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
new jersey
As Trump Weaponizes DOJ, NJ and California Poll Monitoring Called Election Interference
"Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: Suppress the vote," said California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Oct 24, 2025
With a majority of Americans now recognizing that President Donald Trump is weaponizing the US Department of Justice, the DOJ's Friday announcement that it will send election monitors to California and New Jersey is generating alarm.
Republicans in both states had written to the DOJ, requesting monitors for the November 4 general elections in which Californians will vote on Proposition 50, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's answer to Trump's mid-decade gerrymandering in GOP-led states, and New Jersey residents will pick their next governor.
While the DOJ's statement noted that its Civil Rights Division "regularly deploys its staff to monitor for compliance with federal civil rights laws in elections in communities across the country," and US Attorney General Pam Bondi insisted that her department "is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity," legal experts have accused the Trump appointee of "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice."
The head of the Civil Rights Division, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has also faced scrutiny, including for gutting the Voting Section—which, as the DOJ pointed out Friday, "enforces various federal statutes that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act, National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Civil Rights Acts."
This DOJ deployment of poll watchers targets New Jersey's Passaic County and five California counties: Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside.
Newsom's office said on social media Friday that "this is not a federal election. The US DOJ has no business or basis to interfere with this election. This is solely about whether California amends our state Constitution. This administration has made no secret of its goal to undermine free and fair elections. Deploying these federal forces appears to be an intimidation tactic meant for one thing: Suppress the vote."
Rusty Hicks, chair of the state's Democratic Party, said that "no amount of election interference by the California Republican Party is going to silence the voices of California voters."
Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin was similarly critical, saying in a statement that "the Trump Department of Justice's announcement that it is sending federal 'election monitors' to Passaic County is highly inappropriate, and DOJ has not even attempted to identify a legitimate basis for its actions."
"The Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the primary responsibility for running elections, and our state's hardworking elections officials have been preparing for months to run a safe and secure election," he added. "We are committed to ensuring that every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot and make their voices heard."
Early voting in New Jersey begins Saturday. In the gubernatorial race, former Republican state legislator Jack Ciattarelli is facing Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill. As the Associated Press pointed out earlier this month, "New Jersey is one of two states, along with Virginia, electing governors this fall—and the contests are widely seen as measures of how voters feel about Trump's second term and how Democrats are responding."
Democracy Docket reported Friday that "already in recent months, voting rights advocates and leading Democrats have warned that the administration is laying the groundwork to deploy troops or law enforcement to the polls in key cities next year and in 2028. Friday's announcement has intensified those fears."
After the DOJ's election monitoring announcement, journalist Keith Olbermann said on social media: "Trump has started his direct assault on local elections. This fascist interference must be prevented."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Third Court This Month Blocks Trump's 'Flagrantly Unconstitutional' Birthright Order
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts found an exception to the Supreme Court's recent limit on nationwide injunctions.
Jul 26, 2025
For the third time since the U.S. Supreme Court used the case to limit nationwide injunctions in June, a court has blocked U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from going into effect.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts ruled on Friday that a nationwide injunction he had granted to over 12 states still applied under an exception laid out in the Supreme Court decision.
"We are thrilled that the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, whose state took the lead on bringing the case, said in a statement.
Trump issued an executive order in January ending birthright citizenship for children born to parents with no legal status, a move widely decried as unconstitutional. Several lawsuits followed, resulting in a nationwide injunction blocking the order from taking effect.
"American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history."
In June, the Supreme Court weighed in by limiting the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but declining to comment on the constitutionality of the order itself. However, the nation's highest court did say that states could receive nationwide injunctions if it was the only way to offer full relief, which Sorokin determined Friday was indeed the case.
The states had argued that the birthright order, in addition to being unconstitutional, would put millions of dollars for citizenship-dependent health insurance assistance at risk, according to The Associated Press. Sorokin determined anything less than a nationwide ban would not provide full relief to the states, given that people often move across state lines.
"The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in the Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit," Sorokin wrote in his decision.
His ruling followed two others blocking the order since the Supreme Court decision: A July 10 ruling from a federal New Hampshire judge establishing a nationwide class in a new class-action lawsuit, and a determination from a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday that the order was unconstitutional and the block could stay in effect to offer states relief.
In his decision Friday, Sorokin said the Trump administration was "entitled to pursue their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question," adding, "But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional."
In response, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Newsweek, "These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment," adding, "We look forward to being vindicated on appeal."
Patkin, however, celebrated the ruling: "The district court's decision, consistent with the Supreme Court's own instructions, recognizes that this illegal action cannot take effect anywhere without harming New Jersey and the other states who joined in these challenges. American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history. The president cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As McIver Pleads Not Guilty, Rights Group Sounds Alarm Over Trump 'Intimidation Campaign'
"The Trump administration is attempting to silence opposition through fear, but New Jersey will not be intimidated by authoritarianism," said the head of the ACLU of New Jersey.
Jun 25, 2025
At a hearing in New Jersey on Wednesday, Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey pleaded not guilty to multiple charges stemming from an incident outside of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Newark last month.
Politico reported that McIver and her attorney said they plan to challenge the charges on both legal and factual grounds.
"At the end of the day, this is all about political intimidation," McIver said to a crowd that gathered outside the courthouse.
JUST NOW: LaMonica McIver gives a powerful speech after pleading not guilty: "We will fight this. At the end of the day this is all about political intimidation. The Trump administration and his cronies have weaponized the federal government. I will not stand for it. They will… pic.twitter.com/kMeIeXqeDK
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) June 25, 2025
The executive director of the ACLU of New Jersey, Amol Sinha, said in a statement on Wednesday that the prosecution of McIver is "a shameful escalation of the Trump administration's intimidation campaign against those who refuse to do its bidding."
"The Trump administration is attempting to silence opposition through fear, but New Jersey will not be intimidated by authoritarianism," Sinha also said. "We urge all members of Congress—as well as state and local elected officials—to exercise their oversight authority to provide strong checks and balances on President Trump's abuses of power that continue to undermine the fundamental freedoms at the bedrock of our democracy."
On May 9, McIver two other members of Congress were at an ICE detention facility called Delaney Hall to conduct congressional oversight when the Democratic Newark Mayor Ras Baraka joined them there. When federal agents ordered Baraka to leave and then went to arrest him, McIver and the other lawmakers moved to intervene, according to documentation of the episode and official accounts. NPR reported that the administration's narrative around the episode has shifted over time.
In June, interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba announced that McIver had been charged with a three-count indictment for forcibly interfering with federal officers.
Following her indictment, McIver released a statement on June 10, saying that the "facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job and will expose these proceedings for what they are: A brazen attempt at political intimidation."
"This indictment is no more justified than the original charges, and is an effort by Trump's administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused and scare me out of doing the work I was elected to do. But it won't work—I will not be intimidated," McIver said.
There have been several explosive interactions between federal agents and Democratic officials since May. On June 17, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by federal agents at an immigration court in lower Manhattan while escorting an individual out of immigration court. And the week prior, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was handcuffed on the ground after being forcibly removed from a news conference that was held by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in Los Angeles.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular