Iran spending bill

GOP rebels threaten Iran spending bill over Poland troop fight

A small but influential group of defense-minded Republicans is looking to extract concessions from the Trump administration on American defense of Europe.

Mark Satter

A splinter group of moderate House Republicans is threatening to derail an $88 billion Iran war spending bill unless American troops are returned to Poland.

Led by frequent Trump critic Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), the small cadre of GOP lawmakers could scuttle the emergency spending bill, which also includes farm aid and money to counter the Ebola virus. Bacon and his allies are trying to force the White House to make good on its plan to replace 4,200 American troops abruptly pulled out of Poland last month.

Just three defections could lead to serious trouble for Speaker Mike Johnson, given the narrow Republican House majority and expected widespread Democratic opposition to the measure, and concerns from GOP fiscal hawks about writing such a huge check.

The standoff is the latest clash between Republican defense hawks and a Trump administration that has largely ignored GOP worries about pulling forces from Europe — part of a larger push by the White House to force European nations to shoulder more of their own national security burden.

“We had five brigades, and we’re three now,” Bacon said about U.S. forces in Poland, considered a key ally of the United States. “It’s unsatisfactory. … If they want my support on the supplemental, they better come up and address it,” added Bacon, who described himself as the effort’s “spokesman.”

This month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Pentagon would conduct a six-month review of American forces in Europe, and lashed out at NATO allies who declined to throw military support behind the U.S. during the Iran war.

“I stand with Don,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, (R-Penn.), adding that he wanted answers from the Pentagon on why the department is changing course on “unquestionable policy” that has lasted for generations.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), also a member of the Armed Services panel, said while he would still support the supplemental, “we won’t have the votes to pass it without those two.”

The White House, Defense Department and Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The abrupt cancellation of a deployment of 4,200 Army soldiers to Poland in May caught American lawmakers, Army leaders and Polish officials by surprise. Two senior Polish defense ministry officials were immediately dispatched to Washington as Warsaw raced to figure out what had happened.

At the time, Bacon said it was “a slap in the face to the Armed Services Committee,” and panel Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told Army Secretary Dan Driscoll that his committee was “not happy.”

In the days following the Pentagon’s announcement, President Donald Trump said he would send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland “based on the successful Election of the now President of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse.”

But those troops have yet to be deployed.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), also a member of the Armed Services Committee, said he hoped withholding votes from the supplemental would not be necessary, and that the Pentagon would soon replace the troops.

“I think it’s going to come through,” he said.

Compelling the public release of records

House votes to disclose which members settled sexual misconduct allegations with taxpayer funds

Rep. Nancy Mace was the only member to vote “present.”

Hailey Fuchs

The House approved a measure Tuesday compelling the public release of records showing which House members have used taxpayer dollars to settle sexual misconduct charges levied against them and how much money was spent.

The resolution, offered by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), directs the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights — which also handles claims of misconduct — to produce such information within 60 days. It passed nearly unanimously, 420-0, with only Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) — an outspoken advocate for victims of sexual harassment and assault — voting present.

“We need to know what’s been going on here in the House of Representatives in order to convince the people and assure the people that we are conducting the people’s business with the utmost integrity and treating the officers and employees of this institution with the respect that they deserve,” said Massie, in remarks on the chamber floor imploring his colleagues to support the measure.

Massie’s effort comes after Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) were, earlier this year, forced to resign under the cloud of serious sexual misconduct allegations. The incidents forced a reckoning in the House, where members have historically struggled to show they take sexual assault allegations within their ranks seriously and to show they are prepared to root out bad behavior when necessary.

Facing such renewed public pressure, the House Ethics panel publicly reiterated its commitment to investigating claims of sexual misconduct among lawmakers. But in a statement in April, the committee also noted that it “does not handle sexual harassment lawsuits or have any involvement in settlements of such claims.”

In March, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to subpoena the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights for related settlements, and those materials revealed that the federal government paid more than $300,000 to settle claims against House lawmakers or their offices.

Congress ended the practice of the government footing the bill on members’ behalf in 2018, and the Ethics Committee has said it has, since that time, “not been notified of any awards or settlements relating to allegations of sexual harassment by a Member.”

