away” against President Trump, DiCamillo said.

When asked to name one or two top priorities for the election, 40% of likely voters chose pushing back against the Trump administration, followed by 34% who cited reducing the cost of living. It’s a reversal from the mid-September survey, when 44% of likely voters said the cost of living was a top issue and 37% listed fighting Trump.

Both of those issues far outweighed the concerns of California voters about other issues that dominated the political discourse in past elections, including fighting crime, creating jobs and improving public education and healthcare.

Becerra’s supporters “are over the top on fighting Trump administration policies,” DiCamillo said. “I mean, 62% of his supporters state that as their greatest concern in this election. It’s really uniting the Democrats.”

The veteran pollster attributed the surge in anti-Trump sentiment in recent weeks to actions that “irritate” Democrats, such as the federal government’s quest to find illegal voting in California elections, continuing immigration raids and the president’s downplaying voter concerns about inflation and gas prices.

The survey reveals a generational split between voters: Those younger than 50 were more likely to name the cost of living as a top issue, while voters 50 and older were more likely to name Trump’s policies.

Latino voters were more evenly split between the two issues, and more focused on other needs than voters of other ethnic and racial groups. They were more likely to list priorities including reducing taxes, fighting crime and protecting immigrant communities than white, Black, or Asian American likely voters.

Days before voting ends in the Nov. 3 election, 53% of likely voters have a favorable view of Becerra and 41% see him unfavorably. Hilton’s image continues its upside-down trend: 56% view him unfavorably and 34% have a positive opinion.

“There’s been a lot of negative campaigning by Hilton, but it doesn’t seem to have had any impact,” DiCamillo said. “Becerra is just riding high on his image rating with the voters. This is the highest image rating we’ve measured for him.”

The survey asked voters whom they expected to win the race, regardless of which candidate they are supporting. Ninety percent of Democrats and 80% of voters not affiliated with a major party expected Becerra to win. Half of Republicans and 58% of those who identify as MAGA said they believed Hilton will win — a striking number in a state where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1 and the GOP has not won a statewide race in 20 years.

“They are hoping against hope,” DiCamillo said.

If he wins Tuesday’s election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, Becerra would become the first-ever Latino elected governor and the first Latino in that office in 150 years.

Becerra’s support among Latino and white voters closely mirrors that of the overall electorate, with 60% favoring him. Becerra received a warmer reception from Black and Asian American voters in the state, according to the poll.

Asked how they felt about the possibility of electing a Latino governor, just over a third of all likely voters and 45% of Latino voters said they felt “proud.” But majorities of both groups — 52% of Latino voters and 58% of likely voters — believe electing the state’s first Latino governor is either “not too important” or “not at all important.”

For better or worse, voters also have low expectations about the impact of a potentially historic election.

Sixty-one percent of likely Latino voters, and 57% of total voters surveyed, do not believe that having a Latino governor would reduce racial inequalities in the state. And similar numbers doubt it would worsen racial tensions.

Among Latino voters, 40% believed electing a Latino governor would ease fear in their communities, but 43% disagreed. The remainder had no opinion.

“While greater than 4 in 10 Latinos feel proud and think it is important to elect a Latino governor, they also recognize that it will take much more than a single elected official to ease the fears and difficulties experienced by the Latino immigrant community,” IGS Co-Director G. Cristina Mora said. “With Trump still in office and prices still high, Latino voters seem cautious yet hopeful about the new governor.”

The poll was conducted online in English and Spanish from Oct. 19 to Sunday. Responses for the governor’s race poll came from a weighted sample of 1,477 respondents who already voted or were considered likely to vote in the November election, from a larger group of 2,787 registered voters throughout California. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

CHANDLER, Ariz. — At balloon-adorned tables in red, white and blue, a handful of voters inside a church gymnasium listened as Medina Moore explained what to do if federal agents show up at the polls.

Call a hotline, she told volunteers, where attorneys will be ready to respond. Take videos, report what you see and remove yourself from any situation that becomes intense, she advised.

It was one of Moore’s final poll monitor trainings in the Phoenix area before election day, preparing a few new “peacekeepers” to join the ranks of about 200 she has recruited from local faith groups in the Phoenix area to greet voters, answer questions and keep an eye out for issues at voting sites on Tuesday.

“It feels very urgent this year,” said Moore, the voting rights organizer for the Arizona Faith Network, a coalition of religious groups. “We’re in an era of information overload. Being able to educate voters on what’s true and what’s not is very important.”

As lawyers nationwide prepare defenses against possible election interference by the Trump administration and election officials train for worst-case scenarios, ordinary citizens across the country are also readying to help. Through nonpartisan groups, parents are training to be poll monitors, law students are staffing legal hotlines, veterans are holding voting events and business owners are signing pledges to back local election officials.

The grassroots efforts, underpinned by various voting and democracy nonprofits, amount to a striking push by American voters to help uphold the nation’s election system in the face of possible threats from its own government. More than 21,000 people nationwide have been trained as nonpartisan poll monitors through the Election Protection coalition, the program that Moore used, along with thousands of others through other nonprofit and partisan efforts.

The effort is aimed at helping ensure voter turnout at a time when Trump’s rhetoric has eroded public trust in the system and many GOP-led states have enacted new ballot rules for voters to navigate. Worry among voters about whether their ballots will be counted has accelerated, according to organizers; in a recent AP-NORC poll, just under half of American voters expressed confidence that midterm votes will be counted accurately.

“People who vote occasionally or it’s their first time voting or they haven’t voted in a while, they all have questions on ‘If I vote, will my vote count?’” said Rebekah Caruthers, president of the Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group that is working with college students to monitor voting on campuses. The best way to combat those fears, she said, is for as many people as possible to “show up and exercise their right.”

Since returning to office, Trump has undertaken a sweeping effort to exert control over and cast doubt on U.S. elections, and the administration has intensified its efforts as the midterms draw closer.

In recent days, the Justice Department has sued California, arrested residents and threatened to prosecute election officials over an unsubstantiated government claim of 20,000 “likely noncitizen” voters; moved to block certification of Alaska’s election results if the Republican candidate for Senate there loses narrowly; and began notifying counties of its plan to send federal monitors to polling places in every state.

“Be careful of the voter fraud,” Trump said at a Texas rally Tuesday. “We’re going to watch that voter fraud.”

Glendale Mayor Jerry P. Weiers, Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Andy Biggs, Cindy Biggs and Sam Darmo, co-chair of the Assyrian-American Republican coalition and president of Assyrians for Justice, stand for the national anthem at an event in Glendale, Ariz., on Oct. 24, 2026.

(Rebecca Noble / Getty Images)

This week, Trump offered $1 million to anyone who reports voter fraud that leads to a conviction, the latest in a string of incentives he has floated related to the midterms and another suggestion of rampant election fraud.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche last week said the Justice Department did not intend to interfere with elections. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) committed to a peaceful transfer of power if Democrats win a majority, saying, “We’re going to follow the Constitution,” but predicted there would be no transfer because Republicans would win the majority. Trump told reporters Tuesday that he would respect the election results “if they’re honest elections.”

Preparations by lawyers, nonprofits and Democratic lawmakers to anticipate how the Trump administration could try to interfere with the midterms have been underway for months. Courts have already blocked many of the administration’s steps, including attempts to access state voter rolls, restrict voting by mail and demand states change some election rules.

The grassroots effort has grown out of existing programs — the Election Protection coalition has been operating since 2000 — but interest from volunteers is particularly high this year, organizers from several groups said.

“Voters are responding to the moment that we’re in right now,” said Saige Draeger, a senior policy associate at Verified Voting, a nonprofit that advises states on the use of voting technology and is part of the Election Protection coalition. “I think they feel like it’s incumbent upon everybody to make sure this election goes smoothly.”

In Arizona, an epicenter of Republican efforts to deny the 2020 election results, partisan tensions have long been high, and residents cite concerns about potential political violence surrounding the election.

Now, election denialism is on the ballot: The Republican nominees for governor, secretary of state and attorney general each played a role in Trump’s denial of the 2020 results. Alex Kolodin, the Republican candidate for secretary of state, filed lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results.

The outcome of the race could be consequential for the 2028 election, because secretaries of state play a key role in certifying their states’ results, and presidential elections can come down to a single swing state. Along with the Arizona race, those in Nevada, Michigan and Georgia are being closely watched by pro-democracy groups.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signs a commemorative bill before a game between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Texas Rangers at Chase Field on Sept. 3, 2025, in Phoenix.

(Norm Hall / Getty Images)

On street corners, the campaign signs for Kolodin and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, the Democratic incumbent, duel: “Protect every vote,” say Kolodin’s. “Protect your vote,” Fontes’ read.

Organizers focused on election protection efforts stress that the goal is to ensure every voter casts their vote and the person who gets the most votes is declared the winner — all regardless of political party.

“With the level of polarization that we have nationally right now, people might mistake and think that calling for a free, fair, democratic election is somehow partisan,” said Hardy Merriman, an organizer with the Hold the Line project, which has recruited about 650 volunteers to ask their local leaders to sign on to a pledge affirming they back free and fair elections. “It’s really important for actors to get off the sidelines … and say, no, actually it’s not.”

The mission of the poll monitors is to answer voters’ procedural questions, ensure no one is incorrectly turned away from voting and provide a friendly nonpartisan face — “be a peaceful presence,” Moore said. They can help voters navigate state laws — in Arizona, for instance, a requirement to show an approved form of identification when voting.

The monitors are also trained to call the attorney-staffed hotline to report anything out of the ordinary: long lines that may deter people from voting, people being turned away from the polls, aggressive electioneering from partisans outside the polling place or law enforcement showing up at voting locations.

Monitors trained through the Election Protection coalition will be stationed in 40 states and the District of Columbia, while about 3,000 legal professionals will be staffing the hotline, said Camille Wimbish, national director of campaigns and field programs for the Election Protection coalition, which is a project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

“It gives voters reassurance that there is someone who has their back at voting locations,” Wimbish said. “It also just shows our determination as a community to stand up and say that we care about our elections, we want election day to be a joyful, peaceful, celebratory experience for all of us.”

PJ Boone-Edgerton Longoni, 70, who attended Moore’s mid-October training in Chandler at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, said the idea of poll monitoring made her a little nervous, but she believes there is a “high-stakes need” for citizens to show up.

“I want to be a support,” she said. “All this misinformation gets people not to trust anything, and that lack of trust causes things to fall apart — because democracy is based on trust.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Friday she would open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.

The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’ declaration that the court would appoint a “special master” into whether agency officials, and Justice Department attorneys, had made misrepresentations in the court is a far cry from her relationship with the government until this month. She had rejected numerous motions from the plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys.

The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of a monumental arch that, at 250 feet, would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty is from its base to the top of the torch. The two projects are barely three miles apart.

The hearing on the golf course change began as other recent ones have: Reyes questioned Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward Jr. over how Trump’s desires to turn the golf course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility have become urgent plans that match his public pronouncements.

Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous transcripts of the trial as she questioned Woodward. Among things she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details in a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course’s closure and renovation?

At one point, Reyes read the code of conduct to government attorneys on presenting erroneous or false information during a hearing.

Reyes ordered Friday’s hearing after multiple Truth Social posts by Trump indicated that there were plans for the golf course and construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months while work goes on.

The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward when officials from the Interior Department, Justice and Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust. The Justice Department filed notice Wednesday night that the plans were real.

“On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events,” the notice said.

Reyes locked in on the filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.

At one point, as they talked about plans that Woodward said came about only this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure.

Reyes responded immediately: “News flash.” She allowed him to correct himself that the tree cutting, which occurred earlier this month, was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Park Golf Course.

The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration’s push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the federal areas of the capital near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.

Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was to hold a hearing on a motion asking that she call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.

“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. “This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination.”

Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases that test the limits of presidential power.

Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound, sometimes not, said David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

“But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal,” he said. “What we’re seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can’t stop you,” you can break the law.

That’s ”going to do long-term damage to the country,” Super said.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

For the second time in less than a week, a United States appeals court has rejected a petition from the administration of President Donald Trump to set aside 20,000 ballots in California over concerns about non-citizen voting.

The decision came down on Friday, with less than four days until the November 3 midterm elections.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s request would violate the US Constitution and risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

“The consequence of the United States’s request is not merely ballot segregation, but ultimately both the cancellation of the ballot and the removal of voters from the voting rolls,” the majority wrote in its ruling.

Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez – appointed by Trump and his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, respectively – formed the majority.

A third judge, Trump appointee Patrick Bumatay, issued a dissent, saying the administration’s petition was a “reasonable request”.

The Trump administration has claimed that nearly 20,000 “likely non-citizens” received mail-in ballots to vote in California’s midterm elections on November 3. It sued the state on October 15 to prevent those ballots from being counted.

But the accuracy of the Trump administration’s list has been called into doubt, as have its claims of widespread non-citizen voting.

Election fraud in the US is extremely rare. So is non-citizen voting, despite Trump’s assertion earlier this year that as many as 278,000 foreign nationals across the country were registered to vote.

Like California, states such as Nevada and Washington have also received lists of alleged non-citizen voters, but officials there have found the documents largely inaccurate.

In Nevada, for instance, state authorities issued a statement in September saying the Trump administration had erroneously identified citizens as non-citizens on its list. Not a single name was correct, according to the statement.

California, a Democratic stronghold, will elect 52 members of the House of Representatives, one of Congress’s two chambers, on November 3.

The state has long been Trump’s target for criticism, with the president accusing its Democratic leadership of “cheating” in elections.

But California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have countered that the Trump administration is seeking to meddle in the state’s elections to sow voter distrust and undermine the results.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters,” Newsom said in a news release after the October 15 lawsuit.

Non-citizen voting in federal elections is against the law in all 50 US states, including California.

The Constitution’s Elections Clause also grants states exclusive authority to administer elections, though it does allow for Congress to pass regulations concerning voting procedures.

The Trump administration initially sent California its list of 20,000 “likely non-citizens” on October 12, barely three weeks before the midterm election.

California officials refused the administration’s demand to set aside the 20,000 ballots, requesting proof that the names on the list were indeed foreign nationals. According to the California government, no such evidence has been provided.

The Trump administration last week charged 28 foreign nationals in California with election-related infractions, but some of the accused told the Los Angeles Times they had never registered to vote.

The newspaper’s reporting suggested some of the non-citizen defendants shared the same name as eligible voters.

As the October 15 lawsuit navigated the court system earlier this month, the Trump administration sought an emergency ruling from the 9th Circuit Court to suspend the 20,000 ballots.

But the appeals court rejected the petition on Monday, saying the Trump administration had not given lower courts adequate time to weigh the matter.

A lower court ultimately ruled against the Trump administration on Wednesday, and the administration again appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.

In its majority decision, the appeals court framed the Trump administration’s lawsuit as an attempt to violate the Constitution’s Elections Clause.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” the majority wrote.

The majority also wrote that it had “major concerns” that granting the Trump administration’s request would “harm the public interest by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy”.

A federal appeals court for the second time Friday denied a Trump administration request to block 20,000 ballots from California voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens — ruling that the administration had failed to show that “such extraordinary relief, during an ongoing election, is clearly required by law.”

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution gives the state and Congress the power to decide how elections are run, and that allowing the Trump administration to “misuse” federal statutes to “prescribe” how California must process ballots would “override the plain and manifest dictates of the Constitution itself.”

“Because Congress has not exercised the specific power granted to it under the Elections Clause to override California’s established laws for challenging ballots or removing ineligible voters, the State Legislature’s statutory scheme remains the only method to do so,” the judges found.

The panel’s majority — comprised of Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — wrote that “if the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts.”

They also wrote that separate federal law prescribes sweeping changes to voter lists 90 days prior to an election, especially given questions about the reliability of the Trump administration’s list of purported noncitizens.

“The suspect reliability of these lists found by the district court reflects the concern Congress sought to mitigate with the 90-day quiet period,” they wrote.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, dissented — arguing that his colleagues erred in denying a basic request by the Trump administration to ensure only citizens are voting.

“The federal government proposes a modest remedy — stopping California from mixing the ballots of citizens and suspected noncitizens,” Bumatay wrote. “This solution would not cancel any vote but would allow time to verify the eligibility of suspected noncitizens. The district court, and now our court, denies this reasonable request.”

This article will be updated.

Democratic and independent voters could play the spoiler in a battle between two Republican incumbents vying for a solidly red congressional seat in Orange and Riverside counties.

Thanks to redistricting, Reps. Ken Calvert of Corona and Young Kim of Anaheim are pitted against one another in Congressional District 40, a newly redrawn territory that consolidates Republican voters in an area stretching from Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita and Anaheim Hills in Orange County to Woodcrest, Menifee and Murrieta in Riverside County.

Democratic leaders remade the district map as part of an overall effort to boost their party’s numbers in the U.S. House of Representatives after President Trump cajoled Texas into carving out districts more favorable to Republicans.

While considered deep red, District 40 still claims many Democratic and independent voters who could help sway the outcome.

“The question is, who are the Democrats going to support?” said Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party. He expects about half of the Democrats to not vote at all.

Self-identifying conservatives make up 33% of the district compared with liberals’ 27%, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. More independents lean Democratic (36%) than Republican (16%), according to the institute.

Democrats, so far, seem less than enthusiastic about their choices.

“I don’t care who wins in the 40th,” said Orange County Democratic Party Chair Florice Hoffman, who skipped voting in the race. “They’re both two bad choices, so I will not spend any time telling Democrats to go out to vote for either one of them.”

Kim may cast herself as a collaborative politician but if you look at her record, “she’s not any better than Ken Calvert. They both ran as 100% Trump — and really that’s how she votes,” said Hoffman, who lives in Orange.

Calvert topped the June primary, earning 35% to Kim’s 21%. Democrat Esther Kim-Varet came in third with 17%, followed by several Democrats and an independent.

Calvert, 73, retained about half of his constituents in the redrawn district. Kim, 64, kept about a third of hers.

Americans 4 Security PAC, which has spent more than $6 million backing Calvert, sent out fliers highlighting Trump and Kim’s ties, the Orange County Register reported. One mailer quoted Trump thanking Kim, while another announced: “Young Kim 100% pro-Trump.”

Political experts said these mail pieces are intended to dissuade Democrats from backing her.

With polls showing Democrats likely to take back the House, Los Angeles political consultant Jorge Flores said Kim’s reputation for working with others could help her among Democrats and independents deciding between two conservatives.

“Whether she convinces voters that she’s actually the right choice, I think it’s a steeper climb,” said Flores, who worked with the independent candidate in the primary.

The Democratic Party branches in Orange and Riverside counties make no mention of the race in their official endorsement guides.

Kim and Calvert are similar when it comes to backing Republican policies, Fleischman said, noting that both support Trump and have voted together about 95% of the time.

