SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
election 2020
Failure Insurance: Trump’s New Electoral Strategy in America
The objective of President Trump's warnings about election integrity are no longer merely to challenge an outcome, but to suggest that only a result delivering victory to Trump or his movement is legitimate.
Jul 31, 2026
Less than 10 days after President Donald Trump described the electoral system as “dangerous and under threat,” a federal appeals court blocked his administration from enforcing an order tightening mail-in voting rules in 23 states. The ruling showed that the dispute is not only about cybersecurity or foreign threats, but also about the rules that will determine the legitimacy of the 2026 midterms. Democracies begin to erode when citizens no longer believe the ballot box reflects their genuine will. Electoral legitimacy depends less on a flawless voting process than on public acceptance of rules that allow even the losing side to accept the outcome.
Viewed from this perspective, the most significant element of Trump’s White House speech was not his claims about China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, but the way he portrayed the American electoral system itself. Trump described it as “dangerous and under threat”—a characterization that goes beyond a warning about cybersecurity or foreign interference. It raises a fundamental question: Is the principal problem the external threats facing America’s electoral system, or the effort to persuade Americans that the system itself can no longer be trusted?
To support his claim, Trump presented a series of alleged threats. He said declassified intelligence documents showed that China obtained information from 220 million American voter-registration records and that intelligence officials concealed the matter. He also warned that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea can penetrate America’s electoral infrastructure. Yet these countries are not the center of his narrative. Rather, they serve as evidence for a broader claim: that the US electoral system is vulnerable, insecure, and needs fundamental redesign.
The distinction between issuing a security warning and discrediting an electoral system becomes clear here. Few deny that foreign powers attempt to influence rival states’ political and information environments. Like many democracies, the United States faces cyber threats and influence operations. But there is a crucial difference between strengthening election security and cultivating the belief that the entire electoral process is fundamentally unreliable. The former protects democratic institutions; the latter erodes public trust.
If a society believes elections are valid only when they produce one faction’s preferred outcome, the problem is no longer a particular election; it is the erosion of democratic competition and the transformation of elections from a solution to political conflict into a source of crisis.
The significance becomes clearer when Trump’s remarks are placed within the US political context. The 2026 midterms are not an ordinary contest for the president. Declining approval ratings, public dissatisfaction with the consequences of the war with Iran and rising energy prices, and the risk of losing the House have placed Republicans in a difficult position. If Democrats regain the House, another effort to impeach Trump could follow—a possibility he has raised. For Trump, who refused to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, elections are not merely an institutional process; they are part of a struggle over his political legitimacy.
This backdrop helps explain the Trump administration’s effort to expand the federal role in election administration. The White House’s pressure on congressional Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act—which would require proof of citizenship at registration, photo identification when voting, and the sharing of voter information with the federal government—rests on a single assumption: that the existing system requires sweeping changes to improve security and public confidence. The question is not whether electoral reforms are open to debate, but how they are presented: as reforms to improve a functioning system, or an attempt to rescue one that has already failed?
Here the meaning of Trump’s speech becomes more apparent. Before the election, he is constructing a framework through which the outcome is interpreted. If Republicans prevail, the election will be presented as proof of the system’s integrity. But if the result contradicts White House expectations, explanations are already prepared: foreign governments, the intelligence community, structural weaknesses, or the electoral process itself. This is political failure insurance.
Failure insurance does not require conclusive proof of a conspiracy. It consists of building a narrative that reduces the political cost of defeat before it occurs. Within this framework, losing is no longer necessarily the consequence of voters’ choices; it can be attributed to a “dangerous and under threat” electoral system. This is the key difference from 2020. Then, Trump’s allegations emerged after the results were announced. Now, the narrative of distrust is being constructed before voting begins. The objective is no longer merely to challenge an outcome, but to suggest that only a result delivering victory to Trump or his movement is legitimate.
Democracies have never been built on the assumption that elections are flawless. They rest on the principle that political disputes can be resolved within a shared institutional framework and that even the losing side accepts the legitimacy of the process. If a society believes elections are valid only when they produce one faction’s preferred outcome, the problem is no longer a particular election; it is the erosion of democratic competition and the transformation of elections from a solution to political conflict into a source of crisis.