In an interview during the vote Tuesday, Ethics chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said he believed the information compelled by the resolution had already been shared. But he would still support the measure, he added, because there was “nothing problematic” about Massie’s proposal.

“Anything we can do to make sure that that information is readily available, we want to make that happen,” Guest said.

The House previously rejected a related measure from Mace that would have forced the Ethics Committee to release information on its investigations of lawmakers who have been accused of sexual misconduct. The top Republican and Democrat on the Ethics panel — Guest and Mark DeSaulnier (D.Calif.) at the time released a rare public statement to condemn the resolution, arguing it would have a chilling effect on victims.

In a video posted on X Tuesday afternoon, Mace questioned why the House was voting on Massie’s resolution, when the Oversight subpoena she championed had already compelled materials about the settlements to be shared with Congress.

“I guess it’s just political theater,” she said.

Medicaid Work Requirements

States Sue to Block Medicaid Work Requirements

RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz’s harsh new rules “punish those who cannot fend for themselves,” Democratic officials argue.

Julia Métraux

On Monday, officials in 25 states and Washington, DC sued Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz over the interim final rule for Medicaid work requirements established by President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The new rule, their lawsuit contends, “will create unnecessary bureaucracy and lead people who are either already working or eligible for an exclusion to lose or be denied coverage.”

As I previously reported, the rule released near the beginning of June was even more onerous than many state officials feared. It was a surprise to states that individuals already on Medicaid with serious health conditions would have to jump through further hoops to prove that they were unable to work:

State officials were blindsided by this medical frailty definition outlined in the new federal rule, which was never brought up in discussions between states and the federal government, Jennifer Wagner, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment, told me. “We have heard that this was driven more by the White House,” Wagner said. “I don’t think it was CMS intentionally misleading states.”

The lawsuit specifically raises the point that CMS “provided no indication

that it intended to place specific limits on States’ ability to rely on self-attestation” rather than requiring health care workers’ certification in all circumstances.

In a press release, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who helped lead the suit, said that the “abrupt changes in [federal] implementation of the statute leave states insufficient time to adjust…or effectively communicate to members what is required.”

“This eleventh-hour attempt to further narrow protections for medically frail Medicaid recipients seeks to punish those who cannot fend for themselves,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who is also joining the suit, in a press release.

The lawsuit asks that a federal judge stay the interim final rule and vacate parts of it. The rule would otherwise go into effect in states with Medicaid expansion by January 1.

Attempt to Fire Fed’s Lisa Cook

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Fire Fed’s Lisa Cook

The decision preserves the central bank’s independence—at least for now.

Pema Lev

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, dealing a setback to Trump’s campaign to take control of monetary policy. The court’s 5-4 decision preserves Cook’s job as she continues to fight her removal, but it is not the final word on Trump’s bid to fire her. The narrow decision almost guarantees that this same dispute will return to the high court soon.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts expresses explicit support for Fed independence. As an independent bank regulator, the Fed is run by a board of presidentially appointed governors who serve 14 year terms and are only removable for cause. The Trump administration argued that it had cause and that the Supreme Court could not review its removal decision. But the majority found the government’s arguments at odds with an independent Fed.

“To accept any one of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” Roberts wrote.

The decision comes at a time when the future of Fed independence is in doubt. Trump’s pick for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is awaiting confirmation by the Senate. Keeping Cook in her seat steadies the ship, if only a little. The majority’s decision, however, is explicitly “narrow.” It requires that Cook be given proper notice of the cause of her removal and an opportunity to contest those charges. The decision does not lay out what that process looks like. And it saves for another day—which will almost certainly come soon—a court decision on whether Trump’s obviously pretextual allegations will be enough to remove Cook.

In a post on Truth Social Monday, Trump called the Cook ruling “strictly procedural” and pledged to “take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”

In short, this is a loss for Trump at this stage—but it may not be a permanent one.

In its ruling, the court declined to define what for-cause protection requires in order for a firing to be valid. Indeed, it hints that rather than leave it up to the president, it may ultimately be the final arbiter of what constitutes cause on a case-by-case basis. “Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her…may a final decision be made…And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges,” Roberts wrote.

“To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” the chief justice added. “In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts.”

Here are those facts, as we know them.

Last August, the president posted a criminal referral against Cook on Truth Social, his social media platform, and demanded she resign. The accusation—created by Bill Pulte, Trump’s Federal Housing Finance Agency director—is that Cook claimed primary residency on two different mortgage applications. If this charge sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same one Pulte cooked up against two other Democrats—and it has yet to win the day against any of the president’s targets because, at most, Pulte appears to have discovered clerical errors. Five days after Trump’s social media post, the president announced in another post that he was firing Cook.

Trump claimed that the mortgage document discrepancy dug up by a political lackey was sufficient cause to fire Cook, and that the courts couldn’t review his decision to boot her, anyway. In other words, Trump’s argument is that he can state any cause for removal he likes, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s an obviously absurd argument because it renders the “for cause” removal restriction meaningless. Cook sued, and a district court judge blocked her removal, as did the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump turned to the Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether Trump could temporarily remove Cook while her legal challenge to her firing moves forward.

The Supreme Court handed down its ruling Monday in conjunction with a related case—Trump v. Slaughter—in which the court gave Trump the power to remove the commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and other formerly independent agencies. That decision follows a string of cases in which the court’s this conservative majority found that the president’s power over the executive branch trumped Congress’ attempt to insulate agencies from political pressure. During Trump’s second term, the court had already waved through firings of Democratic commissioners on the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission on its shadow docket.

Logically, it’s hard to reconcile the court’s Cook decision with its rulings in Slaughter and other cases allowing Trump to fire independent agency commissioners. But the Federal Reserve Board’s independence is a pillar of the United States’ economy, and the US’s dominant global position makes that independence critical to the world economy, as well. Allowing Trump to turn interest rates, loans, bailouts, and access to the US banking system into political weapons would fundamentally reshape the economy and our democratic order. The Fed, in other words, is too important for one man to control.

To get out of this bind, Roberts—who wrote both the Cook and Slaughter decisions—insists that the Fed is simply different. Roberts’ opinion cites a history of independent bank regulators going back to the country’s founding and finds this history is relevant in determining whether it should uphold Congress’ legislative choice to make the Fed independent. “We see no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions,” Roberts wrote. “We would not so quickly unsettle this ‘special arrangement sanctioned by history.’”

This entire adventure stems from the Roberts Court’s own crusade to empower the president and hinder regulations disliked by big industry. The GOP-appointed majority has pushed forward its view of a “unitary executive” who controls all aspects of the executive branch, creating a roadmap for Trump to turn federal agencies into political weapons. Today, the court blesses Trump’s attempts to take control of most of the regulatory work that Congress deemed should be independent. But, at least to an extent, the Fed will be insulated from the consequences of that crusade.

Regulating Factory Farm Cruelty

“Save Our Bacon” Act Would Bar States From Regulating Factory Farm Cruelty

The issue of extreme confinement has sparked a “civil war” among pork producers.

Frida Garza

It’s been nearly eight years since Congress reauthorized the farm bill, the massive legislative package that funds programs run by the US Department of Agriculture. What used to be passed roughly every five years, the farm bill touches nearly every aspect of agricultural production in the US. It puts billions toward conservation programs, nutrition assistance, rural development, crop insurance, and climate-smart practices. 

But persistent disagreements between lawmakers over these and other programs have stymied the process of passing a new farm bill. The federal government has instead resorted to stop-gap measures and one-year extensions of a small handful of programs.

If farmers were hoping to see a new farm bill this year, they may very well be disappointed—as a new schism between the two houses of Congress was made clear this week, when the Senate agricultural committee released a draft of its farm bill that excluded a law known as the Save Our Bacon Act. The measure was included in the House draft farm bill earlier this year with vocal support by Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Penn.), who chairs the House agricultural committee. 

Save Our Bacon (SOB), would override state and local laws like California’s Prop 12, which bans the sale of pork, chicken, and veal products that come from farms using the most extreme forms of animal confinement, such as gestation crates for hogs. Factory farming operations where animals have the least amount of space to move around result in a lot of manure, which is typically consolidated and stored in lagoons that can pollute the local air and waterways.

Advocacy groups argue laws like Prop 12 are common sense and popular among voters who want to know where their food comes from. There are currently 14 states with similar laws on the books, according to the American Meat Producers Association (AMPA), an industry group that opposes SOB.

“It’s just disappointing that we’re even talking about this because the farm bill should be about supporting sustainable farming and healthy food and food security. It should not be a way for large industry groups to overturn the will of voters,” said Molly Armus, who works on animal agricultural policy at Friends of the Earth, an environmental nonprofit. 

Armus notes that transitioning away from extreme confinement of livestock can have positive environmental and climate impacts if producers move toward a pasture-raised system. (Prop 12 only establishes minimum space requirements for animals.) A recent analysis from the USDA found that 27 percent of hog farmers, or 1 in 4, are already Prop 12 compliant—suggesting that the transition away from extreme confinement is underway. 

“Most hog farmers do not support the Save Our Bacon Act,” said Holly Bice, president of AMPA, which was founded last year in response to an earlier attempt to skirt Prop 12 in a previous draft farm bill. For many hog farmers, Prop 12 has “been an important opportunity for them,” said Bice, because investing in crate-free operations allows producers to sell their products at a premium. “It’s helped them keep their heads above water at a time when consolidation has increasingly driven out farmers,” she said.

However, Brent Hershey, a hog farmer in Pennsylvania and member of AMPA, said the issue of extreme confinement has sparked a “civil war” among pork producers. “The industry is completely divided on this,” he added. Personally, Hershey said, he was reluctant to change the way his operation did things, but after years of receiving negative feedback, he began to see things differently. Today, Hershey’s farm has been crate-free for three years. Passing SOB, he said, would be “devastating” for producers like him who invested time and money into improving their operations.

Experts also argue that passing a farm bill that allows industrial animal agriculture operations to skirt state laws sets a bad precedent for broader environmental and public health goals. 

“When you’re doing something that, in a more macro sense, erodes states’ abilities to rollback some of the more harmful aspects of massive commercial agricultural operations, how does that impact any law that could impact agriculture?” said J.W. Glass, senior policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. For example, he added, “How does it impact state laws to restrict the use of pesticides?”

In the Senate, at least for now, it seems like a measure that allows animal agricultural producers to skirt Prop 12 is a nonstarter. “That is why [Boozman] did not put this in his bill. He knew it,” said Sara Amundson, president of the Humane World Action Fund (formerly the Humane Society). “And that’s why it’s critical to keep up the noise on it.”

Still, it’s unclear what happens next—whether the House will fold and exclude SOB from its draft farm bill, or whether, if the two chambers of Congress cannot reconcile their differences on extreme confinement, the gridlock lasts into next year.

Saved Mail-In Voting

In a Rare Blow to Trump, the Supreme Court Just Saved Mail-In Voting—For Now

The surprise victory is unlikely to slow down the administration’s assault on voting rights.

Ari Berman

In a surprise victory for voting rights, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day, as long as they had been postmarked by the day of the election.

The 5-4 decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices, averts a major election disaster that would have injected chaos into the midterms. Fourteen states have mail-in ballot grace periods on the books, and 30 states accept ballots from overseas and military voters sent before or on Election Day but only received after. The New York Times found that during the 2024 election “at least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within the legally accepted post-election window.” Changing mail-in ballot deadlines months before the general election could have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters who could have been unaware of the stricter rules, or have their ballots thrown out because of postal delays, or because they live in remote, rural locations in states like Alaska.

Overruling the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett affirmed that such laws are constitutional. “In sum, the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day,” she wrote. “That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi. But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

“But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” Alito claimed, even though late-arriving ballots do nothing to change a voter’s choice on Election Day, since ballots are still required to be submitted by then.

President Trump has long spread conspiracies about mail voting and most recently attacked California’s protracted vote count as a “rigged election.” The administration’s latest plan to undercut mail voting would require states to hand over their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security for the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots—a form of extortion that has generated furious pushback from election officials. The head of the Postal Service told the Senate they were following Trump’s directive, claiming that he wanted to ensure “the right ballots are going to the right people.” (A federal judge last week blocked key parts of a Trump executive order that authorized such a scheme.)

Alito’s dissent amplifies Trump’s conspiracies. “Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections,” he wrote. “Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.”

In fact, every major study has shown that mail-in voting is safe and secure, but the fact that four justices signed on to Trump’s crusade to get rid of mail-in ballots is highly disturbing and could embolden the president to attempt to take even more drastic steps to make it harder to vote.

Today’s ruling should also not distract from the damage the Roberts Court has already done to voting rights. Its decision in late April, effectively destroying the Voting Rights Act, gave Republicans just enough time to dismantle majority-Black seats held by Democrats in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama. That was followed by a series of orders by the Republican-appointed justices on the shadow docket that expedited the GOP’s efforts to erase Black representation and give their party additional seats before the midterms.

Itokawa

Why are parts of this asteroid's surface so smooth? The answer seems likely to do with the dynamics of an asteroid that is a loose pile of rubble rather than a solid rock. The unusual asteroid Itokawa was visited by the Japanese spacecraft Hayabusa in 2005 which imaged and documented its unusual structure and mysterious lack of craters. Analyses of the border regions between smooth and rugged sections indicate that jostling of the asteroid might be creating segregation between large and small rocks near the surface, like the Brazil nut effect. The robotic Hayabusa actually touched down on one of the smooth patches, dubbed the MUSES Sea, and collected soil samples. These samples were returned to Earth and are not only giving clues to the ancient history of this unusual asteroid, but also about the early years of our entire Solar System. Computer simulations show that 500-meter asteroid Itokawa may impact the Earth within the next few million years.

Hits another wall

Trump’s election crusade hits another wall at the Supreme Court

The high court’s 5-4 decision is the latest snub for the president on an issue that’s a personal obsession.

By Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein

Donald Trump keeps learning the hard way: A president’s will — no matter the intensity of his rhetoric, the size of his pulpit and reach of his social media megaphone — is not enough to single-handedly remake America’s election system.

The Supreme Court on Monday dealt him a stinging defeat in a years-long crusade, ruling that states may accept mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by that day.

The coup de grace, delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump’s own appointees, was simple: “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”

Trump’s high-court flop caps a year in which the president has attempted to bludgeon into effect his preferred version of American elections: He’s sought to impose strict voter ID requirements, which opponents say would disenfranchise thousands of voters, restrict mail-in ballots, which have become some states’ preferred voting method, and punish states that refuse to conform.

At every turn, the courts — and ultimately, the Supreme Court — have stymied his vision. Trump acknowledged the “tremendous loss” at the high court on Truth Social Monday, an apparent effort to reenergize his flailing effort to convince Congress to rewrite the election laws in his favor.

The justices’ decision is another indication that the conservative court — while more likely to side with the Trump administration’s views on a wide array of issues — is not deeply invested in Trump’s project to reshape how Americans cast their ballots.

For Trump, the issue is personal. He has long pushed false claims of election fraud to explain his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, which saw a sharp increase in mail-in ballots as a result of the pandemic. And he has repeatedly expressed bitterness that the Supreme Court, including his three appointees, gave the cold shoulder to lawsuits challenging Biden’s victory.

Trump has repeatedly described the slow process of counting ballots in some states — sometimes stretching days after Election Day — as evidence that the results were being manipulated, despite foreknowledge of states’ counting procedures and repeated assurances from election officials, some of them Trump’s own GOP allies, that nothing was amiss.

Trump has spent the years since his 2020 defeat ginning up support among his own allies for an overhaul of elections. And he quickly embarked on that effort when he returned to power last year, describing it as one of his most critical priorities.

But Trump’s numerous election-related executive orders have been blocked over and over again by courts. Federal judges, including some of his own appointees, have prevented his Justice Department from forcing states to turn over their voter rolls — part of what the president’s critics say presages an effort to purge legitimate voters.

Lower courts have also blocked an effort to force the Postal Service to refuse to deliver ballots in states that didn’t share their voter rolls with DOJ; they’ve also blocked efforts to compel states to change voter registration requirements and halted plans to strip election funding from states that don’t accede to the president’s demands.

With each setback, Trump’s language has grown more apocalyptic. On Monday, he said the voting policy changes were necessary to counter “a powerful Communist Movement” in the country that is “more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th.” And he called out five Republican senators by name who he said were opposed to his policies.

