The Trump administration’s highly aggressive efforts to obtain state voter rolls has, at least so far, failed spectacularly, losing in eight out of eight court fights.

But as such federal efforts continue, there’s apparently a new twist on the broader gambit related to state voter rolls. The New York Times reported:

The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule that would allow it to refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that don’t turn over voter rolls to the federal government.

The rule, proposed last week, is vaguely written but appears to establish broad authority for the agency to intervene in the mail voting process. It calls on states to compile lists of mail voters that Postal Service employees would use to screen ballots for eligibility. If states refuse to comply, the agency could refuse to send their mail ballots.

Pointing to the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register last week, the Times added, “Screening mail ballots for voter eligibility … would amount to an unprecedented, and potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections.”

For Donald Trump, that might very well be the point.

In March 2025, just two months into the president’s second term, the Republican signed a radical executive order intended to impose sweeping changes on the nation’s system of elections. Trump, however, lacked the legal authority for such a power-grab, and his policy was rejected throughout the judiciary.

One year later, in March 2026, the president nevertheless did it again, signing another order in which he purportedly gave himself sweeping authority over the country’s elections systems. As part of the radical scheme, hatched to address a problem that does not exist, the Republican administration set out to create a citizens database, which the U.S. Postal Service would then use to limit mail-in voting.

It was widely assumed that this, too, would fail in the courts, but two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, allowed the executive order to restrict mail-in voting to stand (at least for now), ruling that the plaintiffs, the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens cannot claim to have been harmed by the policy because the president’s policy had not yet been implemented.

One day after the Trump-appointed judge allowed the president’s policy to remain in place, the U.S. Postal Service proposed its new rule to require states to provide voter-level data on mail-in ballots in federal elections.

There’s still a great deal of uncertainty about how, exactly, this policy would be applied, and the legal fight is ongoing.

Indeed, the Times’ report noted recent oral arguments before a federal judge in Boston in which a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and voting rights advocates said the administration’s rule isn’t merely an unconstitutional federal intrusion into the voting process, but would also “be expensive, cumbersome and chaotic to comply with the demand to create new lists of voters and, in some cases, to change mail ballot designs, with fewer than 150 days until the 2026 general election.”

Time will tell what becomes of the fight, but that it’s even a possibility the USPS might refuse to deliver ballots unless states comply with Trump’s unnecessary demands is breathtaking. Watch this space.

The post USPS eyes new rule that would block ballots in states that balk at Trump’s demands appeared first on MS NOW.

Control of the Senate in the next Congress might very well come down to the closely watched contest in Maine, where longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins is seeking a sixth term. On the surface, Democrats have reason for cautious optimism: Collins is New England’s only remaining GOP senator, and recent polling suggests many Mainers are ready for a change in a year that’s shaping up to be a rough one for the incumbent’s party.

But against that backdrop, Maine Democrats have decided to take a gamble on nominating oyster farmer Graham Platner, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The list of controversies from his background is not short: Platner has faced difficult questions about online comments downplaying sexual assault in the military, his since-removed tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol, allegations he sent sexually explicit texts to several women who were not his wife and, most recently, allegations from three ex-girlfriends about volatile personal behavior, some of which he’s denied.

Platner nevertheless easily won his party primary this week, and soon after, the National Republican Senatorial Committee circulated a memo warning donors and allies to take him seriously.

“The political fundamentals in Maine remain challenging, and it is a fatal mistake to assume Platner is too damaged to win,” the NRSC wrote. “He is currently leading.”

With this in mind, Donald Trump decided to weigh in on the race during an unrelated White House event on Wednesday afternoon, formally endorsing Collins and condemning her Democratic rival in stark terms. The president told reporters in the Oval Office:

I watched that thug that’s up in Maine. He’s a thug. … I mean, he’s worse than any human being that’s ever run for office, probably. I don’t know him. I don’t want to say bad, but I just, look, I mean, nobody’s ever had a record like that. […]

I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s a thug. I know thugs. I had to deal with thugs. I built a lot of buildings, I dealt with the toughest people on earth. I dealt with worse than thugs. This guy’s a thug. He’s a low-level thug. … he’s just an outright pig. He’s like a pig; I watched him a couple of times. He’s like a pig, that’s what he reminds me of. I come up with good names for people.