The irony is that, for decades, the United States applied this standard when assessing elections in other countries. Washington argued that without public trust, even legally conducted elections cannot enjoy political legitimacy. Today, however, the president is invoking the same logic to describe America’s own electoral system. This is more than a domestic dispute; it raises questions about the credibility of the democratic model America has long sought to project abroad.
Ultimately, the central question raised by Trump’s recent speech may not be whether China gained access to voter-registration data, or how capable Russia, Iran, and North Korea are of penetrating America’s electoral infrastructure. The fundamental question is why, on the eve of one of the most consequential elections of his presidency, the president of the United States has chosen to convince millions of Americans—before the first ballot is cast—that their electoral system is “dangerous and under threat.”
Placed alongside political realities, the implications are troubling. Trump’s speech cannot be understood as a warning about election security or dismissed as another chapter in the disputes following the 2020 election. It represents an attempt to redefine the relationship between the voter and the ballot box—a relationship in which electoral legitimacy derives not from public trust and established institutions, but from the narrative advanced by those in power. This is how democracy begins to erode from within, long before fraud or foreign interference damages it. The greatest threat to American elections may lie not in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, or Pyongyang, but in the moment when the president, seeking to insure himself against defeat, persuades his own citizens that the ballot box can no longer be trusted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sociopathic Trump Delivers Absurd—and Terrifying—Address to the Nation
The president's speech was riddled with so many lies that I’m reluctant to dignify them with rebuttals, but you should have them.
Jul 17, 2026
The real message to be drawn from Trump’s address to the nation Thursday night is that he will call into question the votes of every state and city that chooses a Democratic senator or representative in the 2026 midterm elections. He’ll push Republican governors and mayors not to certify the results. He’ll demand recounts and audits.
We’ve been here before, but this time he’s even less restrained than he was in 2020 and is surrounded by people who will do his bidding.
His address to the nation was absurd. It was riddled with so many lies that I’m reluctant to dignify them with rebuttals, but you should have them.
He mentioned a newly-declassified investigation into a voter registration group in Muskegon, Michigan that apparently had invited fraudulent registrations in 2020—but Trump didn’t mention that the applications had been caught and none of them had resulted in any ballots being sent out incorrectly. The FBI closed the investigation, stating “the investigation to date did not identify a criminal violation or a priority threat to national security.”
He alleged, once again, that foreign powers have hijacked votes, or that federal or state officials plotted to rig either the 2020 election. But no evidence has ever emerged showing that vote counts have been manipulated or corrupted. Intelligence reports, state audits of vote tallies and lawsuits have repeatedly affirmed official results in 2020 and other years. Nothing suggests China manipulated votes. Instead, US intelligence assessment says China “probably also continued longstanding efforts” to gather information on US voters and public opinion and to use that information to influence US policy “as it has during all election cycles since at least 2008.”
The most significant foreign influence operations occurred in the 2016 presidential election and were conducted by Russia, in favor of Trump, according to the Mueller report. To the extent that this and other reports appeared to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s victory, they have had the effect of fueling his distrust of US intelligence agencies.
Despite his repeated assertions that US elections are not secure, Trump during his second term has significantly cut the budget of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, including its election work. That’s because Trump grew contemptuous of the agency, and the government’s election security work generally, after it validated the integrity of the 2020 election.
So the entire performance was fake—an extension of his Big Lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him.
It was also a commercial for the “Save America Act,” which would make it harder for many American citizens to vote. Voters would have to prove their citizenship in person upon registering to vote, with documents such as an enhanced form of REAL ID (a state ID card compliant with federal regulations) that indicates American citizenship; a birth certificate; a passport or military identification card.
An estimated 9 percent of eligible voters, or 21.3 million Americans, either do not have documents that prove their citizenship, such as passports and birth certificates, or cannot retrieve them in a day or less, according a study by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at University of Maryland and the Brennan Center for Justice. And 45 states do not issue the kind of enhanced driver’s license indicating citizenship status that would be needed to verify voting eligibility.
The point is that American democracy is acutely endangered by a sociopath who will stop at nothing to get the results he wants.
This means that you and I and every other patriotic American have to do whatever we can to ensure free and fair elections, and fight Trump’s torrent of lies and authoritarian moves.
If you’re anything like me, you’re worn out by Trump. You’d like nothing better than to tune him out. I get it. But American democracy is seriously on the line here. We must keep up—and accelerate—the fight.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'World's Most Famous Sore Loser': Ossoff Delivers Preemptive Smackdown of Trump's Election Speech
"If the president declares Georgia's elections illegitimate, or if the president declares Georgia's sitting United States senators illegitimate, he is declaring Georgia voters illegitimate."
Jul 16, 2026
Sen. Jon Ossoff on Thursday delivered a preemptive rebuttal to President Donald Trump's planned Thursday night speech on election security in the United States.
While speaking with reporters, Ossoff (D-Ga.) predicted that Trump would use the speech to once again peddle lies about the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to former President Joe Biden.
"Here's what's going to happen tonight," Ossoff began. "The world's most famous sore loser will deliver a primetime presidential sour-grapes address to pursue his six-year-old grievances about the 2020 election, while his war in the Middle East spirals out of control, the cost of living continues to rise for Americans across the country."
Ossoff: "Here's what's going to happen tonight: the world's most famous sore loser will deliver a prime-time presidential sour grapes address to pursue his 6-year-old grievances about the 2020 election, while his war in the Middle East spirals out of control and the cost of… pic.twitter.com/isF9qqrLz0
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 16, 2026
The Georgia Democrat said he expected Trump to "reheat debunked conspiracy theories" about the 2020 election, while all but daring the president to declare the results in his home state illegitimate.
"Let me be very clear about this," said Ossoff, who was elected in 2020 and is up for reelection this year. "If the president declares Georgia's elections illegitimate, or if the president declares Georgia's sitting United States senators illegitimate, he is declaring Georgia voters illegitimate."
Ossoff then reminded reporters that it was Trump who attempted to steal the 2020 election when he called Republican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and asked him to "find" the votes necessary to overturn Biden's victory in the state.
"It's Donald Trump who tried to defraud Georgia voters in that election," the senator said, "Donald Trump who tried to commit election fraud."
Ossoff's broadside against Trump's 2020 election lies came one day after he cornered Jay Clayton, Trump's nominee to be the next director of national intelligence, during a Senate confirmation hearing over his refusal to say who won the 2020 election.
"Isn’t it humiliating to be unable to answer this question?" Ossoff asked Clayton at one point. "To have to indulge the president’s delusions?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ralph Nader’s Advice on How to Counter Trump’s Lie-Filled Primetime Speech
"There should be a huge peaceful crowd in front of the White House, watching the speech tomorrow night... and every time he lies, they can roar out, YOU LIED! YOU LIED! YOU LIED!"
Jul 16, 2026
Renowned consumer advocate Ralph Nader called for a large demonstration in front of the White House Thursday night to protest President Donald Trump's primetime speech, during which he is expected to rehash his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen amid fears that he is working to sabotage the upcoming midterms.
“There should be a huge peaceful crowd in front of the White House, watching the speech tomorrow night at 9 pm,” Nader wrote in a Wednesday social media post, “and every time he lies, they can roar out, YOU LIED! YOU LIED! YOU LIED!”
Nader added that “there are already ground-level groups in Washington, DC who can turn out 200 to 300 people” each to protest Trump’s speech.
“If you’re listening, ground-level activists,” Nader emphasized, “this is a great opportunity for you at 9 pm, Thursday.”
After former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Trump refused to concede, lied incessantly to sow doubt about the results, tried to enlist officials including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally overturn it, and then incited a violent riot at the US Capitol when those efforts failed.
According to a Tuesday report from NBC News, Trump during his speech is expected to "highlight findings that his administration says show foreign interference in the 2020 election," even though there has never been any proof that actions taken by foreign actors at all affected the outcome.
A Wednesday report from Reuters claimed that the White House was "deciding whether the president's remarks would include the disclosure of sensitive intelligence related to China's intention or ability to interfere in the 2020 US election," as some administration officials "worried the information could be misleading."
Axios reported on Thursday that many TV networks are "in a bind" over whether they want to air Trump's speech.
"The networks face pressure from both sides," Axios reported. "They've spent years trying to avoid amplifying Trump's false claims about widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Yet they also must contend with an FCC that, under chairman and Trump ally Brendan Carr, has opened a series of investigations into broadcast networks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Isn’t It Humiliating to Be Unable to Answer?’ Asks Ossoff After Trump Spy Chief Nominee Won’t Say Who Won in 2020
"You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community?"
Jul 15, 2026
Sen. Jon Ossoff on Wednesday put President Donald Trump's nominee to be the next director of national intelligence on the spot by asking him about the results of the 2020 presidential election.
During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ossoff (D-Ga.) asked Jay Clayton, nominated by Trump to replace former DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who won the 2020 election.
"I'm not going to do this with you," Clayton replied.
Sen. Ossoff asks Trump's Director of National Intelligence nominee who won the 2020 election. pic.twitter.com/J3u5mqHqTt
— Ossoff's Office (@SenOssoff) July 15, 2026
"This is a job interview," Ossoff said. "We have established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee, yes? You do have an obligation to honest and forthright with the committee?"
"Yes," Clayton said.
"Who won the 2020 election?" Ossoff pressed.
"Like I said, I'm not going to get into that with you," Clayton said.
After former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, Trump refused to concede, told multiple lies to sow doubt about the results, tried to enlist officials including Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and former Vice President Mike Pence to illegally overturn it, and then incited a violent riot at the US Capitol when those efforts failed.
Ossoff told Clayton that he would keep asking him about the 2020 election results because "you're not being honest and forthright with the committee."
"I'm not going to engage in the theater," Clayton shot back.
After being pressed by Ossoff again, Clayton simply sat in silence, which appeared to make the Georgia Democrat incredulous.
"You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election," Ossoff said, "but you asked to lead America's intelligence community? Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions?"
"We know, you know, everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question," Ossoff continued. "Why can you not give it?"
Sean Vitka, executive director for Demand Progress, said after the hearing that Clayton's refusal to answer Ossoff's question was disqualifying.
"Clayton’s trainwreck hearing showed us that he is willing to deny objective reality to avoid upsetting the president," Vitka said. "Someone like that must not be allowed to be the director of national intelligence, who wields vast power and must lead the intelligence community with nonpartisan integrity and independence from political pressure."
Vitka added that Democrats serving on congressional intelligence committees need to understand "the clear danger someone like Clayton would pose as Trump’s point man on government surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Waging a Psychological Warfare Campaign Against US Democracy
By constantly raising the alarm about election fraud, Trump seeks to stir fear, doubt, and confusion in the minds of voters.
Jul 15, 2026
With 112 days to go until Election Day, President Donald Trump’s drive to undermine the vote continues. As time runs short, his efforts grow more aggressive, more brazen. But they are facing pushback with ever greater assurance.
Last Friday, Trump pushed out the remaining commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission. This tiny agency exists to provide help and funding for states. Trump had previously tried to force the commission to implement his pet voter suppression policy—requiring a passport to register to vote—but a federal court barred it from doing so in a lawsuit brought last year by the Brennan Center and others. Now, without any commissioners, the agency can’t do much of anything.
Another federal judge quashed Justice Department subpoenas issued to hundreds of election workers in Fulton County, Georgia. The judge said the subpoenas were “staggering,” and that the Justice Department was engaged in a “fishing expedition.”
Also last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a scarifying letter to state officials warning that they will be held criminally liable if noncitizens are found on the voter rolls or voting.
All of us who care about free, fair, and secure elections in 2026 should say loud and clear: Voters can vote with certainty.
Utah’s Republican lieutenant governor, who runs elections in that state, wrote: “Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution. I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts. This is truly bizarre behavior by the federal agency that is supposed to be protecting civil rights.”
Trump even claimed that recently deceased Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) last conversation with him involved his allegedly ardent support for the anti-voter SAVE Act.
Now comes word that on Thursday, Trump will deliver an address to the nation, rumored to be when he will reveal that the 2020 election was hacked by... China? Iran? Whoever.