He described Young as someone who tries “to put together coalitions” while Calvert is “set in his ways.”

“Young probably has a better case to make to [Democrats], but it’s just too hard to tell,” said Fleischman.

A general election with two Republicans facing each other in a House seat is highly unusual. It’s a product of the state’s “jungle primary,” which advances the top two candidates, regardless of party, and Proposition 50, the voter-approved ballot measure that allowed the new congressional district lines.

Elected in 1992, Calvert is the longest-serving member of California’s Republican delegation in Congress.

Kim, known as a prolific fundraiser, was elected in 2020. She’s raised $10 million in direct donations, compared with Calvert’s $7 million.

Calvert sits on the House Appropriations Committee, where he chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The Americans 4 Security PAC attacking Kim counts two executives from Miami-based Palantir, whose software is used by the U.S. military, among its donors.

Before the primary, Kim stripped her campaign website of “America first” branding and references to Trump.

Chris Pack, a Kim spokesperson, said last month that she was “proud of her work with President Trump to deliver results for Southern California,” arguing the campaign’s messaging is focused on Calvert’s record.

In a social media post this week, Kim hammered Calvert as a career politician. She supports legislation banning members of Congress from trading stocks, wants to enact term limits and portrays herself as a pragmatist.

“What kind of Republican do you want representing you?” Kim said in a recent NBC4 interview.

Calvert’s campaign, meanwhile, labels Kim a RINO, or Republican in name only, a pejorative used to describe a disloyal conservative. She co-sponsored legislation to censure Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, although Democrats widely viewed the move as a slap on the wrist.

Calvert’s campaign has pointed to Kim’s 2021 vote with Democrats to repeal a Trump-era rule that rolled back methane-emissions regulations.

Calvert, who appeared this week at a rally in Murrieta alongside Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton and Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), labels himself a consistent conservative.

“People know exactly where I’m at,” he recently told Spectrum News. “I haven’t changed a bit in the 30 years, and so I’ll continue to give people the kind of common sense governance that they deserve.”

If you’ve watched anything from “Jesse Watters Primetime” to “The Daily Show” this week, you’re already up to date on the most important issue in America today: the decor of the Cheesecake Factory.

Earlier this week, former President Obama made a quip at a Cleveland rally that President Trump has renovated the White House to look like “Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory.”

Trump lost it. If we’ve learned anything about the president in recent years, it’s that he loves gold as much as he hates Obama. Roll them together in one moment, and the leader of the free world can’t help but freak out. He freaked out so badly, in fact, that he sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — a guy worth at least $500 million — to eat a French dip cheeseburger at the chain just to prove how great it was.

Absolutely, positively by random chance, Fox News happened to be outside when Bessent emerged from his everyman munch, just to let us know that “I had a great meal, always have a great meal.” OK, Scott.

But if you think this is all a silly back and forth with an unserious administration, think again. Obama is masterful at political strategy, and this wasn’t just a joke. It was rage-bait, crafted for engagement.

Why Saddam Hussein?

The deeper point of Obama’s remarks seemed entirely buried by media coverage that focused on the Cheesecake part. But why Saddam Hussein?

Trump didn’t seem to take issue with being likened to the brutal dictator responsible for killing and disappearing thousands to maintain power. In fact, in all of the rebuttals from Trump and his minions, the Hussein reference hasn’t been mentioned once.

But don’t think Obama choose that reference carelessly, or just for humor.

Hussein ruled Iraq in no small measure though a cult of personality. Like Trump, he loved showy monuments to his power, including a “Victory Arch” in Baghdad (Trump also wants to build an arch); weird fantasy artwork of muscle-bound men and dragons (similar maybe to Trump’s love of AI-generated images of himself); and of course, gold! There were marble and granite and gilt and gold everywhere in Hussein’s homes, even the infamous gold-plated toilet accessories American and British soldiers found when they made it into his palaces.

That ostentatious excess wasn’t just bad taste. It was a show of power. At the same time that Hussein was amassing his wealth and consolidating that cult of personality, his people were broke. Now, I’m in no way saying that Americans in 2026 are suffering the way Iraqis were under Hussein. But there’s a Marie Antoinette-style similarity between Hussein’s narcissist tendencies and Trump’s obsession with all that glitters — from the water in the reflecting pool to the walls of the Oval Office — even as the economy crashes.

Obama clearly understands that: Maybe you don’t want to cut food stamps to millions while you’re slapping up a new ballroom. Obama, after all, could have said the White House looked like Liberace had opened a Cheesecake Factory, but he didn’t. Instead, he chose to insert Hussein, a man whose ego-driven rule came at the expense of his own people.

Which brings me to the absolute brilliance of the joke. Sure, it was funny. Yes, it was quickly picked up as a viral clip.

But more than anything, it got to Trump in a way that was entirely predictable with his unbridled ego, and a way in which Obama almost certainly knew it would. In a way that links him to a dictator who cared more about gilt than people, but in a way so clever Trump himself grabbed the bait and ran with it.

Trump couldn’t stop himself

Hearing his taste criticized, all his beautiful, shiny gold mocked — by Obama of all people — was rage-bait that Trump could not ignore. Trump could not stop himself from responding, and even more, he couldn’t stop himself from demanding others defend him and his gaudy aesthetics.

And the ever-willing members of his cult of personality across government and right-wing media quickly complied — with an attack that Obama surely knew would be the only possible pushback: That he was elitist for making fun of the decor of a wildly popular average-family spot (Obama quickly hit back that the Factory was “his jam” and he, like many parents of teens, myself included, had eaten there numerous times.)

Dozens and dozens of Trump minions parroted the same line for days — how dare Obama mock such a beloved American eatery? How out of touch. How tan-suit, Martha’s Vineyard of him. Trump brought it up at multiple rallies. The official White House social media account posted about it. It was all over the right-wing ecosphere for days.

Never mind the economy, or the war in Iran, or inflation that makes a meal at the Cheesecake Factory increasingly feel like a caviar-and-Champagne night.

Or even this insane comment from Trump about inviting supporters to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida club that makes the Las Vegas Strip look classy, to spend the money he’s promised to them if Republicans win elections: “You’ll be my guest at Mar-a-Lago,” he promised at an Ohio rally. “The problem is that for $5,000, the most you’ll be able to buy is a hamburger and maybe a small dessert. … I’m not even sure you could buy that. No, don’t go there. That’s not a good place if you’re price conscious.”

