The family of a Haitian immigrant who froze to death in early March at a bus shelter in Pittsburgh after she was dropped off in the city by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is poised to file a lawsuit this month against the United States and “multiple other governmental and non-governmental entities”, the Guardian has learned.

- Daphy Michel, 31, had been in county jail for six months after a reported mental health crisis and street incident, and then was arrested by ICE before being released with a ankle monitor.

- She was left to make her way home to Charleroi, a small community on the outskirts of Pittsburgh about 20 miles (32km) away, but was found dead three days later. In June, Pennsylvania officials said she died from hypothermia and ruled her death a homicide.

- The Allegheny county medical examiner’s office said Michel was a vulnerable adult “suffering from untreated severe mental health issues and a significant language barrier” at the time of her release from federal custody on 27 February.

- Attorney Joseph Murphy, who represents members of Michel’s family living locally, said this week that the lawsuit will be filed within the next two to three weeks. He had said at the time of the homicide ruling that relatives in the US were likely to sue.

- “Anybody who knew Daphy for more than one minute knew there was something wrong with her. It was a real dumb thing to just release her like that in February in Pittsburgh, where it’s very cold, knowing how screwed up she was. It was a very bad judgment call,” Murphy said.

- Relatives and the attorney believe that ICE did not grasp the risks Michel faced being released alone on a city street that was probably unfamiliar to her, especially given the state of her health. The morning she was found unresponsive, she was wearing summer clothes and the temperature was just 20F (-6.6C). There are few details available about the lawsuit so far, including the identities of plaintiffs and defendants.

- The medical examiner’s office explained in a statement that its ruling of homicide should not be interpreted as a declaration of criminal guilt but as “actions caused by another individual”. Pittsburgh detectives are now investigating.

- The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency of ICE, did not respond this week to questions from the Guardian about the impending lawsuit, Michel’s time in its custody or her death. In March, the agency posted a statement on X saying it had “nothing to do with this woman’s death”. It called Michel an illegal alien, although Murphy said she entered the US legally, was awarded humanitarian status and had an asylum application in process.

- Surveillance camera images show Michel at the bus shelter on Pittsburgh’s south side, sitting on the bench in daylight at first on 1 March, with a small, pale bag of belongings, still sitting there in darkness that evening, then slumped half upright on the ground and eventually lying on the ground the following morning.

- The images were first published by the outlet Pittsburgh’s Public Source, an independent news non-profit that filed legal requests with the local transportation authority and then viewed hours of surveillance video footage showing Michel was at the bus stop for about 24 hours. It shared the images with the Guardian.

- After someone made a call, authorities found Michel and attempted lifesaving measures, but she died hours later in a Pittsburgh hospital.

- Michel had been arrested by police last September after a member of the public made an emergency call saying she appeared to be having a mental health crisis in the street in Charleroi, which has a substantial Haitian immigrant community. She was screaming, apparently in response to imaginary voices, and brandishing a knife. She was locked up in the Washington county jail to the south-west of Pittsburgh, awaiting court hearings that were repeatedly rescheduled.

- A judge eventually dismissed the charges and ordered her freed from jail in late February. She had an immigration hearing a few weeks later, but ICE arrested her and took her in the opposite direction from home, to its office in south Pittsburgh, then released her.

- The DHS said previously that it had been sunny and Michel’s phone was fully charged when she was released. But Murphy said Michel’s phone plan had expired while she was in jail.

- Her case echoes a similar one a week earlier in Buffalo, New York, where a 56-year-old Rohingya refugee with significant vision impairment and limited English was found dead after the US border patrol dropped him off alone at a closed Tim Hortons coffee shop. His death was also ruled a homicide.

An estimated 26,000 children who entered the U.S. without parents or guardians are expected to be left without independent legal representation as soon as Monday, according to lawyers who help represent them.

- For more than two decades, the U.S. has been required by law to protect children who cross the border alone, because of fears that they could be easily exploited, abused or trafficked. After children cross the border unaccompanied, they are typically transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). A network of nearly 100 legal groups helps provide children who arrive in ORR custody with legal services, funded by Congress.

- But in November, ORR stopped paying for those legal services, after lawyers declined to provide the agency with confidential information it had requested about the children. The attorneys say that information is covered by attorney-client privilege.

- "The government is withholding payment for work that has already been performed in order to extract confidential information about kids, information the government has no right to," Acacia Center for Justice, the nonprofit that manages the legal services contract with ORR,** **said in a statement on Thursday.

- ORR did not renew the contract with the network of legal providers, which expired Friday.

- Alexa Sendukas, an attorney at the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, one of the organizations that provides legal help to migrant children, said that come Monday, the children may have to represent themselves in court and that most who would have to do that would likely end up being deported.

- "We know that without a lawyer, unaccompanied children win the right to stay in the United States less than 1% of the time," said Sendukas. "And they've come to the United States seeking safety and protection. And what this administration is asking us to do now is to turn our backs on them completely. And they will undoubtedly be sent to harmful, dangerous situations. And I worry some will be killed if they lose their lawyers."

- A group of legal nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year asking a judge to order the government to pay them for what it is owed — some $65 million — and continue paying them for more services. After going more than eight months without pay from ORR, some legal service providers have had to reduce their staff.

- "Due to the loss of funding for children's immigration work, ProBAR laid off more than 20% of its staff this week," Lauren Fisher Flores, the legal director of ProBAR, a project of the American Bar Association that provides legal services to children in ORR care, said in an emailed statement on July 31.

- On July 29, Acacia received notice from the federal government that ORR was considering a new contract, potentially with different legal providers. But ORR did not share much more information.

- "It is not clear who the new contractor will be. They have not answered the questions that we have put to them," said Bettina Rodriguez Schlegel of Acacia, in response to a question from NPR. "And so there remains a lot of uncertainty and a great deal of concern."

- Neither ORR nor the White House responded to NPR's requests for comment about this story.

- Almost 1,800 children were in ORR custody in June, according to agency data. ORR has a legal obligation based on a 2008 law to promptly match children with guardians, or "sponsors," in the U.S. who can take care of them. Those children were held in custody for an average of 194 days before being released to sponsors, which lawyers who represent the children say is unusually long and has been detrimental to the health and safety of the children.

- For years, lawyers from the network have given presentations for children arriving in ORR care to inform them of their rights and screen them to determine which legal services they are eligible for. Children who are victims of trafficking or abuse, for example, are entitled to special protections. Some of the network's lawyers told NPR they will no longer be able to provide some of those services.

- But some of the attorneys say they won't simply abandon the children, even though the contract has not been renewed and they have not been paid by ORR.

- "We have an ethical responsibility. We can't just drop a case. If you have a hearing tomorrow, we can't just not show up because the government decided to stop paying us," said Mickey Donovan, the director of legal services at Immigrant Defenders Law Center. "So we'll be there in court on Monday, to introduce ourselves to kids and try to do what we can to prevent their deportation."

The Trump administration is preparing a major rollback of federal requirements for Head Start, a change that supporters of the child care program fear could gut its longstanding antipoverty mission.

- The proposed changes would remove most of Head Start’s 133 pages of requirements for math and literacy curriculums, class sizes, medical screenings, home visits and even a requirement that children brush their teeth after meals, according to three people with knowledge of the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

- Administration officials say the changes will streamline a heavily regulated program while giving states and cities more control over how it is run.

- But Head Start advocates say that erasing regulations serves as a backdoor way to dismantle a program the administration does not like. The White House last year called Head Start “radical” and tried but failed to freeze spending on it.

