Judge Orders Trump Officials to Outline Election Demands Sent to States

​

 Summary

“Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to disclose by Friday which states received letters demanding ballot scrutiny; he may block the effort by Nov. 3. The Justice Department claims states may ignore the letters.

​

A federal judge gave the government until noon on Friday to share which states had received letters trying to enlist them in an effort to find evidence of voter fraud.

Oct. 29, 2026Updated 6:23 p.m. ET

Early voting in New York City last week.Madison Swart for The New York Times

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to provide a list of states it targeted with demands that state and local officials change how they will administer the midterm election, including that they set aside specific ballots for extra scrutiny.

The order from Chief Judge James E. Boasberg in Federal District Court in Washington could provide new transparency into the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure local officials ahead of next week’s election.

It came in a lawsuit brought by a broad coalition of Democratic politicians and party organizations that is seeking a court order prohibiting the Trump administration from interfering in election administration.

The Justice Department has sent letters to California and Washington Stateasking them to impound ballots sent from voters the department said it had reason to believe were noncitizens. The states said that the lists provided by the government were riddled with errors and that the Constitution gives states — not the federal government — the power to administer elections.

Uzoma Nkem Nkwonta, a lawyer representing the Democratic coalition, said the groups were concerned that the Trump administration had potentially sent similar letters to more states and local officials than it had publicly revealed.

While judges have so far declined to order states to turn over voter data to the administration or to segregate ballots, officials in other states may have quietly complied, he argued.

At a hearing, Judge Boasberg said he planned to decide whether to block the Trump administration’s efforts by Nov. 3.

But he said that information he asked the administration to produce by noon on Friday would help him determine the extent of the federal government’s efforts and whether he had reason to intervene.

Judge Boasberg asked the Justice Department to produce any communication with state or local election officials that directed them to remove registered voters from state rolls, to refuse to issue ballots to specific registered voters, or to set aside “or otherwise not count and tabulate” votes cast by specific individuals.

He told Christian Dibblee, a Justice Department lawyer, that the Trump administration could short circuit the inquiry at any time by promising the government would not order any additional states to change their ballot processing in the coming days.

“You can moot all of this by saying, ‘We’re not intending to do this in the next five days before the election,’” Judge Boasberg said. “But if you don’t, then I’ll issue an opinion by Monday.”

Mr. Dibblee told Judge Boasberg that, in the federal government’s view, states were generally free to ignore letters that had come from the Justice or Homeland Security Departments. The assertion prompted surprise from the judge.

“We stand by the assertion that these letters do not require states to do anything,” Mr. Dibblee said. “The states have their own independent agency on how they are going to respond to those to these letters.”

“Isn’t the language in these letters a little stronger than that?” Judge Boasberg said. “Are you saying they’re more like a suggestion or just kind of a notice of ‘just wanted to let you know, you might want to be aware of this?’” he asked.

Mr. Dibblee said that receiving a letter “does not imply that the recipient is, ipso facto, violating a law” and that the Trump administration had gone to court in cases such as California to let a federal judge “make that determination.”

A letter sent last week to election officials across the state said they would “risk significant federal scrutiny” if they failed to comply with the Justice Department demands. The New York Times reported on Thursday that the government had also issued subpoenas to local election officials, asking them to appear before federal grand juries next week to provide evidence about the state’s procedures for screening noncitizen voters.

In the letters sent to states thus far, the Trump administration has raised dubious claims about thousands of “likely noncitizens” being registered to vote, with accompanying demands that state officials set aside ballots from anyone flagged by the government. When state officials have tried to verify the claims using data provided by the federal government, they have repeatedly found inconsistencies and lawful citizens being falsely implicated.

The coalition had argued that the letters and related efforts amounted to intimidation, and could lead to anxious officials agreeing to disenfranchise lawful voters.

Even so, Mr. Dibblee insisted that the Trump administration was not forcing state and local officials — even any who may have already accepted its demands — to disqualify voters. Even if states comply, he said, “each state is going to have its own independent agency for how to go about confirming the citizenship of these ballots.”

Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.“

Lawrence: Trump tried to crush Cassidy Hutchinson. He failed.

 

Who gets to be an American?

 

 

White House Has Tight Grip Over FBI in Pursuing Trump Targets, Agent Says

​

 Summary

“Agent Bryan Witt testified that FBI director Kash Patel ordered investigations into Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides following President Trump’s directives. Witt called the inquiry a “witch hunt,” noting Patel’s aggressive oversight. Judge Zia M. Faruqui criticized the Justice Department’s unprecedented amended complaint.