Why is the president continuing to press on like this? Yes, he’s relitigating the 2020 election. And some of his desired election policy changes, were they to become law, could restrict the vote for millions.
But the bigger reason is to stir fear, doubt, and confusion in the minds of voters.
We’re seeing a psychological warfare campaign waged against American democracy by leaders of its own government.
People tell me of encounters they’ve recently had with voters. One voter is convinced she will have a hard time voting because she changed her name when she got married from the one on her birth certificate, even though the SAVE Act has not become law. Another worries that the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act ruling in Louisiana v. Callais means they cannot vote.
Crazy rumors fly. That former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, for example, will “confess” to stealing the 2020 election in exchange for leniency. And so on. Few pan out. But the decibel level can be deafening.
All this requires deftness by those who would protect the vote. Every election year, voting advocates like the Brennan Center weigh carefully whether and how to reassure voters, as merely mentioning the potential threats to voting could backfire and scare people away from the polls.
Latino voters and other immigrants, for example, may fear Immigration and Custom Enforcement being present at polling places. Even though such a deployment would be illegal, simply raising it as a possibility may cause voters to stay home. Fear would have done its work.
For other voters, though, we may see a new phenomenon: Efforts at suppression could fuel mobilization. In the South, Black voters are outraged by the efforts to redraw election maps after the Supreme Court’s Callais decision gutted the Voting Rights Act. They could turn out in historic numbers. People get really mad when you try to take something from them—and when it’s representation and the vote, watch out.
All of us who care about free, fair, and secure elections in 2026 should say loud and clear: Voters can vote with certainty. Make a plan to vote. Vote as early as you can. In person, via drop box, in the mail.
One hundred twelve days. It will feel like longer. But when this year is done, the strong response across the country to an egregious effort to undermine our democracy may be the real story.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colorado Governor Fires Officials Who Criticized Democrat's Release of Election-Denying Clerk
"Firing people who oppose you is also a page out of Trump's playbook," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Jul 02, 2026
US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Thursday accused Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis of conduct commonly seen from President Donald Trump's after Polis fired two members of the state clemency board, citing their decision to speak out publicly against his release of former county Clerk Tina Peters.
In 2024, Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison for tampering with voting equipment in an effort to prove the false claim that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. The president, who faced his own legal challenges for spreading the falsehood and trying to overturn the election, issued a symbolic pardon for Peters and pressured Polis to commute her sentence, which Polis did in May, angering members of his own party and democracy advocates.
Two members of the state clemency board, Hannah Seigel Proff and Azra Taslimi, were among those who opposed Polis' decision, and they went against the board's usual custom of maintaining secrecy about its proceedings to reveal that the entire board had twice voted unanimously to reject Peters' bid for a shorter sentence, only to be overruled by the governor.
On Wednesday, Proff and Taslimi told The New York Times that they'd received dismissal letters from Polis, who told them they had "breached the required duty of confidentiality by publicly divulging board members’ votes."
Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Polis' commutation of Peters's sentence was akin to acting like the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol by election-denying Trump supporters "didn't happen."
"Firing people who oppose you is also a page out of Trump's playbook," said the congresswomen.
The board members also revealed that Polis had passed over other deserving applications for parole before he allowed Peters to walk free on June 1.
"We have reviewed hundreds of applications that moved us to tears," they wrote in an op-ed at The Denver Post. "People who spent decades atoning for a single terrible decision, who attended college or seminary behind bars, completed countless programs, developed curricula for other incarcerated people, mentored young offenders, and raised thousands of dollars for victims’ rights organizations."
"Along with nine other members of the board, we have read applications supported by prosecutors who tried the case, by prison wardens who watched the transformation happen, and even by victims themselves," they continued. "And we have seen the governor fail to act or delay many of these applications."
A spokesperson for Polis told the Times that their decision to divulge the two unanimous votes against Peters' release threatened the "credibility of the board." Taslimi told 9NEWS Denver that Polis' real message in deciding to fire the two board members "is that the public doesn't have the right to know that his own advisory board told him no, twice, unanimously."
"That's not protecting the process, that's protecting himself from scrutiny," said Taslimi.
Gov. Jared Polis passed over other deserving inmates to give clemency to Tina Peters, according to two members of his clemency board who revealed Polis overruled the unanimous recommendation of his experts. Polis has now fired both of them. pic.twitter.com/N2bc8uxSc7
— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) July 2, 2026
The two dismissed board members noted in their op-ed that Peters, unlike many of the people who have submitted clemency applications that have been rejected by Polis, has "expressed no contrition" for the crime she was convicted of.
"Within hours of her release, Peters appeared on a podcast and immediately resumed her attacks on the integrity of US elections," they wrote. "She repeated the debunked conspiracy theory that voting machines cheated Donald Trump out of reelection in 2020 and portrayed herself as a martyr to the effort to expose it. She called her release a miracle."
"The governor said he was moved by her admission that she made a mistake," they added. "She walked out of prison and told the world she made no mistake at all."
Proff told 9NEWS that she might regret her decision to speak out if her fellow board members were "disappointed" in her public revelations about the panel's operations.
"But I really have a feeling that the person who's upset," said Proff, "is the one that was using our board as backing for a politically unpopular and unjust decision."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Officials Pushed Plan to Ban Half of US Voting Machines in Unprecedented Election Meddling Bid
The voting machines ban was part of a broader effort aimed at letting the federal government "take control over elections from US states," reported Reuters.
May 22, 2026
A group of Trump administration officials last year pushed a plan to ban half of voting machines currently used in the US based on disproven conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being stolen by former President Joe Biden.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, Trump adviser Kurt Olsen asked the US Department of Commerce to declare components of machines produced by Dominion Voting Systems to be national security risks.
Reuters' sources said that Olsen's idea came as part of a brainstorming session "about how the federal government could take control over elections from US states, an idea publicly aired by Trump."
Some officials at the Commerce Department began exploring legal justifications that could be used to ban half of all voting machines, but the effort ended because "Olsen and other administration staffers working with him failed to provide evidence to justify such a move," Reuters reported.
In place of the Dominion voting machines, Olsen pushed a scheme to force all affected states to hand count ballots, a process that some election experts say would be both more time consuming and prone to error.
Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan computer science professor, told Reuters that "changing to hand counting would be chaotic,” adding that "it might facilitate cheating.”
Olsen, a former Trump campaign lawyer who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was hired by the White House last year to investigate that very same election, which Trump lost to Biden by 4.5 percentage points in the popular vote and by 74 votes in the US electoral college.
The report on the election machine-banning effort comes as Trump has pushed an unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering scheme, which has resulted in an electoral map that elections analyst G. Elliot Morris projects could result in Republicans maintaining control of the US House of Representatives while losing the nationwide popular vote by three points.
Democrats have accused the president of pushing to rig the 2026 midterm elections.
The president also issued an executive order that places new restrictions on mail-in voting, which the president has falsely claimed was used by Democrats to steal the 2020 election from him.
Additionally, Trump and allies such as right-wing podcaster Steve Bannin have suggested deploying federal immigration agents to polling places in November, a move that critics contend would be an unprecedented and unconstitutional federal voter intimidation campaign.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Polis Commuting Sentence of Tina Peters Sends 'Dangerous Message' Before Midterms
"Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado," said US Sen. John Hickenlooper.
May 15, 2026
Top Colorado Democrats and democracy advocates were among those expressing concern on Friday after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis commuted the sentence of Tina Peters, a former county clerk and 2020 election denier backed by President Donald Trump.
"Today, Gov. Polis delivered a victory to every person urging President Trump to seize control of elections in 2026," said Aly Belknap, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause Colorado, in a statement. "By commuting Tina Peters' sentence, Gov. Polis dealt a massive blow to Colorado's ability to run its own elections and uphold its own judicial system."
"This decision sends a dangerous message that Colorado will tolerate criminal meddling in election systems and equipment when it is done to make a political statement," Belknap warned. "Authoritarians create martyrs out of people like Tina Peters to fuel outrage, mobilize supporters, and excuse lawbreaking in service of their agenda."
"But authoritarians cannot dismantle democracy on their own. They need powerful people to give them consent. Today, Gov. Polis gave President Trump that consent. This is a shameful day for Colorado," she added. "Gov. Polis' decision undermines election security, weakens accountability, and permanently stains his legacy."