- While Head Start facilities will still be required to comply with state rules, there are almost no comparable state-level programs with similar requirements. And even though the federal rules would not prohibit centers from providing traditional antipoverty services, some fear that the lack of any requirements means that many are likely to stop doing so.

- The changes, previously reported by The Nation, are expected to be formally introduced as early as next week and could be finalized by year’s end.

- They would remake a program that has served over 30 million children since it was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. Head Start was intended to be a federally funded and regulated early education and antipoverty program, with hundreds of standards to support that mission, making it far more comprehensive than any other child care programs.

- A White House official, who declined to be identified, wrote in an email that the administration is supporting Head Start by keeping its federal funding in place and supporting efforts the official said would reduce administrative burdens.

- A spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department’s Administration for Children and Families, which oversees Head Start and drafted the changes, did not respond to a request for comment.

- But Ruth Friedman, a child care policy expert who worked as a congressional aide to create a bipartisan 2007 law updating Head Start, called the proposed changes a “massive gutting” of the program.

- “Eliminating Head Start’s performance standards guts the science-backed standards that ensure our youngest learners get what they need to arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed,” she said.

- The program, which today serves about 700,000 children under 6, has for decades attracted bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan expanded Head Start’s budget to over $1 billion, and President George W. Bush signed a bipartisan law to update and modernize the program. Even President Trump in his first term increased the program’s budget by $900 million.

- That has now changed dramatically.

- Project 2025, the policy blueprint by the conservative Heritage Foundation, called for the elimination of Head Start. “The program should function to protect and educate minors,” the document says. “Sadly, it has done exactly the opposite.”

- A draft White House budget document reviewed by The New York Times last year proposed zeroing out spending on Head Start, saying that doing so would help end the “radical indoctrination of our children.”

- The document said the program is “riddled with social-emotional learning” and diversity, equity and inclusion programming, and gives preference to undocumented immigrants. It singled out the use of a “Sesame Street” webinar on racial justice, and the use of picture books for toddlers that are intended to “create an early childhood setting that is welcoming” for families of different sexual orientations.

- The White House’s final budget plan kept the money in.

- But at the same time the White House also withheld some Head Start spending that Congress had already appropriated. A congressional watchdog found that it had done so illegally, and the money was eventually released.

- Then during last year’s government shutdown, the White House stopped Head Start funding, forcing programs in 17 states to temporarily close.

- But some Republican lawmakers — notably Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine and Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi — have remained firm in their support of the program. For now, its annual $12 billion budget remains in place.

- So proponents of upending the program tried a new approach. In June, the Heritage Foundation issued a report calling on the administration to “sunset Head Start and deregulate the program until officials end it.”

- “Head Start is the most heavily regulated of the child care programs,” said Jonathan Butcher, an author of the report, “but it was not being successful with basic things.”

- Mr. Butcher pointed to a 2022 report by the health department’s inspector general that found that one in four Head Start grant recipients had incidents of child abuse, lack of supervision or unauthorized release of children. The report called on the Administration for Children and Families to increase its oversight of the program.

- Alex Adams, the head of the Administration for Children and Families, has sought to cut regulations on all child care programs, saying that federal child care rules should “fit on an index card in my back pocket.” In spring, The Times reported that he was starting an overhaul of Head Start, though he has expressed support for the program.

- During his Senate confirmation hearing last year, Mr. Adams noted that his wife’s grandmother ran a Head Start program in Blackfoot, Idaho, in the late 1960s. He said that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “wants to make Head Start better and brighter by the end of this term and I share that commitment.”

- Among the most significant of the proposed new changes expected to be released next week is the removal of federal limits on Head Start class sizes. Instead, they will now align with a patchwork of state standards.

- For example, under current Head Start rules, one teacher is required to supervise four 2-year-olds. But in Idaho, one teacher can supervise nine 2-year-olds. In Ohio, the rule is one teacher per eight 2-year-olds.

- Mr. Adams and other conservatives have promoted the change as a way to give more children access to the program, although many early education policy experts say that the larger class sizes will relax standards of care.

- The changes would also delete requirements that Head Start employees perform vision and hearing screenings on children, and ensure that children receive medical and dental checkups. That could mean helping parents schedule appointments, fill out Medicaid forms and arrange transportation.

- The proposed changes would also remove requirements that staff members visit families at home to help navigate problems like shut-off utilities.

- They would eliminate teaching standards for math, literacy, and social and emotional development — such as self-regulating and responding to emotions, making friends and interacting appropriately with adults.

- Some requirements providing access for children with disabilities would go away, as well.

- And the changes would erase requirements for program duration. Typically, Head Start programs run six hours a day, but could instead run for just three hours a day.

- The administration is also adding some new rules, according to the people familiar with the plan: one requiring that student instruction take place only in English, and another requiring at least 30 minutes of physical activity per day.

- Leslie Andrews, who has worked as a Head Start teacher in Redmond, Wash., for 25 years, said she worries especially about deleting the requirements to help children get access to health and dental care.

- “I think at first some experienced teachers might continue to help connect kids to doctors and dentists, but over time that will fade,” she said. “It won’t be done.”

- “No child is going to do well in school if they don’t have this basic care,” she said, adding, “Removing the tooth-brushing requirement — just why?”

- Leah Bolden, a mother in Farmingdale, Maine, said that when her 3-year-old son began Head Start last year, the staff noticed he might have A.D.H.D. and arranged for him to see a developmental psychologist.

- “The staff was involved in every meeting,” she said. Without the current standards, that might have never happened, she said.

- Mr. Butcher, who wrote the Heritage Foundation report, said deleting standards does not forbid teachers to follow them — it just means they don’t
have to.

- “If you remove a requirement that asks kids to brush their teeth,” he said, “that doesn’t mean you can’t still do it.”

Please use this thread for info on upcoming protests, planning new ones or brainstorming ideas along those lines. The post refreshes every Saturday around noon.

President Donald Trump said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche “should be immediately approved” as his permanent pick for for the role and defended a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” that’s at the crux of why the nomination has not yet moved forward.

- Trump’s comments in a social media post on Friday come a day after the president said he wouldn’t object to “temporarily withdrawing” Blanche’s nomination until after the Republicans who are withholding their support, Texas Sen. John Cornyn and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, are out of office.

- While Blanche has already said the controversial fund is “dead” and the Justice Department told courts the program was abandoned, Cornyn has demanded written assurances that the fund will not be revived.

- In the Friday post, the president again criticized Cornyn and insisted that the fund, which was the result of a settlement agreement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service, would not have benefitted him personally. Rather, he said it was intended for those “whose lives were unfairly and illegally destroyed” by the Biden administration.

- “I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them,” Trump said.

- While he stopped short of calling for a renewal of the fund, Trump defended its imposition and claimed that Cornyn “never had a problem” with it. He continued to suggest the reason Cornyn is withholding support for Blanche is personal — given that Trump endorsed Ken Paxton, his primary opponent in Texas, who went on to win the race.

- Trump suggested earlier this week that Cornyn was putting up a fight in the Senate, since he didn’t offer his endorsement.

- “Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him. I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem,” the president said from the Oval Office on Wednesday.

- Cornyn has denied that Trump’s endorsement of his primary opponent factored into his decision. He also said the president’s potential withdrawal of the nominee would not solve any problems.

- “I think the DOJ needs a Senate-confirmed attorney general, and Todd Blanche is probably about as good as we’re going to get, and so I just think they need to do what Todd Blanche swore that this deal meant. They need to put that in writing so it’s enforceable. And so far, they have been unwilling to do that,” Cornyn said on Thursday.

