Trump and Putin are both criticizing mail-in voting. Election officials are freaking out.
The U.S. president's attempts to change the voting process may also not pass legal scrutiny. State governments are in charge of holding elections, according to Article 1 of the Constitution, and any executive order or law seeking to overturn states' rights on this issue is certain to be challenged in court.
Still, the Trump administration has taken steps in recent months to weaken U.S. election security in other ways. The administration froze efforts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to help protect election infrastructure and challenge election-related misinformation . In addition, a team that had responded to foreign election interference was disbanded in February.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D), the chief election official in her state, said Trump's actions so far have 'already made our elections less secure.'
'Trump is trying to grab power ahead of the 2026 election,' Griswold said of the recent actions. 'This is a direct attack on democracy.'
The White House insists that Trump's effort to end the use of mail-in ballots is meant to enhance election security.
'President Trump wants to secure America's elections and protect the vote, restoring the integrity of our elections by requiring voter ID, ensuring no illegal ballots are cast, and preventing cheating through lax and incompetent voting laws in states like California and New York,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.
But the timing of Trump's announcement — right after a high-stakes meeting with Putin — has heightened concerns that Trump's actions, nudged by Putin, are aimed at suppressing certain voters and downgrading election security by eroding trust in the electoral process.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats alarmed over new data showing voters fleeing to GOP
Democrats are sounding the alarm on new data showing they are losing voters to Republicans across the country. A devastating New York Times report Wednesday showed that of the 30 states that maintain voter registration records by political party, Democrats fell behind Republicans in all of them between the 2020 and 2024 elections. In total, Republicans added up to 4.5 million voters compared to Democrats, creating a huge hold that could set Democrats back for years. 'I think it should be an alarm' for the Democratic Party, said party strategist Eddie Vale. 'I think it's a real problem.' The new data comes as Democrats struggle to figure out how to get out of the political wilderness after losing the presidency to Donald Trump and control of both chambers of Congress to the GOP. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has found traction with attacks on Trump, mimicking the president on social media and energizing many in his party. But the Democratic brand itself has taken a number of big hits, and The New York Times data is just the latest point suggesting the party has lost its way. Vale noted that a span of voters, including people of different races and ages, were abandoning the party, according to the Times reporting. He said his worry is that all of these different kinds of voters feel like the Democratic Party left them. They 'all shared the broader fact that they are working class and not feeling like we were talking to them or actually going to help them, so that needs to be fixed,' he said. Another Democratic strategist found the report disheartening at a time when Democrats are feeling rudderless and leaderless and lacking a coherent message for voters. 'Two things need to happen for Trump's political movement to fail: Trump and MAGA popularity plummets and Democrats' brand popularity rises,' the strategist said. 'The former is happening but not the latter.' 'You have to have something clear to offer an alternative vision,' the strategist added. 'The voter registration lag is directly related to this because the Democratic brand is flat. It's one of the reasons why the most successful Democrats in this environment run against both parties.' Democrats have been feeling dejected since their devastating defeat in November, when they lost control of not just the presidency but the House and the Senate, which they had previously controlled. Recent polls show that Democrats view their party as weak. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll in July revealed that about 1 in 5 Democrats described their party in a positive light. And a poll by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country obtained by The Hill last month showed that voters perceived the Democratic Party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' The struggle to connect with voters has been a running theme for months, with even Democrats acknowledging that they have yet to put forward a compelling message. A Wall Street Journal poll out late last month showed Democrats' popularity had hit the lowest point in 35 years, as 63 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of the party. At the same time, 33 percent of those surveyed held a favorable view. The drop in voter registration for Democrats 'matches what we see in the polls,' said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who does not support Trump. 'People are unsatisfied with what the Democrats are offering.' 'It shows how Democrats took things for granted and got out-hustled by Republicans, and I don't say that with glee or anything else,' Del Percio added. 'But the numbers are there, and this is proof in the pudding.' A major Democratic donor was more scathing: 'Our party sucks. Our leadership sucks. Our message sucks. Why would anyone want to be a Democrat?' 'We're completely out of touch,' the donor said. Democrats also say they are aware of voters' perceptions and views of the party and have sought to make inroads with key demographics that have strayed from their party. They have been conducting a series of postmortems and focus groups in an effort to win the voters back. Steve Schale, the veteran Democratic strategist, said the only voter registration that has 'really moved the needle in the last 20 years has been centered around the party and candidates' and that Democrats should return to that model. 'Not only does party-based voter registration accomplish the rote goal of registering voters, it also requires the kind of outreach in key communities that we have long rightly been criticized for abandoning,' Schale said. 'But to this, donors have to be willing to support the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and state parties.' 'It won't happen on its own,' Schale added. At the same time, Vale cautioned that the Democratic Party should not simply mend what's broken. They have to be forward-looking. 'We need to make sure that while we fix it we don't only fight the last war and not be attuned to things possibly changing again,' Vale said. 'Because we have already seen in a lot of polling that younger people, Latino and African American men are souring on Trump and that can be something that can be the leading edge of winning them back registration-wise.' In the end, Democratic strategist Anthony Coley said, the numbers amount to trust with voters and 'a larger problem with the Democratic brand.' 'Voters have run away from the party for a variety of reasons but trust — or the lack of it — tops the list,' Coley said. 'Too many voters just don't trust the Democratic Party to deliver on issues they care about.'
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Memo: Trump ignites new culture war battle over the Smithsonian — and slavery
President Trump has plunged once more into the nation's cultural wars — this time with Washington's famous Smithsonian Institution in his sights. As is often the case, the manner of Trump's attack risks significant blowback, even as it delights his fans. Specifically, in a social media blast about how 'OUT OF CONTROL' the Smithsonian allegedly is, Trump contended that its exhibits were excessively focused on 'how bad Slavery was.' Whether that sentiment was clumsily phrased or fully intentional, it ignited a storm because of the implication that slavery was somehow not quite as bad as commonly portrayed. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — a potential 2028 presidential candidate who has adopted an ever more combative social media stance against Trump in recent weeks — contended that the president was 'trying to ERASE slavery from U.S. history.' Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) blasted Trump's comment as 'outrageous and un-American' and further argued, 'If Trump thinks slavery wasn't bad, he clearly needs to spend more time in a museum.' Media commentators expressed their own criticisms. CNN 'Newsnight' anchor Abby Phillip began her show on Tuesday with a monologue in which she noted, 'It's important to say, objectively, slavery was indeed bad. It was evil — the nation's original sin. And it is impossible to understand the true history of this country without fully grappling with slavery's impact.' It would be naive to imagine that one more Trump controversy will do anything to fundamentally change his political fortunes. Trump has peppered the national discourse with inflammatory remarks since he descended the Trump Tower escalator to launch his first campaign a decade ago, accusing Mexico of sending 'rapists' across the southern border. Still, his propensity to ignite new fights, often on some of the most sensitive issues of American life, surely contributes to popularity ratings that are, overall, mediocre — despite the ferocious loyalty of his base. Even as his supporters laud the changes he has wrought in the first seven months of his second term, recent polls have shown most Americans disapproving of his job performance. A recent Ipsos/Reuters poll put Trump 14 points underwater, with 54 percent of survey respondents disapproving and 40 percent approving. An Economist/YouGov poll indicated his net rating was even worse, 16 points in the negative. Trump's ratings when it comes to personal attributes also reflect broad distaste for his approach. A second Economist poll earlier this month asked Americans if they liked Trump as a person, regardless of whether or not they agree with his policies. Just 33 percent of respondents said they liked him. Forty-eight percent said they disliked him — including almost 1 in 5 self-described conservatives. That being said, there is obviously a political market for what Trump is selling, especially among culturally conservative Americans who feel alienated by society's liberal shifts in recent decades. He notably placed his attack on the Smithsonian within the framework of the institution allegedly being excessively 'woke'— and insufficiently patriotic. Despite the nebulousness over what 'wokeness' actually is, Trump has used similar charges against leading universities. Those attacks have drawn much media comment, but it's unclear they have sparked commensurate public outrage. A number of elite institutions have sought some form of accommodation with him. In Trump's case, it's also often hard to distinguish between 'culture war' rhetoric and substantive policy. The former seems to drive the latter in his case, to an unusual extent. There are subjects on which this plays to his political advantage — the most obvious being immigration, where he has spoken frequently about an 'invasion' that can only be repelled by his hawkish policies. During last year's election campaign, immigration was consistently Trump's strongest issue — a finding that suggests his language on the issue resonates widely, even as it appalls critics. He has, more recently, used similarly emotive language as he seeks to justify his deployment of the National Guard and other federal law enforcement agencies in Washington, D.C., as well as his takeover of the city's police department. In that instance, Trump has contended that 'the Democrat Government of D.C. has largely stopped investigating, arresting, and prosecuting most crime,' and has spoken of a crime emergency, despite declining violent crime rates. He has also promised that his law enforcement takeover will result in the District of Columbia being 'LIBERATED' from 'Crime, Savagery, Filth and Scum.' In this case, however, his words have rung hollow for the vast majority of residents of the District. A Washington Post-Schar School poll of D.C. residents published on Wednesday found 79 percent of those surveyed oppose his federal takeover of the police and his deployment of the guard and FBI. It is, of course, arguable whether Trump's language and actions in relation to Washington are really aimed at meeting the needs of the strongly Democratic city — or about playing to his base in the heartlands by casting the capital in a negative and quasi-subversive light. In the end, there is no plausible possibility that Trump will back off the culture war fights that he has embraced for so long. He can argue that approach has brought him this far — even as it has also fueled the intensity of the opposition to him.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Fiscal cliff looms as public media braces for Trump cuts
Supporters of public media on Capitol Hill and beyond are scrambling to find solutions to address a fiscal cliff that public media is staring down this fall following cuts directed by President Trump and executed by his allies in Congress. Senators on both sides of the aisle say they were working to protect local stations after Congress cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-funded body that said it will shut down as a result. At the same time, public media leaders are looking for ways to blunt the blow for stations most at risk, but have warned that filling the gaps could be next to impossible. 'Nobody can replace $600 million a year,' Tim Isgitt, CEO of the Public Media Company, said Tuesday. 'CPB was the largest funder of local news and information in this country, and no, philanthropy can't make up that gap.' Isgitt's organization is the driving force behind a philanthropic effort, known as the Public Media Bridge Fund, which has raised more than $26 million for stations at risk of shuttering in wake of the CPB cuts. 'For these at-risk stations, CPB typically sends about $55 million a year, just to these 115 that we've identified,' Isgitt told The Hill. He said the goal is to raise about $100 million over two years to help cover that gap for these stations, while exploring ways for them to become 'more sustainable over time,' including finding other sources of revenue or reducing expenditures. In total, a group of philanthropic organizations including The Knight Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Schmidt Family Foundation, all longtime backers of public media, pledged to commit nearly $37 million this week to provide immediate relief to public media stations at risk of closure following federal funding cuts. 'Local public media stations are trusted community anchors that connect people to vital news, culture and civic life,' Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, president and CEO of Knight Foundation said in a statement. 'This is an urgent moment that calls for bold action.' Public broadcasting stations have also seen a boost in donations in response to the cuts, with reports showing tens of millions of dollars in increased support in recent months. But advocates for public media say much more is needed to fill a more than $500 million hole for the coming fiscal year. Some say the void left by the closure of local public media stations would pose a risk to public safety and quality of life, particularly in rural communities. 'Like many people, I learned to read and count because of public media. It's the lifeblood of so many localities,' said Pete Loge, who teaches communications and media at George Washington University. 'Trump is a really good big national theatre and spectacle … the irony is a move like this is made to seem like it's attacking liberals, but it's actually harming a lot of Republican constituents.' The CPB said earlier this month it would begin an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' after the GOP-led Congress approved about $1 billion in cuts to the corporation, or combined funding previously made available for the organization for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. It also said this week that it 'no longer can absorb costs and manage the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) grant program' as a result of the cuts to its operating costs. CPB partnered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement the program. Congress currently has until Sept. 30 to pass legislation to keep the government funded into fiscal 2026, which begins Oct. 1, or risk its first government shutdown in years. Some on Capitol Hill are hopeful that lawmakers could still pull out a bipartisan fix to protect local stations, mainly in rural areas, that rely on funding from the federal government to operate. 'I think that the discussion around their decisions really was focused on national programming and concerns that people had about NPR and PBS, and I think that really what got missed in that whole discussion was the impact that this rescission was going to have on local stations,' Kate Riley, the president and chief executive officer for America's Public Television Stations (APTS), said. 'We've talked to a wide range of members, including many Republicans, who strongly support their local stations and recognize the essential role that their local stations provide in serving their community and their constituents, and are realizing now that this broad rescission has had some unintended consequences on their local stations,' Riley said. Funding for CPB was notably excluded in the annual funding bill for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services that was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee last month. The CPB said it marked the first time in more than five decades the funding had been left out. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, suggested funding for local stations could find bipartisan support in Congress, separate from the administration's efforts to dismantle CPB. 'A priority for most of the Republicans who have announced their support or their opposition to defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is that they have many small rural stations' Baldwin told The Hill. 'Their capacity to do private fundraising is very limited if you serve a very, you know, rural population with a small population, but they need it for emergency alerts and educational programming and local news. And so, I think that's where we're going to be able to come together.' But for some stations, the time crunch is tighter. NPR said multiple stations began their fiscal 2026 budget in July. Isgitt also noted that November, when many public stations would typically receive funding from CPB, will also be a critical time for other outlets. 'I don't know what cash flow or assets look like for every one of these stations, but you can be assured that, in the months after November, several stations will begin to fail, and then more will fail, and more will fail after that,' he said. 'It's going to happen. This is a cash-strapped industry.' Republicans said they had worked out a deal with the administration aimed at helping shield tribal stations from the cuts by repurposing other funds for the effort. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, has raised questions about the funding and noted that many stations in her state, which has a significant indigenous population, could still fall through the cracks because they aren't considered tribally-owned or serving tribal land. 'I have to figure out a way to maintain not just the tribal stations, because half of those stations are not tribal,' Murkowski told The Hill. 'They're pretty dang important, and so, yeah, I got to find a way. I don't know what the path is, but I'm working on it.' Native Public Media CEO Loris Tiller said the organization conducted a recent poll of 19 tribal stations so far that all said anywhere from 40-100 percent of their annual budget came from CPB funds. 'We also asked them whether staff layoffs will be necessary, and you can see that the majority of them are affirmative in that response,' Taylor said, while also adding she still doesn't have many answers about the administration's side deal with Senate Republicans to protect tribal stations. 'We just haven't heard anything about that. I don't know if it's moving,' Taylor said. 'I don't know where the money's coming from. The details haven't been forthcoming.' Advocates have also raised concerns about public stations at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) they say are at risk in wake of the CPB cuts. About a dozen NPR members are affiliated with HBCUs. Cuts to public media have long been on the wishlist of President Trump and conservatives more generally. The president earlier this year sent a special request to Congress to secure the cuts without Democratic support. Upon passage of the legislation, Trump cheered the measure on social media for cutting 'atrocious NPR and Public Broadcasting.' Many Republicans in both chambers share the same view, often singling out NPR and PBS, which receive some funding from CPB, for what they allege is political bias. About one percent of NPR's current operating budget comes directly from the federal government, compared to 15 percent for PBS, multiple outlets report. In the previous fiscal year, NPR received upwards of $13 million from CPB, the corporation's grants and allocations data shows. More than $70 million went to PBS, based in Arlington. At a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier this year, the CEOs of NPR and PBS faced an intense grilling from angry lawmakers over their editorial decision making and funding models. Other lawmakers have argued public media has been outpaced by major changes to the media ecosystem and the emergence of alternative news platforms. 'Because of technology today, I don't think there's a role for public radio anymore,' Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing in March. In a statement after the Senate passed cuts to the CPB, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said the moves 'goes against the will of the American people, the vast majority of whom trust PBS and believe we provide excellent value to their communities.' 'These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas,' she said. 'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead.'