Since returning to office last year, Trump has pardoned his supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, fought for access to state voter rolls, said that Republicans "ought to nationalize the voting" in direct defiance of the Constitution, generated fear that he'll have federal agents surround polling sites in November, and even repeatedly suggested that the 2026 elections shouldn't be held at all.
Trump also gave Peters a symbolic federal pardon and pressured Polis—who is term-limited and set to leave office next January—to act on her case. The president was not able to free Peters from her nine-year sentence himself because a jury convicted her of state felonies and misdemeanors for her role in breaching election equipment in 2021.
After the governor's decision, which was announced alongside dozens of other pardons and commutations, and sets up Peters to be released from prison on June 1, the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, "FREE TINA!"
Peters also turned to social media on Friday, thanking Polis, apologizing for her "mistakes," and writing that "upon release, I plan to do my best through legal means to support election integrity and, based on my own personal experiences, to elevate the cause of prison reform."
In an interview with The New York Times, Polis denied trying to placate the president by freeing the former clerk. He said that "she committed a crime; she deserves to be a convicted felon," but "she was given an unusually harsh sentence."
As the newspaper detailed:
The governor's decision came after Mr. Trump cut hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for Colorado, moved to dismantle a leading climate and weather research center in Boulder, rejected disaster relief for rural counties in the state that had been hammered by floods and fire, and vetoed an urgently needed water pipeline for rural Colorado.
In the interview, Mr. Polis pointed out that Mr. Trump had other grievances against Colorado, such as its mail-in voting system, and said he was not making his commutation decision with the expectation that Mr. Trump would undo his actions against Colorado.
"That's not something I ever considered," he said.
Meanwhile, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold declared that "this clemency grant to Tina Peters is an affront to our democracy, the people of Colorado, and election officials across the country. The governor's actions today will validate and embolden the election denial movement, and leave a dark, dangerous imprint on American democracy for years to come."
US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said that "Tina Peters is guilty as sin and a disgrace to Colorado. She tried to undermine Colorado's free and fair election system. When she was caught red-handed, she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and rightfully convicted by a jury of her peers. Reducing her sentence sends the wrong message to those seeking to undermine trust in our elections, and it will do nothing to deter Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Colorado. I strongly disagree with this decision."
Fellow US Senate Democrat Michael Bennet, who is running for governor, was similarly critical, saying: "I vehemently disagree with Gov. Polis' decision to commute Tina Peters' sentence. She broke the law, undermined our elections, and was convicted by a jury of her peers. With Trump continuing to attack Colorado, we must stand strong for our institutions and the rule of law."
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Democracy Docket that "it's unfortunate to see the governor of Colorado succumbing to the bullying tactics of election conspiracy theorists. He has thrown state and county election officials, Republicans and Democrats, under the bus after they resisted the corruption Ms. Peters engaged in and withstood attacks for many years as a result."
Even another former Republican clerk—Matt Crane, who's now executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association—sounded the alarm, arguing that "Tina Peters' actions have made life harder, not only for election officials here in Colorado, but make no mistake, for election officials all across the country. Her conduct became a rallying point for election conspiracy movements that fueled hostility and distrust towards the very people responsible for administering free and fair elections."
"Rather than standing with public service servants and defending one of our nation’s most cherished rights, the right to vote, Gov. Polis is bending the knee to the same political forces and conspiracy movements that are actively undermining confidence in our democratic institutions," Crane said. "That choice carries consequences far beyond this single case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Resorts to 'Harassing' Georgia Election Workers to Advance 2020 Lies
"This is a clear attempt to seize and hold power over our elections by sending a message that any county or state that doesn't vote in favor of the president or his preferred candidates may be subjected to a harassment campaign."
May 05, 2026
Democracy defenders sounded the alarm just over three months ago, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at a Georgia election hub. They expressed concerns again after a court filing revealed late Monday that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice is demanding the names of Fulton County's 2020 election workers.
For years, the Republican president has "obsessively propagated the debunked conspiracy theory that Fulton County 'stole' the 2020 election from him. And he has made it clear that he seeks retribution against those who refuse to indulge his baseless claims," notes the county's Monday filing aimed at blocking the April 20 grand jury subpoena for election workers' personal data.
The largely Democratic county—which includes most of Atlanta—argued that it should not have to turn over workers' names, home addresses, emails, and telephone numbers due to federal overreach and First Amendment concerns, according to CBS News. It also suggested the subpoena is politically motivated and highlighted the statute of limitations for 2020 election crimes.
"After illegally seizing our election records in January, the federal government once again is attempting to misuse criminal process," Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts said in a statement announcing the motion.
"This is yet another act of outrageous federal overreach designed to intimidate and to chill participation in elections. This harassment should not be allowed, so we have asked the court to act," he continued. "I will always stand up for our elections workers and for the truth. Let me be crystal clear. Fulton County will not be intimidated."
Voting rights advocates echoed the concerns noted by the filing and Pitts. Lauren Groh-Wargo, who leads Fair Fight Action, told The New York Times that election workers across the United States now face heightened threats and harassment.
"Roughly a third of election officials are threatened on the job, and more than half worry it's making it harder to hire and keep election workers," Groh-Wargo said. "They're trying to break our democracy by attacking the infrastructure, but we are fighting back hard."
Trump's DOJ is losing in Fulton County – so they've resorted to harassing election workers. In 2020, workers saw death threats due to false claims.This case was initially rejected by ATL's FBI Chief. It's built on false claims that were investigated and rejected, including by Republican officials.
[image or embed]
— Max Flugrath🗳️ (@maxflugrath.bsky.social) May 5, 2026 at 8:31 AM
All Voting Is Local Georgia state director Kristin Nabers stressed in a statement that "the conspiracy theories and lies that dictate White House policy have real-world consequences beyond appeasing the president's fragile ego—they are being weaponized to target the people from our communities who run our elections and ensure our votes are counted."
"This is a clear attempt to seize and hold power over our elections by sending a message that any county or state that doesn't vote in favor of the president or his preferred candidates may be subjected to a harassment campaign like that of Fulton County," she continued. "This intimidation tactic is a slap in the face to the millions of county election workers and volunteers around the country who work tirelessly to make sure our elections run smoothly."
Nabers added that "the all-out assault on Fulton County and its poll workers creates a blueprint for the administration to see what it can get away with during the midterm elections when results in key counties and states don't go its way. Election workers in Fulton County and beyond will not be intimidated by this desperate bullying."
The fight in Fulton County—where Trump and others initially faced criminal charges for their effort to overturn his 2020 loss—comes as some primary elections are underway across the country, and amid mounting concerns about what the president may try in November, particularly if the GOP-controlled Congress passes the attack on voting rights that the White House is pushing.
Michael McNulty, policy director of the group Issue One, said Tuesday that "Americans should be furious" about Trump's demands in Georgia, which "are based solely on debunked conspiracy theories from 2020 that courts and post-election audits have repeatedly rejected."
"Targeting these heroic election workers does nothing to strengthen our democracy—it puts ordinary public servants at risk in an attempt to erode trust in elections," he warned. “The Trump administration's goal is to make Americans feel distrust and cynicism about the election process. While the administration is framing its actions using the 2020 elections, it is proceeding with this year's midterms in mind."
As McNulty detailed, Trump's "election takeover playbook" includes:
- Spreading false claims to undermine confidence in elections;
- Installing loyalists within the executive branch willing to act on those claims; and
- Using executive power to pressure and intimidate those who actually run our elections.
"If this playbook is left unchecked, the Trump administration will continue to abuse its power and attempt to meddle in elections like authoritarian leaders in other countries," he said. "Congress must stop this."
"It should use oversight and funding authority to halt the executive branch from weaponizing federal power against the heroes who run our elections," McNulty argued. "Members of Congress swore an oath to the Constitution when they agreed to serve, and now is a test of whether they are willing to live up to that oath and protect the American people."
Some members of Congress joined voting rights advocates in speaking out against the subpoena this week. Sharing the Times report on social media Tuesday, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) declared that "Trump's attacks on our free and fair elections won't stop."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy