Even the Republican county attorney in Arizona’s most populous locality is sounding the alarm on potential election meddling by MAGA world.

That’s the crux of a court filing submitted by Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell this week. For those unaware, Mitchell garnered national attention after Senate Republicans tapped her to question Christine Blasey Ford during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process after Ford alleged that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her as a teenager. Kavanaugh has flatly denied the allegation.

Two years later, Mitchell successfully ran for Maricopa County attorney, and she endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2024 — in other words, she is not an opponent of the MAGA movement. So it’s noteworthy that she and her legal team are accusing America First Legal, the right-wing activist group founded by White House adviser Stephen Miller, of effectively taking control of the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, which helps administer elections.

The office is led by Justin Heap, who has egged on the Trump administration’s push to acquire sensitive voter data in Arizona. And the disturbing context to all this is Trump has openly declared that Republicans should nationalize voting processes and “take over the voting” in several cities — like Phoenix, perhaps.

According to The Arizona Republic:

In a June 8 legal filing, Mitchell’s lawyers asked Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney to rein in Recorder Justin Heap’s politically connected firm, the America First Legal Foundation, which it said has undertaken “an unprecedented power grab.”

“The Recorder lacks any explicit or implicit statutory authority to hire outside counsel — let alone a partisan organization — to serve as in-house counsel on ‘all’ matters under his ‘purview,’” Mitchell’s lawyers wrote.

America First Legal is advising Heap’s office as he battles the Republican-controlled Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in an attempt to claim official powers for himself. As Democracy Docket reported, the dispute at one point allegedly involved Heap seizing election equipment and provisional ballot envelopes while votes were being cast in a local election in March, causing county supervisors to warn about “grave chain-of-custody concerns.”

The Arizona Republic said Mitchell listed several examples of America First Legal wielding unauthorized power in Heap’s office amid the dispute with the board:

Mitchell’s request, handled by the law firm of Snell and Wilmer, identified six examples of what she contends involves America First Legal going beyond Blaney’s intended role for them: litigating the power-sharing agreement with the board.

Now, Mitchell argues, America First Legal has claimed authority over all matters relating to early voting, told election officials to disregard directives from or seek advice from Mitchell’s office, threatened prosecution over drop boxes and sent a warning letter signaling new litigation against the board.

Let’s not downplay the crisis playing out here. The GOP-controlled Board of Supervisors and the Republican county attorney overseeing the largest county in Arizona, where the majority of the state’s voters live, are calling out the pro-MAGA county recorder, who stands accused of allowing a right-wing activist group, founded by a White House official, to have unchecked power over electoral processes. (Heap’s office did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.)

The fact that even conservative officials are sounding the alarm here shows how extreme, unprecedented and potentially threatening to democracy this situation could prove to be.

The post Maricopa County official fears Stephen Miller’s group has taken over election office appeared first on MS NOW.

Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly creating a strategic alliance of convenience that US policymakers must confront as it seeks to disrupt global order, according to a group of US experts and former officials.

The battle over President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund is heading to federal court for the first time this week despite the administration’s claims that the fund is dead. Federal judges in both Washington and Virginia are scheduled to hear arguments over bids to block the Department of Justice from taking steps to actualize what critics are calling a “slush fund.” 

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia has already temporarily blocked the DOJ from launching the nearly $1.8 billion fund until she has heard arguments about its legality. The DOJ has acknowledged it intends to comply with that court order, which is set to expire this Friday. 

The hearings come as the DOJ has backed off the fund in public statements. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the reversal at a congressional hearing on June 3.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said.

“Not moving forward ever?” pressed Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y.

“Correct,” Blanche responded. At the same time, he would not commit to rescinding the fund in writing despite repeated pleas from Meng to do so. 

The DOJ is now relying on that testimony as evidence to show the courts the legal challenges are moot. In a court document filed Friday afternoon, the DOJ indicated in writing for the first time that it was not proceeding with the fund.

“This dispute concerns an Anti-Weponization Fund that has not been set up and is now not going forward,” wrote Andrew Block, a DOJ attorney. He also argued the case is “not justiciable,” meaning it is not a matter the federal court has jurisdiction to decide.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the nonprofit watchdog group that brought this Washington-based challenge, is not satisfied with the department’s apparent cancellation of the fund. Responding to the government’s filing, the group argued the DOJ has provided no evidence that it is actually backtracking and pointed to its refusal to rescind the fund in writing. 

“So long as the Fund’s charter documents remain in effect, nothing stops [the Trump administration] from illegally siphoning, at any given moment, nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars from the Treasury’s Judgement Fund to an unidentified ‘Designated Account’ and rapidly disbursing those funds to whomever they want under a shroud of secrecy, in violation of the Constitution and multiple federal transparency and funding statutes,” CREW lawyers wrote. 

They maintained Blanche’s comments are not legally binding, saying, “The Acting Attorney General’s remarks had no legal effect whatsoever on the May 18 Agreement, which by its terms can be modified ‘only by written agreement of the Parties.’” (The May 18 agreement refers to the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, which created this “anti-weaponization” fund. That agreement also had an addendum that purports to give Trump immunity from IRS audits, and that addendum has not been challenged in any of these lawsuits.)

In a D.C. District Court on Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon will weigh the fund’s future in the case brought by CREW, even as the fund remains blocked by Brinkema’s order in the Virginia-based challenge. 

Across the Potomac in Alexandria, Virginia, the plaintiffs who brought that challenge, a coalition of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and nonprofit organizations, are asking the judge for more time to gather information about the fund before they argue over its future. 

The coalition wants the DOJ to clarify its public statements, including those Blanche made to Congress, about its intentions for the fund. They are also seeking further substantiation from the DOJ beyond the those comments that it is actually being scrapped. 

They specifically highlighted Trump’s continued public defense of the fund in various interviews conducted after Blanche’s congressional testimony. In a pretaped interview with “Meet the Press” that aired June 7, Trump said, “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved.” 

Brinkema is still weighing the request for more information, and the hearing remains set for Friday morning. 

These legal battles are playing out as another brews in the background. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who was overseeing the Trump lawsuit against the IRS that ultimately yielded the settlement agreement, has ordered additional briefing after having initially dismissed the case. That order stemmed from a request to reopen the case filed by 35 former federal judges, who argued the settlement “is a product of collusion and itself a fraud on the court.”

Williams requested Trump respond to allegations of collusion by Friday and address specifically whether the dismissal was premised on deception and whether she should reopen the case because she was a “victim of a fraud.”

These are just a few of the cases actively challenging Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ. With the initial legal tests this week, the key question is how these judges will respond. Will they accept the DOJ at its word and dismiss the cases, or will they insist on a more formal binding order to prevent the DOJ from ever following through with  this fund? At this point, its fate — and this latest test of executive authority — lies with the judiciary.

The post DOJ says ‘anti-weaponization’ fund is dead. The lawsuits are still moving ahead. appeared first on MS NOW.

One thing that can be more accurately quantified through actual facts and figures is the truth behind some of the myths that have been peddled

City is making headlines around the world again... for all the wrong reasons

President Donald Trump’s first term sent a wave of national security professionals into politics. His second term is doing the same for public health experts.

Across the country, doctors, scientists and public health officials are running for state and federal office, citing their frustrations with cuts to public health funding, diminished support for vaccination and disease prevention, and the sidelining of experts in public health.

Among the most prominent is Dr. Nirav Shah, who was head of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the coronavirus pandemic. He is considered the front-runner in a competitive Democratic primary for Maine governor on Tuesday.

Other candidates include Dr. Amy Acton, a pediatric physician and researcher who is the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Ohio, and Jasmine Clark, who is poised to become the first Black woman Ph.D. scientist in Congress after securing the Democratic nomination for Georgia’s 13th District. In Michigan, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a former public health official, is currently ahead in the polls for the Democratic Senate primary in August.

They are part of a broader wave of scientists getting involved in politics. The 314 Action Fund, a political action committee dedicated to recruiting and electing Democratic STEM professionals, has committed more money than ever before to the 2026 primary cycle. 

Doctors are nothing new in politics, of course. There are already 20 physicians serving in Congress, including four senators. 

But the current group of elected officials is disproportionately Republican, while the new wave of candidates is centered in Democratic primaries. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s deep cuts to staff at federal health agencies and controversial changes to vaccine policy seem to have inspired a number of the candidates. 

But on the campaign trail, they are much more likely to talk about Trump allowing expanded subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act to expire than on public health policy.

Dr. Richard Pan, a pediatrician running for Congress in California, gave a typical statement in a social media post last week. 

“People in the district are struggling as the cost of gas, food, and housing spike and health care is being taken away by the Trump Administration,” he wrote.

Just 4 in 10 U.S. adults say they support the Make America Healthy Again movement championed by Kennedy, according to polling last month from health policy organization KFF.

But when asked to choose the most important health priority for the federal government, 42% of MAHA backers chose lowering healthcare costs, twice as many as the next agenda item, restricting chemical additives to food.

Once in office, medical professionals will sometimes cite their expertise when trying to win a political argument, but there are limits. 

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a gastroenterologist, led the effort against Kennedy’s nomination in 2025 before reluctantly voting for him. Last month he lost a Republican primary for re-election after Trump endorsed his opponent. 

A focus on costs also helps candidates stay focused on the economy. Only 2% of voters say healthcare is the most important issue in the election, according to a May poll by Gallup, well below the economy and immigration. 

Like any other group of political newcomers, healthcare professionals have also faced setbacks. In Texas, emergency room physician Dr. Ada Cuellar lost a Democratic congressional primary to a Tejano music star. 

But these kinds of waves can have a long-term impact. Among the class of national security pros who won in 2018 were future senators Elissa Slotkin and Andy Kim and future governors Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill. 

This is a preview of MS NOW’s Project 47 Newsletter. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, get expert analysis on the administration’s latest actions and how others are pushing back sent straight to your inbox every Tuesday. Sign up now.

The post MAHA has inspired a wave of medical professionals to run for office appeared first on MS NOW.

UPDATE (June 8, 2026, 9:25 p.m. ET): Los Angeles Council member Nithya Raman will advance to the November general election in the mayoral race to face the incumbent, Karen Bass, after overtaking ex-reality TV star Spencer Pratt in the primary, The Associated Press projects.

President Donald Trump and some of his top allies are repeating a familiar but false refrain: An election is “rigged,” as evidenced by their preferred candidate’s poor performance.

This time, their focus is on ex-reality TV star and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt.

On the night of the Tuesday primary, Pratt maintained a 9-point lead over his closest challenger, LA Council member Nithya Raman, leading his supporters to believe he would proceed to the November runoff against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. But as mail-in ballots trickled in throughout the week, Pratt’s lead over Raman steadily narrowed, and by Sunday night, she had overtaken him by less than 1 point, with more than 80% of votes counted, according to The Associated Press. (The AP has not yet projected the second-place finisher to proceed to the runoff as of Monday afternoon.)

To Trump and his MAGA allies, a democratic socialist’s surge over a registered Republican with no political experience in a deep-blue city can only be indicative of one thing: fraud.

“No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!” Trump wrote on Truth Social early Monday morning.

A few hours later, Trump followed up with another Truth Social post.

“Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. 3rd World Nation. Rigged Elections!” he wrote.

Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a close ally of the president, told her 1.9 million followers on X on Saturday that the election “is being stolen from [Pratt] in real time!”

Benny Johnson and Elon Musk have also reposted several right-wing accounts suggesting Raman’s rise must be the result of fraud. Meghan McCain, who is a conservative commentator but also a frequent Trump critic, also injected doubt into the election results.

But election experts are not surprised by Raman’s slow rise as vote counting continues.

Why California vote counting takes so long

A poll released by the University of California, Berkeley, and the Los Angeles Times in late May suggested Pratt and Raman would be competing neck-and-neck to proceed to the runoff, and several strategists long predicted Pratt — a registered Republican backed by MAGA — would face an uphill battle in the blue city.

The mechanics of how Angelenos’ votes are counted also explain Raman’s rise: California elections officials have 30 days from Election Day to come up with the vote count, and mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to seven days after the election are eligible to be counted. (If mail-in ballots are missing signatures or have signatures that do not match those on file, state law requires election officials to contact voters to verify their signatures, adding more time to the process.)

Results posted on election night are based on in-person ballots cast at voting locations, both on Election Day and before, as well as mail-in ballots received before Election Day, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Subsequent counts include votes cast by provisional ballots, ballots from voters who registered and voted on the same day and the mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days of the election.

“This is not unusual,” Zev Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, told MS NOW on Monday regarding the shifting results in the race.

Yaroslavsky pointed to the 2022 LA primary, when Republican turned centrist Democrat Rick Caruso was ahead of Bass on primary night before she pulled ahead a week later. In the November runoff, Bass ultimately beat Caruso by nearly 10 points. Nearly 85% of voters also voted by mail in that primary, contributing to the delay in Bass’s rise.

“It’s clear, it has always been the case, that Republicans and more conservative voters vote early, [and] working people, more progressive people vote late,” Yaroslavsky said.

And with more votes still to be counted, Yaroslavsky predicted Raman’s lead over Pratt would expand even further.

‘No evidence’ of cheating

Dean Logan, LA County’s registrar-recorder and county clerk, told CNN on Sunday that officials have “no evidence or examples” of cheating in the mayoral race.

“I think what we’re seeing, unfortunately, is carrying out of a narrative that has become the game play in national politics in the United States, and that is prior to the vote count being completed, take shots at the process, so if the outcome turns out different than what you want, you don’t accept that, you challenge the process,” Logan said.

Yaroslavsky agreed, telling MS NOW, “What the president is basically saying is, ‘When I win, it’s legit, when I don’t win, it’s fraud.’ That’s not the way it works.”

Logan told CNN the outcome would be clear within “days,” adding, “I know it’s frustrating, but this is really about making sure that every eligible ballot in this election is counted and counted correctly.”

In the meantime, other conspiracies are circulating, including some promoted by Pratt himself.

Pratt suggested on Sunday night, for example, that the approximately 43,000 votes Raman gained between Tuesday and Sunday came from homeless people. In another social media post on Sunday, Pratt wrote: “They’re not the only ones who know where to find votes.”

Spokespeople for the Pratt campaign did not immediately respond to questions from MS NOW on Monday seeking clarification about the candidate’s claims.

Other conservative influencers have also falsely said Raman “conceded” the race at her primary night rally. But as MS NOW covered in real time, Raman did not concede the race. Instead, she warned her supporters that it would take time for the votes to be counted and that they may not get a favorable outcome.

“Tonight may not give us a final answer on this race. Many thousands of votes will be counted in the days ahead, and we may not get an answer we like,” she said.

In a statement provided to MS NOW on Monday, Raman said, “We are encouraged by the latest vote count and remain grateful to the thousands of Angelenos who have powered this campaign.”

The post Trump says ‘not possible’ for Pratt to fall short in ‘rigged’ LA mayor’s race. He’s wrong. appeared first on MS NOW.