Category: Politics

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wants Medicare for All back in the health care debate.

The former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair plans to present polling to her House Democratic colleagues next month as she argues for the electoral merits of Medicare for All — even in battleground districts the party must win to flip the House next fall. The research, paid for by Jayapal’s leadership PAC and shared first with POLITICO, found one in five Republicans support a “government-provided system,” as do most independents. Democrats back Medicare for All by 90 percent.

Two-thirds of voters said the federal government does “too little” to help people afford health care. Just 18 percent said the government does “too much.”

Jayapal’s Medicare for All push comes as Democrats have been largely unified on their health care messaging, pushing Republicans on the back foot about extending expiring Obamacare subsidies. Injecting Medicare for All back into the debate could also reopen a long-running intraparty fight that moderate Democrats aren’t keen to have.

In an interview, Jayapal described swing district voters’ openness to Medicare for All and a desire for “fundamental change” as a “significant shift” in recent years. She cited the rising costs of health care for making the current system less appealing to swing voters who “don’t feel like they can afford health care right now” and “don’t feel like they have a choice right now.”

“Whatever tropes they may have had about Medicare for all, those don’t really exist today in the public’s mind,” Jayapal said, arguing Democrats should now “put forward a very united and universal, comprehensive vision for health care in this country.”

Democrats are hoping to make health care a central midterm messaging — tying this fall’s federal government shutdown to a debate within the GOP over extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies. Jayapal hopes to nudge her party into not only pushing back on President Donald Trump’s cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA, but also “be ready with a proactive vision” for voters, she said.

Jayapal will undoubtedly face pushback from moderate Democrats over championing an issue that’s long divided the party. Medicare for All defined much of the ideological battle of the 2020 presidential primary, serving as the progressives’ flagship policy. After Joe Biden, who didn’t back it citing the price tag, won the primary, the policy largely fell out of the conversation.

Over the last five years, Medicare for All has remained popular among Democrats — and Jayapal argues her latest research shows that it’s increasingly intriguing to independents and Republicans, who are feeling the pinch of rising health care costs. Jayapal said she’ll pitch her polling to Republican members, too, though she declined to name them.

“There’s going to be some internal resistance [to Medicare for All] but it needs to be informed by polling, and in our survey, a majority of voters are in favor of it,” said David Walker, a pollster at GQR Research who conducted the survey. “We didn’t gild the lily [in the survey], we didn’t say it’d all be free.”

The poll described Medicare for All to participants as a “system [that] would still use the same doctors and hospitals as today, but take the profit motive out of health care by using a government-administered insurance system, like Medicare or Medicaid,” acknowledging “taxes will increase for many Americans,” but added, “those could be offset by not having to pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays or out-of-pocket costs.” The poll found 54 percent of voters nationally and 56 percent in battleground districts back Medicare for All.

Jaypal acknowledged confusion around the meaning of Medicare for All, and suggested adding “improved” to the slogan, as a nod to Americans’ frustrations with the existing Medicare program.

Jayapal said she intentionally used a polling firm that works closely with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee because “we wanted to make it clear this isn’t some fringe poll.” GQR surveyed 1,000 likely 2026 voters from Nov. 5 to Nov. 13, oversampling voters in battleground House seats. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.

​Politics

The affordability crisis that upended global politics last year continues to ripple across some of the world’s biggest democracies — punishing incumbents and undermining longstanding political alliances.

New international POLITICO polling shows the voter frustration with persistent financial strain remains a deeply potent force today. In five major economies, The POLITICO Poll found ongoing cost-of-living pressures continue to reverberate through politics:

• In the United States, where Donald Trump returned to power on a campaign of economic populism, nearly two-thirds of voters — 65 percent — say the cost of living in the country has gotten worse over the last year. 
• In the United Kingdom, where voters ousted the Conservative Party in 2024 after 14 years of rule, 77 percent say the cost of living has worsened. 
• In France, where President Emmanuel Macron is grappling with historically low favorability ratings, almost half of all adults — 45 percent — say their country is falling behind comparable economies. 
• In Germany, after prolonged infighting over the economy, former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s governing coalition collapsed last year. There, 78 percent of respondents say the cost of living has gotten worse over the last year. 
• And in Canada, a post-pandemic affordability crisis helped fuel a public backlash against then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government ahead of his resignation earlier this year. The POLITICO Poll found that 60 percent of adults in the country say the cost of living is the worst they can remember it being. 

The results, from POLITICO and Public First’s first-ever joint international poll, illustrate the uphill battle many leaders face in trying to contain the intertwined economic and political unrest. Five years after the coronavirus pandemic upended the global economy — and as the world contends with competing conflicts and AI rapidly becoming a defining force — meaningful shares of respondents across the U.S., Canada, and Europe’s biggest economies of Germany, the United Kingdom and France view the cost of living as among the biggest issues facing the world right now.

But as leaders seek to address the affordability concerns, many say that their leaders could be doing a lot more to help on the cost of living, but are choosing not to.

That has left incumbent governments grappling with how to manage the rising economic dread — and control the resulting political backlash. It has also created an opportunity for opposition parties on economic messaging.

“For incumbents it’s very difficult to run on these platforms,” said Javier Carbonell, a policy analyst at the European Policy Centre. “Today, center-left and center-right parties are seen as incumbents, and as the ones who are to put the blame.”

Voters are pessimistic about the cost of living

There is a pervasive sense in the five countries that their economies are deteriorating.

In France, 82 percent of adults say the cost of living in the country has worsened over the last year, as do 78 percent of respondents in Germany; 77 percent of adults in the United Kingdom and 79 percent in Canada say the same.

A majority of people in all five countries go even further, saying the cost of living crisis has never been worse.

In a further sign of the trouble facing leaders, the poll results suggest many view affordability as a systemic problem more than a personal one. Majorities across the countries, for example, say the issue of affordability is the high cost of goods, not that they are not paid too little.

