This page includes summaries, key points, and the full-text of newspaper and magazine articles and OP-ED pieces. The source and author's name(s), along with an internet link (unless behind a paywall), are provided for each item.
pdf
The President Can’t Handle the Truth
By Jamelle Bouie - Sep 2, 2026
NY Times
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/opinion/trump-fantasty-reality-politics.html
Summary
The article questions President Trump’s ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy, highlighting his recent actions and statements. It points to his exaggerated claims about a deal with Venezuela, his use of AI-generated propaganda, and his unrealistic optimism about the upcoming midterm elections despite his low approval ratings. The author argues that Trump’s detachment from objective reality poses a danger to his presidency and the country.
Key Points
- Unrealistic Policy Claims
- Trump announced a sweeping agreement gaining U.S. control over Venezuela's oil reserves to lower domestic gas prices. However, the claim ignores critical obstacles, including Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure, massive foreign investment costs, regional political instability, and the long-term risk to private investors.
- Blurring Reality with Digital Media
- The president's reliance on military combat highlight reels rather than traditional briefings highlights a questionable grasp of ongoing conflicts. This pattern is further evidenced by his sharing of an AI-generated video showing the destruction of Kharg Island as if it were real news, while repeatedly claiming complete victory in Iran despite conflicting facts.
- Disconnect from Political Reality
- Despite facing underwater approval ratings in the low-to-mid 30s and hurting Republican prospects in upcoming midterms, Trump continues to behave like an overwhelmingly popular leader on the verge of a landslide. His demands for GOP candidates to align with him at a "midterm convention," alongside his self-aggrandizing projects, demonstrate a severe blind spot regarding his political standing.
- Vulnerability in Crisis Leadership
- The tendency to manifest reality through sheer willpower creates a dangerous presidential vulnerability. Refusing to acknowledge obvious threats leaves the administration unprepared to manage or pivot during genuine national crises.
Article's Full Text:
Can President Trump distinguish truth from fiction? Does he know what is real and what is the product of a computer program?
One wants to believe that the president of the United States, cloaked in immense power, would understand the difference between reality and fantasy. One would hope, given the terrible stakes of his decision-making, that he had the capacity to understand and internalize objective reality, even if he did not like it.
But then consider the past week of presidential activity. Last Friday, the president announced a “historic” deal with the interim government of Venezuela to give the United States direct control over a huge portion of the nation’s proven oil reserves.
“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority U.S. control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” the president wrote on Truth Social. Trump contends that this will lead immediately to low gas prices.
Except, of course, that it won’t.
Behind the boast lies a murky arrangement that leaves us with a host of unanswered questions. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure is in disrepair — who will restore the nation’s actual capacity to extract and refine oil? Who will pay for it? And given the current instability of Venezuelan politics, including the uncertain role of the United States as imperial caretaker after it deposed President Nicolás Maduro, what are the odds that this deal lasts beyond Trump’s time in office? Will American companies risk billions on the hope that this arrangement will outlast his administration? And perhaps most relevant to the president’s political standing, when, if ever, will this deal lower the price at the pump?
These are basic concerns. There is no indication they have ever reached Trump’s mind. And even if someone did raise these issues, his effusive and ebullient announcement suggests that he paid little attention to those concerns. He wants the deal to be great, and so it is — the power of positive thinking. (And Norman Vincent Peale was, in fact, a major and formative influence on Trump.)
Even more unsettling, on the question of the president’s interest in objective reality, is his use of artificial intelligence.
On Sunday, the president posted an A.I.-generated video of the destruction of Kharg Island, an Iranian stronghold. “Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!,” he wrote. The post came shortly after the United States military resumed its attacks on Iranian forces. We also know that Trump does not like to receive traditional briefings about American operations in the region. Instead, he is shown a brief highlight reel of destruction, what one official described as “stuff blowing up.” For the record, the most recent Kharg Island bombing was in April.
One would like to assume that Trump can distinguish between footage of actual combat and A.I.-generated propaganda. But can he? For his part, Trump shared the Kharg Island video as if it were real. And it is not as if the president has ever acknowledged the reality of his war in Iran. For six months now, he has said the same thing: that the Iranian military has been destroyed, that the United States controls the Strait of Hormuz, that Iran’s surrender is just over the horizon and that both peace and American victory are imminent.
Are these lies, or does he believe them the same way he believed that the crowd at his first inauguration was larger than the one in 2009? Or is he, again, trying to change reality through the power of positive thinking?
There is one other recent set of moves that raises similar questions about the president’s ability to grasp objective reality: his strategy for the upcoming midterm elections. By any measure, Trump is brutally unpopular. His average approval rating has sunk to the mid-to-low 30s, he is underwater on virtually every issue — including immigration and inflation, the ones that brought him to office a second time — and the public disapproves of most of his schemes and stunts, such as his pathetic move to rename Lake Ontario to spite Canadian leaders. He has dragged down Republicans in the House, who are projected to lose their majority, and is dragging them down in the Senate as well, where a once favorable map has turned sideways, as Democrats make headway in Republican-led states such as Texas, Alaska and Ohio.