The high court’s 5-4 ruling Monday grappled with Trump’s claims that permitting post-Election Day ballots could fuel perceptions of fraud in elections, particularly if late-arriving ballots helped flip the outcome in a key state or race.

Barrett, joined by the court’s three liberals plus Chief Justice John Roberts, called election fraud and the perception of it “serious issues.” But that problem, she said, was a matter for Congress.

“Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process,” Barrett wrote in her majority opinion. “If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.”

Justice Samuel Alito, writing in dissent, countered that slow counting of ballots after Election Day — which can also include ballots that arrive on or before Election Day — has contributed to declining trust in election results.

Alito cited as evidence a study that also had another finding: Election officials can counteract that distrust by explaining to voters beforehand why delays in counting occur. And the same study also noted that the trust gap has been exacerbated by “elite-driven misinformation,” such as years of rhetoric from Trump himself calling into question the validity of votes counted after Election Day.

Nevertheless, Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, predicted the court’s decision will aggravate existing skepticism about the electoral process.

“By allowing States to continue receiving new ballots during these drawn-out processes, today’s decision will only exacerbate voters’ distrust,” Alito wrote.

Dismisses allegations

Senate Ethics dismisses allegations against Ruben Gallego

The Arizona Democratic senator was close friends with ex-Rep. Eric Swalwell, who was accused of sexual misconduct.

Hailey Fuchs

The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed allegations of misconduct levied against Sen. Ruben Gallego, who stood accused by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of “campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.”

The charges came following the resignation of the Arizona Democrat’s longtime friend, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who was forced to step down amid accusations of serious sexual misconduct. Luna, a Florida Republican, sought to implicate Gallego by claiming in an interview on CBS that a woman would come forward about an “incident that occurred between the two of them at the same time and the event was sexual in nature allegedly.”

But in a letter to Gallego sent Monday — which he shared in a public news release — the notoriously inactive Ethics Committee cited Gallego’s “prompt contact with the Committee following media reports of the allegations and appreciated your full cooperation with the Committee throughout the investigation.”

Gallego has maintained he was unaware of the allegations against Swalwell and said in a statement he was a victim of “right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House, and their allies.”

He continued, “I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families.”

Luna, in a post on X, defended her referral to the Senate Ethics Committee.

“The good news about DC is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” Luna wrote on social media. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.”

Hearing confrontation

Postal Service chief snaps back at Hawley over hearing confrontation

The postmaster general criticized the senator’s lack of decorum during a committee hearing last week.

Emilio Perez Ibarguen

The head of the U.S. Postal Service fired back at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) following a tense exchange between the two during a committee hearing on the fiscal health of the agency last week.

Hawley pressed Postmaster General David Steiner for updates on a case regarding a pile of undelivered mail that was found in a vacant lot in St. Louis during the hearing last Wednesday, and grew incensed after Steiner said it was “the first time I’ve heard about it.”

Hawley told Steiner later in the hearing that he should resign from his post because “you’re not doing the job.”

Steiner, in a letter sent to Hawley last week and viewed by POLITICO, said the Postal Service has no record of Hawley’s staff writing to the agency about mail dumping. He went on to call it “unfortunate” that the senator hasn’t attended a meeting with other members of the Missouri delegation regarding efforts to improve service in the state.

Members of Hawley’s local staff did call the Postal Service’s regional team shortly after the incident, Steiner wrote. The postal chief said the regional team promptly replied and said that the case was under investigation but that it couldn’t comment further.

Hawley doubled down on his criticism of Steiner in response to the letter Monday afternoon, writing on social media that the postmaster general “smirks his way through a hearing totally unprepared, leaves thousands of Missourians without mail, but takes THOUSANDS in taxpayer dollars himself as a BONUS for failing.”

“Return the bonus money. Do your job. Or resign,” Hawley continued.

Steiner wrote that the case is still being investigated by the agency inspector general, and any questions about its probe should be directed to them.

Hawley’s berating appeared to stick with Steiner, as evidenced by his concluding line in the letter.

“On a personal note I was raised in the South, and my mother taught me to treat all people with a respectful level of decorum,” he wrote. “I will expect that level from you in any future interactions.”