

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Campaign Legal Center, Emma Krug, media@campaignlegalcenter.org
Democracy Defenders Fund, press@democracydefenders.org
League of United Latin American Citizens, David Cruz, davidcruz@lulac.org
Secure Families Initiative, Sarah Streyder, sarah.streyder@securefamiliesinitiative.org
Arizona Students’ Association, Jessica Mendoza, jessica@azstudents.org
Arizona Students’ Association, Shayna Greathouse, shayna@azstudents.org
Today, Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund sued the Executive Office of the President — alongside members of the president’s Cabinet and select federal agencies — on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students’ Association. The complaint asserts that the most recent executive order on elections unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers and exceeds the president’s legal authority by attempting to limit access to mail-in voting and threatening the freedom to vote for millions of Americans.
Attempting to limit access to mail-in voting through an executive order is an unconstitutional and illegal abuse of executive power. The Constitution is clear: Only the states and Congress have the power to regulate elections — not the president. And only Congress has the power to regulate the U.S. mail.
Voting by mail is a safe, secure and accessible method used by millions of Americans — including the president himself — to cast their ballots. It's also an institution that has been used reliably by military voters for over 150 years. Attempting to create a national voter registry with faulty data not only threatens to disenfranchise millions of voters, but it lies outside the authority of the federal government.
This is especially so for the portion of the order that purports to direct the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to play a role; USPS is an independent agency regulated by Congress, and it cannot be controlled or compelled to act by the president.
“The president does not have the authority to do this,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of LULAC. “He is using the specter of noncitizen voting to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote. We know what this executive order is meant to do, and we will not stand by while he tries to unilaterally rewrite our election laws.”
"This is an unprecedented attempt by the president to not only unconstitutionally assert total authority over our elections, but also to dictate who can make their voices heard through an unlawful decree limiting mail-in voting,” said Danielle Lang, the vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Attempts to command the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to work with independent agencies on efforts to disenfranchise eligible voters — including compiling a purported list of all voters using stale and outdated data and attempting to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from delivering ballots to eligible Americans — are simply unconstitutional and violate long-standing protections for Americans.”
"Military families make daily sacrifices in service to our country — including our willingness to frequently uproot our families every time the military stations us far away from home," said Sarah Streyder, executive director of Secure Families Initiative. "This Executive Order ignores that reality of military life, imposing unnecessary and redundant barriers to our ability to vote in the very democracy we serve to protect. This Executive Order will indisputably harm military voters, at least half of whom are Americans of color."
“The last time Trump tried to take over our elections with an executive order, we stopped him, and we are going to court to do the same thing here. This order is an attempt to drag election administration out of the hands of the states where it belongs, and into the White House where it has no place,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “It tells federal agencies to assemble voter lists, block the delivery of mail ballots, and put state officials under threat of investigation or prosecution. We hope the court will act quickly to block all this before it disrupts elections and hurts voters.”
“Recent executive actions impacting voter registration and mail-in voting raise serious concerns for students across Arizona. Policies that introduce new layers of verification or rely on federal databases risk creating unnecessary barriers, especially for students whose addresses or records may not perfectly align across systems. As an organization, we know that for many students, we are their first introduction to civic participation. That responsibility matters. It means ensuring students feel confident, informed, and empowered—not confused, discouraged, or excluded,” said Jessica Mendoza, executive director of Arizona Students’ Association. “We believe voting is one of the most important and effective ways to exercise our rights in this country. Any effort that makes that process more complicated or inaccessible moves us in the wrong direction. Instead of adding barriers, we should be working to uplift them—meeting students where they are, removing obstacles, and expanding access to the democratic process. Students deserve a system that recognizes their realities and supports their participation, not one that makes it harder to have their voices heard.”
It is clear that the president is using this unlawful executive order to unconstitutionally shape the electorate to his will, limit access to mail voting for millions of Americans, and attempt to sow doubt in how our elections are run.
Through a previous executive order, President Trump attempted to abuse his power by trying to establish unconstitutional proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration. This same coalition of nonprofits and voting rights groups successfully blocked two key provisions of that executive order. The demands in President Trump’s new executive order also are illegal. Read more about our lawsuit here and follow updates to our case here.
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) advances democracy through law, fighting for every American's right to participate in the democratic process. CLC uses tactics such as litigation, policy advocacy, communications and partnerships to win victories that result in a more transparent, accountable and inclusive democracy.
(202) 736-2200"Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a president who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress," said Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger.
Virginia voters on Tuesday approved a referendum that's likely to give Democrats four additional seats in the US House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections, a key victory in a gerrymandering war launched last year by President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
"Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a president who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress," Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, said following Tuesday's vote. "As we watched other states go along with those demands without voter input, Virginians refused to let that stand. We responded the right way: at the ballot box."
The ballot measure, which was approved by a margin of fewer than 100,000 votes, allows the Virginia constitution to be "amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census."
The new congressional map that Virginia lawmakers approved earlier this year—prior to putting the ballot question before voters—would aggressively redraw the state's district lines to give Democrats eight safe districts. Two other districts would be competitive but Democratic-leaning, leaving Republicans with just one favorable district. Common Cause Virginia, an advocacy group that does not favor partisan gerrymandering, called the new Virginia maps "a proportionate response" to GOP redistricting in other states, including Texas.
Eric Holder, the former US attorney general and chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in response to Tuesday's result that "the mere existence of this special election stands in stark contrast to the gerrymanders forced on constituents in Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina and shows that voters are tired of Republican attempts to silence their power at the voting booth."
“Virginians’ courageous action today will have an impact far beyond the commonwealth. They didn’t just win an election—they have stopped Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the 2026 midterms in its tracks and defended the principle that elections should be fair, competitive, and decided by the people," said Holder. "Let this be a message to MAGA Republicans and the White House: enough is enough."
Democratic congressional leaders also applauded the outcome of the closely watched Virginia referendum. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in a statement that "Virginians spoke with a crystal-clear voice, voting to stop the MAGA power grab and protect the integrity of free and fair elections."
But Jeffries stressed that "this war is not over," pointing to ongoing Republican efforts to redraw Florida's congressional maps.
“If Florida Republicans proceed with this illegal scheme, they will only create more prime pick-up opportunities for Democrats, just as they did with Trump’s dummymander in Texas," said Jeffries. "We will aggressively target for defeat Mario Díaz-Balart, Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Giménez, Kat Cammack, Anna Paulina Luna, Laurel Lee, Cory Mills, and Brian Mast. We are prepared to take them all on, and we are prepared to win."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded enthusiastically to Jeffries' statement.
"Hell yes," she wrote on social media. "This is the energy."
"They want to give $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol without reforms, but $0 to lower Americans’ costs," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Congressional Democrats and advocacy groups on Tuesday slammed Senate Republicans' proposed budget resolution, which authorizes up to $140 billion in new deficit spending for Department of Homeland Security agencies responsible for President Donald Trump's deadly immigration crackdown.
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced the fiscal year 2026 budget resolution, which the senator's office described as "the blueprint that unlocks the pathway for a targeted reconciliation bill that will provide funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)" for at least the remainder of Trump's term.
"The resolution includes reconciliation instructions allowing for up to $70 billion of deficit increases each for the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees," explained the advocacy group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
ICE is already flush with a $75 billion funding boost thanks to Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed last July 4.
“The threats to our homeland from radical Islam are only getting more intense," Graham said, despite there being no significant attack by such forces on US soil in a decade. "Now is not the time to defund Border Patrol, and now is certainly not the time to put ICE out of business."
"These men and women have been dealing with the consequences of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that came to the United States during the Biden administration," the senator added.
There is no evidence that anywhere near that number of undocumented migrants entered the US during former President Joe Biden's tenure.
Responding to Graham's proposal, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: "Earlier today, we caught our first glimpse of the Senate Republicans’ budget resolution. Forget being on the same page, Republicans aren’t even on the same planet as the American people."
"They want to give $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol without reforms, but $0 to lower Americans’ costs," he continued. "Let me say that again: $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol—no reforms, no accountability, no strings attached; $0 to lower Americans’ costs."
"That’s their priority. That’s why they are dragging the Senate through the arduous, convoluted reconciliation process: to put money in the coffers of Trump’s rogue agencies, rather than in Americans’ pockets," Schumer said.
"Democrats want to lower Americans’ grocery, gas, healthcare, and housing costs. Senate Republicans want to appease Donald Trump... by giving ICE and Border Patrol tens of billions of dollars to continue spreading violence in our streets," he added.
Center for American Progress (CAP) senior director of federal budget policy Bobby Kogan called the GOP budget proposal "a missed opportunity to help Americans."
"In addition to doing nothing to rein in DHS, many civil and human rights abuses, congressional Republicans’ reconciliation plan misses an opportunity to do affirmative good for struggling households," he said.
Kogan continued:
While there was broad agreement in Congress on the funding levels for the agencies within DHS itself, congressional Democratic leadership asked for a handful of reforms to try to prevent more killings of citizens and noncitizens and avoid another wave of other civil rights violations from being undertaken by the department. Congressional Republican leadership has rejected calls for legislative reforms to ICE and Border Patrol operations and is now instead using this process to provide funding with no oversight.
The Republican proposal comes as immigrant deaths in ICE custody have soared, with at least 17 people dying since January. DHS officers have also killed two US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, during the Operation Metro Surge blitz in Minneapolis.
One expert stressed that "trust between the sides remains at zero."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday afternoon extended a two-week ceasefire for his and Israel's war on Iran, but the US leader also said that a naval blockade of the Mideast nation will continue, and fears of fresh attacks remain high.
Two weeks after threatening to take out the "whole civilization" of Iran just hours before the ceasefire agreement was reached, Trump took to his Truth Social platform again to announce the extension, without a clear timeline.
"Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal," Trump wrote. "I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other."
Trump has imposed the blockade in response to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that's a key trade route, including for fossil fuels. As part of the blockade, the president said Sunday, US forces seized Touska, a nearly 900-foot Iranian-flagged cargo ship.
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, concluded Tuesday that Trump's cave "reflects the outcome I have argued is the most likely: No deal, no sanctions relief, no nuclear compromise, no return to war, while Iran continues to control the strait. Not a stable situation, but one in which Trump pockets the central thing he sought—exiting the war—while Iran is bereft of the main thing it was looking for: sanctions lifting."
While a spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that he welcomes Trump's announcement as "an important step toward de-escalation and creating critical space for diplomacy and confidence-building between Iran and the United States," and encouraged all parties "to build on this momentum," comments out of Iran suggested limited progress.
Drop Site News co-founder Jeremy Scahill reported Tuesday that "an Iranian official tells me that, as of this moment, Iran's position remains unchanged: Lifting of the naval blockade is a condition for a second round of talks."
According to Reuters chief national security reporter Phil Stewart, an adviser to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran's Parliament, said that Tuesday's extension means nothing and could even be a ploy to buy time for a surprise strike, plus the US continuing its blockade is the same as bombardment and must be met with military force.
Noting Stewart's reporting on social media, Center for International Policy senior fellow Sina Toossi noted that reporting and warned that "after coming under surprise attack twice, some in Tehran are calling for Iran to take initiative and strike first, including at US vessels or tankers ready to exit Hormuz."
Toossi also stressed that "trust between the sides remains at zero and renewed war could break out at any time."
"Let's be real, Pakistan isn't deciding whether the US goes to war with Iran," he added. "They're a conduit, not a driver. More a convenient excuse and diplomatic cover than having any sort of actual influence over Trump on Iran."
Ahead of the extension, Toossi had published an op-ed in The Guardian arguing that "having fought what they see as an existential war with the US and Israel and held their ground, Iranian officials see little reason to rush into major concessions. The priority is not a sweeping deal, but reducing the risk of war while preserving core sources of power, from Hormuz to its nuclear program."
"In the short term, that may simply mean extending the ceasefire rather than reaching a substantive agreement. Beyond that, the likelier outcome is an interim arrangement, or a broad memorandum-of-understanding-style framework that defers key details, rather than a decisive breakthrough," he continued. "In this view, the conflict is not being resolved but managed—and with time, Iran believes its position will strengthen as the global fallout from energy disruption makes renewed escalation a cost no one is willing to bear."
A Tuesday report from the climate advocacy group 350.org estimates that during the first 50 days of the Iran war, consumers and businesses worldwide have paid an additional $158.6-166.9 billion due to soaring fuel costs.
Additionally, thousands of people have been killed in Iran and across the region, and at least tens of thousands of Iranian civilian infrastructure sites have been damaged since the US and Israel first launched attacks in February.