In the U.K., roughly two-thirds of adults say the country’s economy has deteriorated — greater than the 46 percent who say their own financial situation has worsened over the last year. That same pattern holds for France, Canada and Germany, suggesting the public holds broad concerns about the economy and affordability that go beyond their individual lives.

While the European Union’s economy is set to grow by 1.4 percent in 2025, the economy in Germany has weakened over the past two years, and is expected to stagnate this year. In France, a series of government policies aimed at addressing cost-of-living concerns have contributed to an exploding national debt, which currently stands at nearly $4 trillion USD.

In the United Kingdom, the results come against a backdrop of sluggish economic growth, with incumbent Prime Minister Keir Starmer struggling to convince voters that his center-left Labour Party can drive down the cost of living.

And in Canada, the country’s deep-seated anxiety is born out by federal inflation data. Statistics Canada reported this week that the consumer price index ticked up 2.2 percent in November compared to the same month in 2024 — nearly a bullseye on the central bank’s 2 percent target.

Negative economic views are shaping politics

Voters’ economic concerns are roiling politics.

In 2024, Trump ran a campaign on economic concerns without having to oversee the economy himself. That dynamic has shifted in recent months, with voters beginning to sour on his handling of the economy, underscoring the difficulty of convincing voters of economic progress amid stubborn cost-of-living concerns.

That feeling of falling behind was particularly acute among European respondents in the POLITICO Poll, with nearly half of adults in Germany, France and the United Kingdom saying that their country is “generally falling behind other comparable economies.”

That pessimism has pushed many people out of the political process, Carbonell said, “because there’s no expectation that things are going to change.” For others, it’s fueling a search for political alternatives.

“There is this increasing demand for a very anti-system politics,” he said.

In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz made revamping the economy a central campaign promise. But since taking office, he has been preoccupied with geopolitical issues, including the ongoing trade war and the Russia-Ukraine war.

That has become a successful line of attack for Merz’s critics — among them the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, now polling in first place. The party has accused Merz — whose approval ratings are at an all-time low — of not paying enough attention to the needs of the people in his own country, nicknaming him the “foreign policy chancellor.”

In France, the government is looking to roll back some of the policies it rolled out in response to cost-of-living concerns, but doing so could prove particularly unpopular with a population laser-focused on high costs. It could also fuel anti-establishment parties on the right and left, which have made the issue a central weapon against France’s crumbling political center.

David Coletto, a longtime pollster in Canada and CEO of the firm Abacus Data, has for years tracked affordability concerns — and found widespread concern among most survey respondents.

“This is not a marginal concern or a background anxiety,” he wrote of results from POLITICO’s November poll. “It is a dominant lived experience that continues to shape how Canadians interpret government performance, leadership, and competing policy priorities, alongside concern about Donald Trump, trade, and global instability.”

Affordability messaging will be a central message in upcoming elections

Affordability will be a central feature of elections across the globe next year — with some of that messaging already underway. In the U.S., Democratic candidates from New York to Georgia focused much of their 2025 campaigns on lowering the costs of living, and both parties are planning to center the issue in the midterms.

“For now, the cost of living remains a warning light rather than a red light for the Carney government,” Coletto wrote. “But the intensity of feeling, combined with seasonal pressures and fragile household finances, means the issue is unlikely to fade quietly into the background.”

Starmer’s government — languishing in the polls and facing local elections in 2026 — has pivoted in recent weeks to a more explicit focus on affordability.

The U.K. government has also floated freezing train fares, lowering energy bills, and boosting the minimum wage in an attempt to solve the affordability crisis, but a record-high level of taxation confirmed at a government-wide budget last month risks blunting its economic message.

In Germany, the issue of affordability may gain new momentum when voters in five federal states head to the polls to elect new state parliaments next year. In Berlin, the far-left Left Party, for example, plans to take a playbook from the affordability-centered campaign of New York’s Zohran Mamdani as a model for the state elections in September.

With local elections also taking place across France next year, and a presidential election in 2027, these issues are likely to continue to take center stage, especially in the larger cities where pricing pressures have been particularly acute.

In Paris, the outgoing center-left administration has been praised for making the city greener and more pedestrian-friendly, but far more needs to be done on affordability, said David Belliard, a member of the outgoing administration and the Green Party’s candidate for mayor.

“We’ve spent a lot of time fighting against the end of the world,” Belliard said, “but maybe not enough helping people make it to the end of the month.”

POLITICO’s Matt Honeycombe-Foster contributed to this report from the United Kingdom, Victor Goury-Laffont contributed to this report from France, Nette Nöstlinger contributed to this report from Germany and Nick Taylor-Vaisey contributed to this report from Canada. 

​Politics

Ohio gubernatorial hopeful and former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy urged conservatives to reject “Groyper transgressions,” becoming the latest Republican to weigh in on the ongoing debate in the party over antisemitism.

“If, like Mr. Fuentes, you believe that Hitler was “really f-ing cool,” or if you publicly call Usha Vance a “jeet,” then you have no place in the conservative movement, period,” Ramaswamy wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday, referring to a derogatory ethnic slur against South Asians.

In the quote, Ramaswamy was referencing Nick Fuentes and Vice President JD Vance’s wife Usha Vance, the daughter of Indian immigrant parents.

Ramaswamy shared that he has been the target of racial slurs and attacks on social media, despite “older Republicans” doubting the rising prevalence white supremacy in right-leaning online circles.

As the number of “Groypers,” or followers and fans of Fuentes, appears to grow, Ramaswmy said, there is a “real reluctance” from his fellow Republicans to condemn the “new identity politics on the right.”

“It should be acceptable on the right to criticize U.S. aid to Israel or immigrant visas, but it is downright unacceptable to spew poison toward Jews, Indians or any other ethnic group,” said Ramaswamy, the son of Indian immigrants.

The Republican Party has been embroiled in an intra-party struggle over whether the party should welcome groups associated with Fuentes, a debate that burst into the open after Tucker Carlson interviewed Fuentes on his podcast. Carlson, during his friendly October interview with Fuentes, said GOP backers of Israel have been “seized by this brain virus.” Fuentes said that “organized Jewry” is a major barrier to unifying America.

While President Donald Trump defended Carlson’s decision to interview Fuentes, House Speaker Mike Johnson called it a “big mistake.” The president of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, also initially defended Carlson’s interview, arguing the real enemy was “the vile ideas of the left.” But after immense backlash — including from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and multiple employees quitting — Roberts walked back his comments and condemned Fuentes’ rhetoric.

In his op-ed, Ramaswamy said that condemning the antisemitism brewing within a faction of the GOP does not need to equate to censorship but “moral clarity instead of indulgence.”

“The point isn’t to clutch pearls, but to prevent the gradual legitimization of this un-American animus,” he said. “This online edgelording reminds me of toddlers testing their parents’ limits: The job of a real Republican leader is to set firm boundaries for young followers, as a good father does for a transgressive son.”

​Politics

Active shootings represent a very small percentage of on-campus university violence.

But among those that do happen, there are patterns. And as law enforcement officials continue to investigate the Dec. 13, 2025, Brown University shooting, similarities can be seen with other active shooter cases on college campuses that scholar James Densley has studied. “They tend to happen inside a classroom, and there tends to be multiple victims,” Densley explains.

The Brown University tragedy, in which a shooter killed two students and injured nine more, marks the fourth deadly shooting at a U.S. university in 2025.

The Department of Education in Rhode Island, where Brown University is located, said on Dec. 16 that it is urging local elementary and secondary schools to review safety protocols.

Amy Lieberman, the education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Densley about how schools have been given what he describes as an “impossible mandate” to try to prevent shootings.

What is the overall trajectory of school shootings over the past few years?

K-12 school shootings appear to be trending downward, at least in the past two years. But we actually saw the largest jumps in this type of violence in the three to five years leading up to 2024, which trends closely with the broader rise in homicide and violent crime we saw in the pandemic era.

In 2025, there have been 230 school shooting incidents in the U.S. – still a staggeringly high number. This compares with 336 school shootings in 2024, 352 in 2023, 308 in 2022, and 257 in 2021.

How this relates to an increase in schools trying to institute security measures to prevent shootings is an open question. But it’s true that many schools are experimenting with certain solutions, like cameras, drones, AI threat detection, weapons scanners, panic apps and facial recognition, even if there is only weak or emerging evidence about how well they work.

Schools are treated as the front line, because the larger, structural solutions are too difficult to confront. It is much easier to blame schools after a tragedy than to actually address firearm access, grievance pathways – meaning how a person becomes a school shooter – and the other societal problems that are creating these tragedies.

How have schools responded to the rise of school shootings in recent years?

Schools are being asked to solve a societal gun violence problem that they didn’t create and they cannot control. Even the best-run school cannot eliminate all risks when causes accumulate outside of their purview. These attacks are rare but catastrophic, and they create an impossible mandate for schools because when they occur, schools are told it reflects a failure in their preparation. Educators are expected to be teachers, social workers, threat assessors and first responders. It normalizes fear and shifts the responsibility downward.

There is a growing school safety industry that markets fear as a solvable, technical problem. It promises faster ways to detect weapons, for example, but the evidence base for those products is thin, proprietary or nonexistent. One example is an AI detection software that mistook a bag of Doritos for a gun, resulting in a large police response.

Schools are pressured to buy something from these companies to show they are doing something. But some of these systems create false positives, and, more importantly, they shift attention away from human relationships. Technology alone cannot resolve grievances, replace trust and create belonging, but most schools are focused on technology as a means of prevention.

How effective are other prevention systems schools have put in place?

If a school shooter is an outsider trying to attack the building, having a single point of entry, access control or multiple locks on doors creates time and space, which are essential for delaying an attacker until law enforcement can arrive, thus mitigating casualties.

But the evidence shows that nearly all school shooters are either current or former students at the school. They are very familiar with entry and exit points, and they are potentially already inside the building before the school can act on a potential threat of violence.

So, what happens if a school locks down, but you are actually locking the shooter in a room with their potential victims? What if students are forced to hide when it would be safer to run? What if you have a door that locks only from the inside and a student or staff member uses that room to bully or sexually assault another student? We’re building schools to protect against the rare events, but we are not mitigating the more common problems they face.

Students are being asked to practice preventing their own deaths in active shooter drills and learn in environments designed around worst-case scenarios. In general, interpersonal violence and spillover of community violence, like gang-related shootings, are the most common form of school shooting. Most shootings at schools occur in parking lots or at sports events, but we do very little to prepare for those types of scenarios.

Are there any benefits, then, to schools having certain non-tech safety measures in place, like making sure every person has an ID?

Of course, you don’t want strangers walking around in a school building. The fact that someone coming to the school has to get their ID scanned and wear a badge makes perfect sense, not just to prevent shootings but to also prevent theft and assaults and other risks.

The paradox is that school shooters tend to be children already affiliated with the school, and when someone walks in already firing, checkpoints and metal detectors are useless. Historically, several mass shootings in K-12 schools have started outside of the building then moved inside. The issue is not slipping past barriers but overwhelming them in seconds with irresistible force.

Absent policy change, what is the clearest way to prevent school shootings, according to current evidence?

Evidence shows that we often see signs of a crisis or withdrawal beforehand from school attackers. And that is why school-based behavioral threat assessment and management is so important. It is really about noticing changes in behavior and having the authority to intervene early. This is not about profiling people or relying on law enforcement alone. It is about having a structured, team-based process for identifying concerning behavior, assessing risk and coordinating appropriate supports – such as counseling – to prevent harm before it occurs. So often in these cases, people had a gut feeling that something was off with a particular student, but they didn’t know what to share or who to share it with.