In these circumstances, the typical president would keep his distance from his co-partisans in the legislature, mindful of the way his presence might harm their odds. Not Donald Trump. He is practically forcing them to stand by his side at a “midterm convention,” where they will defend him and his record to the country at large. This is pure political malpractice. But Trump can’t see it. He is one of the most toxic people in American politics right now, but he is behaving as if he is on the brink of a landslide victory granted to his party by voters grateful for a productive and successful administration.
His White House ballroom, now rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court, and his proposed monuments — even his commemorative coin — all reflect the same belief: that he is the greatest and most popular person to ever serve as president, maybe the most popular person to ever live. (It is not hard to imagine Trump telling the world that he is “more popular than Jesus.” He’s practically said as much.) He even shared an image ranking himself above George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, among others, as the greatest president of all time.
Trump exists in a world where he can do no wrong. Where he is loved by the people and feared by his enemies. His deals never fail, his wars are overwhelming victories and his party is on the march to another majority.
It is, again, the power of positive thinking.
The problem is that this relentless — almost religious — positivity leaves you ill-prepared to deal with crisis. And the presidency is a job defined by crisis, either sudden or of your own making. Trump’s unusual relationship to the objective world leaves him dangerously unable to pivot, shift gears or change course. It is not that he thinks he can steer around the iceberg, it’s that he doesn’t believe it is there in the first place, even when it is staring him in the face.
Taken all together, it adds up to a mounting political disaster for the president and his allies — and an actual, material disaster for the rest of us.
One wants to believe that the president of the United States, cloaked in immense power, would understand the difference between reality and fantasy. One would hope, given the terrible stakes of his decision-making, that he had the capacity to understand and internalize objective reality, even if he did not like it.
But then consider the past week of presidential activity. Last Friday, the president announced a “historic” deal with the interim government of Venezuela to give the United States direct control over a huge portion of the nation’s proven oil reserves.
“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority U.S. control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” the president wrote on Truth Social. Trump contends that this will lead immediately to low gas prices.
Except, of course, that it won’t.
Behind the boast lies a murky arrangement that leaves us with a host of unanswered questions. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure is in disrepair — who will restore the nation’s actual capacity to extract and refine oil? Who will pay for it? And given the current instability of Venezuelan politics, including the uncertain role of the United States as imperial caretaker after it deposed President Nicolás Maduro, what are the odds that this deal lasts beyond Trump’s time in office? Will American companies risk billions on the hope that this arrangement will outlast his administration? And perhaps most relevant to the president’s political standing, when, if ever, will this deal lower the price at the pump?
These are basic concerns. There is no indication they have ever reached Trump’s mind. And even if someone did raise these issues, his effusive and ebullient announcement suggests that he paid little attention to those concerns. He wants the deal to be great, and so it is — the power of positive thinking. (And Norman Vincent Peale was, in fact, a major and formative influence on Trump.)
Even more unsettling, on the question of the president’s interest in objective reality, is his use of artificial intelligence.
On Sunday, the president posted an A.I.-generated video of the destruction of Kharg Island, an Iranian stronghold. “Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!,” he wrote. The post came shortly after the United States military resumed its attacks on Iranian forces. We also know that Trump does not like to receive traditional briefings about American operations in the region. Instead, he is shown a brief highlight reel of destruction, what one official described as “stuff blowing up.” For the record, the most recent Kharg Island bombing was in April.
One would like to assume that Trump can distinguish between footage of actual combat and A.I.-generated propaganda. But can he? For his part, Trump shared the Kharg Island video as if it were real. And it is not as if the president has ever acknowledged the reality of his war in Iran. For six months now, he has said the same thing: that the Iranian military has been destroyed, that the United States controls the Strait of Hormuz, that Iran’s surrender is just over the horizon and that both peace and American victory are imminent.
Are these lies, or does he believe them the same way he believed that the crowd at his first inauguration was larger than the one in 2009? Or is he, again, trying to change reality through the power of positive thinking?
There is one other recent set of moves that raises similar questions about the president’s ability to grasp objective reality: his strategy for the upcoming midterm elections. By any measure, Trump is brutally unpopular. His average approval rating has sunk to the mid-to-low 30s, he is underwater on virtually every issue — including immigration and inflation, the ones that brought him to office a second time — and the public disapproves of most of his schemes and stunts, such as his pathetic move to rename Lake Ontario to spite Canadian leaders. He has dragged down Republicans in the House, who are projected to lose their majority, and is dragging them down in the Senate as well, where a once favorable map has turned sideways, as Democrats make headway in Republican-led states such as Texas, Alaska and Ohio.
In these circumstances, the typical president would keep his distance from his co-partisans in the legislature, mindful of the way his presence might harm their odds. Not Donald Trump. He is practically forcing them to stand by his side at a “midterm convention,” where they will defend him and his record to the country at large. This is pure political malpractice. But Trump can’t see it. He is one of the most toxic people in American politics right now, but he is behaving as if he is on the brink of a landslide victory granted to his party by voters grateful for a productive and successful administration.
His White House ballroom, now rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court, and his proposed monuments — even his commemorative coin — all reflect the same belief: that he is the greatest and most popular person to ever serve as president, maybe the most popular person to ever live. (It is not hard to imagine Trump telling the world that he is “more popular than Jesus.” He’s practically said as much.) He even shared an image ranking himself above George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, among others, as the greatest president of all time.
Trump exists in a world where he can do no wrong. Where he is loved by the people and feared by his enemies. His deals never fail, his wars are overwhelming victories and his party is on the march to another majority.
It is, again, the power of positive thinking.
The problem is that this relentless — almost religious — positivity leaves you ill-prepared to deal with crisis. And the presidency is a job defined by crisis, either sudden or of your own making. Trump’s unusual relationship to the objective world leaves him dangerously unable to pivot, shift gears or change course. It is not that he thinks he can steer around the iceberg, it’s that he doesn’t believe it is there in the first place, even when it is staring him in the face.
Taken all together, it adds up to a mounting political disaster for the president and his allies — and an actual, material disaster for the rest of us.
Donald Trump’s Venezuela deal is bold but dodgy
Sep 3, 2026
The Economist
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The US and Venezuela’s illegitimate regime have struck a deal to revive Venezuela’s oil industry, granting a private firm concessions to 17 oil fields and giving the US a 35% stake. While the deal aims to boost oil production and attract investors, it raises concerns about the regime’s legitimacy, the involvement of a controversial businessman, and potential obstacles to Venezuela’s democratic transition. The future of the deal and Venezuela’s oil industry hinges on the upcoming elections and the actions of the US administration.
Key Points
- Venezuela’s historic oil wealth was dismantled by decades of populist mismanagement and hyperinflation under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, driving mass emigration.
- Following Maduro's removal, Donald Trump brokered a massive, controversial energy deal with interim president Delcy Rodríguez and private firm NABEP (backed by a 35% US Defense Department stake) to secure discounted access to 65 billion barrels of oil reserves.
- While the deal aims to restore production toward pre-Chávez levels and bolster US energy security, it faces severe backlash due to the regime's lack of legitimacy, the involvement of controversial figures, and fears that the arrangement incentivizes key players to stall Venezuela's return to democracy.
Article's Full Text:
Oil made Venezuela rich. For decades, it helped fund a stable democracy with the highest living standards in Latin America. The country was pumping 3.4m barrels a day when Hugo Chávez, a left-wing populist, was elected in 1998 on a promise to redirect petrodollars to the poor. Instead, under his corrupt, incompetent regime, the flows of oil and cash largely dried up. Under his chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro, the state went on a money-printing spree, sparked hyperinflation, and drove a quarter of Venezuelans to emigrate.
Eight months ago, when Donald Trump had Mr Maduro snatched by special forces and dumped in a Brooklyn jail, Venezuelans cheered. Now, Mr Trump has made a deal with the ex-despot’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, that both sides say will revive Venezuela’s oil industry. Mr Trump called it the “BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY”. He crowed that it would give energy security to the United States (after his war of choice in Iran interrupted global supplies). The deal is certainly bold. But it is also ugly.
The regime has given North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), a private oil firm that was already the second-largest operating in Venezuela, the concessions to 17 oil fields containing some 65bn barrels. America, via its defense department, has been given, in exchange for its backing, a 35% stake in NABEP and rights to its output. For the next century, this guarantees America the right of first refusal to buy from oil fields which hold a fifth of Venezuelan oil reserves, with some of those purchases at a discount.
The idea is that NABEP will pump more oil, and Uncle Sam’s involvement will give other investors confidence to sink money into a country they previously shunned. Ms Rodríguez, now Venezuela’s Trump-approved interim president, says the project could eventually yield more than 1.5m barrels per day. If she is right, it would push Venezuela’s output to 2.5m, three-quarters of pre-Chávez levels.
However, she offers no timeline, nor much hint of who the investors who will produce this gush might be. And the deal comes with warning lights flashing red. First, it was negotiated with an illegitimate regime that stole the most recent election and so does not represent Venezuelans. Second, Mr Trump’s chosen private partner, Alejandro Betancourt, NABEP’s boss, is reviled by some in Venezuela for the moral flexibility that let him get rich working with the regime. Third, Mr Trump will surely enrage Venezuelans with his imperialist bragging: on September 1st, he said he would take all of the country’s oil.
Any future, freely elected government of Venezuela might question a deal which gives America so much control of the country’s oil. That fact will make investors hesitate. Oil majors remain wary, though Chevron, which was already in Venezuela, has just announced a separate $7bn investment.
Worse, the deal creates incentives for powerful people to block Venezuela’s transition to democracy. Mr Betancourt, who is well-connected in both Caracas and Mar-a-Lago, has every reason to whisper to Mr Trump that a rush to free elections could spoil his oil bonanza. Ms Rodríguez will no doubt reinforce this message.
In background briefings, American officials insist that Venezuela’s transition to democracy will continue. And some within the administration, such as Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, clearly understand that a democratic Venezuela is both desirable and in America’s interest. So there is still hope. America could in theory use its power over NABEP to press for transparent competition in Venezuela’s oil industry. This, in turn, would allow the opposition to campaign on a platform that does not undermine the deal. But all this depends on Mr Trump. Ominously, in public, he has started to refer to Ms Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “president-elect”, which she is not.
Eight months ago, when Donald Trump had Mr Maduro snatched by special forces and dumped in a Brooklyn jail, Venezuelans cheered. Now, Mr Trump has made a deal with the ex-despot’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, that both sides say will revive Venezuela’s oil industry. Mr Trump called it the “BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY”. He crowed that it would give energy security to the United States (after his war of choice in Iran interrupted global supplies). The deal is certainly bold. But it is also ugly.
The regime has given North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), a private oil firm that was already the second-largest operating in Venezuela, the concessions to 17 oil fields containing some 65bn barrels. America, via its defense department, has been given, in exchange for its backing, a 35% stake in NABEP and rights to its output. For the next century, this guarantees America the right of first refusal to buy from oil fields which hold a fifth of Venezuelan oil reserves, with some of those purchases at a discount.
The idea is that NABEP will pump more oil, and Uncle Sam’s involvement will give other investors confidence to sink money into a country they previously shunned. Ms Rodríguez, now Venezuela’s Trump-approved interim president, says the project could eventually yield more than 1.5m barrels per day. If she is right, it would push Venezuela’s output to 2.5m, three-quarters of pre-Chávez levels.
However, she offers no timeline, nor much hint of who the investors who will produce this gush might be. And the deal comes with warning lights flashing red. First, it was negotiated with an illegitimate regime that stole the most recent election and so does not represent Venezuelans. Second, Mr Trump’s chosen private partner, Alejandro Betancourt, NABEP’s boss, is reviled by some in Venezuela for the moral flexibility that let him get rich working with the regime. Third, Mr Trump will surely enrage Venezuelans with his imperialist bragging: on September 1st, he said he would take all of the country’s oil.
Any future, freely elected government of Venezuela might question a deal which gives America so much control of the country’s oil. That fact will make investors hesitate. Oil majors remain wary, though Chevron, which was already in Venezuela, has just announced a separate $7bn investment.
Worse, the deal creates incentives for powerful people to block Venezuela’s transition to democracy. Mr Betancourt, who is well-connected in both Caracas and Mar-a-Lago, has every reason to whisper to Mr Trump that a rush to free elections could spoil his oil bonanza. Ms Rodríguez will no doubt reinforce this message.
In background briefings, American officials insist that Venezuela’s transition to democracy will continue. And some within the administration, such as Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, clearly understand that a democratic Venezuela is both desirable and in America’s interest. So there is still hope. America could in theory use its power over NABEP to press for transparent competition in Venezuela’s oil industry. This, in turn, would allow the opposition to campaign on a platform that does not undermine the deal. But all this depends on Mr Trump. Ominously, in public, he has started to refer to Ms Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “president-elect”, which she is not.
Trump’s DOJ Blocked Serious ICE Shooting Charge Over Federal Prosecutor’s “Strongest Possible” Objections
By Megan Rose and Andy Mannix - Sep 2, 2026
ProPublica
pdf
Link to Internet if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The Department of Justice overruled federal prosecutors in Minnesota and decided not to bring civil rights charges against ICE agent Christian Castro, who allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg during a raid. Instead, Castro will only face charges of making false statements, a less severe offense. This decision has raised concerns about the DOJ’s prioritization of the Trump administration’s political agenda over upholding the rule of law.
Key Points
- DOJ Intervenes Against Civil Rights Charges
- Top Department of Justice leadership overruled lead federal prosecutor Matthew Evans to block civil rights charges against ICE agent Christian Castro. Castro is accused of shooting Venezuelan immigrant Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg through a closed door during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis, then lying about the incident.
- Reduced Federal Scope
- Despite strong internal objections from Evans, the Justice Department directed the case to proceed strictly on minor charges of making false statements. The DOJ maintains that civil rights decisions are deliberative, collaborative, and still technically ongoing.
- Disproven Self-Defense Claims
- While DHS initially claimed agents were ambushed and acted in self-defense, video evidence contradicted sworn testimonies. Federal assault charges against Sosa-Celis and his roommate were subsequently dropped, and then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons conceded the agents' accounts appeared false.
- State Charges and Extradition Stand-Off
- Castro faces state-level felony charges in Minnesota, including assault with a dangerous weapon. However, Texas Governor Greg Abbott refused Minnesota's extradition request, leading to Castro's release after a 90-day jail hold in Texas and raising concerns from Hennepin County prosecutors that he may flee to Mexico.
- Pattern of Department Misconduct
- The intervention aligns with broader criticisms of the DOJ thinning its civil rights enforcement and declining to investigate federal immigration agents involved in shootings, echoing a similar refusal to cooperate with state investigators after ICE agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good.
Article's Full Text:
Over the “strongest possible” objections from the federal prosecutor handling the case, leaders at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., quashed plans to bring civil rights charges against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant and then lying about it.
The agent, 52-year-old Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in Minneapolis this January during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration blitz that sent thousands of federal agents into the state. The incident was one of three shootings by immigration agents in the city, the other two of which were fatal.
Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. Those charges are similar to the ones leveled against Minneapolis police officers accused in George Floyd’s killing and can carry hefty prison sentences.
Late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements,” according to an email that was reviewed by ProPublica.
That charge would likely carry a far less severe punishment if he were convicted.
“This is being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney,” Evans wrote in a remarkably candid account of internal deliberations. “I objected in the strongest possible terms and fought it as hard as I could. It wasn’t enough.”
He wrote that the false statement charges could come soon and would likely be filed under seal.
“It has been an honor and a privilege to try to get justice for your clients,” Evans concluded the email.
A DOJ official said civil rights charges require consultation with the civil rights division in Washington, and “any charging decisions that come out of such investigations are collaborative and deliberative and adhere to the facts and law of that specific case and controversy.”
The agency “has not yet reached a conclusion on this matter and will never rush an investigative process and the thorough review of all evidence,” the official said.
Evans and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota declined to comment. An attorney for Sosa-Celis did not return phone calls from a reporter. Castro, who has an outstanding warrant in Minnesota for this case, could not be reached for comment.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department’s civil rights division has been thinned and has dropped some Biden-era oversight of law enforcement agencies. This move by the DOJ is likely to fuel further concerns that the department is operating more in support of President Donald Trump’s political agenda than to preserve the rule of law. Earlier this year, a ProPublica analysis found that in almost every instance of immigration agents shooting people, Trump’s administration blamed the injured and dead within hours of the incident. In many of those cases, federal or local police declined to investigate the agents.
Castro, who was put on leave by the Department of Homeland Security, is also facing multiple state felony charges in Minnesota, including assault with a dangerous weapon. After he left Minneapolis and returned to Texas, Minnesota officials had requested state officials there extradite Castro to face the charges, but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott refused to cooperate. Castro had been held for 90 days in jail while the two states fought over the extradition. He was released last week.
Sosa-Celis was shot on Jan. 14, as Castro and another ICE agent chased Alfredo Aljorna, an immigrant from Venezuela, after a traffic stop. Aljorna ran to his home, which he shared with Sosa-Celis. The two men made it inside after a brief scramble, and Castro fired through the closed door, “knowing [the home] was occupied by several people,” according to state charging documents. One witness said there were two children in the house when Castro shot into it. Sosa-Celis was hit in the leg.
ICE agents then deployed tear gas into the home and took the men and their partners into custody, according to the documents and other court records.
DHS originally said Castro and the other agent were ambushed by the men and beaten with a shovel or broomstick, making Castro fear for his life and fire in self-defense. DHS called Sosa-Celis and Aljorna “violent criminal illegal aliens,” and federal prosecutors charged them with assault.
The next month, however, they dropped the charges against both men, and the DHS backed off its narrative in a rare admission of possible wrongdoing by its officers. “Video evidence has revealed the sworn testimony of the two agents appeared to be false,” then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons said in a statement.
After Castro’s release from jail, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who is leading the state’s prosecution against him, said she worried that Castro will flee to Mexico.
Reached for comment Wednesday, Moriarty compared the Justice Department’s decision to overrule Evans to its actions after ICE agents killed Renee Good. A week before shooting Sosa-Celis, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Good in her car. Agents alleged she drove toward them, but video of the incident showed Good’s wheels turned away from them when they shot her. Federal authorities first agreed to a joint investigation, but Justice Department officials later refused to cooperate with state police, deeming any review of the fatal shooting unnecessary.
The agent, 52-year-old Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in Minneapolis this January during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration blitz that sent thousands of federal agents into the state. The incident was one of three shootings by immigration agents in the city, the other two of which were fatal.
Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. Those charges are similar to the ones leveled against Minneapolis police officers accused in George Floyd’s killing and can carry hefty prison sentences.
Late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements,” according to an email that was reviewed by ProPublica.
That charge would likely carry a far less severe punishment if he were convicted.
“This is being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney,” Evans wrote in a remarkably candid account of internal deliberations. “I objected in the strongest possible terms and fought it as hard as I could. It wasn’t enough.”
He wrote that the false statement charges could come soon and would likely be filed under seal.
“It has been an honor and a privilege to try to get justice for your clients,” Evans concluded the email.
A DOJ official said civil rights charges require consultation with the civil rights division in Washington, and “any charging decisions that come out of such investigations are collaborative and deliberative and adhere to the facts and law of that specific case and controversy.”
The agency “has not yet reached a conclusion on this matter and will never rush an investigative process and the thorough review of all evidence,” the official said.
Evans and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota declined to comment. An attorney for Sosa-Celis did not return phone calls from a reporter. Castro, who has an outstanding warrant in Minnesota for this case, could not be reached for comment.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department’s civil rights division has been thinned and has dropped some Biden-era oversight of law enforcement agencies. This move by the DOJ is likely to fuel further concerns that the department is operating more in support of President Donald Trump’s political agenda than to preserve the rule of law. Earlier this year, a ProPublica analysis found that in almost every instance of immigration agents shooting people, Trump’s administration blamed the injured and dead within hours of the incident. In many of those cases, federal or local police declined to investigate the agents.
Castro, who was put on leave by the Department of Homeland Security, is also facing multiple state felony charges in Minnesota, including assault with a dangerous weapon. After he left Minneapolis and returned to Texas, Minnesota officials had requested state officials there extradite Castro to face the charges, but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott refused to cooperate. Castro had been held for 90 days in jail while the two states fought over the extradition. He was released last week.
Sosa-Celis was shot on Jan. 14, as Castro and another ICE agent chased Alfredo Aljorna, an immigrant from Venezuela, after a traffic stop. Aljorna ran to his home, which he shared with Sosa-Celis. The two men made it inside after a brief scramble, and Castro fired through the closed door, “knowing [the home] was occupied by several people,” according to state charging documents. One witness said there were two children in the house when Castro shot into it. Sosa-Celis was hit in the leg.
ICE agents then deployed tear gas into the home and took the men and their partners into custody, according to the documents and other court records.
DHS originally said Castro and the other agent were ambushed by the men and beaten with a shovel or broomstick, making Castro fear for his life and fire in self-defense. DHS called Sosa-Celis and Aljorna “violent criminal illegal aliens,” and federal prosecutors charged them with assault.
The next month, however, they dropped the charges against both men, and the DHS backed off its narrative in a rare admission of possible wrongdoing by its officers. “Video evidence has revealed the sworn testimony of the two agents appeared to be false,” then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons said in a statement.
After Castro’s release from jail, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who is leading the state’s prosecution against him, said she worried that Castro will flee to Mexico.
Reached for comment Wednesday, Moriarty compared the Justice Department’s decision to overrule Evans to its actions after ICE agents killed Renee Good. A week before shooting Sosa-Celis, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Good in her car. Agents alleged she drove toward them, but video of the incident showed Good’s wheels turned away from them when they shot her. Federal authorities first agreed to a joint investigation, but Justice Department officials later refused to cooperate with state police, deeming any review of the fatal shooting unnecessary.
Trump administration threatens to cut federal agencies' support for Smithsonian
By Kanishka Singh - Sep 3, 2026
Reuters
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The Trump administration threatened to cut federal support for the Smithsonian, citing concerns about its leadership and diversity practices. Historians and civil rights advocates criticized the move, arguing it undermines the acknowledgment of critical phases of U.S. history.
Key Points
- The Trump administration is escalating its conflict with the Smithsonian Institution, threatening to halt federal agency support—such as artifact loans, procurement assistance, and discretionary grants—due to opposition to the institution's current leadership and policies.
- This latest move follows previous threats to cut federal funding, driven by administration criticism that the Smithsonian places excessive focus on historical injustices like slavery and allegedly promotes anti-American bias through its diversity initiatives. Additionally, the administration has ordered warning signs placed outside the National Museum of American History, launched museum reviews, and accused leadership of violating anti-discrimination laws.
- Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch rejected these characterizations as unfair representations of the complex's educational mission, while historians and civil rights advocates warn that these attacks risk erasing essential aspects of U.S. history and undoing progress toward racial and social equality. The administration is seeking a formal meeting with the Smithsonian board to address its demands, while the institution has yet to issue an official response.
Article's Full Text:
President Donald Trump's administration has threatened to cut federal agencies’ support for the Smithsonian, marking its latest escalation against the institution.
A letter by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley to the Smithsonian's governing board said federal agencies "cannot in good conscience continue to support the Smithsonian under current leadership by, for example, loaning artifacts for exhibits, enabling procurement processes, and making discretionary grants."
The Trump administration has also previously threatened to cut federal funding for the Smithsonian, with Trump expressing his displeasure with what he called the institution's excessive focus on how bad slavery was.
The Smithsonian is a vast museum and research complex and a premier exhibition space for U.S. history and culture, with 21 museums and galleries and the National Zoo. It had no immediate comment on the letter.
Historians and civil rights advocates have denounced Trump's attacks on the institution, saying such steps risk reversing social progress and undermining the acknowledgement of critical phases of U.S. history.
Trump has also ordered that signs be installed outside the institution's National Museum of American History to reflect his administration's criticism of it, and his administration last year launched a review of some museums.
Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch has said a White House report that accused the National Museum of American History of "thinly veiled anti-Americanism" and "extreme political activism" was an unfair characterization of its work.
The letter, dated Friday, alleged the Smithsonian may have violated anti-discrimination laws through diversity practices and asked Smithsonian leadership to meet with the Trump administration to address its criticism.
Trump has cracked down on diversity initiatives in the government and private sector and alleged such practices are discriminatory against white people and men. The crackdown has been condemned by civil rights advocates who say the initiatives address historic inequities for groups like ethnic minorities, the LGBT community, and women.
A letter by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley to the Smithsonian's governing board said federal agencies "cannot in good conscience continue to support the Smithsonian under current leadership by, for example, loaning artifacts for exhibits, enabling procurement processes, and making discretionary grants."
The Trump administration has also previously threatened to cut federal funding for the Smithsonian, with Trump expressing his displeasure with what he called the institution's excessive focus on how bad slavery was.
The Smithsonian is a vast museum and research complex and a premier exhibition space for U.S. history and culture, with 21 museums and galleries and the National Zoo. It had no immediate comment on the letter.
Historians and civil rights advocates have denounced Trump's attacks on the institution, saying such steps risk reversing social progress and undermining the acknowledgement of critical phases of U.S. history.
Trump has also ordered that signs be installed outside the institution's National Museum of American History to reflect his administration's criticism of it, and his administration last year launched a review of some museums.
Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch has said a White House report that accused the National Museum of American History of "thinly veiled anti-Americanism" and "extreme political activism" was an unfair characterization of its work.
The letter, dated Friday, alleged the Smithsonian may have violated anti-discrimination laws through diversity practices and asked Smithsonian leadership to meet with the Trump administration to address its criticism.
Trump has cracked down on diversity initiatives in the government and private sector and alleged such practices are discriminatory against white people and men. The crackdown has been condemned by civil rights advocates who say the initiatives address historic inequities for groups like ethnic minorities, the LGBT community, and women.
Whistleblower: USPS secretly rushing new requirements for mail-in voting
By Lindsey Granger - Sep 2, 2026
The Hill
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
A USPS whistleblower report reveals concerns about a new digital system for mail-in voting, potentially leading to ballot rejections. This comes amid legal battles over the Trump administration’s mail-voting policies, with a federal judge temporarily blocking key provisions. The report highlights the potential disenfranchisement of millions of American voters, particularly in states with high mail-in voting rates like Michigan and California.
Key Points
- USPS System Rush and Failure Risks
- A USPS whistleblower report reveals a secretive, rushed implementation of a new digital system for mail voting tied to the Trump administration. Designed haphazardly, the system presents a severe risk of catastrophic failure—such as rejecting entire bulk mailings over a single bad scan—just as midterm mail-in voting gets underway.
- Legal Battle and Procedural Reversals
- The legal challenge has reached a critical turning point. While the Supreme Court initially allowed the mail-voting plan to proceed because the states' challenge was deemed premature, the Postal Service subsequently finalized and published the rules. This concrete action allowed a federal judge to temporarily block key provisions, though technical development continues in the background.
- High Stakes for Mail-In Voters
- With roughly one-third of Americans casting ballots by mail, critical battleground and high-population states like Michigan and California face widespread disruption. Lawmakers warn that the system's flaws risk actively disenfranchising millions of eligible voters right before Election Day.
- Broader Election Strategy and Political Shift
- The USPS changes align with broader administrative efforts to overhaul voting, including the SAVE America Act, federal inspection of voter rolls, and documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements. This focus on voting restrictions and rhetoric questioning election integrity diverts political energy away from major economic and foreign policy issues ahead of the midterms.
Article's Full Text:
Millions of Americans could be at risk of not getting their mail-in ballots on time, or at all, if a new U.S. Postal Service system moves forward as planned.
A new report published in The New York Times from a USPS whistleblower says the agency has been rushing to implement a “secretive, rushed” new digital system tied to President Trump’s effort to impose new federal requirements on mail voting.
All of this as mail-in voting for the midterms is beginning right now, and we’re just two months away from Election Day.
The whistleblower alleges the system was being developed in a “risky and haphazard” way and warns of a potentially “catastrophic failure.” One particularly alarming concern: the system could reject tens of thousands of ballots in a bulk mailing if just one of the ballots in the bulk fails to scan properly.
Here’s where this all gets really complicated: The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its mail-voting plan, but not because the justices ruled the policy itself was legal. The court essentially said the states had challenged it too early.