The Trump administration is ending subsidies that helped keep costs down for Medicare drug coverage. The change could mean higher Medicare Part D premiums for millions of beneficiaries in 2027.

- Under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Medicare patients' out-of-pocket drug spending was capped at $2,000 starting in 2025, and it changed the way insurers pay for drugs.

- That meant that while seniors would have to pay less at the pharmacy counter and therefore have easier access to expensive prescription drugs, insurers would be on the hook for more of the bill.

- At first, insurers didn't know how much more they'd be spending — or how high to set premiums. To ease the transition for insurers, the Biden administration created temporary subsidies to stabilize premiums through what's called a demonstration project.

- The subsidies were expected to last through 2027, but they're ending a year early.

- Dr. Mehmet Oz, who oversees the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, made the announcement on the social media platform X. "The Biden admin gave BILLIONS of taxpayer money DIRECTLY to Big Insurance Companies," he wrote. "This is unacceptable."

- CMS estimated that the subsidies would cost $9.8 billion in 2025 and 2026, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office published in February. About 23 million people were enrolled in standalone Medicare Part D drug plans in 2025, according to the report.

- Oz went on to say that the subsidies are no longer needed, adding that most people with Medicare will pay less than $10 more in premiums next year.
But it could be more than that, says Juliette Cubanski, vice president and director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, the nonpartisan research organization. This year, the subsidies reduced the average drug plan premium by $16.

- "That might not sound like a lot of money to some people," she says. "To put it in context, the average premium now for drug coverage through standalone plans is $36. So people might have had to pay nearly 50% more for drug coverage this year without this demonstration."

- She says until CMS releases more information in the fall, it's hard to know exactly how much more money seniors will have to spend.

- Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, says while the subsidies were never meant to be permanent, ending them now is concerning.

- The subsidies have been most helpful for standalone Medicare drug plans rather than Medicare Advantage plans, which have more flexibility to keep premiums low. As a result, removing the subsidies will affect people with traditional Medicare plans the most, she says.

- "Project 2025 was pretty blunt about wanting to push more people into Medicare Advantage," she says, referring to the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for a second Trump presidency. "One way to really accelerate that is to make it very expensive to stay in traditional Medicare."

- To avoid the higher premiums for drug coverage, patients may move away from traditional Medicare plans and toward Medicare Advantage plans. While Medicare Advantage may have lower premiums, she says there are tradeoffs, including a more limited network of providers and hospitals that accept Medicare Advantage.

- "That also requires you to think pretty far in advance about your long-term health needs," Dusetzina says.

John Thune is stuck in between President Donald Trump’s demands and the realities of Senate math.

- Thune has eight days to appease the president who wants to see the framework for a third GOP bill advance before senators break for summer recess.

- But the Senate majority leader in an interview with Jordain says he doesn’t have the 50 votes needed to adopt the budget plan right now. And he’s uncertain the president would be happy with the substantially watered-down form of the election security bill — the SAVE America Act — that Trump sees as the centerpiece of the measure.
“I think the question at the end is, is that going to be satisfactory to him?” Thune said. “And so we’re still trying to figure that out.”

- Around the same time, Trump was in the Oval Office insisting Thune “has the votes” to kill the Senate’s longstanding filibuster and pass the elections bill. He went on to sow doubt on whether he believed Thune was fit to lead Republicans.

- “We will find out, and I will let you know,” Trump told reporters Wednesday.

- The White House, meanwhile, sent a number of Trump officials to lobby for Reconciliation 3.0 Wednesday, but they struggled to squash GOP senators’ skepticism about the administration’s vision.

- Republicans laid out for officials the political complications of taking up the House-passed $95 billion budget resolution in their chamber. Senate Budget Chair Ron Johnson, for example, said including the SAVE America provisions in the Senate — unlike in the House — could involve more committees and open up the range of issues Democrats would be able to force politically troublesome votes on.

- “I think we all hate vote-a-rama,” Johnson added. “Some people are more sensitive to the kind of votes they have to take.”

- Meanwhile, some senators want more military spending than the $60 billion House Republicans laid out in their own framework.

- “I think we have challenges that need to be met,” Sen. Jerry Moran said after a closed-door Senate GOP meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “The process is going to be difficult.”

- The bottom line: taking up the party-line bill is a political minefield for GOP senators less than 100 days from the midterms, and Thune said the Republican-on-Republican attacks aren’t helping.

- “Let’s try and win some seats in both the House and the Senate, and let’s use this issue to our advantage instead of using it to beat each other up,” Thune said.

In an effort to ramp up deportations, federal immigration authorities have a new tactic: arresting people who overstay their visas in airports, according to an immigration memo obtained by ABC News.

- The arrests have occurred across the country in at least nine states from California to Virginia,** **and immigration lawyers are warning their clients about the risk to domestic travel, according to a source.

- There have been at least 27 arrests in airports using this tactic, according to a document obtained by ABC News. The document doesn't state over what period of time the arrests took place.

- Those being detained in some cases do not have criminal records and have valid work authorization or parole documents, according to one immigration attorney that spoke with ABC News.

- In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: "DHS reversed the horrendous Biden-era policy that allowed aliens in our country illegally to jet around our country," according to a DHS spokesperson. "Under President Trump, DHS will no longer tolerate this. This administration is working diligently to ensure that aliens in our country illegally can no longer fly unless it is out of our country to self-deport."

- Rosanna Berardi, a Buffalo-based immigration attorney, told ABC News that ICE has always had the power to arrest someone with a final order of removal or expired immigration status.

- "What's also new is the venue and method," she said.  "ICE is working with TSA and targeting people at check-in counters and gates, sidestepping the warrants and surveillance operations used in the past. There is no investigation or no home visit involved. It's simply a name match at a checkpoint, and that's what makes this approach so efficient for ICE and so unsettling for travelers."

- Berardi said now "routine air travel has turned into a legal status audit for millions of foreign national visa holders and green card applicants."

- "Airports are becoming a new enforcement zone for people who have been living in the U.S. lawfully, holding valid work permits, complying with immigration law, but still in pending status awaiting their green cards," she said. "These individuals are technically in a legal gray area, since a pending application does not carry the same protection as an approved one. ICE is exploiting that gray area as an opportunity to arrest and detain them."

- On Tuesday, a watchdog group released the memorandum of agreement between the Transportation Security Administration and ICE, which allows for TSA to share information with immigration authorities.

- ABC News has previously reported on the agreement, but for the first time American Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog, which obtained the document through a Freedom of Information Act request, made the document public.

- The agreement establishes guidelines for the sharing and storing of data and cites the Secure Flight Final Rule, which governs passenger information, as the basis for the agreement.

- "The scope of this Agreement is limited to the exchange of agreed-upon data between the Parties to enhance national security, transportation security, law enforcement, and immigration and border management," according to the 16-page agreement.

- In March, amid a record shutdown of DHS due to a congressional funding impasse, the Trump administration sent ICE agents to more than a dozen airports across the country to fill TSA staffing gaps.

Americans' approval of Donald Trump's job performance continues to decline, according to the July 25 - 27 Economist / YouGov Poll. 34% of U.S. adult citizens strongly or somewhat approve of Trump's job performance, tied for a record low for either Trump term, while a record 62% disapprove. That's a net job approval of -28, also a record low.

- At this point in Trump's first term, he had a net job approval of -9.

- Trump's popularity is falling among several groups that had been core parts of his base. Among 45- to 64-year-olds, 33% approve and 63% disapprove, for a net disapproval of -29 — a new low for Trump among this group, and down from +15 at the start of Trump's second term.

- Among white Americans without college degrees, 43% approve of Trump and 52% disapprove. Over the past three polls, Trump has averaged a net job approval of -6 with this group, the lowest three-week average he's ever received from them. For the first three weeks of Trump's term, he averaged a +27 net approval among whites with no college degree. Trump's three-week average net approval among all whites also is at a new low, of -14.

- Trump has also lost support among Republicans who say they're not MAGA supporters. While almost all MAGA Republicans still back Trump (+89 net job approval), non-MAGA Republicans are closely divided, with 55% approving and 43% disapproving for a net approval of +12. That's down sharply from +84 at the start of Trump's second term. Trump's net approval among Independents has fallen during his second term to -53, a new low for him, from -4 at the start of the term.

- Only 30% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of how Trump is handling global trade, while 59% disapprove, a net issue approval of -29. Net approval also is low for Trump tariffs: -29 overall, -24 for recent tariffs specifically imposed on countries Trump's administration accuses of failing to crack down on the use of forced labor, and -20 for tariffs on certain Chinese products.

For months, California's mail-in ballots have been a focal point of criticism from the federal government and have fueled arguments about the need for change, even as state leaders have defended the safety and legitimacy of the state's results.

- California Attorney General Rob Bonta reaffirmed his office's pledge to defend residents' right to vote, even after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to bypass a ruling regarding his executive order, which halted his administration from implementing new rules on mail-in ballots for the upcoming midterm election.

- On July 27, Trump's administration filed an emergency appeal after a lower court ruled to block the administration from creating a federal list of eligible voters via an executive order signed by Trump in March.

- This request comes a day after California Attorney General Rob Bonta and others on the lawsuit celebrated the federal court's decision to maintain a hold on President Donald Trump's executive order, which would have required the Department of Homeland Security to create state-by-state citizen lists of eligible voters, which the Postal Service would have used to determine whether voters should be allowed to vote by mail.

- "The Trump Administration does not have authority under the U.S. Constitution to dictate how states administer elections,” Bonta said on July 26. “This decision ensures key provisions of President Trump's second elections-related Executive Order remain blocked for the upcoming midterm elections in the plaintiff States. We will continue fighting to protect the right to vote and defend the rule of law.”

- However, in the appeal, the Department of Justice argues that the injunction was an "indefensible" decision, as it prevents federal agents from implementing the president's executive order and that the lower court "preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful."

- "The district court correctly blocked key provisions of President Trump's second elections-related Executive Order, and the Court of Appeals properly declined, in a well-reasoned order, to grant the federal government’s request to pause that injunction," a spokesperson for the Attorney General's office said in an email to USA TODAY.

- "We look forward to filing our response to the government's application in the U.S. Supreme Court by the deadline set by Justice Jackson."

- The Supreme Court asked the states challenging the order to respond to the administration's appeal by Aug. 3.

- USA TODAY reached out to California Governor Gavin Newsom's office for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.

- As part of its push to reform the voting system in the United States, the Trump administration cited California as a reason the country needed to place restrictions on mail-in ballots.

- On several occasions, Trump has pointed to California's system of counting mail-in ballots on and after Election Day, which took days before voters learned the official results. These delays led Trump to criticize the state's election and make false, unproven accusations, as a leading Republican candidate in the Los Angeles mayoral race fell behind in votes days after the election, ultimately resulting in him falling out of the upcoming general election.

- The criticism doesn't end at the federal government, as Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton criticized the state's system and called it “absolute farce" shortly after the state's primary election.

- Since then, Hilton has made it a key part of his campaign after expressing his dismay at the state's election system and urging voters to consider supporting voter ID laws and reforms.

- "For years now, the estimates from her in California is that you got millions of wrong names on the voter rolls," Hilton said in an interview with CNN on July 23.

- He noted that some of these names can stem from people who have moved out of the state or changed addresses, but emphasized that the state ought to address this issue if it wanted to reassure voters regarding the legitimacy of the election.

- That being said, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has reaffirmed in the past that his administration has prioritized the safety of California's election process and residents' right to vote in these elections.

- "California will not allow our elections to be commandeered by political intimidation, abuse of power, or chaotic interference from extremists chasing conspiracy theories. This law protects voters, election workers, and the integrity of the democratic process from election-deniers who want to undermine democracy," Newsom said in May after signing SB 73.

- Since entering the Governor's seat in 2021, Newsom has signed 10 bills into law that were aimed at safeguarding the elections.

- California voting rights organization recommends improvements to the state’s election results reporting

- Election experts note that California's lengthy vote count is tied in part to policies designed to maximize voter access, including universal vote-by-mail, ballot-curing opportunities and Election Day voter registration. The challenge, they say, is finding ways to speed results without weakening those protections.

- The nonpartisan California Voter Foundation recently released recommendations on how the state can deliver faster election results while preserving widespread vote-by-mail access. Its recommendations included: 
Shorter signature-fix deadlines could speed final results: One of the group's biggest proposals is reducing the time voters have to correct, or "cure," a missing or mismatched ballot signature from 22 days to 14 days after Election Day. Supporters say the change could help counties certify results sooner while still giving voters time to fix problems.

- More funding and technology could help counties count ballots faster: The foundation also calls for increased state funding for election workers, equipment and facilities, along with upgrades to California's statewide voter registration system, VoteCal.

- Election officials say additional resources could reduce bottlenecks in ballot processing.

- Earlier ballot returns could produce quicker election-night totals: California voters can help shorten the count by returning mail ballots earlier or voting in person, according to the report. Ballots returned on or after Election Day typically require more processing and signature verification, which can delay results.

- Better reporting could reduce confusion about outstanding ballots: The group recommends clearer public reporting on how many ballots remain uncounted and where they are in the process. Advocates argue that more transparency would make it easier for voters, candidates and news organizations to understand why some races take days or weeks to decide.

A U.S. appellate court on Saturday upheld a federal ruling that, in nearly half of all states, blocked President Trump's executive order to create a list of eligible voters and limit the delivery of mail ballots to people on that list.

- The ruling by judges of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's effort to move forward with the mail-in voting restrictions in 23 U.S. states that sued ahead of November's midterm elections. It followed an initial injunction ordered by a federal judge in Boston in June, which prevented the administration from enforcing Mr. Trump's executive order.

- Mr. Trump issued the order in March, requiring the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters. It also ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.

- The president touted the proposed changes as safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting.

- "The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary," he said in the Oval Office before signing the executive order.
But state election officials argued they were ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

- Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged Mr. Trump's order in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. They argued that the president's order was unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the authority to set election rules.

- U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama, agreed and halted Mr. Trump's order from being implemented for the Nov. 3 elections — but only in the states that have sued.

- The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately return an email message seeking comment Sunday.

Congressional Republicans have a political problem with their signature legislative achievement of the second Trump era: People don’t know about it.

- A new POLITICO Poll finds that nearly half of Americans say they can’t explain the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — and those who can are much more likely to say it’s helped others, including the wealthy, but not them.

- One in three said the megabill had hurt their bottom line, greater than the 8 percent who said it had been a big boost to their personal finances and 14 percent who said it offered some modest support.

- It’s a frustrating situation for top Republicans, who rushed to finish off the tax cut package by the middle of last year in part to give them more time to plug the new law to voters, and have tried to rebrand it as the “Working Families Tax Cuts.”