To be sure, it’s fair to say Platner is a controversial candidate who will have to prove himself over the next 21 weeks. Unlike most Democratic Senate candidates, the Mainer will have to make the case, not just for his vision and priorities, but that he’s overcome mistakes from his past.

But I’m not sure if Trump fully appreciates just how poor a messenger he is for his message.

After all, the president is a convicted felon who was under federal criminal indictment as recently as two years ago. Trump also ran a fraudulent charity, a fraudulent “university” and his business was found to have engaged in systemic fraud.

In the E. Jean Carroll civil case, a jury found him liable for sexual abuse, and Carroll is one of many women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Relatedly, much of the public is probably familiar with the infamous “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump said, in the context of his aggressive pursuit of women, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

This is just a small sampling of a record that includes countless examples of racism, in addition to remarks denigrating American military heroism. (He likes people “who weren’t captured,” for example.)

If Republicans want to make the case that Platner is a controversial candidate, there’s little point in denying the claim. But for Trump, of all people, to say the Mainer might be “worse than any human being that’s ever run for office” is a remarkable failure of self-awareness.

The post Why Trump is the wrong messenger to make the case against Maine’s Platner appeared first on MS NOW.

At first blush, the idea of a Democratic senator in a red state focusing attention on a mining project in Kazakhstan might seem odd. After all, many voters couldn’t find Kazakhstan on a map and probably have priorities that have nothing to do with foreign mining projects.

But Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, ahead of his re-election bid this year, took the time in recent days to highlight a Kazakhstan mining project because of allegations that the Trump administration invested American tax dollars in the endeavor, which has been linked to two of the president’s sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

The emphasis wasn’t surprising. The incumbent senator has built much of his 2026 candidacy around the idea that corruption isn’t just a major national issue, it’s also the principal cause for the problems plaguing regular Americans in their everyday lives. “You aren’t the problem. Neither are your fellow Americans,” Ossoff routinely tells Georgians. “Corruption is why things don’t work for ordinary people.”

The senator’s focus appears to be resonating. Going into 2026, Ossoff was generally seen as the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, but with 21 weeks remaining before Election Day, both parties see him as an increasingly strong candidate who might very well prevail despite Trump having won Georgia two years ago.

It’s not yet clear whether other Democrats will be equally inclined to emphasize corruption as a campaign issue, but with each passing day, the White House and its allies offer fresh evidence of a systemic issue. Consider some of the reporting and allegations that have surfaced over the last five days:

• The Washington Post reported that of the publicly identified donors to the president’s ballroom project, more than half “have won new or expanded federal contracts worth more than $50 billion during the past six months.”
• The Washington Post also reported that the Trump administration has sharply accelerated spending on border wall construction and that most of the money has gone to two companies with “ties to the White House and the Republican Party.”
• As if there weren’t already enough questions surrounding special favors for MAGA Inc. PAC donors, CNN reported on the generous support Trump’s super PAC has received from those who either have federal contracts or who are trying to influence the administration.
• The New Yorker reported on how the wealthy continue their efforts to buy presidential pardons.
• Reuters reported that the Trump family has generated at least $2.3 billion in profit from investors since the president returned to the White House, which contrasts with “the more than a million investors whose net losses totaled $2.3 billion at the end of April.”

If we widen the aperture a bit, a new lawsuit was also filed this week alleging corruption in connection with the upcoming UFC event on the White House South Lawn.

This isn’t a comprehensive list, and again, these are just headlines from the last five days. A similar assessment of related reports from the last few months would supply a staggering list that’s vastly longer.

In a recent piece for MS NOW, Paul Waldman explained, “Voters might be willing to ignore all this self-dealing if the economy were doing great, everyone had health insurance, housing was cheap and gas was $2 a gallon. But when people are struggling, corruption takes on a new urgency. That’s because it provides a way for voters to understand a deeper rot in the system that manifests in all kinds of ways.”

