Normal view

Talarico floods Texas airwaves in U.S. Senate race as Paxton, GOP stay quiet

22 August 2026 at 12:00

WASHINGTON — With under nine weeks to go until early voting begins in Texas’ U.S. Senate race, both Ken Paxton and James Talarico have been campaigning around the state, meeting voters everywhere from restaurants to music halls as they’ve pitched their political visions.

But on television, Texans have only seen one of them.

Talarico, an Austin state representative, has spent over $25 million on advertising since the general election began in late May, according to ad tracking firm AdImpact — with nearly $10.7 million deployed on broadcast and an additional $8.4 million on streaming devices. (The rest has gone to a combination of cable, digital, radio and satellite.)

Texans turning on their TVs this summer have seen Talarico talk about the importance of loving God and neighbor in a spot featuring his grandfather. They’ve seen the Democrat lamenting high costs in a grocery store and while driving a truck, and heard about his record in a World Cup-themed Spanish language ad.

Over that same time period, the Paxton campaign has spent $119,000 — nearly all of it on digital advertising — meaning that Talarico has essentially had the airwaves to himself. Over that time, he’s built a narrow polling lead, pulling ahead in numerous surveys within the margin of error.

In television interviews, Paxton has noted this disparity and appealed to donors for help. On Fox News recently, the Republican nominee laid out his timeline for campaign spending, saying he expects that litigating Talarico’s record will cement the Democrat’s loss — but that he needs resources to do it.

“As we’re raising money, we’re working our way back into October, which is where we can spend money, and we’re trying to work our way back to September,” Paxton said. “But we need help now, because James Talarico’s been spending $3 or $4 million a week on TV for the last month. So, I want to compete.”

The Paxton campaign has also touted that while he was outraised by Talarico in the second quarter, Paxton still raised more money — over $9 million — than any non-incumbent GOP Senate candidate in the country. And Paxton has noted that the expensive primary runoff left his coffers more depleted than those of Talarico, who could afford to spend the spring stockpiling his war chest after winning his March primary.


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Conventional election wisdom states that most voters don’t start paying attention until after Labor Day, and that Republicans can still win while being outspent on ads — which Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, did in both his narrow victory in 2018 and comfortable win in 2024. Republican strategists expect the cavalry to come for Paxton, with well-heeled outside players helping narrow the spending gap.

But as September approaches, they’re eyeing the calendar.

“I do think Paxton needs to define Talarico, and he needs to do it soon,” John Wittman, an unaffiliated Republican consultant and former adviser to Gov. Greg Abbott, said in an interview. “We’re about three months out from Election Day. So it’s important for Republicans to combat this Democrat aggression, that they do start to spend and start to define Talarico for the crazy liberal he is.”

Republican strategists caution that Democrats’ polling is typically strongest in the summer, and that they expect those numbers to shift once Paxton or his allies begin attacking Talarico on television. A Republican group called Protecting America’s Future, seeded by longtime Paxton ally and West Texas billionaire Tim Dunn, became the first GOP group to run an anti-Talarico ad, attacking him in two spots on China policy and crime in a $120,000 ad spend airing mostly in the Corpus Christi media market this week.

By comparison, Talarico’s campaign has spent over $7.3 million on ads over the past couple weeks, over 36 times the amount dropped by Republicans.

In 2024, when Cruz beat Democrat Colin Allred by an 8.5-point margin, he was also outspent over the summer — though Cruz was spending more on a week-by-week basis than Paxton is now. Cruz started spending six figures a week on advertising in late July 2024, according to AdImpact data, and ramped up to a weekly seven-figure spend by late September. When combined with outside spending, Republicans were dropping at least $2 million on ads each week by the end of August two years ago.

Paxton, by contrast, has spent no more than $20,000 on ads in any week of the general election thus far. AdImpact has tracked over $72,000 in Republican spending this week, the party’s high-water mark since the runoff.

In total, Democrats outspent Republicans by a margin of $119.7 million to $82.6 million in Texas’ 2024 Senate race after the primaries. Cruz’s campaign was aided by tens of millions in outside ad support and coordinated spending, the bulk of which did not come until late September.

And Cruz, of course, was an incumbent senator who had six years to build his war chest, while this is Paxton’s first federal race.

“GOP donors need to get off their asses”

Beyond Paxton’s campaign itself, well-heeled groups including Senate Leadership Fund, the national PAC aligned with Senate GOP leadership, and MAGA Inc., the massive campaign super PAC aligned with Trump, could even the field in Texas — though both groups are operating with a national map bigger than Texas. The question animating Republicans in Texas remains: When will the money come?

Paxton has acknowledged that Talarico’s superior spending has affected the standing of the race. Polls have put the race essentially tied, with Talarico narrowly leading in recent polls that put him within the margin of error — an unprecedented situation for the top-of-the-ticket race in Texas since Republicans solidified control of the state.

“He’s got money,” Paxton told GOP radio host Dana Loesch. “He’s been on TV for about four or five weeks. And it’s helped him a little bit in the polls — that’s why the polls have gotten closer.”

But the current lack of future ad reservations — from Paxton or allies — has some Republicans offering warnings to the outside groups that have yet to spend money. After the Paxton interview, Loesch, whose show is broadcast from Dallas, told her listeners that Republican groups were “leaving you to hang” and questioned, “Where’s the GOP in this race?”

“This is a winnable race,” Loesch said. “All these big money GOP donors need to get off their asses and make a decision. Because I guaran-damn-tee you, if their inaction results in us having somebody like James Talarico, dear God in heaven, my rage will be limitless.”

Karl Rove, a longtime Republican strategist who supported Sen. John Cornyn in the primary against Paxton, put it even more starkly. Rove said Texas is a Republican state, but that the disparate fundraising dynamics have made the race unusual.

“He’s not going to change as a fundraiser,” Rove said on Fox, referring to Paxton’s past performances. “So this is going to be one that is going to depend mightily upon the decision of President Trump to spend or not spend the half a billion plus dollars that he has in his two super PACs — MAGA Inc. and Never Surrender. If he does spend, then he can sort of even it up. If he doesn’t spend, this could be a really bad night for Republicans in Texas.”

Texas Bullpen reported that MAGA Inc. fielded a message testing poll in Texas with possible attacks against Talarico this month, portending potential future spending.

In the Fox News interview, Paxton said Republican leadership is “planning on spending money here, is my understanding,” but he noted that he can’t coordinate with them.

“We haven’t yet, but we’re very hopeful that that’s coming soon,” Paxton told Loesch when she asked if he was getting adequate funding from GOP groups. “We’ve been told September.”

Across the Republican spending landscape, Texas stands out for the lack of future TV ad reservations. GOP candidates and their allies have booked at least $10 million from Sept. 1 onward in eight battleground states, according to AdImpact. In the five other competitive states where Republicans are playing defense — Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina and Ohio — the GOP has outspent Democrats in its fall bookings.

Democrats have not booked any ad reservations in Texas past Sept. 1 either. That includes Senate Majority PAC, the super PAC aligned with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, which has bought ad time in other battleground states.

A few factors could explain why both parties are waiting to get involved in Texas.

In smaller states with fewer media markets, ad rates can rise quickly, especially when there are competitive governor and House races also competing for airtime. In those cases, early reservations can be critical. Meanwhile, Texas has 20 different media markets, placing less pressure on outside groups to commit money early and lock in rates, one national GOP strategist told the Tribune. That’s why campaigns and groups often buy ad time on a week-to-week basis here.

Super PACs can also make a difference. But on that front, Democrats also had an advantage at last count.

Lone Star Liberty PAC, the pro-Paxton super PAC that dropped $5.7 million throughout the primary, has yet to spend any money on television since the runoff. That’s expected to change at some point, but the group went into July with major reloading to do after an expensive second quarter taken up by the primary runoff. The PAC only had $35,000 in its war chest at the end of June, according to federal records.

Meanwhile, Lone Star Rising PAC, which supports Talarico, had nearly $12.7 million on hand.

Outside of the Senate race, Republicans’ cash advantage in other statewide contests — especially the governor’s race — could serve to benefit Paxton as well, when an expected deluge of pro-Republican, anti-Democrat messaging hits the airwaves this fall.

The next round of federal campaign fundraising data will not be available until mid-October, just before early voting begins.

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.

The post Talarico floods Texas airwaves in U.S. Senate race as Paxton, GOP stay quiet appeared first on Salon.com.

Trump’s trade deal with Canada collapses

22 August 2026 at 09:42

A trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada fell apart just before midnight on Friday, marking a significant setback in the ongoing trade war between the two traditionally close allies.

The deal’s collapse means 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods now go into effect, hitting products ranging from alcohol to hockey skates.

“Canada declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week. Despite the U.S. offer to Canada to receive the best treatment of any major exporter to our market, new demands and walkbacks of other commitments by Canada upended the careful balance reached in the past days,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told reporters late Friday night.

“This is a missed opportunity for Canada to partner with the U.S.,” Greer added.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a statement that the results of the negotiations had “not been enough to meet our objectives for Canadians” and pointed the finger at Washington.

“Last-minute changes in the U.S. proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal,” Carney said. “As a result, this evening, I have decided to suspend trade negotiations with the U.S. and have directed Canada’s negotiators to return to Ottawa.”

He added that Canada will match the new U.S. tariffs “dollar for dollar.”

The failure came following a marathon series of talks led by Greer and Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc over the past week. President Donald Trump also spoke with Carney multiple times in recent days.

There appeared to be a breakthrough earlier this week, when Trump announced he was pausing, for three days, the 50 percent tariff that was set to kick in on Aug. 19. “Canada and the U.S.A., subject to the finalization of documents, have a DEAL!” Trump wrote on social media late Tuesday night.

As part of the proposed agreement, the U.S. had offered to lower tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum if Canada was willing to drop its retaliatory measures and allow more access for U.S. businesses in its dairy and lumber markets.

Greer said Friday that as part of the deal, the administration was also prepared to open formal negotiations with Ottawa on updates to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the North American free trade deal that is currently up for a six-year review. The administration launched formal talks with Mexico on the pact earlier this summer but has thus far sidelined Carney’s government.

Greer did not specify which specific disagreements killed the deal Trump had touted just days earlier.

Its collapse sets up an even more fraught period for the massive North American trade relationship ahead of U.S. midterm elections, with voters consistently saying they are concerned about affordability.

Businesses on both sides of the border, already concerned by the Trump administration’s decision not to automatically extend the USMCA when it came up for review in July, now enter a period of protracted uncertainty and potentially punishing tit-for-tat tariffs, threatening the continent’s integrated supply chains and the industries that rely on them.

“This will be a body blow to North American competitiveness in this self-defeating trade saga. A whopping, non-absorbable tariff is not sustainable or viable for business,” said Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and member of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations in a statement. “Americans will see their costs go up, and Canadians will see customers, investment and small businesses disappear.”

The auto industry, in particular, could suffer.

“We are disappointed that the two nations were not able to reach an agreement. The negative impact is already being felt with U.S. auto exports to Canada down 23% over the past year,” Jennifer Safavian, president and CEO of Autos Drive America, said in a statement. The advocacy group represents international automakers that have operations in the United States, including Honda, Toyota and Volvo. “The U.S. auto industry’s continued success relies upon strong and stable partnerships across North America. We urge all parties to continue negotiations to finalize an interim deal and create a path toward a strengthened USMCA.”

Oliver Ward, Mickey Djuric and Nick Taylor-Vaisey contributed to this report.

Ein Spaziergang mit Sven Schulze

22 August 2026 at 05:05

Am 6. September steht Sachsen-Anhalt vor einer historischen Landtagswahl, bei der die AfD erstmals stärkste Kraft werden könnte. Ministerpräsident Sven Schulze liegt in Umfragen deutlich hinter seinem Herausforderer Ulrich Siegmund zurück. Gordon Repinski begleitet den CDU-Politiker auf einem Spaziergang durch den härtesten Wahlkampf des Landes.

Im Wahlkampfendspurt setzt Schulze auf konkrete wirtschaftliche Lösungen und warnt eindringlich vor seinem AfD-Konkurrenten. Er wirft Siegmund vor, zwar Probleme zu benennen, aber keine pragmatischen Antworten auf Jobverluste oder das Schulsterben zu haben. Bei echten Krisen fehle der AfD das politische und wirtschaftliche Netzwerk.

Zudem spricht Gordon Repinski mit dem Ministerpräsidenten über umstrittenen Wahlkampf-Gästen wie Dieter Hallervorden und parteiinternen Querschüssen. Mit Blick auf den Wahlabend vermeidet Schulze klare Koalitionsaussagen zur Linkspartei, betont aber sein oberstes Ziel: Sachsen-Anhalt müsse zwingend weiter aus der politischen Mitte heraus regiert werden.

Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.

Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.

Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski:
Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.

POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH
Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin
Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0
information@axelspringer.de
Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B
USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390
Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Can this guy really save Europe from Elon Musk?

2 March 2025 at 12:00

Ten or 15 years ago, Friedrich Merz would have seemed a wildly unlikely candidate for the role of savior to Europe’s liberal democracy. Spoiler alert: He still does. 

But the internal decay of European politics has reached a critical stage, whose stakes were made abundantly clear by the ludicrous spectacle of Donald Trump and JD Vance berating Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office for insufficiently groveling before the Orange Throne. This was not the historical moment Merz expected, and it definitely isn’t the one he wanted. But for better or worse, he looks to be Europe’s last man standing.

If we flash back to the bygone days of the late 2000s, Merz’s future looked to be in the past: He was Angela Merkel’s defeated right-wing rival in the Christian Democratic Union, the mainstream conservative party that has dominated German electoral politics since the fall of the Nazi regime, first in the former West Germany and then, less convincingly, in post-1990 reunified Germany. Merz left politics and racked up millions in the private sector as a corporate lawyer, including a five-year stint as board chairman at BlackRock Germany, a major branch of the world’s largest asset management firm. 

He returned to the CDU in 2018 as the anti-Merkel, vowing to spice up the party’s usual agenda of pro-business fiscal “austerity” and free trade with staunchly pro-American foreign policy and a dash of hard-right anti-immigration policy. Even amid the continent-wide political chaos caused by the Syrian migrant crisis and the rise of fascist-flavored parties in one country after another, it still took three tries for Merz to get himself elected party leader after Merkel’s retirement. 

After “winning” Germany’s recent federal elections, in what may be remembered as a textbook example of Pyrrhic victory — the CDU finished first with 28.5 percent of the vote, slightly better than its worst-ever result in 2021 — Merz will now be forced to preside over an awkward coalition of center-right and center-left parties, whose primary purpose (at least on the home front) will be to fend off further advances by the not-quite neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany party, or AfD. If you want to find a silver lining to the German elections — and frankly, that isn’t easy — it would be this: While the AfD finished second with 20.8 percent of the vote, basically doubling its 2021 total, there’s no evidence that Elon Musk’s enthusiastic endorsement (or Vance’s slightly less overt endorsement) did them any good. 

Merz is a black box, an untested leader who has never held a position in government. His entire career seems mismatched to this perilous fork in history’s road. But at least he seems to grasp the magnitude of the current crisis.

On the international front, as last Friday’s contretemps in the White House threw into sharp relief, Merz will become the leader of the largest and most important member of the European Union at precisely the moment when it must “achieve independence from the U.S.,” to use his own words from a post-election press conference. On one hand, Merz is something of a black box, an untested leader who has never held a position in government and whose entire career seems mismatched to this perilous fork in history’s road. On the other, he appears to grasp the magnitude of the current crisis, and has so far given no indication that he will seek accommodation with either Germany’s far right or their MAGA pals in Washington. 

Merz has described the attempts by Musk and various other Yank interlopers to meddle in Germany’s elections as “no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow,” and suggested that under Trump the U.S. appeared “largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” This marks a startling reversal for the man described by German journalist Jörg Lau as the most pro-American politician in Germany and “a lifelong believer in the transatlantic security alliance” (i.e., in NATO, which Trump seems determined to demolish). That may also reflect a sense of injured pride and betrayal: Clear back to Konrad Adenauer in the 1950s, the CDU has always presented itself as a staunch American ally, largely aligned with what we’d now have to call the vanished orthodoxy of the pre-Trump Republican Party.

We need your help to stay independent

At the same time, Merz has described the startling surge of the AfD as “the last warning to the political parties of the democratic center” to reach consensus on immigration policy, economic reforms, a shared European defense strategy and numerous other thorny issues. Germany found itself under “massive pressure from two sides,” he said — presumably meaning the U.S. and Russia — along with significant internal divisions: The AfD dominated in the economically struggling states of former East Germany, while Merz’s party won in the more prosperous west. (The rapidly fading Social Democrats won in Berlin, and almost nowhere else.) In historical terms, Merz concluded, it was “five minutes to midnight for Europe.”

So, damn! Will this acrid-tongued, 69-year-old multimillionaire, a child of the rural Catholic haute bourgeoisie — he was raised in the house his mother’s family built in 1752 — turn out, against all odds, to be the statesman the world needs now, ideology and partisan affiliation aside? Is he a latter-day Churchill standing astride the tides of history, ready to push back Vladimir Putin on one side and Trump on the other? 

Will this acrid-tongued, 69-year-old multimillionaire, a child of the rural Catholic haute bourgeoisie, turn out to be a latter-day Churchill, standing astride the tides of history? I mean, probably not.

Of course the real answer is that no one can see the future and it’s likely to surprise us: Maybe! It’s just about conceivable that Merz, now liberated from his previous pro-American views and in a forced marriage with his domestic political opponents, will reveal that kind of strength. But honestly, that scenario requires a world-historical level of wishful thinking. 

For one thing, as Lau observes in the Guardian essay quoted above, Merz was effectively for Donald Trump before he was against him. He ran as an overtly MAGA-curious candidate during his failed campaign for CDU leadership in 2018, and only weeks ago pushed a harsh non-binding resolution on migrant policy through the Bundestag with the AfD’s support. That Trump-style political maneuver, meant to shame outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz by capitalizing on a series of violent attacks committed by immigrants, did not technically violate the “firewall” that prohibits Germany’s mainstream parties from forming coalitions with the far right. But as Lau suggests, it may have led normie voters to wonder whether Merz could be trusted.

Merz isn’t the only mainstream European conservative to turn bearish on America; it’s starting to look like a trend. Former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin is an old hand, having made world headlines back in 2003 by opposing the U.S. war in Iraq in an eloquent U.N. address. He’s now considering a 2027 presidential campaign, in hopes of fending off rising far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. In a recent interview with the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, de Villepin outdid Merz, proclaiming that “America can no longer be considered an ally of Europe” and that the world now finds itself divided between “three illiberal superpowers: Russia, China and the U.S.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Both Merz and de Villepin see the opportunity, in the latter’s words, for “a European awakening of democracy.” That’s an inspiring phrase, but one that avoids the larger historical question: Can the existing European order that elite political leaders like them are so eager to defend actually be saved, in anything like its current form? You don’t have to be a Trumper or an ultra-leftist to observe that the so-called Western alliance has been decaying for some time; one of Putin’s guiding principles, which has yet to be falsified, is that if he jabs it in the right spot it will collapse altogether. Rethinking the relationship between Europe, America and the rest of the world shouldn’t be left to JD Vance and his buddies in the nationalist new right. 

It’s difficult to imagine that Merz — by all accounts a person of highly conventional ideas, atop a fragile coalition with a narrow political mandate — is ready to seize that portfolio. Even a cursory reading of German history suggests darker parallels: Merz looks and sounds an awful lot like the pro-business upper-crust German conservatives of the early 1930s, who assumed they could dominate the radical upstart with the dopey mustache and his dimwit followers. Those guys were astride the tides of history too, but not in a good way.

Of course the past does not predict the future; it shapes it. That cautionary tale still has considerable resonance for Germans of Merz’s generation, even if many people in that country and elsewhere around the world have grown tired of hearing it. Those who fail to learn from history, as Salon contributor Mike Lofgren said to me recently, are doomed to repeat famous quotations. Whatever Friedrich Merz does with his improbable starring role on the world stage, let’s hope his lessons are in order.

The post Can this guy really save Europe from Elon Musk? appeared first on Salon.com.

A German conservative mayor backed the AfD. Now Merz is on the spot.

21 August 2026 at 13:38

A conservative German mayor’s €10,000 donation to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is making things awkward for his party’s leaders.

Bernd Prange, a Christian Democrat who serves as mayor of Altmärkische Höhe in Saxony-Anhalt, wrote in an open letter on Wednesday that he would be voting for the AfD in the state’s upcoming election on Sept. 6. “I want the AfD to become so strong in the Saxony-Anhalt election that it can govern alone,” wrote Prange.

The goal, he said, was for his own party to “finally wake up,” tear down Germany’s political firewall and abandon what he called its shift to the left.

The letter prompted swift criticism from within his own party: “I don’t like it. I can say that very clearly,” Saxony-Anhalt CDU Premier Sven Schulze told POLITICO’s Berlin Playbook Podcast on Thursday. “I think his approach is wrong. Definitely,” adding that he did not share Prange’s views “in any way.”

As for whether the mayor will remain a Christian Democrat, Schulze was in no rush to make a call: “We’ll deal with the issue after the election,” he said. “Right now, it’s campaign time.”

In an interview published earlier on Wednesday, Schulze had dismissed speculation about possible defections after the election: “No, someone switching from the CDU to the AfD will not happen,” he said. And while Prange hasn’t formally changed political allegiance, he said he wants Chancellor Friedrich Merz “removed” as CDU leader and accused him of running a party that is “giving up the conservative core of the Union.”

The episode hits the CDU at a perilous moment, as Merz struggles to maintain the country’s “firewall” against cooperation with the far right while support for the AfD surges across eastern Germany.

The AfD is polling between 41 and 43 percent in Saxony-Anhalt — almost twice the CDU’s 22 to 24 percent — putting the far right within striking distance of governing alone. Merz continues to rule out cooperation with the AfD, but September’s elections will put that under sustained pressure: Saxony-Anhalt votes on Sept. 6, followed by Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania on Sept. 20.

The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.

Maximilian Stascheit and Carlotta Diederich contributed to this report.

Experts question new Trump admin analysis claiming noncitizens voted in 2020

21 August 2026 at 12:00

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

President Donald Trump this week unveiled another effort by his administration to raise questions about the outcome of the 2020 election he lost: an unusual U.S. Census Bureau analysis concluding with “high confidence” that 24,000 noncitizens illegally voted in the 2020 election.

Trump touted the finding on social media and wrote that it supports his long-running false claims that he actually won the 2020 election.

But experts said there are substantial questions about the Census Bureau study’s methodology and validity. And even if 24,000 noncitizens had voted in 2020, it wouldn’t have been enough to change the election’s outcome.

The seven-page Census Bureau report said researchers examined more than 128 million voters in the 2020 presidential election and determined with “high confidence” that more than 24,000 of them were noncitizens. If so, that number would be less than 0.019% of the sample.

Trump said census researchers are still analyzing another 32 million voters and predicted that the number of illegal noncitizen votes would “explode” after that was done.

The Census Bureau did not respond to a request for comment. But experts said some aspects of the bureau’s release raise fundamental questions.

Most Census Bureau reports identify the authors of the report and detail the reliability of the data they are using. This analysis did neither.

“A properly done Census report would have had that information and the fact that it is missing is glaring and makes me think that they are hiding something,” said Beth Jarosz, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Massive Data Institute who has worked as a contractor on Census Bureau reports.

Terri Ann Lowenthal, who served as staff director for the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee overseeing the Census Bureau from 1987 to 1994, said the report’s minimal methodological information raised questions about the accuracy of the results.

Lowenthal said the report was “beneath the Census Bureau’s stellar reputation.” The failure to include the names of any career staff members, she said, suggested that the work may have been done by someone with a political agenda “and may not reflect the sound, reputable analysis for which the Census Bureau is known.”

Trump administration searches for noncitizen voters

Trump has focused the efforts of his second administration on rooting out voter fraud, especially any instance of illegal voting by noncitizens, which audits, investigations, and studies have found happens only rarely. But the federal government doesn’t possess a comprehensive database of citizens, and efforts to match different data sets have so far yielded inaccurate results.

The administration pushed states to run millions of records of registered voters through a revamped federal data tool to check if they were citizens. But election officials found the system, which cross-referenced federal records from various federal agencies, in some cases erroneously flagged citizens. In June, a federal judge blocked the use of the overhauled tool, finding it threatened privacy and voting rights.


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


In a televised primetime speech on July 16, Trump said his administration had found more than 250,000 noncitizen voters on the voter rolls of just four states: New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Officials in all four states pushed back on Trump’s claims and said they didn’t understand how the administration arrived at those numbers. The Trump administration has yet to provide any detail on its methodology in that case either.