​

Oct. 27, 2026Updated 8:52 p.m. ET

White House Has Tight Grip Over F.B.I. in Pursuing Trump Targets, Agent Says

In court testimony, the agent outlined the willingness of Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, to take orders from President Trump to investigate his perceived enemies.

Bryan Witt, an F.B.I. agent, said the inquiry mandated by Kash Patel, the bureau’s director, was generally viewed inside his office as a “witch hunt.” Alex Kent/The New York Times

By Alan Feuer

Reporting from the Federal District Court in Washington

In mid-July, President Trump gave a prime-time speech in which he raised concerns about a disputed F.B.I. report that China had tried to interfere in the 2020 election in an effort to defeat him.

At the heart of his address was a bitter complaint: that some of the bureau’s intelligence officials had purposefully sought to play down the report to undercut his claims about the race.

One day after Mr. Trump attacked those officials on TV, calling for their prosecution, Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, sent a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas City ordering that some of them immediately be investigated for obstruction and conspiracy, one of the agents assigned to the case testified on Tuesday.

The agent, Bryan Witt, said that even though the inquiry was generally viewed inside his office as a “witch hunt” and that he himself had concerns it was “political,” it nonetheless moved forward. And last week, one of the intelligence officials whom Mr. Trump had complained about was charged along with a colleague with lying to Congress about the roles they had played in another one of the president’s longstanding obsessions: the investigations into Hunter Biden, the former president’s son.

Mr. Witt’s explosive testimony, offered at a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, was the latest account of just how tight a grip the White House has on decision-making at the F.B.I. and just how willing Mr. Patel has been to take orders from the president to go after people he believes to be enemies.

A veteran agent, Mr. Witt asserted from the stand that he had never before worked on a case where instructions came directly from the F.B.I.’s director. He added that Mr. Patel and his deputies often checked on his progress, pressing him and his colleagues to move as aggressively as possible.

The daylong hearing was nominally held so that lawyers for the two defendants — Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides — could question the basis of the criminal complaint that was filed on Friday. It accused them of lying to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 when they were questioned about the roles they had played in the F.B.I.’s investigations into Mr. Biden and his ties to foreign nationals and companies.

But as the day went on, the proceeding gradually turned into something more substantial as the lawyers got Mr. Witt to expose the ways in which Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Patel to use the power of the F.B.I. to investigate people he believed had cast doubts on both his lies about the 2020 election and his unsubstantiated claims that his opponent in that race, Joseph R. Biden Jr., had engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine while Hunter Biden had been working there.

Mr. Witt testified that he was originally instructed by Mr. Patel to investigate Ms. Floris and other F.B.I. intelligence officials after they had questioned a report from an informant developed by the bureau’s Albany field office that China had sought to tip the 2020 election in Mr. Biden’s favor.

But after he and his colleagues were unable to find evidence to support the claims, he said the inquiry quickly pivoted toward the testimony that Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides had given three years ago in front of the House committee, which had been looking into Hunter Biden’s business dealings overseas.

Both Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides served on the F.B.I.’s Foreign Influence Task Force, a group created after Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It helped intelligence agencies monitor clandestine efforts by foreign governments to manipulate American politics, including by issuing warnings about covert foreign meddling to politicians and social media companies.

Members of the task force had relayed warnings from the intelligence community about a covert Russian disinformation operation aimed at helping Mr. Trump win re-election in 2020 by amplifying claims that the elder Mr. Biden had engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine, where his son held a board seat on an energy firm, Burisma.

The case against Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides is largely based on discrepancies between what they told Congress about their participation in the Biden investigations, what witnesses have said and what documents emerging from the inquiries have shown. Their lawyers spent much of Tuesday trying to persuade the magistrate judge handling the case, Zia M. Faruqui, that their clients had not lied to Congress and that the statements they had made had not materially affected the work of the House committee.

From the start, the prosecution has been marked by a series of unusual procedural maneuvers — including the fact that Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides were charged in a criminal complaint, not an indictment. Complaints are typically used when prosecutors need to act quickly or have fears that defendants might flee. But Judge Faruqui said in court on Tuesday that both of the defendants are well-respected former agents and that the underlying facts of the case are more than three years old.

Judge Faruqui also expressed concern about another unorthodox tactic the Justice Department has used in the case. Late Monday night, prosecutors filed an amended complaint, adding a new charge of obstruction of Congress. But in an extraordinary break from standard legal practice, the prosecutors issued the new complaint without first seeking judicial approval, effectively asserting that they could accuse the defendants of additional crimes without the traditional checks and balances.

One of the prosecutors on the case, John Borchert, acknowledged it was a “novel” move to seek a criminal charge without first getting the approval of a jurist or grand jury. But Judge Faruqui said it was far more serious than that.

“It’s not just novel, Mr. Borchert,” he said. “It’s never been done before.”

Blue Wave for WAR CRIME impeachment? Hegseth eyes EXIT as Dems ready probes

 

Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say - The New York Times

Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say

"Israel’s military chief resisted the prime minister, who then pressed in recent days for a separate action, short of an overt strike, according to an official and a person briefed on the matter.

Oct. 26, 2026Updated 9:34 p.m. ET

A campaign billboard in Tel Aviv depicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump on Monday, the eve of Israel’s national election.Jack Guez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Leer en español

In advance of Israel’s pivotal election on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought for weeks to orchestrate a new airstrike on Iran but ran into resistance from the military’s chief of staff, according to three senior Israeli defense officials and three other people briefed on the matter.

Then, over the past few days, the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, became concerned that Mr. Netanyahu had begun pushing for a separate action against Iran, short of an overt strike, according to an Israeli official and a person briefed on the matter, neither of whom described the nature of such an action. General Zamir believed that this would be a miscalculation that could provoke Iran into attacking Israel.

Spokesmen for Mr. Netanyahu did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

The Israeli officials and the people briefed on the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Mr. Netanyahu’s rationale for pressing to attack Iran before the election was not clear, but a return to war could have potentially disrupted or even delayed the vote.

The behind-the-scenes tensions over a possible Israeli attack or other action against Iran come as Mr. Netanyahu has been publicly portraying the stakes of the election in increasingly apocalyptic terms. Over the weekend, he posted an A.I.-generated image on social media of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and warned in a television appearance that the vote would decide “Israel’s existence.”

The appeals to Israelis’ fears are meant to get voters to see the conflict with Iran as the most urgent issue and to entrust him with continuing to lead the struggle against Israel’s chief regional adversary.

When Mr. Netanyahu pushed to heat up the conflict with Iran, General Zamir raised a number of objections and concerns and ultimately concluded that there was no immediate or urgent need for action, the officials and people briefed on the matter said.

Such a determination by the military chief carries special weight: It can make it harder to portray the timing as a military necessity.

While General Zamir was not opposed to taking action against Iran in principle, he objected to doing so before the election, according to an Israeli official and two people briefed on the matter. General Zamir and the Israeli air force commander, Maj. Gen. Omer Tischler, cited the political sensitivities  and the difficulty of explaining to the public why it had to occur then, according to two senior Israeli defense officials.

In a statement, the Israeli military said its operational decision making was strictly based “on security considerations,” as well as “its responsibility as a national institution.”

The concerns about political motivations for an attack on Iran do not expire on Tuesday. According to three senior Israeli defense officials and two people briefed on the matter, a resumption of fighting with Iran in the weeks after the election could also have a large impact.

If Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents prevail in the election, they would likely have an opportunity to form the new government, but a return to war could hinder or even thwart their ability to assemble a governing coalition within the time allotted by law. Renewed fighting could also create political pressure to establish a national unity government that includes Mr. Netanyahu.

Reports of disagreement between Mr. Netanyahu and the military over a possible attack, first carried by Israel’s Channel 12, sparked outrage in Israel. One of Mr. Netanyahu’s rivals, Avigdor Liberman, demanded Monday that the attorney general open an investigation into whether the prime minister had committed treason.

“The attempt to drag Israel into a war on the eve of elections, including sacrificing Israeli soldiers, just because of the fear of losing the elections, is a betrayal of the nation,” Mr. Liberman, a defense minister and foreign minister in earlier Netanyahu governments, wrote in a formal complaint.

Mr. Netanyahu, 77, is battling to keep his hold on power in the face of opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief of staff.

Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals to voters became increasingly disturbing over the campaign’s final weekend, with the prime minister saying that his defeat could lead to Israel’s annihilation. He has also suggested that tougher times could be ahead for Israel regardless of the outcome.

On Friday, he said that Israelis should prepare for the end of billions of dollars in American military support from the United States, given the sharp decline of Israel’s standing in U.S. public opinion. He also said the possibility that Israel will face “banking sanctions” arising from international condemnation could force the country in coming years to rely on cryptocurrency to circumvent the penalties.

The remarks prompted a wave of criticism. Israel’s nonpartisan central bank, the Bank of Israel, issued a rare warning, saying that cryptocurrency would not save the economy in the event of international sanctions. And a former governor of the Bank of Israel, Jacob Frenkel, said that turning away from the global financial system would make Israel into “a leper.”

Opposition leaders accused Mr. Netanyahu of essentially accepting that Israel would become a pariah state.

“He’s lost it,” said Yair Lapid, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s centrist rivals. “Israel’s prime minister, in an election campaign, is saying three days before the elections to vote for him and he’ll ensure that Israel stays isolated.”

For weeks, Mr. Netanyahu has also been saying that Iran might attack Israel in an attempt to sabotage the elections — statements that some military analysts consider destabilizing. His messaging became even more dire over the weekend.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Netanyahu posted the image of an A.I.-generated cloud from a nuclear blast mushrooming over Tel Aviv, Israel’s biggest metropolis. He attached a quote from a supporter to the effect that the scandals dogging him — he is currently facing trial on corruption charges, which he denies — were a distraction from “the real and tangible existential danger” that Iran posed.

Iran denies that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon but has also repeatedly threatened Israel, which is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal.

Hours later, Mr. Netanyahu gave one of the final interviews of his election campaign to Israel’s Channel 14, a network that largely echoes the prime minister’s talking points. He warned that his right-wing bloc was facing possible defeat.

“It’s not in our pocket and it’s not a lost cause,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

The prime minister warned that Israel was at risk of joining the ranks of countries like Belgium, Britain and France that, he said, have been “ruined” by an alliance between “the left and radical Islam.”

Rising to his feet, Mr. Netanyahu likened himself to a Jewish leader warning 1930s European Jewry of the impending Holocaust. Mr. Netanyahu said Mr. Eisenkot and his allies would not do what was necessary and vowed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and topple its government.

Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly boasted of having destroyed the Iranian nuclear program, only to speak of it as if it remains an imminent threat. “We cannot live side by side with this bomb,” he said. “Either they will either destroy us or we will destroy that poisonous cult.”

Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents also believe the future of their country is hanging in the balance on Tuesday. Many liberal Israelis fear that this election is their last chance to prevent their country from becoming an authoritarian state, under the sway of the religious right and shunned on the world stage.

On Sunday evening, Mr. Eisenkot made his own final pitch to voters, calling for the country to come together “to save our Israel.” He vowed to order an inquiry into the government’s failure to prevent the Hamas-led attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, uproot Hamas’s rule in Gaza within 18 months and force Mr. Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies, now exempted from military service, to share the burden of conscription.

“At stake in the elections is nothing less than the security of Israel and the survival of the Israeli story as we know it,” Mr. Eisenkot said.

David M. Halbfinger is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. He also held that post from 2017 to 2021. He was the politics editor from 2021 to 2025.

Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv.

Natan Odenheimer is a Times reporter in Jerusalem, covering Israeli and Palestinian affairs.

Adam Rasgon is a reporter for The Times in Jerusalem, covering Israeli and Palestinian affairs.

Aaron Boxerman is a Times reporter covering Israel and Gaza. He is based in Jerusalem.

See more on: Benjamin Netanyahu"

Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say - The New York Times

Joy Reid Explains Why Trump Is Exactly What America Wanted!

Joy Reid Explains Why Trump Is Exactly What America Wanted!

The Republican Party & The Far Right: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

 

The Republican Party & The Far Right: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis becomes a victim of voter fraud allegations

 

 

Man detained at Georgia immigration detention center dies as hunger strike continues

Death inside Folkston facility comes as officials allegedly threaten hunger strikers there with force-feeding

José Olivares

Detainees behind concertina wire inside the Folkston ICE Processing Center and D Ray James Processing Center in Folkston, Georgia, on 9 September 2025. Photograph: Erik S Lesser/EPA

An immigrant detained at a sprawling detention center complex in Georgia died on Friday, local and federal officials confirmed, after the facility has already faced national scrutiny for its response to an ongoing hunger strike inside.

The death inside the D Ray James facility in Folkston, Georgia, comes as federal immigration officials and private contractors are allegedly threatening hunger strikers there with force-feeding, a detained hunger striker, his wife, attorneys and advocates all said this week. Detainees are refusing food to protest prolonged captivity and bad conditions.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Saturday confirmed the death inside the facility, which is adjacent to the Folkston ICE processing center. Together, both facilities make up a large detention complex. GEO Group, the private prison company that runs the facilities under contract for the federal government, referred all questions to ICE.

The Georgia bureau of investigation (GBI), a state law enforcement agency, confirmed in an email that the local sheriff’s office requested the GBI conduct an “in-custody death investigation” at the D Ray facility, the Guardian can reveal. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its umbrella agency, did not respond to requests for comment about the death or the hunger strike.

“This was a preventable tragedy,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, the legal and advocacy director for Project South, a social justice organization based in Georgia. “We hold ICE and the private prison corporation fully responsible for any harm that migrants suffer at Folkston. We call for an immediate independent investigation into this tragic death and for accountability. Folkston must be shut down immediately.”

The man, Luis Sandoval, was 48 and from El Salvador, ICE said in its statement, adding that at about 1.46am on Friday, facility staff found Sandoval with a ligature around his neck. He was pronounced dead less than an hour later.

Sandoval was arrested by ICE officials earlier this month, and transferred to the Folkston facility on 8 October. In its press release, the agency said Sandoval had prior convictions for aggravated assault and other crimes, and that his death was under investigation.

It was unknown on Saturday whether Sandoval had participated in the hunger strike. The GBI said it could not share more details because of its active investigation.

Sandoval is the 60th person to die in ICE custody since the start of the second Trump administration, as ICE continues with its aggressive anti-immigrant crackdown.

Austin Kocher, president of Relevant Research, which studies the immigration enforcement system, and who is a research fellow at American University, said that this year, there have been an average of one death every 10 days in the custody of ICE. That figure includes people dying in detention centers or in nearby hospitals while still in the custody of ICE.

“Even in the past, there has not been such an overt dehumanization and overt view that migrants’ lives are expendable,” Kocher added. “I worry that that tone [from the Trump administration] has a tendency towards neglect and viewing migrants as disposable.”

Tens of thousands of people have been arrested and detained by ICE, leading to prolonged detention, as immigrants and asylum seekers fight their cases, and the agency has been stepping up its offensive in recent months despite a less showy presence on the streets.

One man currently in the Georgia detention center is Andrei Gerdiukov, a Russian asylum seeker who is participating in the hunger strike.

Nearly three weeks ago, Gerdiukov and dozens of others launched a hunger strike to demand their legal cases be processed more quickly through the US immigration system and to protest the conditions of their confinement. The hunger strikers were placed in solitary confinement, according to Gerdiukov and attorneys.

“I feel tired, I feel dizzy. Every move, it is hard,” Gerdiukov said in an interview by phone on Saturday from detention. “They threatened us that they were going to force-feed us.” He had heard about the death but did not know Sandoval.

Gerdiukov and his wife, Polina Chertushkina, came to the US from Russia to seek asylum after they faced persecution for their opposition to the war in Ukraine, Chertushkina said. Their cases are ongoing, but as the couple were driving through Florida this February, they were pulled over and detained by immigration officials. Chertushkina was released, but Gerdiukov was taken to Folkston eight months ago.

“I am so worried about him, I don’t know what to do,” Chertushkina said about the force-feeding threats, speaking on Saturday by phone. Chertushkina is asking lawmakers to assist her husband.

At least 12 hunger strikers are still participating, despite the threats of force-feeding, Gerdiukov said, adding that several had been fainting.

On Friday, the hunger strikers were moved to a nearby unit, where medical officials “wearing combat boots” took their vital signs, raising fears of imminent force-feeding, Gerdiukov said.

It was not clear on Saturday whether or when the authorities intended to use force-feeding.

The process to force-feed hunger strikers is secretive, with court records often sealed.

A judge has to approve the procedure, and then detention guards restrain a hunger striker while medical staff push tubing up the nose and down the throat to pump nutritional liquid into the stomach. Medical ethicists and human rights organizations have called the practice torture.

ICE generally says in court filings that force-feeding is necessary to maintain “good order” in detention centers as well as to keep detainees alive.

Kocher decried the contradictions.

“On the one hand, they’re trying to force-feed people [to keep them alive],” Kocher said. “And yet at the same time, in that same [Folkston] facility, you have someone who died and possibly was able to kill themselves.”

The Guardian has been tracking force-feeding cases nationwide. From January 2025 through August 2026, ICE sought court permission to force-feed at least 19 detained hunger strikers. One Afghan man was force-fed for nearly six months. A Kurdish man was force-fed for nearly eight months."

Vivek Ramaswamy and JD Vance double-down on their degeneracy

 

Alex Gibney on the Myth of Elon Musk

 

Obama Issues Direct Warning Over Ilhan Omar Home Raid

 

DOJ searches Rep. Omar's DC-area home ahead of midterms

 

 

DOJ searches Rep. Omar's DC-area home ahead of midterms

FULL INTERVIEW: Rep. Ilhan Omar sits down with Chris Hayes after raid on her house

 

Report: Musk ordered Ukraine Starlink pause. GOP rep. promises 'consequences'

 

Report: Musk ordered Ukraine Starlink pause. GOP rep. promises 'consequences

'Nobody Came To Save Him' Massie Traps Hegseth From All Ends, Unleashes Hell On War Chief

 

The Truth About Pete Hegseth's Christian Nationalism