For decades we’ve invested far more in responding to school shootings once they occur rather than in preventing them. You can lock doors and run drills, but no school can become a fortress.

Attackers leak warning signs in advance. Real prevention is about creating human systems that get upstream of this.

James Densley has received funding from the National Institute of Justice, the Joyce Foundation, and the Sandy Hook Promise Foundation.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The Department of Defense in late November 2025 announced that it would investigate U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain and NASA astronaut, for what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has called seditious behavior. The threat of investigation came after Kelly and five other Democrats, all with military backgrounds, released a video reminding U.S. service members they can disobey illegal orders issued by the Trump administration.

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law, or our Constitution,” the lawmakers said, without specifying the orders the U.S. service members may have received. “Know that we have your back … don’t give up the ship.”

In response to the video, President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of “seditious behavior” that could be “punishable by death.”

Sedition is a federal crime, but as a military law scholar who served as a judge in the U.S. Air Force, I believe the Democratic lawmakers articulated a correct view of military law. That is, service members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice have a duty to not obey unlawful orders.

There are several unique features to military law that have no analog to civilian criminal law, and if Kelly were court-martialed he would be deprived of several fundamental constitutional rights.

Military justice

In a civilian criminal trial the government normally has the burden of proof on all matters. But in a court-martial, a service member who argues that an order is unlawful has the burden of proving its unlawfulness. And the Supreme Court, in its 1827 opinion in Martin v. Mott, gave this view some credence, arguing that the president, as commander in chief, should not be questioned during a national emergency.

Second, ordinary citizens are protected by a constitutional requirement that the prosecution must convince all jurors of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A court-martial has only a two-thirds threshold to establish guilt. And the jurors – called members – are not the accused service member’s peers.

Indeed, the court-martial members are military personnel who outrank the accused service member and are picked to serve by senior commanding officers. Military judges are also uniformed officers and, like the rest of the military, are subject to the chain of command.

At times, senior officers have inserted themselves into the military justice system and tried to direct a court-martial to convict an accused service member. This has created the problem of unlawful command influence, the improper use of superior authority to interfere with the court-martial process.

Kelly is still theoretically subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could be court-martialed because he is a military retiree. This concept of a lifetime military jurisdiction did not exist when the Constitution was instituted in 1789. It came into existence during an emergency session of Congress in 1861.

The Supreme Court has never held that lifetime jurisdiction is constitutional. But in 2022 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did, in a 2-1 decision.

It reasoned that if the Constitution’s creators had thought such a jurisdiction were a threat to the republic, they would have prohibited it. The dissenting judge in that case pointed out the frightening possibility of a president using the Uniform Code of Military Justice to curb free speech.

Lines of defense

Kelly is different than an ordinary retiree, and this case is bigger than a single senator. That’s because it goes to the heart of what the Constitution’s framers intended by preserving liberty through a republican form of government.

In 1648, Oliver Cromwell, who had become a military dictator over England, used the army to curb the Magna Carta – a revolutionary basic rights document dating to 1215 – and the ability of Parliament to debate matters and pass laws. The Constitution is designed to prevent anything coming close to such an occurrence.

So, what would Kelly’s defense likely be, other than that he exercised free speech and gave a correct recitation of the law?

Kelly’s first defense might be that under the Constitution, the president, as commander in chief, has no power to court-martial or otherwise administratively penalize him. Doing so would diminish Congress’ authority.

In 1974, the Supreme Court determined in Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee that although the Constitution prohibits a member of Congress from holding a position in the executive branch, citizens had no standing to sue in the federal courts to prevent this from occurring. Taken literally, the clause means that no member of Congress could hold a military commission and be beholden to the commander in chief, since this would erode Congress’ independence and authority.

Kelly’s second defense could be that after the Constitution and statutory law, the military law is governed by tradition, or the military’s own past practices, which used to be referred to as “lex non scripta.”

American history is replete with retired officers criticizing presidents or even joining in hate groups that accused a president of being beholden to subversive interests. Past presidents have ignored these men.

They include George Van Horn Moseley, who sided with pro-Nazi groups and accused President Franklin Roosevelt of being a communist. Retired generals Albert Coady Wedemeyer and Bonner Fellers formed organizations that undermined Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

None of these men were court-martialed or administratively penalized.

Finally, Kelly could argue in federal court that the military has no jurisdiction over him because of the issue of unlawful command influence. One only needs to look at Hegseth’s statements in the case to see the specter of this problem in regard to Kelly.

When Congress formulated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it criminalized unlawful command influence. But as military law scholar Rachel VanLandingham has pointed out, no person has ever been prosecuted for violating the prohibition.

Kelly could argue that there are no safeguards in his case to ensure a fair hearing and that the case should move from military courts to federal courts. The federal judge assigned the case can then ponder whether siding with the administration’s claims is a step toward establishing a Cromwellian future and away from the Constitution’s protection of a republican form of government.

Of course, Congress could put a stop to any persecution of Kelly by informing the president that he is acting contrary to the Constitution and explaining to do so is a high crime or misdemeanor.

During the Vietnam War, scholar Robert Sherrill said that “military justice is to justice what military music is to music.” In the past, military justice has been able to accomplish fair trials of military members, but it is dangerously open to influence by military leaders, all the way up to the commander in chief.

If there is to be an exercise in accountability for Kelly, it could more fairly be administered through a real constitutional analysis conducted by the independent federal judicial branch – or through a congressional intervention. Without either occurring, we may as a nation find ourselves a closer step toward a Cromwellian future.

Joshua Kastenberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Republicans are making mail-in voting a core part of their midterm battle plans — a sharp contrast with President Donald Trump’s efforts to abolish the practice as they scramble to turn out his base.

In Wisconsin, the state party is preparing a full-court press of mailers, emails, phone banks, door knocks and digital ads to get voters to sign up for mail ballots.

In Michigan, the Monroe County GOP ran a social media campaign ahead of the fall election urging voters to utilize permanent absentee ballots and is planning an even bigger push next year.

In Pennsylvania, where Republicans poured $16 million into boosting the number of GOP voters using mail ballots in 2024, the state party chair called it “a priority” for 2026. The nonprofit Citizens Alliance, which aided efforts to get Republicans to return their mail ballots in Pennsylvania last year, is planning to knock 750,000 doors ahead of the midterms to encourage infrequent voters to embrace the practice.

And the Republican National Committee intends to build on the aggressive early mail and in-person voting campaign it ran successfully in 2024, after shying away from the practice in 2020, while also supporting election security efforts including stopping ballots from being counted after Election Day, according to a person granted anonymity to describe the committee’s plans.

“Democrats have built a pretty massive structural advantage in early voting for a long, long time. And we just can’t keep going into election night 100,000 votes down and expect to make it up in 12 hours,” Wisconsin GOP Chair Brian Schimming said in an interview. “Treating early voting as optional, or something Democrats do, is a losing gamble.”

Trump has long falsely decried mail voting as rife with fraud. Over the summer, he vowed that Republicans “are going to do everything possible [to] get rid of mail-in ballots.” In November, and again this week, he called on Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster and pass a law to ban mail-in voting.

But, as has been the case for several years, he and his party are out of sync.

Rattled by electoral losses across the country this year and fearing a turnout slump in 2026 when control of Congress is on the line, Republican party chairs and operatives in battleground states Trump flipped by razor-thin margins in 2024 are turning to mail-in voting to keep lower-propensity voters engaged when he’s not on the ballot. They’re redoubling the 2024 efforts they ran successfully despite Trump alternating between promoting and railing against the practice — a turnabout after his vilification of mail ballots contributed to GOP losses in 2020.

Now, back in office, Trump is escalating his war against mail ballots. He signed an executive order in March that attempted to bar states from counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, along with other election-system overhauls. Judges have blocked most of the order, and the Supreme Court is set to decide whether federal law prohibits states from counting late-arriving ballots postmarked by Election Day.

Despite pledging to “lead a movement” to eliminate “corrupt” voting by mail ahead of the midterms, Trump has yet to issue another executive order on it. State courts have upheld vote-by-mail programs expanded during the pandemic. And presidents have little authority over state-run elections, whose rules are guided by federal and state law rather than presidential decree.

State and local Republicans, seeing few paths to overturning mail voting programs, are forging ahead — swallowing their own misgivings about ballot security in an effort to cut into a Democratic advantage as early voting options turn Election Day into election season.

Pressed about their mission appearing antithetical to Trump’s rhetoric, Republican operatives uniformly insisted they’re simply trying to play by the rules they’ve been given and that they support the president trying to change them — even if they’re unsure he’ll succeed.

“In Michigan, that’s the law of the land unless we can find a U.S. constitutional override, which I doubt that’s going to happen,” said Jim Runestad, a state senator who chairs the Michigan Republican Party. So, he said, “we’ll be fully engaged in early and absentee voting — we have to be.”

Still, the renewed dispute between Trump and his party over mail-in voting is the latest evidence of cracks forming in the ordinarily unified Republican Party. GOP lawmakers throughout the country, from New Hampshire to Indiana, have been rebuffing the president’s push for an aggressive redistricting effort to shore up his party’s chances of keeping its slim House advantage next year. Democrats need to net just three seats in order to seize control over the lower chamber. And several members of Trump’s base, namely departing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, bucked him on the yet-to-be-released Jeffrey Epstein files.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Republicans have already shown some success in convincing their voters to embrace mail voting. In Pennsylvania — where now-Sen. Dave McCormick’s campaign, party committees and outside groups spent millions promoting the practice — GOP voters cast 32.4 percent of mail ballots in 2024, up from 23.7 percent four years earlier, helping Trump narrowly flip the state. Roughly one in five Republican voters who cast ballots in the state that year had not participated in any elections since 2020, suggesting the method worked for some low-propensity voters who the party has to work harder to turn out.

Nationally, roughly three in 10 ballots in the 2024 general election were cast by mail, according to a U.S. Election Assistance Commission report from June. That was down from 43 percent in 2020, at the pandemic’s peak, but higher than pre-Covid, according to the report.

“We have to encourage people to embrace mail-in voting and early voting,” Pennsylvania GOP Chair Greg Rothman said in an interview. “That has to be a priority for us in 2026.”

Rothman won’t be alone in that fight. Citizens Alliance, the nonprofit founded by Pennsylvania-based conservative activist Cliff Maloney that hired over 100 people to chase ballots across roughly 500,000 doors in 2024, is gearing up to knock 750,000 in 2026. The Republican State Leadership Committee, which helped fund mail-ballot programs in Pennsylvania last year, put more than $2 million behind turnout efforts in New Jersey and Virginia this year and said it’s “doubling down” on the program in 2026.

“Without Trump on the ballot, the low-propensity problem is an epidemic” and “Republicans have to adapt or die,” Maloney said. “The blessing here is that there’s a solution — and the solution is to actually put dollars, cents, time and energy into the same tactics that the left uses to target low-propensity voters.”

State and county parties in Wisconsin and Michigan are planning similarly aggressive efforts, though they, like other Republican officials interviewed for this story, declined to share details or put price tags on strategies still taking shape. In Michigan, where voters can sign up for a permanent mail ballot list, Monroe County GOP Chair Todd Gillman sees it as a way to get more people engaged in more under-the-radar local elections.

But even as they try to make inroads with mail voting, Republicans in other states are attempting to follow Trump in restricting the practice. Ohio’s GOP-controlled Legislature last month passed a bill that would invalidate nearly all ballots received after Election Day that were postmarked prior to the deadline. The state’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, is now weighing whether to sign it. Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox signed a similar bill earlier this year. Republican-led Kansas Legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of another bill eliminating the grace period, which is being challenged in court.

And Republicans pushing mail-in voting remain somewhat hamstrung by their standard bearer’s scaremongering, which has sown a deep distrust among GOP voters that party officials and activists say they’re still working to reverse.

Trump made baseless claims of mail-voting fraud the basis for his constellation of stolen-election conspiracy theories in 2020. He piled on in 2024, suggesting scores of Pennsylvania ballots were fraudulent and accusing postal workers of “purposefully” losing some mail ballots — even as his campaign, the RNC and GOP-aligned groups prioritized early voting initiatives. Last month, as Californians voted to approve mid-decade redistricting in response to a GOP-led redraw in Texas, Trump threatened legal action that never materialized over ballots cast by mail in a state that sends one to every voter.

GOP operatives have a script for that, insisting to wary Republicans that they’ve made voting by mail more secure and informing them of the various options they have to ensure their ballots reach election offices, including hand delivery.

“We don’t necessarily like early voting or absentee ballots,” Gillman said. “But those are the rules we have to play by.”

Jessica Piper contributed to this report.

​Politics

Former first lady Michelle Obama on Monday appeared to push back on President Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about the death of Hollywood couple Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

In an appearance on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Obama shared that she and her husband, former President Barack Obama, were supposed to see the Reiners on Sunday — the same day their bodies were discovered stabbed to death in their California home.

While her husband early Monday shared that the two were “heartbroken” to learn of the Reiners’ deaths, Michelle Obama appeared to single out Trump’s statement, which attributed the couple’s deaths to “Trump derangement syndrome” and the director’s lack of support for the president.

“Let me just say this, unlike some people: Rob and Michele Reiner are some of the most decent, courageous people you ever want to know,” she told Kimmel. “They’re not deranged or crazed. What they have always been are passionate people. In a time when there’s not a lot of courage going on, they were the kind of people who were ready to put their actions behind what they cared about. And they cared about their family. And they cared about this country.”

Police are currently investigating the Reiners’ deaths as an “apparent homicide,” and authorities announced Monday that Reiner’s son, Nick Reiner, is in custody as a suspect. He has been booked on murder charges and is being held on $4 million bail.

The son of legendary comedian Carl Reiner, Rob Reiner was a strong supporter of progressive causes, including LGTBQ+ rights and early childhood education, and often held fundraisers and campaigned for Democratic issues. He was also a frequent critic of Trump’s.

In a Monday morning post to Truth Social, Trump said Reiner was “a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS.”

Despite sharp backlash from Democrats and Republicans alike, Trump doubled down on his comments during a medal presentation Monday afternoon, telling reporters in the Oval Office that he wasn’t a fan of Reiner’s “at all.”

“He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned,” Trump said.

The White House declined to comment.

​Politics

The Jeffrey Epstein story has slipped in and out of the headlines for years, but in a very particular way. Most news articles ask a specific question – which powerful men might be on “the list”?

Headlines focus on unidentified elites and who may be exposed or embarrassed, rather than on the people whose suffering made the case newsworthy in the first place: the girls and young women Epstein abused and trafficked.

Right now, the story is entering a new phase. A federal judge has authorized the Justice Department to unseal grand jury transcripts and other evidence from Epstein companion Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking case. A court in Florida has cleared the release of grand jury records from a federal investigation into Epstein himself, all under the new Epstein Files Transparency Act. Passed in November 2025, that law gives the Justice Department 30 days to release nearly all Epstein-related files. The deadline is Dec. 19.

Journalists and the public are watching to see what those documents will reveal beyond names we already know, and whether a long-rumored client list will finally materialize.

Alongside that, there has been a stream of survivor-centered reporting. Some outlets, including CNN, have regularly featured Epstein survivors and their attorneys reacting to new developments. Those segments are a reminder that another story is available, one that treats the women at the center of the case as sources of understanding, not just as evidence of someone else’s fall from grace.

These coexisting storylines reveal a deeper problem. After the #MeToo movement peaked, the public conversation about sexual violence and the news has clearly shifted. More survivors now speak publicly under their own names, and some outlets have adapted.

Yet long-standing conventions about what counts as news – conflict, scandal, elite people and dramatic turns in a case – still shape which aspects of sexual violence make it into headlines and which stay on the margins.

That tension raises a question: In a case where the law largely permits naming victims of sexual violence, and where some survivors are explicitly asking to be seen, why do journalistic practices so often withhold names or treat victims as secondary to the story?

What the law allows – and why newsrooms rarely do it

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government generally may not punish news organizations for publishing truthful information drawn from public records, even when that information is a rape victim’s name.

When states tried in the 1970s and 1980s to penalize outlets that identified victims using names that had already appeared in court documents or police reports, the court said those punishments violated the First Amendment.

Newsrooms responded by tightening restraint, not loosening it. Under pressure from feminist activists, victim advocates and their own staff, many organizations adopted policies against identifying victims of sexual assault, especially without consent.

Journalism ethics codes now urge reporters to “minimize harm,” be cautious about naming victims of sex crimes, and consider the risk of retraumatization and stigma.

In other words, U.S. law permits what newsroom ethics codes discourage.

How anonymity became the norm and #MeToo complicated it

For much of the 20th century, rape victims were routinely named in U.S. news coverage – a reflection of unequal gender norms. Victims’ reputations were treated as public property, while men accused of sexual violence were portrayed sympathetically and in detail.

By the 1970s and 1980s, feminist movements drew attention to underreporting and intense stigma. Activists built rape crisis centers and hotlines, documented how rarely sexual assault cases led to prosecution, and argued that if a woman feared seeing her name in the paper, she might never report at all.

Lawmakers passed “rape shield laws” that limited the use of a victim’s sexual history in court. Some states went further by barring publication of victims’ names.

In response to these laws, as well as feminist pressure, most newsrooms by the 1980s moved toward a default rule of not naming victims.

More recently, the #MeToo movement added a turn. Survivors in workplaces, politics and entertainment chose to speak publicly, often under their own names, about serial abuse and institutional cover-ups. Their accounts forced newsrooms to revisit assumptions about whose voices should lead a story.

Yet #MeToo also unfolded within existing journalistic conventions. Investigations tended to focus on high-profile men, spectacular falls from power and moments of reckoning, leaving less space for the quieter, ongoing realities of recovery, legal limbo and community response.

The unintended effects of keeping survivors faceless

There are good reasons for policies against naming victims.

Survivors may face harassment, employment discrimination or danger from abusers if they are identified. For minors, there are additional concerns about long-term digital evidence. In communities where sexual violence carries intense social stigma, anonymity can be a lifeline.

But research on media framing suggests that naming patterns matter. When coverage focuses on the alleged perpetrator as a complex individual – someone with a name, a career and a backstory – while referring to “a victim” or “accusers” in the singular, audiences are more likely to empathize with the suspect and scrutinize the victim’s behavior.

In high-profile cases like Epstein’s, that dynamic intensifies. The powerful men connected to him are named, dissected and speculated about. The survivors, unless they work hard to step forward, remain a blurred mass in the background. Anonymity meant to protect actually flattens their experience. Different stories of grooming, coercion and survival get reduced to a single faceless category.

A window into what we think is ‘news’

That flattening is part of what makes the current moment in the Epstein story so revealing. The suspense is less about whether more victims will be heard and more about what being named will do to influential men. It becomes a story about whose names count as news.

Carefully anonymizing survivors while breathlessly chasing a client list of powerful men unintentionally sends a message about who matters most.

The Epstein scandal, in that framing, is not primarily about what was done to girls and young women over many years, but about who among the elite might be embarrassed, implicated or exposed.

A more survivor-centered journalistic approach would start from a different set of questions, including wondering which survivors have chosen to speak on the record and why, and how news outlets can protect anonymity, when it is asked for, but still convey a victim’s individuality.

Those questions are not only about ethics. They are about news judgment. They ask editors and reporters to consider whether the most important part of a story like Epstein’s is the next famous name to drop or the ongoing lives of the people whose abuse made that name newsworthy at all.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump is making full use of his pardon power. This year, Trump has issued roughly 1,800 pardons, or nearly six times the number he issued during the four years of his first term. Granted, about 1,500 of them involved individuals charged for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on Congress. Still, the pace of Trump’s pardons this year have been nearly unprecedented.

That is, until you remember his predecessor. Joe Biden, at the end of his term, issued a full and sweeping pardon to his son Hunter for gun and drug charges. This was an unprecedented action by a president to pardon his own child, which had never been done before. Biden also granted pardons to several other family members on his final day in office.

Despite serving a single term, Biden holds the record for the most acts of clemency, or pardons combined with commuted sentences, of any president. It’s a record that’s not hard to imagine Trump could break.

As a political scientist who has studied pardons and other aspects of presidential power, I believe that the founders of our nation would be horrified by the contemporary use of the pardon power, which represents a far cry from the unifying act of mercy it was intended to be. While Biden issued pardons to family members, Trump has handed them out to political allies.

It remains to be seen whether this is a slight deviation from course or becomes a permanent pattern for all presidents in the future.

A clear break

There’s no question that Trump and Biden have acted within their authority in issuing pardons for federal offenses. Presidents can extend a pardon, or complete legal forgiveness of a crime, or a commutation, which is the reduction of a sentence. However, individuals pardoned for federal crimes may still face peril in state courts.

This extraordinary power may seem kinglike at first glance, but it was given to the president with a different vision in mind. The founders of the country viewed the pardon power not as a personal token for the president to hand out but as an act of mercy meant to check the other two branches.

If Congress passed a law that the president believed was poorly written, or if the courts unfairly punished someone for breaking it, the president could step in and right the wrong. This was seen by the founders as a merciful act, stemming from the tradition of old English law.

Throughout American history, we have seen presidents mostly adhere to this pattern. Both Abraham Lincoln and his successor Andrew Johnson issued pardons and amnesty to former Confederate citizens, with the aim of helping the nation come back together after secession and the Civil War. Harry Truman granted amnesty to certain World War II deserters, while Jimmy Carter granted pardons to hundreds of thousands of individuals who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War.

But toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st, presidents have used the pardon pen increasingly for personal and political reasons. The inflection point is undoubtedly the pardon of former President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 by his former vice president and successor, Gerald Ford. This was issued a month after Nixon’s resignation in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which involved Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign spying on his political enemies.

Ford justified his action by citing the need for national unity, saying the pardon would spare the country from a messy and dramatic public trial of a former president. Never before had a high-profile public politician received such a presidential grant, which caused Ford’s public standing to take a hit. Scholars and historians believe the act contributed to his reelection loss in 1976.

We have since seen Ford’s decision open the door to more pardons of political allies or personal friends. In 1992, George H.W. Bush pardoned officials he had served with in the Reagan administration who were tangled up in the arms-for-hostages, Iran-Contra scandal; Bill Clinton pardoned Democratic donor Marc Rich in 2001; and George W. Bush commuted the sentence of vice presidential aide Scooter Libby in 2007.

Trump’s expanded use

As it happens, Trump issued a full pardon to Libby in 2018. During his first term, Trump also pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

At the end of his first term, Trump pardoned “”) his former campaign manager Paul Manafort and his friend Roger Stone among other political allies.

Trump’s second term has seen clemency for his former lawyer and friend Rudy Giuliani, as well as crypto executive Changpeng Zhao, whose ties to Trump family businesses have raised questions about the pardon.

Trump’s use of the pardon power does not seem to follow a consistent doctrine or philosophy. Some of his clemency actions seem to contradict his administration’s policy, such as dozens of pardons of drug traffickers, despite the effort to stop drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

The pace of Trump’s pardons and commutations, however, suggests little hesitation. The question looking forward, beyond his presidency, is how much of a precedent his actions, along with Biden’s, may set for their successors.

We know this from earlier expansions of the pardon’s reach, as well as other areas of presidential authority: Few presidents willingly relinquish powers accrued by their predecessors. Once chief executives have exercised a certain type of authority, their predecessors seldom give it back, ultimately increasing the power of the presidency.

Stewart Ulrich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

NEW YORK — Two months after prominent members of a national Young Republican organization were exposed for their role in a hate-filled, private group chat, the city-based chapter showed it’s willing to welcome almost anyone.

Inside Cipriani Wall Street, a lavish event space in the financial district, amid the sea of tuxedos and ball gowns, was white nationalist leader Jared Taylor. Across the room sat EmpathChan, an influencer who went viral recently for wearing blackface on Halloween. And appearing on stage was Markus Frohnmaier, a far-right German politician, whose political party the club had cheered with a German-language phrase popularized by the Nazis. At least nineteen other members of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party joined him.

Also spotted at the New York Young Republican Club gala: Vish Burra, a club member who lost his job at the conservative One America News Network last month for posting a video depicting Jews as cockroaches.

Just eight weeks after the city club’s statewide counterpart was disbanded by the New York State GOP, the city-based club showed on Saturday night how a Young Republican organization can throw a party. Its 113th annual gala came as local chapters are still reeling from the racist and antisemitic “I love Hitler” chat — and as the GOP faces a larger reckoning over whether anti-Jewish voices have space within the party.

On Saturday night, the festivities provided a glimpse of what the party’s youth wing looks like amid those conditions. Over the course of the gala, a club member struck an attendee in the face outside on the sidewalk, President Donald Trump was endorsed for a third term and a protester wearing a Nazi armband and waving a swastika-laden banner popped up from his seat to shout, “I guess we’re all Nazis!” in an attempt to disrupt the event, according to two attendees and a release from Goofball, the group behind the protest.

The sold-out Cipriani served its signature bellini cocktail to attendees upon arrival. Zoltán Mága, a Hungarian violinist whose last name sparked jokes among the GOP faithful, performed during the six-course dinner, which featured baked tagliolini with mushrooms, prime rib and potatoes.

Meanwhile, Democratic state senators, assemblymembers and city council members were outside protesting the event at a demonstration hosted by the Manhattan Young Democrats.

“The people that are in that room, they were calling folks like me watermelon people,” said Assemblymember Jordan Wright, who is Black, referencing a line from the chats exposed by POLITICO. “They were being racist, they were being homophobic, they were idolizing Hitler.”

In October, POLITICO reported on a chat with a dozen Young Republicans who held leadership positions in chapters of the organization across the country. Since that initial report, at least seven people involved in the chats lost their jobs, including a Vermont state lawmaker who resigned. Two members of the chat apologized for the chats but blamed the rival city group for them coming to light

Later in the evening, white nationalist Nick Fuentes — whose friendly October interview with Tucker Carlson has splintered the GOP — lingered on the sidewalk outside Cipriani after the club’s organizers banned him from entering.

“This is the worst event they’ve ever thrown,” the club’s press chairman, Lucian Wintrich, told reporters huddled together in the “press pen” where the media was restricted for much of the event. Wintrich had been expressing frustration that the dozens of outlets he welcomed to the gala were relegated to a distant corner by his fellow organizers.

Conspicuously absent from Saturday night’s event were five GOP elected officials — including one congressman — who the club had announced would be there.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) was advertised as scheduled to attend in an October email, but he didn’t show up. His team did not respond to requests for comment.

Neither did New York City GOP Council Member Inna Vernikov — who was brought on stage by Trump at the 2023 gala while she wore an Israeli-flag-themed gown. The local MAGA firebrand and longtime ally of the club skipped its event despite being promoted as an “honored guest” days before. Assemblymember Michael Tannousis and City Council Members David Carr and Frank Morano were also not seen, despite promotions touting their participation.

Vernikov and Tannousis declined to comment. Carr and Morano did not respond to requests for comment.

From the stage, the speakers took an increasingly anti-immigrant bent.

“If dubiously elected or rather naturalized illegal immigrants are polluting our politics, the new right must have courage to deport them,” said Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), in reference to his call to deport Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, which he said would “resurrect our nation.”

Earlier in the night, the club’s president, Stefano Forte, addressed attendees.

“We all know who the enemy is,” Forte said. “The enemy is who shot President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. The enemy is who almost shot him again two weeks [later] in Mar-a-Lago…The enemy slanders us in the media, throws wide open our borders, replaces our native population.”

On Sunday, in the wake of the mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia, Vernikov had a blistering message for her fellow Republicans that seemed to reference her absence.

“For years, antisemitic rhetoric has dominated THE LEFT and has fully infiltrated the Democratic Party,” she wrote on X, saying such rhetoric led to the terror seen in Sydney. “Unfortunately, today the same venom has entered corners of the conservative movement and the hard RIGHT WING of the Republican Party. Lunatics like Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, who spew bigoted, racist and antisemitic rhetoric, should be condemned and excommunicated from the Republican Party never to be welcomed again … I will DISASSOCIATE myself from any event, individual, or organization whether Democrat or Republican, that welcomes these vile bigots into their mist, defends them or amplifies their voices.”

The club had a very different message about the attacks — one which was deleted from social media after POLITICO started asking questions about it.

“The horrific terror attack in Australia last night is more evidence that Remigration is the only path forward for Western countries,” the club wrote in the since-deleted post. “America, Germany, Australia, and the rest of Europe must implement Remigration or more shootings like this will be inevitable.”

Pauline von Pezold contributed to this report.

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO’s New York Playbook. Subscribe here.

​Politics