The question isn’t why Ossoff is focusing so heavily on corruption as a foundational 2026 issue; the question is why every other Democrat isn’t pushing the same issue in their own campaigns.

The post Republicans keep making it easier for Democrats to run against corruption in midterms appeared first on MS NOW.

In Los Angeles’ closely watched mayoral race, it’s been clear for several days that Karen Bass, the city’s Democratic incumbent, received enough support in last week’s primary to advance to the general election in November. The question was who she’d run against.

This week, the answer came into focus. MS NOW reported:

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. 

Raman has steadily trended upward in the vote count since Election Day, and she overtook Pratt on Sunday. Monday’s vote update gives Raman a cushion of more than 20,000 votes, making her position in the top two safe, with an estimated 93% of the vote counted.

In California’s gubernatorial race, meanwhile, the vote count is still underway, though we now know that Xavier Becerra, a former Democratic congressman who served as Joe Biden’s health secretary, has advanced to the general election.

It’s not yet clear who his rival will be, but with nearly 83% of the ballots tallied, Steve Hilton, a Trump-backed Republican, appears well positioned to finish second, while Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer is (at least for now) running third.

And therein lies the problem with Republican conspiracy theories about California’s vote count.

In recent days, a great many GOP leaders, including Donald Trump and Republicans on Capitol Hill, have invested an enormous amount of time and energy trying to convince the public the state’s elections process is “rigged” by nefarious Democratic schemers who’ve secretly orchestrated the results to ensure their preferred outcome.

When pressed for evidence, GOP officials tend to embarrass themselves, but that’s not the only — or even the central — problem. On the contrary, the Republican conspiracy theory suffers from an obvious fatal flaw: If nefarious Democratic schemers existed and were secretly orchestrating the results, they wouldn’t have picked these outcomes.

In Los Angeles’ mayoral race, it’s no secret that the Democratic incumbent, running in a city with an enormous progressive voter base, welcomed the opportunity to run against a conservative television personality with an embarrassingly thin professional resume. Instead, Bass will face Raman, a Harvard- and MIT-educated City Council member who’s already demonstrated an ability to win local elections.

If powerful Democratic operatives were pulling the strings from the shadows, they would’ve gladly pitted Bass against Pratt, if only to watch him lose in November.

Similarly, Democrats would’ve loved to see two Democratic candidates emerge from the state’s gubernatorial primary, thus ensuring party control. Instead, it appears increasingly likely that a GOP candidate backed by the Republican president will advance to the general election — which, again, is not the outcome these ostensible powerful Democratic operatives pulling the strings from the shadows would’ve deliberately orchestrated.

Put it this way: Either the Republican conspiracy theories are wrong, or Democrats are the most incompetent schemers imaginable.

The post Republicans’ California election conspiracy theories suffer from one fatal flaw appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump has earned a reputation as the nation’s most prominent and powerful election conspiracy theorist, but to the extent that there’s a competition for the silver medal in this ignominious category, House Speaker Mike Johnson is a clear contender.

Indeed, after Trump’s defeat in the 2020 race, it was the Louisiana Republican who took the lead on Capitol Hill, effectively becoming the White House’s congressional point man, doing his best to overturn the results and hand the outgoing president illegitimate power. Johnson even echoed a discredited conspiracy theory involving Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Dominion Voting Systems — nonsense that even many Trump acolytes didn’t feel comfortable repeating.

With this in mind, it wasn’t too surprising to see Congress’ top GOP lawmaker echo his party’s baseless conspiracy theories regarding California’s latest elections, though one word in his pitch was of particular interest.

RAJU: But what evidence is there to prove the California election is rigged?MIKE JOHNSON: Look, some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it's impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively that something is wrong here.

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-08T19:56:22.798Z

Apparently comfortable speaking on behalf of the nation, Johnson told reporters on Monday afternoon that “everybody knows” that the process of counting votes in California “stinks to high heaven.”

Asked the obvious question about conspiracy theorists’ lack of evidence, the House speaker added, “Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream that it’s impossible to prove, but I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here.”

It was an implicit acknowledgment of an inconvenient truth: Johnson and his cohorts simply don’t have any evidence. The speaker and other Republican leaders don’t know if their baseless ideas are true, but they apparently want the public to know that their conspiracy theories feel true.

It’s the basis for a debate, not about election administration processes, but about vibes.

But Johnson’s use of the word “instinctively” stood out, in part because it was so foolish, in part because of its familiarity.

A couple of years ago, for example, during a Fox Business interview, the House speaker asserted that there are now “terrorist cells set up around the country.” Asked how many, Johnson conceded that he had no idea — despite his access to intelligence at the highest levels — but added that we are “intuitively” aware of the problem.

Similarly, after Trump’s 2020 defeat, Johnson also insisted that “a lot of us know intuitively” that there were problems with the vote tallies. After the Senate rejected the House’s impeachment effort against then-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Johnson said “we know already intuitively” that Mayorkas deserved to be punished. When the House speaker unveiled legislation to ban noncitizens from voting — which is already illegal, and which effectively never happens — Johnson declared at a press conference, “We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections.”

Among the obvious problems is the simple fact that instincts and intuition are utterly irrelevant when dealing with factual questions like these. Elections are either proper or they’re not. Voters are either casting legal ballots or they’re not. Evidence either exists or it doesn’t.

His track record suggests this basic dynamic is lost on the House speaker in fundamental ways.

What we’re dealing with, in other words, is a political leader who believes gut feelings are a legitimate substitute for knowledge. They are not.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Speaker Mike Johnson says his election conspiracy theories feel ‘instinctively’ true appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump spent much of last week railing against California’s recent statewide primaries, baselessly insisting the slow process of tallying ballots must reflect a “rigged” system. This week, the president picked up where he left off.

In the early hours of Monday morning, he used his social media platform to argue there’s “no way” a candidate he liked has fallen behind in response to an updated vote count. Hours later, he emphasized the same point, insisting it’s “not possible” for his preferred candidate in Los Angeles’ mayoral race to lose ground as more ballots are counted.

None of that made logical sense, but it is part of an exasperating effort to undermine public confidence. During his latest “Meet the Press” appearance, the president was even more aggressive on the issue, making all kinds of unfounded allegations. When NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked him to substantiate his claims with evidence, Trump replied, “All I have to do is look.”

When the host explained that that wasn’t evidence, the Republican added, “And I listen to people.” (He didn’t say who, what they were saying or why he found these unnamed people to be more credible than official election results.)

The problem, however, is not just hysterical conspiracy-mongering, all of which is demonstrably incorrect, from a president who has long railed against election results he doesn’t like. Just as important as what Trump is saying is what Team Trump is doing. NBC News reported:

A federal prosecutor in California said Friday that authorities have launched investigations tied to the state’s recent elections following President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud.

Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said Friday morning on X that his office was pursuing “multiple election fraud investigations” alongside the FBI, without providing details.

To date, no credible fraud allegations have been made, so it’s not at all clear what the federal prosecutors in California intend to investigate.

Indeed, over the weekend, state Attorney General Rob Bonta told MS NOW there is no basis for the Trump appointee’s probe.

“There are no details, there is no specifics, there is no specific allegation of any individualized act of voter fraud,” the California Democrat said. “And every count, recount, hand count, court case and audit has shown time and time again — not just in California, but throughout this country — that there is no widespread voter fraud.”

Bonta added that claims of voter fraud are “only a figment of the imagination of Trump and others who follow that conspiracy theory.”

What I’m most curious about, however, is what happens when Essayli and his team look for evidence to bolster Trump’s accusations, only to come up short. Do they tell the truth and admit the election results were legitimate, inviting partisan rage from the right? Or do they bring baseless charges, inviting pushback from the courts?

The post Trump’s DOJ pretends California election conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously appeared first on MS NOW.