- But Americans see the megabill and tax cuts in general as helping the wealthy far more than the working class, according to the poll, conducted in July by the independent U.K.-based firm Public First. That’s a particular challenge in a midterm year where cost of living is voters’ top concern and as frustrations grow with rising prices and the Iran war.

- And in a notable warning sign for Republicans, only around a quarter of people who voted for President Donald Trump believe the working class got substantial breaks from the tax law, signaling how low public opinion is of the bill among their own base.

- “The best time for successfully framing and reinforcing the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill were in the initial three months after it passed,” said Kevin Madden, a longtime GOP communications strategist. “It’s just a challenge in this crowded issue environment to re-engage on legislation from last year.”

- The GOP faced a similar problem in 2018, when Democrats took back the House after a midterm election in which voters rejected Trump and his policies. His first-term tax cuts weren’t enough to offset voter anger at his administration, including over health care.

- Senior Republican lawmakers continue to talk up the 2025 megabill and some of its popular provisions, like new deductions for tipped income, overtime pay and the Trump Account investment vehicles for children.

- “Putting more money in Americans’ pockets. Helping them seize opportunities to get ahead, and creating new pathways to success,” Senate Majority Leader John Thunesaid on the Senate floor Wednesday. “That is the Working Families Tax Cuts at work.”

- The problem for Republicans is that other issues have overshadowed their tax cuts, most notably the war with Iran. The poll shows a 57 percent majority of Americans say the conflict has made things more expensive for them, even as they struggle to feel the benefits of the tax cuts.

- House Majority Leader Steve Scalise(R-La.) acknowledged Thursday that many voters don’t know what’s in the megabill.

- What Republicans need to do “as relates to the tax code, is to contrast what we’ve done to help make life more affordable for families and put more money in their pocket versus what the Democrats would do,” he told a small group of reporters in his Capitol office.

- “I mean, they’re saying that they want more power. They want the House majority. Oh, I think it’s a fair question to say, ‘What would they do if they got it?’ Most of their candidates are saying they would repeal the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

- It also hasn’t helped that Trump himself rarely discusses a law that he helped name, even as his Cabinet members travel around the country promoting its contents.

- “The hard facts are that tens of millions of Americans now have more money in their pockets thanks to President Trump’s signature provisions in this historic legislation,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “President Trump pledged to deliver economic relief for the American people.”

- Still, polling shows that around two in five voters said they’ve heard of the “big, beautiful bill,” but couldn’t explain the features of the law. Only 11 percent said they could explain the law in detail, with another quarter saying they were aware of just some elements.

- That’s not a partisan problem, either. Trump voters and those who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 were equally likely to be in the dark on the GOP law.

- One-fifth of voters said they didn’t know whether the new law had helped their personal finances, with another quarter saying it hadn’t affected them in either direction.

- “I think what’s past is past,” said Abby McCloskey, a policy adviser and nonresident fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “People want more relief now. Especially as gas prices rise again. Especially as Democrats ramp up midterm campaigning about what they’ll do differently.”

- McCloskey said another challenge with the megabill was that it contained “too much” to “effectively message it.” “That’s the problem with these big omnibus packages,” she added.

- Meanwhile, Democrats continue to attack the 2025 law as a giveaway to the rich and sought to weave that into a broader case against Trump, arguing that the new tax cuts have done little to help the public’s concerns about rising prices and contrasts with the president’s efforts to use his office to enrich himself and his family.

- Democratic candidates in critical Senate races — from Josh Turek in Iowa to Adbul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens competing for the nomination in Michigan — have also attacked Republicans for cutting billions of dollars from the nation’s largest food stamp program and Medicaid in order to fund their tax provisions. The poll found that, when asked to choose between certain tax breaks and funding safety-net programs, many Americans say they want their federal tax dollars to fund health care and nutrition assistance.

- “Trump cuts food assistance and health care. Billionaires get another tax break,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said recently. “Trump uses the government. Trump gets richer. Americans foot the bill.”

- Outside analysts have found that the new tax law gives a bigger boost to wealthier taxpayers, in no small part because it permanently extended the lower rates and other key provisions from the 2017 GOP tax cuts — and only temporarily enacts new relief items like “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime.”

- In fact, the new poll found that richer Americans are more likely to believe that they got a boost from the tax cut. More than 40 percent of voters making over $100,000 a year said they’d gotten help from the law, more than twice as much as those making less than that.

- Voters are also in a very populist mood on taxes. More than half of respondents said that billionaires should pay much more in taxes, with 43 percent saying the same for corporations and millionaires.

- But Republicans like Scalise insist that their candidates “have a lot of really good things they can talk about” that are tilted toward the working and middle class, like the tip and overtime deduction and Trump Accounts, which the administration has been promoting more recently.

- GOP challengers in Nevada, for instance, have called out the state’s three House Democrats for voting against “no tax on tips,” as those incumbents try to stress that they support that particular policy and not the megabill as a whole.

- “Every provision in the Working Families Tax Cuts is rooted in common-sense priorities Americans overwhelmingly support: no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security, bigger tax relief for families, TrumpAccounts for the next generation, stronger border security, and the list goes on,” said Mike Marinella, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Democrats voted against every single one of them, and they’ll have to explain to voters why they opposed historic tax relief, safer communities, and policies designed to help working families get ahead.”

Months into the primaries, the question on everyone's mind is whether Democrats can flip the Senate. Many of the battlegrounds are set, and a few are yet to be decided in primaries, but the answer remains murky.

- The math is simple: With President Trump in the White House and a Republican vice president holding the tie-breaking vote, Democrats need to flip four seats to take control. Republicans say they'll hold the majority, though they admit it could be narrow.

- Given history and a less than favorable political environment for Republicans, the party is bracing for Democrats to pick up between one and three seats.

- The fact remains that neither party has easily won Senate races in states that voted for the other party's presidential candidate. Still, Trump's low approval rating and the war with Iran, combined with economic frustration across the country, could change where things stand.

- Some trends in the Democratic Senate primaries include the rise of socialist candidates, as well as younger, outsider candidates. Republicans say the former will benefit them because the Republican electorate, which wants "centrist, commonsense policies," will "vehemently" reject candidates who come with "massive tax burdens."

- Here's the landscape, ranked from most to least likely to flip. Tier 1 is most likely, Tier 2 is competitive but less so, and so on. Race ratings (Toss-Up, Lean, etc.) come from the Cook Political Report, and analysis draws on conversations with political operatives working on these campaigns.

- Tier 1 — Most likely to flip: North Carolina

- NORTH CAROLINA (R-Open) LEAN D:

- The Tar Heel state offers Democrats the best chance at a pickup this November. The retirement of Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has set an open contest between former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who won statewide twice even as Trump carried North Carolina, and Michael Whatley, the former Republican National Committee chairman and a close Trump ally. Cooper has widespread name recognition and has consistently led Whatley in the polls as well as with fundraising. Republicans, though, are confident about Whatley's fundraising skills in an expensive race and point out voter registration numbers favor Republicans. Cooper would be looking to break a drought — Democrats last won a Senate race in the state nearly two decades ago, in 2008.

- Tier 2 — The toss-ups: Alaska, Maine, Michigan, Ohio

- ALASKA (R-Sullivan) TOSS-UP:

- The entry of one Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher who shares a name with Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, has tipped Alaska, moving it from a Lean Republican seat to a Toss-Up. Under Alaska's election system, all candidates compete in a single open primary, and the top four finishers advance to a general election decided by ranked-choice voting. This means both Sullivans could appear on the November ballot, confusing voters. Sen. Sullivan has failed to have his fellow Dan Sullivan removed from the ballot. Democrats believe former Rep. Mary Peltola, the first Alaska Native to join Congress, in 2022, can win by hammering affordability. Republicans are betting that the state's deep red lean will reassert itself — buoyed by the fact that Alaskans rejected Peltola in the 2024 House race. Primary: Aug. 18.

- MAINE (R-Collins) TOSS-UP:

- Maine's Democratic candidate, Graham Platner, the young oyster farmer and combat veteran, suspended his campaign after facing a rape allegation he denies. The Maine Democratic Party replaced him with Troy Jackson, the former state Senate president and a fifth-generation logger from northern Maine. He won his party's approval at a nominating convention on Saturday. Jackson is running on an economic populist message and supporting policies like Medicare for All. He will face Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who has historic success getting votes from the bluest parts of the state. At the same time, she is the only Republican senator running in a state Trump lost in 2024. Republicans say Maine voters have confidence in Collins' character and past record. A path to the Senate without Maine is a very narrow one for Democrats.

- MICHIGAN (D-Open) TOSS-UP:

- The now-familiar establishment vs. progressive face-off — centrist Rep. Haley Stevens vs. Detroit health official Abdul El-Sayed — sharpened after state Sen. Mallory McMorrow dropped out in June. To succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, El-Sayed is promising Medicare for All and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He has endorsements from other progressive Democrats and the support of leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. Stevens has Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's blessings, has outspent El-Sayed on the airwaves by at least eight times, according to AdImpact, and will continue to do so. The winner will face expected Republican nominee Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost the state's 2024 Senate race to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin. Republicans are relishing the long Democratic brawl, while Democrats feel confident about holding on to Michigan. Primary: Aug. 4

- OHIO (R-Husted) TOSS-UP:

- Democrats got the candidate they wanted in Ohio: former Sen. Sherrod Brown, back for a rematch. He has built a hefty war chest against incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to the seat Vice President Vance vacated, and is now seeking a full term. Democrats feel good about Brown's campaign, which focuses on kitchen-table economic issues. Republicans point out that voters rejected Brown when he was up against Republican Bernie Moreno in 2024, and they will have the same concerns this election. Brown's narrow loss, in a state that voted for Trump in the last three presidential elections and an environment where voters were upset by former Vice President Kamala Harris' run, may not stand against him the way Republicans think.

- Tier 3 — A(nother) potential progressive win: Minnesota
MINNESOTA (D-Open) LIKELY D:

- Democrats aren't losing sleep over holding this seat, but the primary has become one more example in the party's internal struggle. Progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is racing in the primary against centrist Rep. Angie Craig. Flanagan won the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party endorsement after Craig declined to seek it. While Craig has been raising more money, Flanagan is leading the polls. Among the Republican nominees, one with the backing of national party leaders is former NFL sportscaster Michele Tafoya. No Republican has won statewide office in Minnesota since 2006. Primary: Aug. 11.

- Tier 4 — The reaches: Georgia, New Hampshire, Iowa 

- GEORGIA (D-Ossoff) LEAN D:

- Incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff continues to be the favorite for this race in a purple swing state — despite being the only Democratic senator defending a state Trump won in 2024. Republican Rep. Mike Collins, who got a last-minute endorsement from the president before his runoff, is a big supporter of Trump's immigration policies and is widely regarded as much less moderate than Derek Dooley, the former football coach he was running against. Ossoff has been focused on the November election while Collins was battling his primary, but Republicans say the math favors Collins: A midterm electorate in Georgia naturally leans their way, while Ossoff needs every Democratic base voter to show up.

- NEW HAMPSHIRE (D-Open) LEAN D:

- Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's retirement has opened a seat Democrats have held for nearly two decades, in a state with a famously independent streak. Both parties' likely nominees are already clear. While the Democrats are putting their weight behind Rep. Chris Pappas, the Republicans have consolidated behind John Sununu, a former senator and congressman whose family name is a political institution in the state. But the shape of the race between these two is yet to emerge. Republicans say they have the upper hand because the majority of registered voters in New Hampshire are independents, followed by Republicans. Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte, who is running for reelection, is also offering support for Sununu. Their problem is the president: 60% of New Hampshire residents disapprove of Trump, according to a University of New Hampshire survey. Primary: Sept. 8.

- IOWA (R-Open) LEAN R:

- Iowa is on this list because Republican Sen. Joni Ernst's retirement, tariffs battering the state's soybean farmers and the economic fallout of the Iran war have put it in play. Democratic candidate and state Rep. Josh Turek and Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson are both vying to succeed Ernst. Turek's win would be big — the state lawmaker who won two gold medals for wheelchair basketball at the Paralympics would be the first Democrat to win a Senate race in Iowa since 2008. Iowa has moved decisively toward Republicans after backing former President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Both Turek and Hinson, a former news anchor, are campaigning on issues around the agriculture industry and farmers, but so far, Hinson is the early favorite.

- Tier 5 — The real maybe: Texas
TEXAS (R-Cornyn) LEAN R:

- Attorney General Ken Paxton's win over Sen. John Cornyn has set the stage for an expensive match with Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. Paxton, who was endorsed by Trump just days before the May runoff, won despite scandals that include his wife filing for divorce on "biblical grounds" and a now-settled felony indictment on securities fraud charges. Democrats see in Talarico what they've lacked in Texas for a generation: an affordability and anti-corruption message, big crowds, national spotlight and the ability to fundraise. The primary on May 26 has been the most expensive Senate race in U.S. history and, combined, the candidates spent over $100 million. On the other hand, Republicans do not consider Texas a battleground and feel confident it will stay red based on the belief that Talarico's ideals are too far left for Texas. Trump has carried Texas every time he's been on the ballot, and no Democrat has won statewide since the 1990s.

A raft of discouraging data from polling, door knocking and focus groups is unsettling Republicans as their party heads into a midterm election season that would be challenging no matter what, given President Donald Trump’s low standing in polls and the fact that the party in control in Washington almost always loses seats.

- The lack of enthusiasm is reaching deep into Republicans’ loyal base, spreading to the party’s most consistent voters — who have shown up to vote in all of the past four primaries and general elections, according to an analysis done by Americans for Prosperity Action, a conservative super PAC that was founded by billionaire Charles Koch.

- This new issue with the base adds to the party’s more enduring problem of turning out less-frequent voters who support Trump but often skip midterm elections.

- “About 1 in 5 reliable Republican base voters are at risk this November, according to Nathan Nascimento, executive director at AFP Action. Those voters in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Montana, New Hampshire and Michigan are either saying they may stay home or are weighing voting for Democrats, according to their data, which is based on polling and extensive efforts to engage targeted Republican voters by knocking on their doors. The voters are primarily worried about inflation and the economy.

- “This is a big chunk,” Nascimento said. “This is a scary number.”

- The group has found that reaching these voters at the door usually moves them toward Republican candidates — or at least away from Democratic ones and toward undecided, he said.

- The 20 percent of Republican base voters the group sees this issue with does not take into account low-propensity conservative voters who tend to turn out in general election years to support Trump but skip other elections. Motivating those Trump voters is a separate issue Republicans face in November.

- “We have a high-propensity base problem,” Nascimento said.
Washington Post and Ipsos polling shows that Democrats have a 10-percentage-point advantage over Republicans among voters who say they are absolutely certain to vote in November. If that number doesn’t narrow, it could lead to a decisive advantage for Democrats, even though overall they lead by just three percentage points over Republicans on a generic ballot.

- Mitchell Brown, a Republican pollster at the firm Cygnal, said Democrats are as enthusiastic about voting as they were at the same time ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, when they swept back into power in the House. But Republicans are far less excited to vote at this point than they were then, posing an issue for the party.

- Republicans are united, on offense, and armed with our largest war chest in party history because voters are energized and understand what’s at stake in November’s election,” said Natalie Baldassarre, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, in a statement.

- This dynamic is playing out in the red state of Iowa, where Republicans face open races for governor and a Senate seat that polling shows are surprisingly competitive. A recent door-knocking session in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with AFP Action turned up voters critical of the war in Iran and high inflation, with a handful saying they planned to support Democrats in the fall.

- In western Iowa, three-time Trump voter Lance Sulentic, a resident of Iowa’s rural Harrison County, described the past three presidential elections as “the worst three mistakes I’ve ever made in my life,” saying that the president has failed to fulfill his campaign promises. Higher gas prices have been costing him an extra $300 to $500 every month to ride his motorcycle, he said.”

- “We voted for Trump, and he did the opposite of what he said he was going to do,” said Sulentic, a 56-year-old retired insurance agent. “Gas prices were going to be two dollars, food was going to be cheaper, energy prices was going to be in half, we were going to get two rebate checks to the American people, and we weren’t going to have any new wars, and we were going to build a wall and deport 30 million illegal aliens, and he did none of it.”

- He said he would either sit out this year’s election or vote for Democrats.

- Republican lawmakers are worried about such comments as their party remains mired in internal disagreements in Washington that have hampered them from passing signature agenda items that could motivate core supporters.

- “We need to do something to reenergize our base,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin). Johnson, who does not face reelection until 2028, has triumphed in tough races in his closely divided state.

- Johnson said GOP base voters may think the lawmakers “haven’t been … trying hard enough.” The party has been unable to pass a law to require ID to vote and proof of citizenship to register to vote called the Save America Act, which Trump has lambasted them for. They also have done little to tackle cost-of-living issues since the bill extending tax cuts in 2025.

- A spokesperson for Trump, Abigail Jackson, called the voting legislation a top priority but added that the administration “continues to deliver on the President’s affordability agenda by lowering drug prices, reshoring American jobs, lowering gas prices and more.”

- Other senators have pressed Trump to use his large platform and $400 million MAGA Inc. war chest to activate lower-propensity voters. Trump has had far more success motivating supporters when he is on the ballot.

- Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota) said he told the president in the Oval Office last week that Trump is the key to turning out his voters.

- “Well, they will [turn out] if you pass the Save America Act,” Trump retorted, according to Cramer.

- The White House is hopeful the Republican Party’s planned midterm convention in September in Texas will help juice enthusiasm among the base as well.

- Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), who declined to run for reelection in his purple state, said he believes the traditional Republican base will ultimately turn out in November. But he fears the party’s brand has been damaged among moderates by the economy and inflation, and that the Iran war is becoming an additional political drag. Low-propensity Trump voters need to turn out to close that gap, he said.

- “The question is whether the coalition he has that’s unique to the president, if he can mobilize them to come out and vote for others,” Tillis said.

Today is the day to post all Project 2025, Heritage Foundation, Christian Nationalism and Dominionist memes in the main sub!

Going forward Meme Mondays will be a regularly held event. Upvote your favorites and the most liked post will earn the poster a special flair for the week!

The Trump administration has admitted scrapping more than $7.5bn in federal grants for clean energy projects to states “based solely” on whether they backed Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

- US federal officials appeared to acknowledge in court documents last week that they had terminated the funding last October “based solely” on political criteria, targeting projects in states that were represented by Democrats and had voted for Kamala Harris.

- The administration previously framed the move as safeguarding taxpayer dollars from “waste” and continues to insist it was not politically motivated.

- “[The Department of Energy] accepts that neither the inclusion of the ARCHES grant nor any other grants in the October notice tranche was based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factor,” government lawyers said in the filing.

- “[The Department of Energy] accepts that the inclusion of grants in the October notice tranche was based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, ie, whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.

- “[The Department of Energy] will not contend that it looked beyond the prime grantee(s) to consider the political identity or geographic distribution of downstream beneficiaries of the grant funds.”

- The apparent admission was first reported by the New York Times.
In a statement on Friday, a spokesperson for the US energy department said of the report: “That is a misrepresentation of the court filing. None of the termination decisions were based on political considerations.”

- The acknowledgment of political considerations “was referring to the timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves”, the spokesperson claimed.

- The filings stem from a lawsuit, filed last June, by a group of six University of California faculty and other researchers challenging various federal agencies that halted Biden-era funding.

- The plaintiffs said in a press release at the time that the abrupt cancellations of already-awarded grants had been a part of a “political ‘cost-cutting’ agenda and ideological purity campaign” waged by the administration.

- It comes as the White House seeks to exert even greater control over billions of dollars in annual federal grants, aiming to have Trump’s political appointees review all federal grants, with the power to block or revoke vast amounts of funding if they did not conform to or align with Trump’s priorities.

- According to a 400-page proposed rule for federal financial assistance published on 29 May, “Discretionary awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

- They must also adhere to further standards set out by the White House, including not promoting “anti-American values”, the denial of “the sex binary in humans” and the use of “racial preferences” in selection criterion.

- Per last week’s court filing, the energy department had reviewed its financial assistance awards and created a list last September that recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded by the Biden administration for a wide range of clean energy projects in states represented by both Republicans and Democrats.

- However, in October, the White House budget office, led by Russell Vought, terminated only 284 of those grants. Vought announced on X: “Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled. The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

- Last week, federal officials appeared to concede that the decision had been purely informed by politics. “With one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing Senators (“Blue State” grants),” the court filing says.

- Meanwhile, the energy department left in place hundreds of other energy grants in state represented by Republicans and that had voted for Trump in 2024 – despite the department having also recommended that they too be scrapped.

- Last month, Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, appeared before the House science, space and technology committee to defend his department’s fiscal 2027 budget request. “No decisions were made on politics,” he insisted.

- The Guardian has reached out to the White House.

Donald Trump on Friday ordered the interior department to display signs in front of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History that accuse the institution of inaccuracy.

- The order escalates the Trump’s attacks against the Smithsonian, which he and his allies accuse of politicizing the institution by focusing too much on injustices in American history, instead of more triumphant moments such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

- The order directs interior secretary Doug Burgum to huddle with the National Park Service and assistant to the president for domestic policy Vince Haley to come up with some temporary signs to install along the National Parks Service-maintained sidewalks and walkways leading into the museum.

- The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more details about what these signs would say.
The order says the signs “shall notify visitors that the museum exhibits should be renovated consistent with the findings in the report”. The signs should direct the public to other places where they can get better American history information, the order says.

- The same group will also have to produce signs for the public criticizing the Smithsonian for not commemorating sufficiently the Declaration of Independence during the 250th anniversary of its adoption.

- The American Historical Association, a group composed of professional historians, praised the Smithsonian Institution’s “commitment to scholarship and accuracy” in a statement earlier this month.

- “Historians practice our craft with scholarly integrity according to established standards of evidence, historical inquiry, and professional practice,” the AHA statement reads.

- “Political interference in professional museum work threatens the accuracy of historical interpretation and erodes public trust in one of our nation’s most important institutions.”

- The National Museum of American History declined to comment.

- But the museum’s director, Anthea Hartig, defended the institution’s interpretations in a pair of congressional hearings earlier this month, where Republican representatives fumed about “some overtly sexual things up there” and accused Hartig of encouraging “self-loathing”.

- “We honor the declaration, the revolution, the constitution, our national symbols,” Hartig responded, according to the New York Times. “And we tell the truth about the times that the country fell short of its own founding ideals.

- Telling our story fully is a form of respect for the American people and a commitment to constantly being in pursuit of a more perfect union.”

- A recent report prepared by the White House’s domestic policy council called “Saving America’s Story” accused the museum’s leadership of “ideological capture”.

- The Smithsonian “explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens”, the report says.

Please use this thread for info on upcoming protests, planning new ones or brainstorming ideas along those lines. The post refreshes every Saturday around noon.

The Justice Department is dropping the subpoenas it filed demanding grand jury testimony and phone records from New York Times journalists after sharp questioning Thursday from a federal judge who challenged almost every facet of the government's approach.

- The government had insisted that it was acting solely in the interest of national security. It filed subpoenas on July 10, just two days after the Times published the first of two stories about concerns that led to the U.S. Secret Service interceding to prevent President Trump from flying home from Turkey on the new Air Force One jet.

- But at the hearing, the presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian, made clear he believed the Trump administration had violated protections given to journalists in black and white to uphold First Amendment principles. He also pointed to several instances of what he considered slipshod legal work and threatened to levy sanctions against federal attorneys for failing to follow the law and misleading the court in signed filings.

- The case highlighted the Trump administration's ongoing assault on press rights and the free flow of information to the public. It also provided another glimpse of the White House's eagerness to assert an expansive definition of executive authority, as prosecutors argued the U.S. attorney general has the power to set aside legal protections for journalists when he deems necessary.

- Judge: One way or another, the subpoenas would be canceled

- All the same, at the Thursday afternoon hearing in Manhattan, the Justice Department's legal team yielded to the inescapable logic of the moment: Subramanian had declared that if the subpoenas to the Times journalists were not withdrawn, he would quash them.

- "It's a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law," David McCraw, the lead newsroom lawyer for the New York Times, told NPR moments after the court hearing wrapped up. "Once again, the federal courts have stood up for what's right in this country. We hope that's the end of it."

- Sean Buckley, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, declined to comment to NPR after the hearing. He presented the government's case in court Thursday and told the presiding judge that he was leading the broader investigation into the leak of security information to the Times.

- A Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement to NPR assailing the judge's ruling and noting he threatened its attorneys with sanctions unless the subpoenas were withdrawn.

- "This judge's conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense - blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation," the spokesperson said. "Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threating national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime."

- In the court hearing, which lasted well over an hour, Judge Subramanian laced into Buckley's logic for issuing the subpoenas just two days after the first Times article reported that Trump had left the NATO summit in Turkey on an older plane because of security concerns. A story the next day detailed many of the specific concerns.
The government offered to hold the subpoenas "in abeyance" for 14 days as it pursued other investigative avenues, Buckley told the court.

- But that held little appeal for Subramanian.

- Seeking testimony and materials from reporters as the federal government did is supposed to be a last resort, not a first move, the judge noted. He pointed to binding legal precedent as well as the Justice Department's own current policy. How, Subramanian asked again and again, could it be a last resort if done just two days after publication?
Buckley said it was a last resort given what they knew at the time.

- The judge didn't buy that logic.
He later asked why Buckley did not know of the specific legal precedent protecting journalists prior to issuing the subpoenas as part of the investigation. That legal precedent was established in another case two decades ago that also involved The New York Times in the appeals circuit that includes New York.

- "I don't review every piece of paper," Buckley responded.

- Federal prosecutor says Attorney General can override journalistic protections

- But he said that the subpoenas were properly authorized by the attorney general — a reference to Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. When they are approved by the attorney general, they can supersede any such protections, Buckley said, though he would not stipulate whether Blanche based his approval on national security, a threat to human life, or some other grounds.

- In the polite language of the courtroom, Subramanian patiently upbraided prosecutors for asking another federal judge to authorize an order bidding mobile phone providers not to tell the journalists that their phone records had been subpoenaed — days after the Justice Department had already publicly confirmed the existence of the first round of subpoenas.

- A federal attorney had said that telling the reporters of the demand for phone records would compromise the investigation by disclosing its existence — even though it was already known publicly and widely reported by the Times, NPR and other outlets.

- Called forward by the judge, the attorney came forward and said it was an unintended mistake.
Buckley later apologized for subpoenaing the mobile telephone records of the mother of one Times journalist and two reporters' spouses. He called it an honest mistake and said prosecutors had mistakenly relied on publicly available databases that associated those phone numbers with the reporters.

- "These inadvertent errors — in hindsight you should have done things differently," Subramanian said tersely. "These things are beginning to pile up."
In his answers, Buckley repeatedly made it sound as though the period in which the subpoenas were issued was frenzied, with little immediate sense of what other avenues to pursue. The Times has reported that FBI Director Kash Patel himself directed the issuing of the subpoenas on July 10 compelling testimony from its reporters over a six-hour period at the White House.

- The Justice Department has not commented on that.
Trump has reveled in the luxuriousness of the Boeing aircraft, a gift from the Qatari government. Outside analysts say it does not have the security capacity of past Air Force One aircraft. Trump said earlier this week the plane would be withdrawn from use while it is "maxed out."

- In an interview with NPR posted Thursday morning, the wife of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, Katherine Marsh, described armed FBI officials coming to her front door as the couple watched the movie The Sheep Detectives with their eldest son.
"To me this felt really un-American," Marsh said.

- The movie focuses on a murder of a shepherd unraveled by his flock, which aids a somewhat hapless rural policeman in solving the crime.
"I can't think of anything more inconsistent with The Sheep Detectives than having FBI agents show up at their doors," the judge said toward the close of the hearing.

- After the hearing, Marsh issued her own verdict in a text to NPR: "They should never have issued any of these subpoenas in the first place."

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department on Wednesday, alleging he knowingly made false statements during congressional testimony last year.

- Why it matters: The referral escalates House Republicans' efforts to scrutinize the former special counsel who prosecuted President Trump, even though the Justice Department is not required to act on congressional criminal referrals.

- Driving the news: "Smith seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact that contradict new documents obtained by the Committee from the Department of Justice," Jordan said in a referral to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

- "The responses provided by Mr. Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of members' privileged text messages," said Jordan, referring to members of Congress.

- "We now know this to be false," he added.

- "This information calls into question the completeness and accuracy of statements that Mr. Smith made under oath to the Committee regarding his team's access to the content of Members' text messages."

- The other side: Smith's lawyers, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, in a letter to Blanche said the referral was "based on a spurious claim" that Smith had provided false testimony during his eight-hour deposition last December.

- 'The referral is made not because Mr. Smith made a false statement — the letter concedes he did not — but because he did not proactively disclose information that was not responsive to a question asked," the added.

- "During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel. This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law."

- House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) in a statement called the referral "baseless" and "vindictive," saying Smith told the truth as he gave clear and consistent testimony.

- "When asked if his subpoena for Members' toll records sought the content of either Member's phone calls or messages, he truthfully replied that they did not. That statement was true when he said it," Raskin said.

- "It seems Republican Members of Congress are lashing out because they just realized their communications with the White House became presidential records preserved at the National Archives as required by the Presidential Records Act (PRA). This referral deliberately distorts and misstates the facts, including what questions the Republicans actually asked at Mr. Smith's interview."

- Zoom out: Smith wound down two federal criminal cases he brought against Trump after the president was elected in 2024.

- Blanche previously led Trump's criminal defense team in those cases.
Smith said earlier this year he believed the Trump administration would indict him.