And Obama’s elitist? That’s bonkers-level disconnection from the audience, but back to my point.

Suddenly, in the middle of a pivotal election, all Republicans are hearing about is the Cheesecake Factory, and how wonderful it is their president is plastering gold all over everything while they are wondering if they’ll be able to pay the gas bill this month.

Granted, the Republicans don’t have a lot of bright spots to focus on as they give their final message to voters. But I am guessing that even the reddest of ballot-clutchers doesn’t want to hear about the Cheesecake Factory, or how much marble Trump has installed at the entrance to the White House. That seems tone-deaf.

Obama’s purposeful provocation completely derailed Republican messaging for multiple, critical news cycles, all because Trump couldn’t stand to have his taste criticized by a guy who has become a bogeyman in his own brain.

Trump had to defend his excess, he couldn’t resist — and in failing to check his own ego, again, he put into the bright spotlight the truth that his followers are increasingly unable to ignore: The only thing that matters to Trump is Trump. Not the economy. Not the war, and certainly not the concerns of voters in the final days of the election.

Obama’s one-liner wasn’t just a zinger. It was political gold, an artful bit of rage-bait trolling that casually took control of the narrative with a well-aimed poke.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: How Meta struck a deal to keep Mark Zuckerberg in California despite looming billionaire tax
The California angle: As companies leave California, is the state’s $4.25-trillion economy really in trouble?
The L.A. Times Special: In Trumpworld, dogs who commit voter fraud aren’t as bad as immigrants

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Devin Elle Kurtz makes her opinion on generative AI known. For the last few years, the 29-year-old Pasadena artist says she’s been frustrated when strangers tell her that her art style looks AI-generated.

They have it backward, she insists. Kurtz, who has been sharing her art on the internet since she was a teenager, suspects that her viral art may have been used to train AI models. Her Instagram bio reads, “NO AI,” alongside a circle-backslash emoji.

Her feelings on the subject made what she discovered Thursday morning all the more painful, the artist said. Kurtz woke up to multiple emails from fans telling her that the Trump administration’s Department of Education had posted a meme on X that looked eerily similar to one of her works — fan art inspired by one of her favorite scenes from the animated series “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” In the work, Aang and Zuko are shown practicing fire-bending moves as two dragons move around them.

The Department of Education’s post includes an image of the two characters in seemingly identical stances, outfits and color scheme. “There’s magic in learning,” reads text added over the image. “Make education great again.”

The Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

Kurtz soon took to social media to condemn the Trump administration. She wrote on the platform: “I did not and would never consent to this administration running my fanart through AI and posting it. Can’t even believe I’m saying these words.” Her response had 150,000 likes as of late Thursday night.

“It definitely made me angry,” Kurtz told The Times on Thursday. “Seeing something that I made appropriated with a Make America Great Again-adjacent slogan on it made me quite upset. I knew I wanted to make it really clear that this was not something that I co-signed.”

Kurtz said she made the artwork in 2023 to share her love of the series with its creators and with other fans.

“Fandom at its core is supposed to be humans loving something together,” Kurtz said. “I want to live in a world where the things that I see around me are made by people. That is what being a human being is all about. Not just output for the sake of output.”

Kurtz said several tells led her to conclude that AI was likely used to alter her work. In the version shared by the Trump administration, the dragons have been removed, and the platform the duo is standing on has oddly sized bricks.

Since her fan art is based on existing intellectual property, she doesn’t intend to pursue legal action.

“It would be fantastic if the government didn’t take artists’ work and run it through AI and post it,” Kurtz said.

Kurtz joins a laundry list of artists who have accused the Trump administration of using their work without their knowledge, including singer Olivia Rodrigo and Japanese artist Hiroshi Nagai.

In December, singer Sabrina Carpenter was angered when her song “Juno” was used in the soundtrack for a Department of Homeland Security promotional video featuring clips of officers tackling and handcuffing people.

“[T]his video is evil and disgusting,” Carpenter replied. “Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.” The Department of Homeland Security has since deleted that video.

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

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

Here’s what you need to know.

What do the latest US midterm polls say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is happening in Alaska’s Senate race?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well-known Democrats have also joined the campaign trail.

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

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

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

Democrats also campaigned in Texas and Georgia on Thursday.

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

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

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

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

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

What happens next on the US midterms campaign trail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobel Peace Prize winner returns to Venezuela from exile, pressing for elections and criticising a controversial US oil deal with Caracas.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has thanked US President Donald Trump’s administration for opening the “floodgate to freedom” by abducting President Nicolas Maduro in January.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate on Thursday also called for elections to be held in Venezuela next year, in her first public remarks since returning from more than 10 months in exile.

“Thanks to their vision, their courage, and their action on January 3, the floodgate to freedom has been opened,” Machado told a news conference in Caracas, naming Trump, his administration and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio “has set out a sequence of events aimed at moving toward a democratic transition that makes clear the holding of presidential elections in 2027”, she said.

Machado has praised Trump before, presenting the president with her Nobel medal – a prize he feverishly coveted for himself in 2025.

A longtime activist, Machado fled Venezuela for Oslo in December to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. On Thursday, she said she had come home to “mobilise society”. US special forces veterans with an organisation called Grey Bull Rescue helped Machado escape by boat after she spent a year in hiding from Maduro’s regime.

Since Maduro’s abduction in January, the country has been ruled by his former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez.

Machado was greeted by cheering supporters as she travelled in her motorcade after she returned to Venezuela on Sunday. Rodriguez voiced distaste for the fanfare.

“The show could have been avoided – the airports are right here,” she said on state television.

When asked about a possible meeting with Rodriguez, the opposition leader said she had not received any message from her or from Washington.

Shortly before Machado’s statements on Thursday, Rodriguez assured the nation that elections would be held in Venezuela “with the world as witness” but did not specify a date.

Her return comes just weeks after a controversial US oil deal that will see Venezuela hand over 20 percent of its vast oil reserves.

“This agreement does not reflect the levels of transparency that Venezuelan society wants,” Machado said, criticising the deal.

The updated lawsuit cites a new report that Democratic operatives recruited a competitor to confuse voters and unseat a Republican incumbent.

The United States Department of Justice has filed a revised lawsuit seeking to decertify the results of a Senate race in the state of Alaska if Republican incumbent Dan S Sullivan loses narrowly.

The updated lawsuit on Thursday comes just days before the November 3 midterm election, which will determine control of Congress.

The complaint accuses Democrats of trying to confuse voters by placing a candidate with the same name as Sullivan on the ballot.

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

Democratic challenger Mary Peltola is seeking to unseat Sullivan, a Republican ally of US President Donald Trump.

But a New York Times report on Wednesday alleged that members of Peltola’s campaign helped recruit a retired teacher, Dan J Sullivan Jr, to run for the Senate seat as a spoiler candidate, designed to draw votes away from the incumbent.

The Times report prompted a renewed legal push under the Trump administration to bar Alaska from certifying its election results, should Senator Sullivan lose.

The Department of Justice issued 40 subpoenas and document preservation requests as part of the revised complaint, the Reuters news agency reported.

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy also ordered a criminal investigation into the allegations. Peltola’s campaign has denied involvement in Dan J Sullivan Jr’s bid for the Senate.

Prosecutors, however, have accused the Democrat and her allies of playing partisan tricks – and undermining voters as a result.

“They orchestrated his sham campaign for the purpose of misleading Alaskan voters and getting Peltola elected,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in their amended complaint.

But the Justice Department’s lawsuit has raised concerns about election integrity and federal meddling.

Under the US Constitution, election administration falls to the states, not the presidency.

In June, Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that Dan J Sullivan Jr could compete in the midterms, and the state’s election office has already taken steps to reduce confusion between the two Sullivans.

Recruiting candidates to split an opponent’s vote – a practice known as ballot stacking – is also generally considered to be legal and has been used by both parties in Alaska.

Critics have been sceptical of the Justice Department’s bid to pause the certification of Alaska’s Senate results if Senator Sullivan does not win re-election, noting it would be impossible to divine voter intent based on the final tally alone.

Justin Levitt, a former Department of Justice official under President Joe Biden, also questioned what legal authority the federal government had to get involved in the case.

“I don’t know what they’re putting out subpoenas to investigate because I don’t know what federal violations are implicated that DOJ would have jurisdiction over,” Levitt told the Associated Press news agency.

“Sure makes it seem like the point of the investigation is to become the story.”

Democrats and Republicans are locked in tight races nationwide that will determine which party holds a majority in the US Senate for the remainder of Trump’s second term in office.

Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the legislature’s upper chamber, with 53 out of 100 seats.

Democratic candidates are hoping to win seats by capitalising on Trump’s deep unpopularity and frustration over the cost-of-living crisis.

Trump has suggested he may not accept the midterm results if his party loses its majorities in Congress, and he has pushed false claims of widespread voter fraud.

The Justice Department has also attempted to challenge the voting process in several states, including California.

With only days left until the 2026 midterm elections, United States President Donald Trump has announced he will scale back his packed rally schedule, cancelling scheduled appearances in Iowa and Kansas.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) confirmed the cancellations in a statement on Thursday, unveiling a slate of “tele-rallies” to replace the cancelled events.

RNC Chairman Joe Gruters argued that the virtual appearances will be more efficient, reaching more voters than Trump otherwise could with on-the-ground stops.

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

The tele-rallies will be broadcast to nearly 20 states, including battlegrounds like Michigan, Alaska, Texas and Iowa, where competitive races are unfolding for the US Senate.

The RNC statement added that further events may be announced in the coming days.

Trump’s rally on Friday in Daytona Beach, Florida – some 320 kilometres (200 miles) up the coast from his Mar-a-Lago resort – will proceed as planned.

Less than five days remain until the midterm elections on November 3, which will decide the composition of Congress, as well as key state and local offices.

Whichever party controls Congress will shape Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his second term.

Trump has also expressed concern that the Democratic Party might push to impeach him for a third time if it wins majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Currently, the Republican Party holds narrow majorities in both chambers. In the Senate, the party holds 53 seats out of 100. In the House, it has 218 seats, with all 435 offices up for grabs this election cycle.

The Senate, meanwhile, will see only about a third of its offices on the midterm ballot. Unlike in the House, where terms only last two years, senators are elected to six-year time spans, and their elections are staggered across different election years, to allow for greater stability.

Political forecasters have predicted Democrats have an advantage this midterm election cycle, citing Trump’s slumping poll numbers and voter blowback over cost-of-living issues, foreign policy and other concerns.

Harvard University’s ElectIt election forecasting model, for instance, has estimated that Democrats have a 94 percent chance of taking control of the House.

The race for the Senate, however, will be more difficult, with fewer seats available to win.

Trump has placed himself at the centre of the Republican strategy to defend the party’s congressional majorities. To motivate his base of support, he has repeatedly encouraged voters with the phrase, “Pretend I’m on the ballot.”

Midterm elections occur halfway through a president’s term, and they are often considered a reflection of a president’s popularity.

At 80 years old, however, Trump will be the oldest president by the time his term concludes, and his health has been a concern.

Since starting his second term, the Republican leader has been photographed with bruising on his hands, sparking speculation about any undisclosed medical conditions he may have.

After concluding a rally in South Carolina on Thursday, reporters inquired about his health.

“Mr President, you’ve been doing a lot of travel. We’ve been doing a lot of travel with you. How are you feeling? How’s your health?” a reporter from the news agency Reuters asked on the tarmac.

Trump, at first, dodged the question, focusing instead on his optimism about the Republican Party’s prospects in the election.

“We’re going to have a strong Tuesday night,” Trump said.

But the reporter continued with his line of questioning: “So you’re not going to Kansas has nothing to do with you being sick of travelling?” That prompted an irate reply from Trump, who lashed out.

“Oh, you’re sick to ask that question. You are sick,” Trump said, as he proceeded to insult the reporter’s weight.

“You’ve been following me for two weeks. I feel perfect. You are disgusting. Put yourself in shape. You look like hell.”

During his remarks to the reporter, Trump also questioned the need to visit Salina, Kansas, as he had planned to do on Saturday. “I don’t feel I have to go to Kansas,” the president said.

Kansas, normally a Republican stronghold, has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932.

But this election cycle, Republican Senator Roger Marshall is facing a tight race with Democrat Adam Hamilton, the pastor of a megachurch.

On Thursday, the news outlet CNN released a poll showing Hamilton up by four percentage points, leading with 49 percent support to Marshall’s 45 percent.

An Icelandic web company, FlokiNET, has defended the data’s publication as satisfying a ‘legitimate’ public interest.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has asked an Icelandic web hosting company to take down a site with information about tens of thousands of its employees.

On Thursday, the Icelandic company FlokiNET posted a letter it received from the cybersecurity firm ZeroFox, on behalf of DHS.

The letter accused FlokiNET of violating its terms of service by publishing a “stolen” employee dataset and asked it to “remove or disable” the information.

“The content is live and places more than 40,000 identifiable individuals at risk of harassment, stalking, and physical harm,” the letter said.

FlokiNET said the letter concerned one domain, icepi.cx, which has compiled information about employees from a range of DHS agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Those agencies have come under intense scrutiny since the start of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign in 2025.

But the Trump administration has often refused to identify DHS agents involved in specific operations, citing safety risks.

Though FlokiNET said it refused to comply with DHS’s request, it noted that the website’s registrar ultimately suspended the domain. The employee information has since moved to a different domain.

In a statement posted online, FlokiNET defended its decision not to remove the site.

“Federal officers carrying out an enforcement programme are not private individuals while they are carrying it out,” the company said. “The public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is doing that work, under whose authority, and in which office.”

The database was first posted online on Wednesday by Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets), a group that showcases leaked government data.

In the past, DDoSecrets has released emails from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as information from the Israeli Ministry of Justice and police departments in the US.

A hacker group calling itself the “Department of Peace” has claimed responsibility for obtaining and sharing the DHS data.

Since the database was first published, other groups have spread the information elsewhere, including on sites like icepi.cx. As a result, the information is unlikely to be entirely scrubbed from the internet.

The Trump administration, however, has taken an aggressive approach to online platforms purporting to contain information about ICE employees and other agents involved in immigration operations.

Last year, for instance, the US Department of Justice pressured tech giants like Apple to remove apps that track ICE agents, including one called ICEBlock.

The move sparked backlash from Democrats and free-speech advocates, who argued that the public has a right to report on ICE’s movements.

“Blocking access to these apps at the request of the federal government raises the distinct possibility that Apple is working with government to violate its customers’ First Amendment right to record and report on the activities of their government,” Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin wrote in a letter last year, asking Apple to review its decision.

Immigration agents, meanwhile, have taken several steps to conceal their identities during operations, including wearing face masks or street clothes.

That lack of transparency has spurred criticism from human rights groups and immigration advocates, who argue that they have little recourse to pursue allegations of excessive force or impropriety during ICE raids.

Since Trump was sworn in for a second term, at least 25 people have faced gunfire from immigration agents. Six of the shootings have resulted in deaths.

Other cases have involved alleged violations of civil liberties – including unlawful arrests and racial profiling – as well as controversial tactics like car ramming and tackling.

MONTREAL — Prime Minister Mark Carney called Canada “the most European of non-European countries” early in President Trump’s trade war. Now, he’s hosting European leaders to pursue an unprecedented alliance, but the proposed European Union “associate member” designation faces resistance even as the EU’s top official champions it.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa are in Montreal for a two-day summit aimed at deepening trade, defense and economic ties as Canada and Europe seek to reduce their dependence on Washington in a changing world order.

Speaking in Montreal on Thursday, Von der Leyen warned that economic relationships once considered sources of stability were increasingly being used as instruments of pressure. Without naming Trump, she described the consequences for ordinary families and warned that national sovereignty was under threat.

“When trade becomes a tool of economic pressure, it is families that pay the price, from the supermarket shelf to the cost of a new car,” Von der Leyen said. “We are seeing in real time our sovereignty being attacked.”

She warned that dependence on a single supplier for energy, semiconductors or critical minerals could be exploited and said countries faced a choice between acting alone or working with trusted partners to protect their economic security.

Trump has suggested Canada’s proposed EU arrangement could be a “hostile act” and threatened tariffs on Europe if he considered it unfriendly. Asked Wednesday about possible retaliation, a senior Canadian government official told reporters the closer relationship was not directed against the United States but reflected long-standing shared interests.

The summit puts Carney’s vision for a new global order to the test. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January, he warned that the U.S.-led international order was breaking down and urged middle powers to unite against economic coercion.

Von der Leyen stands by her plan for Canada’s new status

The structure and even the name of the proposed partnership remain unsettled, with some EU member states questioning the “ associate member ” designation proposed last month by Von der Leyen.

Despite resistance from EU member states, Von der Leyen showed no sign of abandoning the idea.

“Canada cannot become a full-fledged member of the EU because of geography, but we both want to bring our relationship to the highest level possible,” she said. “This is why we are discussing the idea of Canada becoming the first associate member of the European Union.”

Von der Leyen described the proposed relationship as an “association without accession,” saying it could bring Canada closer to EU membership than any previous arrangement with a country outside the bloc. She said the arrangement would deepen cooperation on everything from artificial intelligence and energy to defense and trade.

Anand Sundar, a special adviser at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said France and Germany are among the countries unhappy with the designation and that it may not survive the summit.

“The fact that member states have rejected the associate membership framing is very embarrassing for Von der Leyen,” Sundar said.

More talks ahead, Carney said

Carney said Tuesday the summit would be followed by further negotiations over the next year.

“It doesn’t matter about specific names or nomenclature,” Carney said. “What matters is the difference that it will make to lives of Canadians.”

Carney said the partnership could create new opportunities for Canadian students, businesses and researchers while strengthening the country’s independence and sovereignty.

Carney has ruled out formally joining the EU, saying any enhanced partnership would require approval by Canada’s Parliament.

An alliance without membership

The summit is expected to launch an “Alliance for the Future,” a framework for closer cooperation on trade, defense, critical minerals, technology and research.

Von der Leyen said Canada and the EU would finalize an agreement Friday giving Canadian companies, startups and researchers access to Europe’s network of 12 advanced supercomputers, strengthening cooperation on artificial intelligence.

She also announced plans to strengthen strategic supply chains and encourage joint investment in industries critical to economic security.

The partnership could expand opportunities for Canadian students and researchers through the EU’s Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe programs and make it easier for professionals to work on both sides of the Atlantic.

European commissioners and Canadian Cabinet ministers will hold sector-specific meetings, beginning with a business forum Thursday before formal leaders’ talks Friday. Officials hope to develop the broader partnership for possible endorsement next year.

A changing world order reshapes economic and defense ties

Canada is the only non-European country participating in the EU’s $167-billion SAFE defense procurement program, allowing Canadian companies to take part in joint European military purchases.

But deeper defense cooperation faces obstacles. Sundar said France is pushing for strict “Made in Europe” rules that could limit Canadian companies’ access to future EU defense spending, while Germany favors broader participation. He said negotiations over the EU’s next seven-year budget could prove more consequential for Canada than anything announced in Montreal.

The two sides already have a sweeping free trade agreement, known as CETA, that eliminated most tariffs. Most provisions have been in force since 2017, although some EU member states have yet to ratify it.

The United States accounted for 71.7% of Canada’s merchandise exports last year. Carney wants to double exports to other countries over the next decade.

Canada and the EU are seeking closer cooperation on critical minerals as both sides work to diversify supply chains. Von der Leyen said the value of EU imports of Canadian critical raw materials rose 62% last year to 3.3 billion euros, including lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite.

Tobias Gehrke, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said the disagreement over terminology was unlikely to derail closer cooperation.

“There is no magic shortcut to rapidly reducing Europe’s and Canada’s reliance on the U.S. economy and military — not least since Washington might retaliate,” Gehrke said. “But the political window is now wide open to take a much bigger step than was previously conceivable.”

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

Democrats, election officials and voting rights groups have long wondered whether President Trump, upon his return to the Oval Office, would again attempt to overturn an election when his party is trailing.

It’s no longer hypothetical.

Late last week, the president directed his Department of Justice to preemptively contest a potential Republican loss in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The department is demanding a court hold up certification of a possible Democratic win until it’s determined whether voters were confused by having two candidates with the same name on the ballot.

Trump followed that by calling for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, based on a New York Times report that her campaign helped recruit someone named Dan Sullivan to siphon away votes from the Republican incumbent, also named Dan Sullivan. The governor has ordered an investigation.

Academics believe the lawsuit is the first time since the Civil Rights era that the federal government has sued to halt certification of an election, a duty the Constitution places in the hands of states.

Trump, for years, has claimed elections are rigged when he or his party loses, and this time is no exception. He has used his midterm rallies to say Democrats cheat, criticize election officials by name and call the ranked choice voting system in Alaska, which might hold the key to Senate control, a scam.

But the certification lawsuit elevates Trump’s crusade beyond mere rhetoric, indicating that he is preparing to use the power of the presidency to try to reverse a possible loss as his party struggles to hold its control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Earlier this week, the president also announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who provides proof of prior or current voter fraud in the country. It wasn’t clear whether or how he planned to follow through.

“For at least the last year and a half, they’ve been laying that groundwork,” said Theresa Lee, a senior attorney with the ACLU. “We’ve been preparing for just as long, if not longer.”

Trump says he’ll accept results if the election is ‘honest’

Trump told reporters this week that he would accept the election results, but with his typical caveat: “If they’re honest elections,” he said.

That follows a pattern. Trump has preemptively claimed that upcoming elections will be rigged and labeled elections he’s lost as stolen. It started with the 2016 Republican Iowa caucuses, when he came in second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa,” Trump said at the time. “He stole it.”

Democrats and other groups that oppose Trump have been concerned that his words would turn into directives to have his administration interfere in the midterms. They have been running exercises for months and have lawsuits pre-written. They also plan to have tens of thousands of people monitoring the polls on Election Day.

So far, early voting has been quiet, with about 35 million people already casting ballots without any notable disruption.

In that respect, this year’s election so far resembles 2025’s off-year elections in New Jersey, Virginia and a handful of other states. Democrats braced for possible Trump action then, but the election proceeded with no major issues. But the Justice Department’s more aggressive actions this month already make 2026 different from any election in recent memory.

It has sued California to block it from counting ballots after it alleged the state had 20,000 noncitizens on its rolls and made a similar demand of Washington related to about 400 voters in that state. Both states said the demands came too close to the election to fulfill, and a federal judge Wednesday rejected the federal government’s California demands.

Earlier, the Justice Department seized ballots and election records related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Fulton County, and the administration launched a sweeping investigation of that vote, though it has yet to turn up evidence supporting Trump’s false claims of fraud.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department does not want to intervene in elections, but had no choice in Alaska.

“We are not doing anything improper,” Blanche said Sunday on CNN. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — (and) President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form.”

After the lawsuit was filed, Trump told reporters he was the one who pushed for it: “I’m the one that said do it,” the president said.

Lawsuits seem more ‘impulsive’ than strategic

Though the Trump administration claimed to be acting on behalf of Alaska’s voters in its lawsuit to hold up certification, the president’s Republican allies in the state didn’t appear happy.

Sen. Sullivan would not say whether he supported the lawsuit. Alaska’s Republican-controlled state government filed court papers to try to have it dismissed. The state’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said the administration “should never have filed” it.

While controversial, the situation in Alaska is not that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on the ballot to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, wrote that the Alaska lawsuit’s legal argument was “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.” He said that should reassure the public that Trump won’t be able to change election outcomes.

“The notion that there’s going to be something systemic that’s going to thwart the will of the voters seems much more speculative,” he said. “A lot of the conduct seems impulsive rather than strategic and planned.”

The courts have repeatedly rebuffed the administration, in many cases because the Constitution gives the president no direct power over how elections are run. Courts put on hold two Trump executive orders seeking to change voting procedures. The administration also has lost more than two dozen cases trying to get detailed voter information from the states.

That resembles 2020, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and in the process lost dozens of lawsuits.

Can the institutions hold?

Pat McCrory, a former Republican governor of North Carolina, is part of Right Count, a group of conservatives pushing back against election conspiracy theories and intervention in local elections. He said he’s confident the system will hold.

“The only thing that protects us from anarchy is this thin piece of paper called the Constitution,” McCrory said. “That thin piece of paper is, to me, a cement wall.”

It’s one that many analysts expect will continue to stymie Trump in the courts.

“The courts are likely to throw most, if not all, of these charges out,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “But this is a way of intensifying the signal to Trump’s supporters that the elections are rigged.”

The Justice Department in 2020 refused to join Trump’s allies in litigation. In his second term, Trump has pushed out career staff and stocked his administration with people who helped him challenge the 2020 election. That’s led to mounting concern he could deploy immigration agents, the FBI or even the military to the polls or seize ballots or voting machines, although multiple administration officialshave denied they have such plans.

All of that could happen before courts even have a chance to weigh in, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist.

“The threat is that he’ll take actions that can’t be undone,” Nyhan said.

Riccardi and Swenson write for the Associated Press.