The president has lobbied for federal legislation to require people registering to vote to prove their citizenship, and he repeated that call when releasing the Census Bureau findings Tuesday, describing it as his highest legislative priority. But the effort has stalled in the U.S. Senate. He has also released two sweeping executive orders on elections, but their major provisions have been so far blocked by federal courts.

Questions surround Trump administration’s data analysis

The voting data used in the analysis was provided by Data-Clear, a business in Virginia that secured an $885,000 Census Bureau contract from former President Joe Biden’s administration in 2024. Carolyn Carlson, Data-Clear’s president and founder, said she provided nationwide voting data to the bureau that year as part of a project to try and prevent an undercount of minority voters in the 2030 census.

Carlson said she was surprised to see the data she provided used in the new review of noncitizen voters.

The report says the Census Bureau matched the Data-Clear voter files with federal immigration records to determine if people were citizens and eligible to vote. The report offers only general descriptions of how and when it was able to match verifiable information.

Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who worked in the Biden White House on voting rights issues, said a typical analysis would include caveats around the possible margin of error, and the 24,000 figure for noncitizen voters could be within it. However, the Census Bureau report doesn’t specify one.

“In most statistical exercises, it’s not unthinkable that there might be 0.019% false positives – and if that were the case here, that would turn the total conclusions to zero,” he said.

Should the analysis hold up to scrutiny, the underlying numbers showed that they would not involve enough voters to change the result of the 2020 election. The report said it found 500 noncitizens illegally cast ballots in Wisconsin, which Trump lost to Biden by more than 20,000 votes. The survey said it identified 1,100 noncitizens who cast ballots in Arizona, which Trump lost by more than 10,000 votes. And the report cannot say whether those voters supported Trump or Biden.

In response to questions about whether the release supported the president’s assertion, the White House responded with a link to a social media post by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post Experts question new Trump admin analysis claiming noncitizens voted in 2020 appeared first on Salon.com.

Andy Burnham’s plan for Britain starts above a Manchester cocktail bar

21 August 2026 at 06:10

MANCHESTER, England — On the day in June that Andy Burnham ended his nine-year term as mayor, Manchester’s authorities sent him off with a parting gift: a wingback chair whose shiny fabric was printed with the city’s trademark worker-bee symbol and its rallying cry “we do things differently here.”

One month later, Burnham moved to 10 Downing Street, the sprawling Georgian terrace in London replete with mice, net curtains, cranky heating and patchy phone signal from which six other prime ministers have struggled to run Britain in the last decade. But the worker-bee chair did not accompany him on the trip south. It moved just a half-mile, through a city that was once the engine of the industrial revolution but for more than a century has struggled for balance against the political, economic and military power consolidated in the capital.

The chair now sits beside a 10-seat conference table in what Burnham calls “No. 10 North,” a refurbished 1980s office block he has chosen as his auxiliary seat of power. What remains of the largest empire the world has known is now governed most Fridays from above a discount cocktail bar, where Burnham has replaced Downing Street’s concentric rooms of gatekeepers with clinically lit floors of open-plan desks. Staffed by several political allies from his time in Greater Manchester and decorated with a gold record of The Queen Is Dead, the 1986 album by Manchester band The Smiths, it is Burnham’s “comfort zone,” a person who has worked with him said — “an homage to his time” as mayor.

No. 10 North is more than Burnham’s own Manc-a-Lago, where he retreats ahead of weekends at his family home nearby. The prime minister, who succeeded Keir Starmer as the benefactor of a Labour Party putsch on July 20, has made it a central aim of his premiership to move power and money out from limestone buildings on Whitehall, the old heart of London’s civil service — by centralizing some of Whitehall’s power further in No. 10 North, and handing other parts of it to local leaders outside government. He is banking Labour’s political future, and that of the British center-left, on being able to reverse a decades-long decline of England’s former industrial heartlands, one that fueled a political polarization and drove the 2016 vote for Brexit.

“What we’re bringing is a different type of energy,” Caroline Simpson, the mayoral authority’s former chief executive whom Burnham has tasked with heading up his new northern outpost as deputy chief of staff, told POLITICO Magazine in her first interview since assuming the role. “That’s really the point about No. 10 North — to connect our places, connect devolution back into the heart of governing.”

Burnham’s political opponents — and, privately, some civil servants, who have seen past prime ministers try to move power out of London — have derided the Manchester office as a gimmick, a soundstage for a politician attuned more to optics than policy detail. (No. 10 North is “absolutely not” a gimmick, insists Simpson.) The office is already up and running, but some of the basic details of how it will geographically redistribute power — such as how funding or boundaries will be configured — have not been worked out. An early test of Burnham’s commitment to redistributing his government’s sparse finances will come on Oct. 28, the day of his first budget, and in a cross-government spending review in 2027.

POLITICO Magazine spoke to 28 current or former civil servants, political officials, regional officials, advisers and politicians to illuminate what life is like inside No. 10 North and the broader policy vision it reflects. Many were granted anonymity to speak frankly about the workings of Burnham’s government. Downing Street declined to comment on the specifics of this article, beyond making Simpson available for interview.

Burnham took office on a pledge to “rewire Britain.” He has to rewire the house first.

Moving to Heron House

The incoming prime minister discussed the idea of setting up No. 10 North with his closest aides ahead of the June special election that sent him back to Westminster, a person with knowledge of the conversations said.

But the idea was kept secret from all but his innermost team until Burnham announced it in late June. He did not even tell Simpson about it in advance. “It all happened very, very quickly,” she said.

After winning the June special election, Burnham scrambled to make No. 10 North a reality. He wanted to put it in Manchester — but where, exactly, wasn’t clear. He told an interviewer in early July that his preferred site was the planned Manchester Digital Campus in the Ancoats area of the city, but the site he named will only open fully in 2032. Burnham’s team looked at options for other government buildings in Manchester during a few frantic weeks of transition talks with the civil service.

A few days before he took power, Burnham and the civil service agreed on a temporary solution: Heron House, a red-brick office block that was renovated in 2019. No. 10 North occupies a floor that had been prepared for use by GCHQ, the U.K.’s intelligence and cyber-security agency. GCHQ was happy to vacate the floor; one senior government official said the agency was “bending over backwards to be helpful,” since it still has senior figures in other parts of the building who will find it useful to be near the PM. Less happy about the arrangement: Greater Manchester Police, which has been under more strain thanks to the burden of protecting the PM and building. It had an initial back-and-forth with London’s Metropolitan Police about when each force should be responsible for Burnham’s security, a person with knowledge of the talks said, and has raised concerns about who will pay the long-term bill. A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said the force was still working with government departments on security arrangements and “the cost of this is yet to be determined.”

There was a recent model for moving a core government function from Westminster to the north, and Burnham’s team is relying on some of that expertise. Former PM Boris Johnson opened government offices outside London including the Treasury, which launched a campus in the north-eastern railway town of Darlington, conveniently near then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s large family home in North Yorkshire.

Beth Russell, the senior official who leads the Darlington campus, has been advising on the setup of No. 10 North. But the projects are not the same; Darlington has around 350 Treasury civil servants across all ranks (plus more from eight other departments) while No. 10 North currently has only 50 or so, many of them necessarily senior. That means Darlington’s boasts to have recruited 80 percent of its staff locally, including from nearby schools, are unlikely to be repeated in No. 10 North.

Heather Scott, the veteran Conservative who was leader of Darlington Council at the time, argued local recruitment had made the project a success; some young people “never thought that they would have an opportunity to work for a government office.” Local staff may also think (and therefore make policy) differently, because they live outside London. “They’re not in £5 Gail’s coffee world,” said one Labour official, referring to a high-end chain bakery.

Burnham has, though, poached many members of his old mayoral team to No. 10 North — some of them based fully in Manchester and others splitting their time between there and London. Simpson will be a political special adviser while others will be non-partisan civil servants including John Wrathmell, who influenced thinking on “Manchesterism,” Burnham’s vision of putting the needs of a place above political ideology by combining private investment with state intervention. They were joined in recent weeks by Amy Davies, who ran Burnham’s calendar as mayor; she has been given the job of executive assistant to the PM, according to two people with knowledge of the appointment. (No. 10 does not routinely comment on staffing matters.) Other civil servants who join No. 10 North will already have been based outside London or want to return to where they grew up.

But in the meantime, civil servants have descended on Manchester from afar. No. 10 North’s Director General Sam Lister — its most senior civil servant — was only appointed on the Friday before Heron House opened to staff the following Monday, July 20 — the day Burnham took power, two people with knowledge of the process said. Lister declined to comment for this article (civil servants are ordinarily barred from speaking in public). Department heads were asked to suggest staff who might transfer to No. 10 North less than a week before it opened. One senior Whitehall official described the process as a “tap on the shoulder” and said the method for choosing people had been “unclear.”

Many of the 50 or so civil servants currently in No. 10 North are still based outside Manchester — which is 180 miles from London — and living in hotels for part of the week. That includes Lister, whose commute from his north London home was photographed covertly by the Mail on Sunday. After the story broke, officials were advised to stay across a variety of hotels to keep a lower profile, an official with knowledge of the process said.

Civil servants assigned to work at No. 10 North have been turning up before 8 a.m. on Fridays to secure desks that Burnham will walk past. Some ministers hot-desk. Simpson has her own office, there is a suite for ministerial use and officials are “buying the nicer furniture that comes with being the center of government,” the same official with knowledge of the process said.

Cheerleaders for the No. 10 North agenda argue this rush to action shows the team is trying to do something that British governments seldom manage — behave like a start-up. Lister wrote on LinkedIn that the unit “must maintain an agile, scale-up, non-hierarchical mindset” to work, “solving problems in real time rather than waiting for perfect answers.”

Therefore officials are anxious not to appoint too many civil servants; a person with knowledge of the planning said the total number of civil servants in No. 10 North is likely not to exceed 150, a tiny number compared to the thousands who already work in government offices outside London.

Those who do move permanently will each be able to claim up to £14,000 in relocation costs under existing rules, said the same official with knowledge of the process quoted above. They would not be expected to take a pay cut.

And then it may all churn again. Putting No. 10 North in Heron House is still only a medium-term arrangement and is unlikely to last until the nearby digital campus is open in 2032, said the same person with knowledge of the planning quoted earlier. That means Burnham’s team is looking at whether it can move somewhere else — neither Heron House nor the digital campus — in the coming years.

Burnham has pledged to work from the office every week, mostly on Fridays. (Burnham’s advisers say he will have visited five times in the month since becoming prime minister.) Despite his love of casual clothes, some of the trappings of his office follow him around. Downing Street sent its front-of-house staff up north with Burnham during his visits; aides suddenly found themselves being waited on with cups of tea.

In recent weeks the Manchester base has become such a focus of conversation that Burnham insiders have begun referring to London’s most famous street address as “No. 10 South.” Those who work there now find themselves on the receiving end of the north-south insecurity. One Labour official retorted: “No, we are No. 10!”

Downing Street and the surrounding streets still hoard the vast bulk of state power; the old Georgian building is the one with the famous black door and Larry the Cat, the feline who has lived at No. 10 longer than several prime ministers. No. 10 North has no real cat, said Simpson — but it does boast a cardboard cutout of Larry.

“Our building at the moment is tricky,” Simpson explained. Unlike Downing Street, where Larry can come and go as he pleases, Heron House has security keypads that cannot be operated by paws.

All roads lead from London

Burnham is far from the first British PM to try to break London’s hold on Britain — the result of a highly centralized government, based in a city of global finance and tourism that is more than three times the size of its nearest U.K. rival.

London was always the seat of Britain’s establishment, but northern cities — as the seat of the industrial revolution — once held a power of their own. The first steam train ran through Darlington; Manchester has a statue of Abraham Lincoln in honor of mill workers who refused to touch slave-picked cotton. (It is next to the back door of No. 10 North.)

“There was a time during which people in the north had a load of control, agency and power by virtue of being part of the industries that powered this country — by having powerful MPs, councils that were well-funded, community institutions and organizations that were coherent and well-embedded in their in their place,” said Oliver Coppard, the Labour mayor of South Yorkshire, a county west of Manchester that includes Sheffield. “Those things have all gone, or largely gone, and communities are fractured. So people don’t have agency; they don’t know who to reach out to get things to change.”

Thirty years ago the U.K. had ceremonial mayors instead of empowered municipal ones, and no true parliaments for the nations outside England. Since then there has been an endless ratchet of pledges to move power outside Westminster. Labour’s Tony Blair set up democratic bodies for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, but kept centrally-run agencies for England’s regional development (Simpson worked in one of them). Conservative David Cameron followed with his “northern powerhouse,” which gave some English cities mayors and funding deals. Boris Johnson, who built his profile as London’s mayor, extended the model to rural areas, seizing on the regional divides that drove the 2016 Brexit vote with his promise to “level up” Britain.

Yet England is still “very centralized” compared to the U.S. and its system of federalism, argues Simpson: “We are one of the most centralized countries in the Western Hemisphere. We have very little true devolution.” Henri Murison, director of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, a business lobby group, added: “Our country is basically designed so we only have a federal government, we have no state government.”

And so Burnham, who decided in 2016 in a pub in Westminster that he would quit London, where he was serving in parliament and had previously been in cabinet, and run for mayoral office, now pledges to go further still. His plan is shaped by those nine years as mayor, when he was infuriated by how the system worked in practice — or didn’t.

He has vowed to extend devolution to more areas of England and go beyond the traditional focus on economic investment, looking also at public services such as bus networks. He is planning to tidy up the messy patchwork of boundaries for police, health and fire services that he confronted in the role. He says he will give mayors more true economic freedom; they will be allowed to spend an allotment of national income tax, and commit to more expensive projects without national approval, giving them a predictable income stream rather than forcing them to chase new grants each year. Regional officials will have less frenzied oversight from Whitehall. (One senior Labour figure in a mayoral authority joked that they had to tell the central government how many thumb tacks they had bought.)

“The conversation is completely different from what it was,” said Greg Clark, the Conservative minister for decentralization under Cameron in the early 2010s. In the early 2010s, he explained, “the direction was very much centralization. There was no real debate about devolution from the city deals onwards. These things have now become irreversible.”

Burnham’s policy vision is contained in a rare joint statement of his Cabinet on July 31, less than two weeks after he came to office. Thrashed out over pre-handover “access talks” between Burnham’s top aides and Antonia Romeo, Britain’s most senior civil servant, it said ministers had agreed to “the full shape” of how the government’s structure will shift power away from London before the next election. The seven-page PDF is “what people in No. 10 are excited about,” said Murison. Burnham deliberately imposed his end point without a detailed plan instead of letting Whitehall pore over drafts; one ally said it was to avoid his plans being “sanitized.” Romeo sees it as a foundational document too; she believes she could become the cabinet secretary who presided over the greatest change to the state in decades. Officials are now in what they privately call a 100-day sprint to produce a detailed policy paper in the fall that will set out more about how Burnham intends to actually implement the vision.

In their old jobs in the mayoral authority or elsewhere in Whitehall, No. 10 North aides had already looked to Germany and France for inspiration, including on the countries’ regional approaches to industrial strategy. Senior officials have also asked the BBC for advice after the national broadcaster relocated several operations to Salford — a district of Greater Manchester — in 2011. “The BBC didn’t just land as an island,” said Simpson. “The BBC created a whole creative sector around it.”

They may need the advice. The Cabinet document promises a “major transfer of powers, resources and functions” from central government to mayors and councils; that signals that Burnham intends to shrink Britain’s national civil service, which has billowed by 100,000 people in six years to around 550,000 after the Covid pandemic and Brexit. That will be “uncomfortable,” admitted the person with knowledge of the planning quoted earlier.

Burnham and his team have given no clue of how many civil servants they plan to cut. (“I don’t think they know,” said the official with knowledge of the process quoted earlier in this article.) Simpson said it will mean moving “significant resource from Whitehall” and into local areas, but added: “I am not going to put a figure on what that is going to look like.”

Nervous civil servants will be kept waiting. While Burnham’s October budget will set out much of the detail, the trade-offs may only appear in their starkest form in next year’s Treasury spending review. The small print of that will likely show that money is being held back from some Whitehall departments, especially outside the most politically contentious areas such as defense and health, to spend more on local and regional government. Burnham’s choices are even more difficult because Labour’s last spending review, under Starmer, frontloaded spending early on but tightened it after 2027.

One of the toughest decisions, on where to define the boundaries of police forces, could put Burnham in potential conflict with his home secretary, Shabana Mahmood. Mahmood had already been working on a plan to reduce the number of police forces and consolidate some of their functions. One person with knowledge of her thinking said she is generally skeptical of how well devolution can work in practice, though another said she is not ideologically against it. (The Home Office declined to comment on these specifics.)

There could be tension too with the Treasury, whose responsibility for local economic growth has already been handed to No. 10 North. Clark — who negotiated early city deals alongside Miatta Fahnbulleh, a former civil servant who is now a key Burnham ally in his Cabinet — recalled the finance ministry being “hostile” to his “subversive” push for devolution. “There’s a Whitehall preference for tidiness and for everything to be identical,” he added.

Another tricky and expensive decision will be around what to do with England’s private water firms, which have provoked public outcry by paying dividends while presiding over a creaking Victorian infrastructure. Burnham has promised greater “public control” of utilities but stopped short of promising full nationalization, and aides are still working through multiple options, including a mutual form of ownership and whether debt-ridden Thames Water could be split into two entities, one for London and the other for the surrounding region. On many issues, Burnham has identified problems without yet knowing the solutions.

Thus far there are many quiet skeptics of Burnham’s approach but few vocal critics. The skeptics tend to focus on two separate dilemmas: how do you meaningfully move money out of Whitehall and meet demands to raise spending on healthcare and defense? And after all the devolution promises that came before it, will No. 10 North prompt meaningful change?

One senior trade union figure said devolution in itself — which ties up the government in machinery changes and takes years to have an impact — does not “float the boat” of voters who are more concerned about the cost of living now. They voiced concern that the varying quality of leadership in each area could reinforce inequality, which would be ironic for a PM promising “good growth in every postcode.” Some MPs are already nervous that Burnham is running his devolution agenda from Manchester — a prospering city that has little in common with left-behind towns, or communities in England’s rural south west.

Then there is the existential question hanging over Burnham’s Labour — can empowering left-behind communities persuade voters to desert opposition parties, including Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist Reform UK or the hard-right Restore Britain?

“This is the last bulwark against a fucking Farage-led government,” said one former Conservative government official. “I suspect it will be somewhat of a gimmick. But if it’s a gimmick that people respond to and vote for, is it all that bad?”

Some believe Burnham’s relentless focus on England’s individual regions misses the wider picture. “England as a constitutional and political entity does not figure,” said Jonathan Rutherford, who co-founded the socially conservative Blue Labour movement in the party. “And yet England is the place where the populist revolt is strongest. It’s where it originated. It was the strength behind the Brexit vote. It’s the source of the strongest form of nationalism — English, which is expressed through Reform and Restore.”

Others in Burnham’s own party worry that his plan could be too effective. After a series of strong electoral performances nationwide, Reform now controls many local councils, using its limited powers to scrap climate schemes, take down Pride flags and declare war on financial waste. A Labour government in London returning more authority to those councils would end up just empowering the opposition.

“I do worry about it,” said the senior Labour figure in a mayoral body quoted earlier in this story. They pointed out that mayors will soon have more say over police budgets and priorities. “You are putting quite a lot of power in the hands of people who could be quite malign in their intentions,” the senior Labour figure said.

Opposition parties sense an opportunity from Burnham’s extra funding; Ben Houchen, the Conservative mayor of Tees Valley in the north east, wants to hand money back to voters as a rebate. Burnham shut down the idea but Houchen told POLITICO Magazine he has spoken to Treasury officials and believes it will be possible, unless the government specifically blocks it. Simpson did not completely rule out such rebates, saying: “There’s going to be no ability to sit outside of the tax framework at a local level. That’s not what fiscal devolution is about. But flexibility about how that money is spent in a local area is going to be there.”

None of those concerns are deterring Burnham, whose allies say he can succeed because he will drive the devolution agenda personally from No. 10 North in a way no prime minister has done — and that he genuinely trusts the councils and mayors he’s empowering to serve their areas. “It is already changing things,” said Simpson.

Burnham’s team has met chief executives of mayoral authorities and hosted mayors for a meeting of a revived national economic council, set up by Gordon Brown in response to the 2008 financial crisis. There was potent symbolism in the way Burnham ran the meeting, forcing Cabinet ministers to listen and take note of the mayors rather than the other way round. Those at the table included the prime minister’s business adviser Varun Chandra, who is more used to talking to U.S. trade negotiators than regional leaders.

The prime minister told mayors he wanted to meet every two weeks.

‘It’s like Fort Knox in there’

Burnham has spent the last two weeks on a tour of the country he now leads, focusing on areas where Labour has fallen behind — a trial run for a general election the PM must call no later than 2029 to earn his own mandate for governing. It stands to be a five-way contest for power, pitting Labour against Reform and the Conservatives, Greens and Liberal Democrats, alongside Restore.

Almost no one in the Labour Party believes Burnham will be able to repeat the 172-seat majority that Starmer won at the last general election in 2024, leaving him a narrow window to do something radical while he commands the sway of parliament.

Burnham is already trying to connect his technical reforms to real change on the ground. The PM crisscrossed England this week with stops at the Wolverhampton Bus Terminal, where he announced the local mayoral authority would take control of the bus network, and to a homelessness charity in Newcastle where he asked local leaders to help his pledge to end rough sleeping. Newspaper front pages this summer have splashed repeatedly on a long-running plan to release some prisoners early because England’s Victorian jails don’t have enough room; one interview this week was dominated by questions about messages that Burnham traded with a person impersonating White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

All those issues are already crowding out his focus on reengineering the machinery of government. “I wish people might just engage with the seriousness of the proposition,” Burnham told The Times this week.

The vibes in Burnham’s inner circle remain good. “I’m not saying there aren’t going to be difficulties, but sometimes you’ve just got to get up and do it,” said one current government minister. “That was part of the problem under [Starmer’s] administration. There were always roadblocks; there was always a reason not to do something.”

And if Burnham is seeking to show he is among his people, the building itself does some of the work for him. Unlike Downing Street, imposing and behind iron security gates since 1989, Heron House sits on top of ordinary life in the city.

It faces a busy public square above a Slug & Lettuce chain cocktail bar, a branch of the ubiquitous pie store Greggs and trendy cafes serving Vietnamese drip coffee and matcha from Kyoto. Shoppers sit on a bench next opposite the low metal barriers and police guards on the door. The Ferris wheel at the square’s Christmas market is so tall that last year riders could see down onto the six-storey building’s roof. The local marriage registration office is on the ground floor. “You don’t really notice it,” shrugged a groom, Max Harris-Green, while his bride posed for photos a few meters from the new heart of government.

Put simply, it looks boring. The entrance goes unnoticed by many of those walking past, save for the occasional passer-by taking a selfie by the door.

Getting into the building itself is harder than Downing Street, whose custodians swing open the black front door for guests who have cleared the perimeter. Visitors to No. 10 North go through one of several discreet entrances — one of them next to a Chinese restaurant favored by the former Manchester United footballer Wayne Rooney — and successive doors. A Labour official said: “It’s like Fort Knox in there.” (No. 10 declined to give POLITICO Magazine a tour.)

Recent visitors speak of elevators with unmarked buttons, a bombproof room and special doors for agents who still work on other floors. Nearby during the lunch rush, one man in a shirt was overheard joking to three others: “Is this going on the MI6 credit card?”

But the success or failure of Burnham’s power shift will rest not on the building but the prime minister himself. Ironically for a man preparing to give up authority, Burnham will have to wield it firmly from the center to make his plan work. That even extends to where he sits.

No. 10 North will mean nothing without Burnham being there in person, said the official with knowledge of the process quoted earlier: “In the civil service, power always gravitates to the most senior people. You need the senior decision-making people there in person.” Former Chancellor Rachel Reeves was criticized for spending only five days working from the Treasury’s Darlington campus in almost two years after Labour took power. (Treasury officials insist she visited other places nearby.)

Burnham’s pledge to work from Manchester each week “can’t slip,” said one senior Labour aide, even as he faces more demands to travel abroad. “The whole center of power has to move there at the end of the week.”

Esther Webber contributed reporting from London.

Warum sich der Glaube an das Land lohnt – mit Justus Geilhufe

21 August 2026 at 05:05

Zwischen globalen Krisen und wirtschaftlichen Sorgen fühlen sich viele Menschen überfordert, obwohl sie ihr persönliches Leben oft positiv bewerten. Rixa Fürsen spricht mit dem sächsischen Pfarrer Justus Geilhufe über diese Diskrepanz und den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit ständigen Negativschlagzeilen. Isolierte Filterblasen auf Plattformen wie Telegram und ein fehlender Austausch mit Andersdenkenden verschärfen die Spaltung demnach zunehmend.

Inmitten eines massiven Vertrauensverlusts in große Institutionen versucht die Kirche, im ländlichen Ostdeutschland wieder Räume für echte Begegnungen zu schaffen. Geilhufe erklärt, warum gelebte Gemeinschaft und feste Riten gerade jetzt für den sozialen Zusammenhalt so essenziell sind. Genau wegen dieser gesellschaftlichen Relevanz vor Ort gerate die Kirche auf dem Land auch zunehmend ins Fadenkreuz der AfD.

Statt auf radikale Disruptionen zu setzen, plädiert der Seelsorger für mehr Dankbarkeit und einen konstruktiven Blick auf die eigene Herkunft. Selbst in unruhigen Umbruchsphasen könne der christliche Glaube dabei helfen, Ohnmachtsgefühle abzubauen und hoffnungsvoll in die Zukunft zu blicken.

Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig.

Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.

Mehr von Rixa Fürsen gibt es auch hier:
Instagram: @rixafu | X: @rixa_fursen.

POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH
Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin
Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0
information@axelspringer.de
Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B
USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390
Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Burnham will divert ‘significant’ resources out of civil service, says No. 10 North chief

21 August 2026 at 04:15

LONDON — Andy Burnham will divert “significant” resources out of Britain’s civil service in order to funnel officials into councils and mayoral bodies in England, the official leading the U.K. prime minister’s devolution unit has indicated to POLITICO.

Caroline Simpson, Burnham’s deputy chief of staff in “No. 10 North,” the Manchester outpost that he opened last month, said the office will draw up plans in the coming months to “transfer” civil service resources into mayoral authorities as they are handed more power.

Speaking to POLITICO Magazine for a major profile of Burnham’s project in her first interview since taking the role, Simpson said England remains “one of the most centralized countries in the Western Hemisphere. We have very little true devolution.”

Burnham’s Cabinet signed a statement last month which said No. 10 North would oversee a “major transfer of powers, resources and functions” from central to local government before the next general election, due by 2029. It promised to “build new career paths between central government and the wider public sector,” make the civil service “smaller and more strategic” and “release savings” to transfer resources to local areas.

Britain’s civil service has ballooned by 100,000 people in six years to around 550,000 following the Covid-19 pandemic and the U.K.’s exit from the European Union.

Simpson declined to answer to what extent the overall headcount of civil servants will be cut to increase staffing in regional government. “I am not going to put a figure on what that is going to look like,” she said.

However, she added: “The intent behind [the Cabinet paper] — really moving significant resource from Whitehall and from the civil service into regions, into local areas — is absolutely part of our plan, our ambition, our mission here in No. 10 North.”

After this interview was published on Friday, No. 10 officials emphasized that neither Simpson nor Burnham had explicitly said that his plan would involve cutting civil service headcount. However, No. 10 has not ruled out cutting civil service headcount either.

Burnham has said he wants all areas of England to have mayoral authorities in place by the end of 2028, and they are set to be offered the expertise of Whitehall officials where it is relevant and desired.

It is not yet clear how this movement of staff will work in practice. Officials plan to outline more detail in a paper alongside the Oct. 26 budget, which — as with a spending review in 2027 — will make clear the impact on Whitehall budgets.

Downing Street also announced a pilot scheme on Friday in which 18 mayoral authorities will receive five to 10 civil servants each on secondment, who will remain on civil service contracts. 

Simpson said: “We’re going to develop that plan with the mayoral authorities over the coming weeks and months. It is going to be something that evolves, because the pace of devolution has happened quicker in some areas than others.”

Elsewhere, Simpson appeared to leave the door open to the possibility of councils using incoming economic freedoms to pay “rebates” directly to residents.

The idea from Ben Houchen, the Conservative Tees Valley mayor, prompted a rebuke from Burnham, who said a mayor could not be a “mini-chancellor of the exchequer.” However, Houchen told POLITICO this week that he had discussed the idea with Treasury officials since Burnham made his comments and believes it will be possible unless the government directly outlaws it.

Ben Houchen, speaks to delegates during The Great North Investment Summit at the Royal Armouries Museum on May 11, 2026 in Leeds. | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

Simpson said: “The PM is absolutely right — there’s going to be no ability to sit outside of the tax framework at a local level. That’s not what fiscal devolution is about. But flexibility about how that money is spent in a local area is going to be there … the absolutely technical ‘what does that flexibility look like?’ is going to have to be worked through.”

Asked if that flexibility could include handing money back to residents if local leaders decide it, she replied: “We are working through some of those practicalities at the moment.”

Simpson — who Burnham poached from her job as chief executive of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, where he was mayor for nine years — spent more than two decades as a nonpartisan public servant before taking her first political role as his deputy chief of staff.

She said becoming a political staffer was a “change” for her personally, but said she and the prime minister had decided it was necessary. “I’m really enjoying it,” she said. “It brings an ability to be even more directive and … get things done that I think is absolutely needed with the pace of change that the PM wants.

“The best way to deliver that, I felt and he felt, was to move into a deputy chief of staff role.”

Simpson said Burnham had never discussed the idea of No. 10 North with her as mayor. Recalling her appointment, she added: “It all happened very, very quickly.”

No. 10 North now has around 50 civil servants, said two people with knowledge of the planning, both of whom were granted anonymity to speak frankly. Several are still living out of hotels in Manchester and returning to London or elsewhere on the weekends. The office is expected to expand to up to 150 civil servants.

The office is based out of Heron House, a refurbished 1980s office block in Manchester city center, on a floor previously prepared for the cyber intelligence agency GCHQ. However, this is only a temporary base.

Burnham previously said he wanted to base the office at the Manchester Digital Campus in the city, but this will only be fully open in 2032. No. 10 North is unlikely to stay based at Heron House that long, said one of the two people with knowledge of the planning, so it will be looking for another base in the next few years.

Despite skepticism from some in Whitehall that the devolution project will be successful, Simpson, who is running the office day-to-day alongside its civil service Director General Sam Lister, said No. 10 North was “absolutely not” a gimmick.

“What we’re bringing is a different type of energy,” she added. “It’s not better. It’s not worse. It’s just different. That’s really the point about No. 10 North — to connect our places, connect devolution back into the heart of governing.”

Unlike 10 Downing Street, where Larry can come and go as he pleases, the high-security building in Manchester does not have a cat.

Instead it has the next best thing — a cutout image of Downing Street’s real-life chief mouser. “We’ve got a cardboard cat, which isn’t quite living up to Larry,” Simpson said.

This story was updated on Aug. 21 to add further briefing from No. 10 officials about Burnham’s plans for the civil service.

Sánchez has one year until Spain’s election deadline. The odds are against him.

21 August 2026 at 04:00

We are now one year away from the latest possible date — Aug. 22, 2027 — that Spain can hold a general election.

For embattled Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, it looks like it’s going to be a bruising ride to get that far. He insists he will seek reelection, brushing aside the predictions that he is doomed by pointing to his well-established knack for defying political gravity.

But this time, the odds are especially stacked against him and his fragile minority government, which has never appeared so isolated.

Advertisement

The challenges that lie ahead are so daunting that Sánchez could well chuck the schedule and call for an early vote.

Here’s why he’s up against it.

Rough rentrée

Summers have historically been kind to Sánchez.

In the past, the seasonal break helped reduce the heat generated by crises like the June 2025 arrest of high-ranking Socialist Party official Santos Cerdán for allegedly awarding public works contracts in exchange for kickbacks. The prime minister was no doubt hoping a similar scenario would play out following this spring’s high-profile indictment of his ally, former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, on money-laundering charges, and after a major raid on his party’s headquarters as part of a separate criminal investigation.

But just days before he was due to head off on a beach break on the island of Lanzarote, Sánchez’s summer was upended by a surge of 72,000 migrants into Ceuta, a Spanish exclave in northern Africa. Even though the prime minister did eventually resume his scheduled vacation, the Ceuta crisis has continued to dominate the news. Thousands of unauthorized migrants remain in the city, with local authorities complaining Madrid isn’t doing enough to address overwhelmed hospitals and other public services.

Migrants wait to receive water on the beach next to the CETI (Centros de Estancia Temporal de Inmigrantes) on August 2, 2026 in Ceuta, Spain. | Adri Salido/Getty Images

The government is bound to face tough grillings over security failures, whether intelligence warnings went unheeded and whether something went badly wrong in relations with Morocco. The Ceuta debacle also left Sánchez looking painfully isolated on the EU stage, with 22 leaders writing a letter suggesting his liberal migration policies could have helped attract the influx.

Nearly a third of Sánchez’s ministers have been summoned to testify at extraordinary hearings in the Spanish parliament next week, and the prime minister himself is due to face tough questions when plenary sessions resume in September.

So much for a fresh start.

Budget bloodbath

The fall promises no relief for Spain’s prime minister, who faces defeat in a battle over the national cashflow.

The minority government has been unable to pass a single budget bill during this legislative term, and has been operating on the spending plan approved by Sánchez’s previous government in December 2022. The Socialist leader has vowed to submit a draft budget for 2027 this fall, but it is almost certain to be rejected by lawmakers.

Advertisement

A major obstacle is the Catalan separatist Together for Catalonia group, whose support is key to getting any legislation passed. The party voted down the deficit framework for the draft budget this summer, with its spokesperson, Josep Rius, characterizing the long-shot legislation as “yet another Sánchez frivolity.”

The separatists were instrumental in getting Sánchez a third stint as prime minister in 2023, but relations have since soured, with the party now accusing the government of reneging on its commitments to Catalonia, and refusing to back budget plans it considers to be Madrid-centric.

But the prime minister is determined to move forward, raising questions about his motivation to present a doomed budget bill.

“There’s growing speculation that Sánchez may want to call voters to the polls as early as March, and the budget’s failure would provide him with an excuse to do so” said Pablo Simón, a political scientist at Madrid’s Carlos III University, who pointed out that Spain is due to hold local and key regional elections in May 2027.

Advertisement

Sánchez’s personal unpopularity has been cited as a key factor in Socialist Party losses in previous local and regional races. Holding national elections earlier in the year could remove the prime minister from the equation when the May vote is held, helping center-left candidates running in key cities and enabling the socialists retain control of regional governments in Castilla-La Mancha, Asturias and Navarre.

“There’s no sense in stretching this term to its limits if you’re not only going to lose, but drag others down with you,” Simón said.

(More) legal woes ahead

Sánchez’s tumultuous relationship with Spain’s judiciary is also likely to grow even more strained over the next year.

In the coming months the prime minister’s wife, Begoña Gómez, could stand trial on charges of influence-peddling and embezzlement. She denies all wrongdoing, and the prime minister has consistently argued that his wife is the victim of so-called “lawfare” targeting his friends and family.

Spain’s prime minister sits with his wife Begona Gómez as they attend the 41st congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) at the Palacio de Exposiciones in Seville, on December 1, 2024. | Cristina QuiclerAFP via Getty Images

Gómez’s trial follows on this summer’s conviction of the prime minister’s brother on administrative misconduct charges, in connection to the rigged allocation of a public job — a ruling Sánchez called “unjust.”

Beyond the cases involving his immediate family, the prime minister faces potentially damaging judicial probes into alleged bid-rigging and kickbacks involving key allies — as well as an explosive investigation into suspected illegal financing of his Socialist Party.

Crucial parliamentary allies such as Gabriel Rufián of the Republican Left of Catalonia have warned that illegal financing is a “red line.” Hard evidence could force Spain’s current prime minister to suffer the same fate as his conservative predecessor, Mariano Rajoy, whom Sánchez ousted from power after his People’s Party was proven to have engaged in the same crime.

Left-wing logjam

Spain’s fragmented politics make majority governments increasingly unlikely: Power goes to whoever can secure enough parliamentary support to be declared prime minister.

For now, the polling suggests the center-right People’s Party and the far-right Vox party are on course to control a majority of seats in the parliament in 2027. The two parties currently govern in coalition in four Spanish regions, and PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo in June explicitly endorsed a partnership at the national level.

SPAIN NATIONAL PARLIAMENT POLL OF POLLS

For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls.

Sánchez faces tougher odds in building an alliance strong enough to keep him in power. In 2023, he formed a coalition with the Sumar group — an amalgam of far-left parties — and won the backing of key regionalist and separatist parties.

But this time around, the numbers don’t add up. Sumar has effectively collapsed amid internal infighting, and its unifying leader, Deputy Prime Minister Yolanda Díaz, has ruled out standing as its candidate at the next election. Polls indicate the far left will suffer heavy losses at the national level, leaving Sánchez with fewer viable paths to a parliamentary majority.

No relief abroad

There are also signs that Sánchez will no longer be able to boost his fortunes at home through his performances on the global stage.

Engagement in international affairs — ranging from his condemnation of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, to his ongoing feud with U.S. President Donald Trump — has previously bolstered his standing in Spain.

But political scientist Simón said that the harsh criticism the prime minister from fellow EU leaders for his handling of the Ceuta crisis reveals he is increasingly considered to be a figure on his way out.

Advertisement

“As one of the few social democrats still governing in Europe, his positions are out of step with the conservative consensus, and they aren’t taken seriously because he is now seen as a lame duck who is going to lose the next elections,” said Simón.

“That leaves him with little capacity to make a difference because he isn’t seen as representing Spain’s position at this point,” he added. “Everyone accepts someone else will be in charge next year, and likely have a very different perspective.”

Sánchez’s broader international vulnerabilities will be on display in November, when Madrid hosts a summit of Ibero-American heads of government that will underscore the region’s rightward shift. Roughly half the leaders attending are from the right, and include figures like Argentina’s populist president, Javier Milei, with whom the prime minister has a prickly relationship.

“The summit highlights a global political realignment,” said Simón. “One that Spain narrowly avoided in 2023, but seems increasingly inevitable next year.”

Advertisement

Former PM Fillon suspended from top French honor over fake jobs conviction

20 August 2026 at 10:05

PARIS — Former French Prime Minister François Fillon has been suspended for 10 years from the Légion d’honneur, France’s highest order of merit, after being found guilty of providing his wife with a fake job in which she was paid a salary using taxpayer money.

The decision to suspend Fillon was published Thursday morning in the French official gazette. It was approved by President Emmanuel Macron after being recommended by the body tasked with handling disciplinary measures for the Légion d’honneur.

The fake jobs scandal emerged during the campaign for the 2017 presidential election and cost Fillon a shot at the presidency, as he was a front-runner in the contest before the allegations emerged.

Fillon was found guilty in 2020 but appealed the decision. He and his wife Penelope, however, could not provide evidence that she had actually worked for her husband over the course of several contracts under which she was hired to be his parliamentary assistant during his time as an MP.

The appeals court last year upheld the verdict, handing him a four-year suspended prison sentence and a €375,000 fine. The 72-year-old did not appeal that decision to a higher court.

Former President Nicolas Sarkozy, under whom Fillon served, was also stripped of his Légion d’honneur last year after being found guilty of corruption and exhausting all his appeals.

Sarkozy is fighting his conviction in another case for receiving money from Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi to fund his first presidential run in 2007. A first court found him guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison, but he has appealed the verdict and continues to profess his innocence.

Labour’s Farage donor crackdown hits a Downing Street roadblock

20 August 2026 at 04:00

Labour’s Farage donor crackdown hits a Downing Street roadblock

A domestic donations cap will not be in the elections bill when it returns next month.

By JOHN JOHNSTON
and SAM BLEWETT
in London

Illustration by Arnau Busquets Guàrdia/POLITICO

Labour MPs want a cap on political donations to stave off Nigel Farage’s big-money backers. Andy Burnham is set to disappoint them.

Downing Street will not include a universal domestic cap on political donations in Britain when the elections bill returns on Sept. 2, two officials briefed on government thinking said. But both the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss policy considerations, did not rule out returning to the issue again in the future.

“We’re prioritizing cracking down on foreign interference and crypto billionaires as part of this piece of legislation,” one of the officials said, referencing existing proposals in the elections bill from Burnham’s predecessor Keir Starmer to cap overseas donors and ban cryptocurrency donations.

Advertisement

That’s despite mounting pressure to act from the British PM’s own MPs as they fret about Farage, whose rise has been aided by a flurry of cash from individual donors — and hints from Burnham himself that he is minded to move ahead. 

There is currently no limit on the amount individual donors based in the U.K. can give to a political party. Donations above £11,180 must be reported to the Electoral Commission watchdog. 

Burnham told transparency campaigners before becoming prime minister that he supported a cap to “guard against the perception of any one party being unduly influenced or swayed by one person or organisation.” 

A Liberal Democrat supporter holds up a donation bucket at a party conference in 2021. | Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

While indicating a wider review of political funding would be required before setting a firm figure, Burnham said his “gut feeling would suggest somewhere in the region of £500k” for the upper limit. 

Following Burnham’s arrival in No. 10 Downing Street in July, officials in Whitehall had been waiting for a signal that they should start work to include a donation cap in the Representation of the People Bill — the official title of the elections bill.

But the two officials quoted above said using that bill as the vehicle for a cap could delay plans also included in the legislation to give 16-year-olds the right to vote at the next general election. 

Advertisement

A third British official acknowledged the Sept. 2 date, when the elections bill returns, is a “crunch point,” and suggested ministers could “kick the can” and commit to considering action when the bill gets to the House of Lords.

A Labour MP pushing for a donations cap said the arguments being put forward for not going ahead with a donations cap are “bullshit,” adding: “They are scared of the unions.”

Complicated landscape

A POLITICO analysis of how a £500,000 donation cap would have hit the main political parties’ finances over the last three years demonstrates the trade-offs Burnham would face in pushing ahead.

The analysis draws on publicly-available Electoral Commission returns for Westminster’s main political parties between Jan. 1 2023 and Dec. 31, 2025.

It shows a £500,000 ceiling would have curbed 55 percent of Reform UK’s reported private donations over the past three years — amounting to some £12 million — suggesting Nigel Farage’s party would have taken the greatest hit of any of the parties in proportional terms over the period.

But the data also shows there is potential peril for Labour in slamming a lid on funding — particularly if cash from trade unions, which represent some of the party’s major backers, is included.

A £500,000 cap over the same period — with no union exclusion — would have wiped out 47.4 percent of all private donations to Labour, or around £34 million in funding. 

Advertisement

An exemption from the cap for unions would leave Labour’s war chest significantly stronger. Labour would have kept hold of £12 million of that money over the same period, which included the donation-rich run-up to the 2024 general election.

The GMB trade union has already urged Labour MPs not to back a cap due to concerns it will damage the labor movement’s historic relationship with the party. 

Parliamentary pressure

Opting for a cap with or without a union exemption carries significant political risk for Burnham. Capping unions alongside individual donors and corporates would dent Labour’s finances and strain relations with the movement seen as foundational to the party’s identity. 

But exempting them from any cap would bolster Farage’s narrative that changes to election rules are part of an intentional establishment campaign to halt his party’s progress.  

Burnham’s predecessor, Starmer, already proposed an annual £100,000 cap on donations from British citizens living overseas.

Advertisement

The measure could create a major hurdle for crypto-entrepreneur Christopher Harborne, who has donated over £12 million to Reform UK despite being based in Thailand.

But MPs are already putting pressure on Burnham’s new government to go further.

Several amendments pushing for domestic caps set at various amounts — up to £1 million — were proposed when the bill was introduced earlier this year. A proposal from Labour MP Stella Creasy, which would mirror the £100,000 cap on overseas donors, gained the most support.

A donations bucket featuring Nigel Farage at a UKIP conference in Margate, Kent in 2015. | Ben Stanstall/AFP via Getty Images

At the time, the amendments were aimed at demonstrating political appetite for a long-running campaign to limit the sway of mega-donors, but MPs and campaigners had hoped Burnham’s previous comments had indicated he was gearing up to act.

One adviser working the parliamentary push for a donations cap said MPs could back down if the government suggests its own cap — regardless of the size of it.

“Our preferred outcome is the government come forward with their own individual donation cap,” the adviser said. “Whatever the level is we will support it.” 

Advertisement

Supporters of a cap also pointed to Creasy’s amendment, drafted with assistance from Transparency International UK, as a potential middle-ground for the knotty union problem. Rather than a blanket policy, Creasy proposes that affiliation fees — an annual political levy usually paid by unions on a per-member basis — would be exempt from the cap, while other donations would be included.

POLITICO’s analysis shows that approach would lessen the blow on Labour’s finances — while not providing unions a complete carve-out.

In 2024, GMB gave Labour £2 million in total — of which £1.1 million was affiliation fees.

Under Creasy’s carve-out for unions, the £1.1 million in affiliation fees would go directly to Labour.

Only the remaining £900,000 would be subject to the cap, wherever it is set — meaning a far gentler loss to Labour.

“The loophole must be closed to prevent mega-rich donors who have the potential to harm democracy — as the government has accepted is possible — that means they can continue to donate just because they claim a U.K. postcode,” Creasy said.

Advertisement

POLITICO’s analysis suggests that the Creasy amendment’s proposed cap — £100,000 — would have eaten into the donation income of leading parties had it been applied over the last three years.

In 2023, a £100,000 cap would have deprived the then-governing Conservative Party of more than £26 million — around 54 percent of all its declared donations.

Labour would have lost between £11 million and £16 million, depending on how the rules were applied to unions — a loss of between 50 percent and 70 percent of its declared donations.

In 2024, both Labour and Conservatives would have lost higher sums of cash as election campaign fundraising hit its peak, although the losses remain similar in percentage terms.

Other parties would have faced similar hits, with the Liberal Democrats losing around 20 percent of their £9 million declared donation income, while around 40 percent of Reform UK’s £3 million of declared funds would have been ineligible.

Analysis of last year’s data suggests a £100,000 cap would have been devastating for Farage’s outfit given its reliance on mega-donors.

Of the £18.8 million declared in donations for 2025, more than £15 million would be lost under Creasy’s plan — around 80 percent of Reform’s total declared donations.

Advertisement

With campaign spending hitting record highs at the 2024 election, even a lenient cap would have had a substantial impact on the country’s major political parties. But successive polls have found public support for the measures.

In January, YouGov’s biannual tracker showed that 67 percent of Brits backed a donations cap of £50,000 or less, with support for the current, unlimited system dropping from 21 percent in 2020 to just 13 percent at the start of this year.

France’s big climate problem: The budget crunch

19 August 2026 at 20:17

PARIS — After a summer of extreme, climate change-driven heat, France must spend billions of euros to help the country rebuild and ensure it is better prepared the next time the mercury rises and records fall.

Money, however, is hard to come by.

France is sitting on more than €3.5 trillion in public debt, which is becoming increasingly expensive to finance and is well above the European Union’s limit. Paris has already committed to billions in increased defense spending over the next several years, ruled out significant tax hikes and promised to slash its budget deficit, which came in at 5.1 percent of gross domestic product last year, to 3 percent by 2029 to comply with EU rules.

Crafting a budget for next year that can achieve those goals while also allocating enough resources to prepare France for the next summer of extreme heat that cooks livestock alive, plunges the country into drought and fuels wildfires that drive thousands from their homes is like trying to square the circle. But getting a hung parliament to agree on spending in the run-up to a presidential election will make the exercise even more difficult.

“We need billions — let’s be clear-eyed about this,” said Sophie Panonacle, a centrist, pro-government lawmaker who represents the fire-hit southwestern Bassin d’Arcachon area. “We really must urgently consider this issue of adaptation. We are making no progress at all on this matter.”

Budget crunch, meet climate crisis

Visiting the southwestern town of La Porge on Monday, where hundreds of people saw their homes go up in flames last month, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu listed a series of measures crafted to help residents rebuild their homes and keep businesses hit hardest by the fires afloat.

These included a total of €12 million in direct assistance for the two local administrations most affected by the fire, Gironde and the Landes, as well as rebates on property taxes and social security contributions in those areas and more funding to replant forests. Later that evening, President Emmanuel Macron announced that the proposals would also apply to the southern region of Var.

Lecornu said the measures would add up to €100 million, though it’s unclear whether that figure covers costs only in the towns he visited or also in the Var region.

Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut said last week that the total immediate cost of the summer’s heat, including lost homes and incomes, could reach €10 to €15 billion — the equivalent of 0.5 percent of GDP — though she cautioned that those figures were a rough estimate. When asked by French daily Libération about Barbut’s estimate, Economy Minister Roland Lescure later said it was too early to quantify the damage.

Whatever the final total comes to, there’s little doubt it will be difficult to pay given the need to get the country’s finances in order.

In a report commissioned by the French finance ministry, top economists last month said France must cut spending and raise taxes by €125 billion by 2032 to prevent its budget deficit from reaching 7 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.

A comprehensive strategy

Critics of the government say it has failed to provide specific details on how it intends to fund immediate and future budget needs for adaptation and climate change mitigation, frustrating lawmakers.

Monique Barbut said last week that the total immediate cost of the summer’s heat , including lost homes and incomes, could reach €10 to €15 billion. | Lou Benoist/AFP via Getty Images

“We need to respond to climate-related events, but first we need a comprehensive strategic review regarding resources already allocated and promises made around fighting wildfires,” said Jean-François Husson, the Senate’s budget watchdog. “We’re addicted to making announcements which aren’t followed by results, and meanwhile the debt levels are spiraling.”

Husson said that he intends to summon government officials to provide clearer figures in the coming days.

“They cannot treat Parliament the way they do, specifically regarding budgetary matters,” Husson said.

That criticism cuts across party lines. Eric Coquerel, the left-wing head of the finance committee in the French National Assembly, has asked the government to urgently present a revised version of this year’s budget to parliament to address the need for more funds.

With state coffers so depleted, Barbut floated in an interview with Libération tapping private savings to help cover costs, as the French rank fairly high among EU countries in terms of savings but, like the rest of Europe, don’t invest much in stocks and bonds.

Panonacle, the centrist lawmaker, is one of 50 MPs pushing a proposal to use €50 billion in private savings to fund costly adaptation policies, including making buildings more resilient to extreme heat, installing more air conditioning in public facilities, and reinforcing flood defenses.

However, that money is already used to finance public projects, particularly social housing, and the economy ministry last year shot down a similar proposal to use money from a popular savings account to bolster defense spending.

Some ministries are focusing on efficiency gains. Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez will present a bill in September meant to modernize France’s civil security providers for example by rethinking its emergency dispatch system so firefighters are no longer deployed for every minor emergency.

“It’s not just about the amounts allocated, but also about how you use resources,” said an interior ministry official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Once summer ends, the clock starts ticking. Lecornu’s government is expected to present lawmakers with a draft budget to be debated by October. The goal is to get the process done by the end of the year — a goal lawmakers failed to meet in 2024 and 2025.

Mike Lindell refuses to accept he’s an election loser

20 August 2026 at 02:17

Businessman and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell, best known as the founder of My Pillow and a prominent advisor to Donald Trump, refuses to accept his loss in the Republican primary for governor of Minnesota on Aug. 11. Lindell lost by 11 points to the Minnesota house speaker, Lisa Demuth, but did not graciously concede. Instead, he immediately began spouting conspiracy theories that explained away his loss, suggesting there were “anomalies” in the election process.

He’s still not giving up. On Wednesday, he offered to fund a recount of the election.

“One of the few good election laws Minnesota does have is that as a candidate, I have the right to completely audit and hand-count every ballot in the state, and I am going to exercise that right to the full extent of the law,” Lindell said in a press release, which claimed “the effort will be the largest privately funded statewide paper-ballot recount and audit in U.S. history.” It will cost Lindell approximately $825,000, according to CBS News.


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


A recount is automatically triggered when there is a 0.25% difference in votes in Minnesota, but obviously 11 points is quite a bit more. Lindell cited counties reporting more votes than were cast, vote totals that moved backward and unusual synchronized vote totals across all seven Republican candidates, as motivation for the recount. It could also have to do with the fact that in early August, Lindell stepped down as CEO of My Pillow to focus on his gubernatorial run, so maybe he needs the job.

Lindell has pushed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election as well, leading to a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, now known as Liberty Vote. In July, the two parties settled the suit for an undisclosed sum. 

The post Mike Lindell refuses to accept he’s an election loser appeared first on Salon.com.

Zelenskyy’s rival Fedorov overplays his hand with election push

19 August 2026 at 21:00

KYIV — Ukraine’s popular former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov has emerged as a new rival to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — but his call for an election is facing immediate blowback.

In a video address on Tuesday night, he zeroed in on topics he knew would strike a public chord in one of the most direct internal challenges to Zelenskyy since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He complained that corruption was undermining the war effort and protested about centralized and opaque decision-making in the Zelenskyy administration — for which he worked until only last month.

However, Fedorov’s unexpected appeal for the nation to go to the ballot box sparked immediate retorts across the political spectrum. Critics insisted such an election would be banned by Ukraine’s martial law, would be impossible to organize in wartime, would play into Russia’s hands and would sow division when national unity remains vital.

Zelenskyy still commands broad support as a war leader, and his allies pointed out that, regardless of public frustration, there are limits to how much he can reveal about the inner workings of the state when national survival is at stake.

Fedorov’s emergence as a rival to Zelenskyy was accelerated by his shock dismissal as defense minister last month. The 35-year-old built up a strong following for spearheading Ukraine’s success in using new technologies — from cyberattacks to drones — to damage Russia.

His ejection from office sparked immediate protests, with thousands of people taking to the streets, calling for his reinstatement or for Zelenskyy to properly explain the decision to fire him.

In his address on Tuesday night, Fedorov delivered a thinly veiled criticism of Zelenskyy’s management style, referring to his peremptory approach to hiring and firing.

“People cannot endlessly live in a state where they do not understand why certain decisions are made. Why some reforms move forward while others are blocked. Why decisions needed on the frontlines today spend months circulating through government offices,” Fedorov said.

“It is dangerous when society develops the feeling that the main criterion for an appointment is not professionalism, results, or the ability to transform the country, but personal loyalty to the system,” added the former minister, who had himself been viewed as a Zelenskyy loyalist for seven years.

Election backlash

A top official in Zelenskyy’s office, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about Fedorov’s move, had little time for the criticism that the president should explain his actions publicly.

“The president cannot just explain his hiring choices to the public during war, as those are matters of national security. And it’s his right to decide whom to appoint as his defense minister and whom to fire,” they said.

The official was also scathing about the possibility of holding an election in the face of devastating Russian attacks: “Let’s wait out another massive Russian ballistic attack and then go vote,” the person added, sarcastically.

Olga Aivazovska, head of Ukraine’s election watchdog OPORA, also stressed the practical obstacles to an election, insisting that there were “hundreds of scenarios and actions” that the Russians could use to undermine the electoral process.

Roman Lozynskyi, a parliamentarian from the opposition liberal Holos party and deputy head of the state management committee, feared the call for elections could prove disastrously divisive.

“There is zero positive for the country. Don’t be happy that you will have candidates in the post-war elections. You still have to live to see them,” he said. “People understand that elections during the war are in the enemy’s hands. That it will be a war of all against all.”

Even one of the leaders of the protest movement, war veteran Dmytro Koziatysnkyi, said he didn’t want to see elections during wartime. “I am also very afraid of the disunity of society during the electoral process and how this may affect the course of the war,” he said.

Far from bolstering Fedorov’s political future, the call for an election could even count against him.

Economist Timothy Ash, who frequently writes on Ukraine, suggested the ex-minister had made “an extraordinary political error of judgement which some would likely use against him if he ever pitches in to run as president in the future.”

Volodymyr Fesenko, a political analyst based in Kyiv, conceded Zelenskyy had become accustomed to “acting like in business,” defined by “single-man leadership” and “quick decisions,” but argued that the president was hardly acting out of step with any other major international leader.

“When his critics say he should appoint professionals instead of loyalists, they sound right but naive at the same time. Even in the West, unless we are talking about coalition governments, such an approach does not work. Any serious politician … and especially in a country like ours, will appoint trusted loyalists,” Fesenko added.

Fesenko also defended Zelenskyy’s record in appointing senior officials. He noted that Prime Minister Serhii Koretskyi, new commander-in-chief, Maj. Gen. Mykhailo Drapatyi, as well as new Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara, all had positive reputations, even among Zelenskyy’s top critics in parliament.

Indeed, Khmara was confirmed in his new role to succeed Fedorov by a parliamentary vote on Wednesday, by 312 lawmakers out of 392.

‘People want change’

Fedorov is certainly popular. A poll from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology said earlier this month that 63 percent of people saw him as trustworthy — a score that put him second only to former military supremo Valeryi Zaluzhnyi, who is now ambassador to the U.K.

But none of that put Zelenskyy, who scored a robust 56 percent, out of the picture.

In line with Fedorov’s attack on a lack of transparency in the centralized state, another survey found dwindling sympathy for Zelenskyy using his powers to intervene over other state authorities. The poll found that 79 percent of people in 2022 — the year of Russia’s full-scale invasion — thought the president could override the constitution’s division of powers, but that had slipped to 52 percent in May 2026.

“People are placing all responsibility for the course of the war on the president. Because of this, the president feels the need to make all these decisions independently, which is against Ukraine’s constitution and legislative procedures. As a result, one person, the president, has a huge number of completely different tasks, incentives, requirements,” said Yurii Hudymenko, head of the Public Anti-Corruption Council at Ukraine’s defense ministry.

Corruption is also a hot topic, as Fedorov identified. Last year, Zelenskyy signed a law to strip Ukraine’s national anti-corruption watchdogs of their procedural independence, only to then backtrack on that decision when it faced criticism from the EU and protests at home.

Later, his former business partner and allies were implicated in a $100 million corruption scheme in the state nuclear energy sector — a scandal that forced Zelenskyy to fire his faithful No. 2, Andriy Yermak. Yermak was charged with corruption and is standing trial.

Several of Zelenskyy’s top allies are also under investigation for corruption, including former Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Olga Stefanishyna, while watchdogs complain they still face tremendous pressure and surveillance when investigating top officials.

On Wednesday, Zelenskyy fired Iryna Mudra as deputy head of his office, hours after anti-corruption watchdogs searched her workplace as part of a sweeping probe into an alleged criminal organization.

Yaroslav Zheleznyak, MP from opposition party Holos, and a prominent Zelenskyy critic, said the cumulative weight of these problems would ultimately count against the president.

He predicted Zelenskyy would suffer the fate of British wartime leader Winston Churchill and lose an election during the tail end of the war.

“No matter the competitors, Zaluzhnyi, [Head of the Presidential Office Kyrylo] Budanov, Fedorov or someone else, I think we will get the situation like in 2019, when anyone but the incumbent will win in the second round. In this case, this is very much a Churchill story, when a guy who won the war got voted out,” Zheleznyak said.

“People want change,” he added.

Oleksandr Saienko, expert at the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, said it was possible to avert a political crisis even without elections, but that would mean shifting some decision-making back to parliament and other state authorities.

“The subjectivity of the parliament must be restored both in terms of the legislative process and parliamentary control. The government must become the main center for the formation of state policy,” he said. “The pause on reform of the judicial system and law enforcement agencies, public administration, must be lifted and people should get a real sense of justice and protection.”

Trump Is Using a New, Highly Unusual Census Bureau Report to Claim He Won the 2020 Election

19 August 2026 at 19:55

President Donald Trump lost the popular vote in the 2020 election by 4.4%. That hasn’t stopped him, though, from latching on to a highly unusual Census Bureau report published Tuesday afternoon that allegedly found less than two-hundredths of a percent of voters in that presidential election were noncitizens.

According to the report, 24,000 out of 128 million voters in the 2020 presidential election were ineligible “non-citizen” voters. Unnamed authors of the seven-page report, partially titled “A Beginning Analysis,” said the bureau still has to analyze 32 million voter records. According to Pew, some 158.4 million ballots were cast in the 2020 election. The Census Bureau’s report found 159.9 million ballots were cast in the election.

“The Census Bureau’s library of administrative records makes it uniquely capable of compiling and publishing statistics on election crime and other forms of fraud,” the report concludes, echoing the Trump administration’s prior attempts to link election and social service spending fraud to immigration.

The Census Bureau report comes after Trump has sought to lean on the statistical agency to uphold his administration’s monomaniacal goal of delegitimizing the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump used the report’s findings to urge the passing of the SAVE America Act, a sweeping voter suppression bill that Trump has been pressuring Congress to pass for months, but which does not have widespread support even among Republicans  in Congress. 

“On the first 128,000,000 Voters,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “the Census Bureau proves that over 24,000 non-citizens voted illegally! The Census Bureau is going to analyze the next 32,000,000 Voters, and this number will explode. I WON THE ELECTION!”

Howard Lutnick, the secretary of the Department of Commerce, under which the Census Bureau falls, backed his boss in a post on X touting the report.

Experts have told TPM that there is “absolutely no basis” to Trump and the MAGA movement’s claims about noncitizen voting. Trump and Republicans have been propping up conspiracy theories about noncitizens voting en masse for Democrats in federal elections for years. Nevermind that the findings of Tuesday’s Census Bureau report obviously does not support any claim that the 2020 election was somehow rigged by a crush of ineligible, noncitizen voters. The bureau’s analysis diverts from normal operations in several ways, researchers and public data experts said Tuesday, which makes the veracity of its findings impossible to confirm.

“It lacks transparency and accountability,” Beth Jarosz, a senior fellow in demographic and socioeconomic analysis at the Georgetown University Massive Data Institute, told TPM.

Neither the Census Bureau nor the Commerce Department immediately responded to TPM requests for comment.

The Census Bureau used a roll of private voter data, compared with various federal data sources, to substantiate its finding. That’s unprecedented, Jarosz said.

“[O]ne of the red flags in the report is that the Census Bureau, when they start to use a new data source, typically goes through a very extensive process of trying to understand the data quality,” Jarosz said. “And I don’t see any evidence that they did that.”

On X, Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation strategy at Common Cause, said the Census Bureau doesn’t collect the information it would have needed to publish definitive findings about alleged noncitizen voting.

“The 2020 Census did not collect citizenship status, and the Census Bureau does not have a comprehensive individual ‘citizenship records’ file to definitively match against voter rolls,” Noureldin wrote. The type of data the Bureau did use in its report, according to its own methodology, “are modeled population estimates, not evidence that 24,000 people voted illegally,” he continued. 

The report doesn’t list any authors or even a bureau department from which the report came. According to Mike Schneider, an Associated Press reporter who covers the Census Bureau, that’s atypical.

“Every other report on the bureau’s ‘Census Publications’ site is credited to a statistician, economist, demographer or researcher,” Schneider wrote on his Substack.

Not even a department within the bureau is listed on the completely anonymous report. The report says its data was analyzed and published with “high confidence,” but lacks any definition on what high confidence means.

Tuesday’s report references legislation from 1902 which made the Census Bureau into a permanent governmental entity and empowers the Bureau to “collect statistics related to… crime, pauperism, and benevolence, including prisoners, paupers, juvenile delinquents,” and the like. The report’s authors cite this provision as giving the Bureau authority to “compile and

publish information on crime.”

This is an oversimplified interpretation of that provision, Mark Mather, the associate vice president of programs at the Population Reference Bureau, said in a data user forum. The legislation’s provision authorized the decennial Census to count “people already in institutions,” Mather wrote, not to identify “potential lawbreakers.”

“I’m concerned about the potential chilling effect of this work,” Mather continued, saying the report “sends a potentially troubling message about how administrative data shared with the Census Bureau might be used.”

Just in the last two months, the administration has:

The Department of Justice since 2025 has continued escalating its efforts to obtain voter roll data from states. Federal judges have dismissed 23 DOJ suits against states which have refused to turn over voter information.

Operation Forrest Gump: Anti-corruption raid heaps pressure on Zelenskyy

19 August 2026 at 15:35

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fired Iryna Mudra as deputy head of his office Wednesday, hours after anti-corruption watchdogs searched her workplace as part of a sweeping probe into an alleged criminal organization.

“Iryna Romanivna Mudra is hereby dismissed from the post of Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in a decree published Wednesday. The one-line order gave no reason for her removal.

The firing adds to a turbulent stretch for Zelenskyy. Former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov called Tuesday for wartime elections and denounced corruption and a systemic governance crisis, weeks after his ouster triggered prolonged street protests.

Earlier Wednesday, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, or NABU, announced a new operation targeting an alleged criminal organization involving current and former lawmakers and senior officials in Zelenskyy’s office. The bureau said it was carrying out searches with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, or SAP.

The investigation, dubbed Operation Forrest Gump, alleges the group laundered around 150 million Ukrainian hryvnia, equivalent to roughly $3 million, through state-owned Sense Bank to fund bail for former Energy Minister German Galushchenko, a key figure in last year’s $100 million Midas corruption scandal.

Writing on Facebook, Mudra said: “I will defend my name in a legal manner – calmly and consistently.”

NABU did not name Mudra directly in its video statement, referring only to a deputy head of the president’s administration, but searched her office.

Ukraine’s corruption watchdog released recordings in which a woman identified in the video only as a deputy head of the president’s office can be heard saying: “Fighting corruption is a wrong approach … Corruption has to be systemized and controlled.” NABU did not identify the woman by name.

This article has been updated with a comment from Iryna Mudra.

“I don’t trust you”: Tensions reach boiling point on election security call for state leaders

19 August 2026 at 12:00

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

Tensions between state election officials and the Trump administration are rising as we head into the heart of the midterm election season. Frustrations boiled over on Monday during a rare election security call hosted by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for state officials. During the call, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes unloaded on the agency.

CISA used to be a go-to shop for many states looking for help ensuring that their elections weren’t hacked, targeted, or undermined by cyberattacks or foreign interference. CISA provided states with classified security briefings on threats, helped ensure that state voting equipment wasn’t vulnerable to cyberattacks, and worked with election leaders to game out potential risks.

All that changed when Donald Trump returned to the White House last year. The second Trump administration scaled back its support for states, cut back CISA staff, and launched an investigation of its former leader, whom Trump accused of disloyalty because he pushed back on the president’s false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. CISA has not had a permanent director since the start of Trump’s second term.

Changes at CISA have paired with the president’s broad focus on controlling how elections are run. The federal government is threatening to arrest election officials if they allow noncitizens to vote. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has vowed to withhold federal funds from states that don’t implement Trump administration election overhaul proposals. A coalition of Democratic states and officials has sued the Department of Homeland Security in a suit that accuses the Trump administration of withholding Federal Emergency Management Agency funding in an attempt to coerce states into enacting disputed election changes.

With all that as backdrop, CISA organized this week’s call – and things didn’t go too well.


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


After more than a year of near silence, elections officials wondered if CISA would step up to offer classified intelligence briefings on emerging cyber threats from hostile countries, specialized testing of election equipment, or training on how to prepare for potential problems on Election Day.

Instead, CISA leaders provided what one participant characterized as a generic “CYA” (cover your a**) briefing that offered state officials few assurances that the federal government would help thwart threats this November.

Participants said acting CISA Director Nick Andersen and Jim Harrell, the assistant director for integrated operations, offered no concrete support for the 2026 election, which is less than 90 days away. Instead, the participants said, CISA leadership seemed more focused on the 2028 presidential election.

When they were done, according to participants, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, lashed out at the CISA officials. Fontes blasted the Trump administration for threatening state election officials and made it clear he had no confidence in their leadership, they said.

“Fontes got testy with them,” said one participant on the call who asked not to be identified. “‘I don’t trust you,’ [Fontes told the CISA officials.] ‘Your boss came out there and said: We are going to criminalize the work you do. Why should we trust you?’”

When asked about the call, Fontes confirmed that he’d made those comments and expanded on his frustrations

“They don’t work with us, they work against us,” Fontes told Votebeat. “Why should I trust them?”

Fontes said it was difficult for state and local elections officials to have confidence they would get support from the federal government when the administration treats them like an adversary rather than a partner. He and others on the call said CISA leaders offered few assurances they would provide much support in the coming weeks.

“They just wholly and completely abandoned their duties and threatened prosecution,” Fontes said. “If they want to apologize for threatening us and ruining perfectly good systems, that’s a good start.”

CISA did not respond to requests for comment on the call.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, also a Democrat, echoed Fontes’s frustrations.

“It’s unhelpful to have political leaders, including the secretary of Homeland Security, hinting at imprisoning election administrators who don’t do what they want,” Simon told Votebeat. “That’s just not helpful.”

Simon said Minnesota and other states have spent months working to fill the gaps left by the drop-off in CISA support.

“It’s pretty clear states are almost entirely on their own this election cycle and cannot rely on the federal government for election assistance,” said Simon.

Not everyone on the call came away with a sour taste in their mouth, though. Some participants described it as a tentative move that could help repair the strained relationship between state and federal leaders working on elections.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, also a Democrat, described the call as a “positive step” in rebuilding relations between CISA and state election officials.

“While this engagement is encouraging, CISA and our other federal partners must focus on continuing to rebuild trust with election officials,” Hobbs said. “Over the last two years, we have watched this administration systematically dismantle many of the election security resources in place at the federal level.”

With the November election fast approaching, he said, “election officials need sustained commitment to supporting local elections, not renewed attention only as major elections approach. Meaningful support will do more to rebuild relationships than words alone.”

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post “I don’t trust you”: Tensions reach boiling point on election security call for state leaders appeared first on Salon.com.

French MEP Raphaël Glucksmann gears up to announce presidential run

19 August 2026 at 12:28

PARIS — Center-left MEP Raphaël Glucksmann will announce that he’s running in next year’s presidential election in France in the next few days, most likely with a prime-time TV interview on Sunday, according to three people close to him.

The trio, granted anonymity to speak candidly about Glucksmann’s plans, said he plans to take part in a closed primary being organized by the Socialist Party that currently includes Ségolène Royal, the Socialist presidential candidate in 2007 who lost to Nicolas Sarkozy, and MP Philippe Brun. Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure has also said he is considering running.

While a win would guarantee Glucksmann the support of the Socialists, the main center-left force in France, the party has been struggling to make inroads with voters and is beset by infighting.

Several high-profile Socialists, including former President François Hollande and former Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, have publicly hinted at plans to sit out their party’s primary and launch independent presidential bids.

However, polls show that Glucksmann, the leader of his own small political party, Place Publique, is the best-placed presidential hopeful on the center left after leading the Socialists and their allies to a strong third-place finish in the 2024 European elections.

Yet he and the rest of the field still lag significantly behind far-right front-runner Marine Le Pen, according to most surveys. France’s presidential election goes to a runoff if no candidate scores more than 50 percent of the vote, and if the polls hold, Le Pen is all but guaranteed to nab one of the final two spots.

To advance to the second round, Glucksmann will have to see off centrist and center-right rivals like Edouard Philippe and the firebrand anticapitalist Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Mélenchon, who announced his plans to run in May, is currently polling slightly ahead of Glucksmann, but both are within striking distance of making the runoff.

The two are bitter rivals whose divisions are reminiscent of those across left-leaning parties in the Western world, including the U.S. Democratic Party.

Glucksmann hopes his centrist brand of politics can win over former Socialist voters who backed President Emmanuel Macron. Mélenchon’s hardline messaging is more targeted at low-propensity voters, including younger voters and those from working-class, multicultural communities in major French cities.

Glucksmann and Mélenchon disagree on issues ranging from France’s participation in NATO, — which Mélenchon opposes and Glucksmann supports — to pension reform.

Mélenchon has pledged to lower the minimum retirement age to 60 if elected president, while Glucksmann believes some workers should be required to work longer and that France should move toward a system where retirement age would be based on life expectancy and individual working conditions.

Reformer oder Radikaler? Ein Interview mit MV-Spitzenkandidat Leif-Erik Holm

19 August 2026 at 11:52

In dieser Episode sprechen Pauline von Pezold und Frederik Schindler dem Spitzenkandidaten der AfD für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Leif-Erik Holm. Im Vorfeld der Landtagswahlen am 20. September geht es mit Holm um seine Ambitionen auf das Amt des Ministerpräsidenten und sein Vorhaben, notfalls durch eine Kooperation mit der CDU oder Tolerierungsmodelle an die Macht zu kommen. Obwohl er sich gleichzeitig die „Altparteien“ auf den „Müllhaufen der Geschichte“ wünscht.

Zudem konfrontieren die beiden Holm mit seiner energiepolitischen Kernforderung nach einer Rückkehr zu russischem Gas. Sie haken nach, wie sich diese Strategie mit den Importverboten der EU und dem Angriffskrieg Russlands gegen die Ukraine vereinbaren lässt und ob die AfD damit nicht sehenden Auges neue energie- und sicherheitspolitische Abhängigkeiten für Deutschland in Kauf nimmt.

Ein weiterer kritischer Fokus des Interviews liegt auf dem Personal des Landesverbandes.
Schindler und von Pezold befragen Holm zum neuen Generalsekretär seiner Partei sowie Vorstandsmitgliedern der Parteijugend Generation Deutschland, die teils eine Vergangenheit in der rechtsextremen NPD haben.

„Inside AfD“ ist der POLITICO-Podcast über die umstrittenste Partei des Landes. Trotz Radikalisierung und Beobachtung durch den Verfassungsschutz wächst die AfD weiter. Wie ist das möglich? Was treibt ihre Anhänger, Strategen und Gegner an? Wie funktioniert das Innenleben der Partei? Und was bedeutet ihr Aufstieg für das politische System Deutschlands?

Antworten liefern immer mittwochs Pauline von Pezold von POLITICO und Frederik Schindler von WELT — unaufgeregt, aber kritisch.

Fragen und Feedback gern an insideafd@politico.eu.

POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH
Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin
Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0
information@axelspringer.de
Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B
USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390
Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

❌