Then USPS finalized the rules.
That changed the legal landscape. States went back to court, and a federal judge temporarily blocked key provisions, saying the challenge was now ripe because the Postal Service had actually published the policy the states were fighting.
So, in plain English: the Supreme Court said, you’re challenging this too soon. USPS then finalized the rules, and the lower court said, now there is something concrete to challenge.
And while that legal back-and-forth continues, the whistleblower says the Postal Service has continued working on the technology that could affect thousands of Americans.
Mail voting isn’t some fringe method of casting a ballot. Roughly one-third of Americans vote by mail, according to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who released the whistleblower report. Speaking to reporters on the phone Monday, he said, “the main takeaway for me is that the Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans.”
Look at Michigan. Thirty-seven percent of votes there were cast by mail in the 2022 midterms. It’s also a state with competitive statewide races. California mails ballots to every registered voter and is expected to be central to the fight for control of the House.
At the same time, the Trump administration is pursuing a much broader election agenda, from restrictions on mail ballots to the SAVE America Act, which would require states to submit their voter rolls for federal inspection and give the Department of Homeland Security a role in determining who is eligible to remain on those rolls. The legislation would also sharply curtail mail-in voting and impose documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.
There have been multiple moves by this administration to sow doubt in the integrity of U.S. elections, beginning with the president’s continued claim that the 2020 election was stolen. He has repeatedly suggested that American elections are vulnerable to foreign manipulation and even used a prime-time television address in July to make that claim.
At a time when the administration could be focused on policies aimed at strengthening the economy, reducing the cost of living, lowering tariffs that ultimately get passed on to American consumers, or pursuing an end to a war in Iran that has already cost the United States tens of billions of dollars, the president is choosing to make voting itself a battle.
Instead of making it easier for eligible Americans to participate in our elections, these efforts risk creating additional barriers and uncertainty around the process.
Instead of trying to win midterm elections by making it harder for people to vote, the administration should try to win by giving voters a reason to vote and by delivering on policy, improving voters’ lives, and making the case for why its vision for the country deserves their continued support.
A new report published in The New York Times from a USPS whistleblower says the agency has been rushing to implement a “secretive, rushed” new digital system tied to President Trump’s effort to impose new federal requirements on mail voting.
All of this as mail-in voting for the midterms is beginning right now, and we’re just two months away from Election Day.
The whistleblower alleges the system was being developed in a “risky and haphazard” way and warns of a potentially “catastrophic failure.” One particularly alarming concern: the system could reject tens of thousands of ballots in a bulk mailing if just one of the ballots in the bulk fails to scan properly.
Here’s where this all gets really complicated: The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its mail-voting plan, but not because the justices ruled the policy itself was legal. The court essentially said the states had challenged it too early.
Then USPS finalized the rules.
That changed the legal landscape. States went back to court, and a federal judge temporarily blocked key provisions, saying the challenge was now ripe because the Postal Service had actually published the policy the states were fighting.
So, in plain English: the Supreme Court said, you’re challenging this too soon. USPS then finalized the rules, and the lower court said, now there is something concrete to challenge.
And while that legal back-and-forth continues, the whistleblower says the Postal Service has continued working on the technology that could affect thousands of Americans.
Mail voting isn’t some fringe method of casting a ballot. Roughly one-third of Americans vote by mail, according to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who released the whistleblower report. Speaking to reporters on the phone Monday, he said, “the main takeaway for me is that the Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans.”
Look at Michigan. Thirty-seven percent of votes there were cast by mail in the 2022 midterms. It’s also a state with competitive statewide races. California mails ballots to every registered voter and is expected to be central to the fight for control of the House.
At the same time, the Trump administration is pursuing a much broader election agenda, from restrictions on mail ballots to the SAVE America Act, which would require states to submit their voter rolls for federal inspection and give the Department of Homeland Security a role in determining who is eligible to remain on those rolls. The legislation would also sharply curtail mail-in voting and impose documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.
There have been multiple moves by this administration to sow doubt in the integrity of U.S. elections, beginning with the president’s continued claim that the 2020 election was stolen. He has repeatedly suggested that American elections are vulnerable to foreign manipulation and even used a prime-time television address in July to make that claim.
At a time when the administration could be focused on policies aimed at strengthening the economy, reducing the cost of living, lowering tariffs that ultimately get passed on to American consumers, or pursuing an end to a war in Iran that has already cost the United States tens of billions of dollars, the president is choosing to make voting itself a battle.
Instead of making it easier for eligible Americans to participate in our elections, these efforts risk creating additional barriers and uncertainty around the process.
Instead of trying to win midterm elections by making it harder for people to vote, the administration should try to win by giving voters a reason to vote and by delivering on policy, improving voters’ lives, and making the case for why its vision for the country deserves their continued support.
Saudi Nuclear Agreement Could Open a Path to 20% Enrichment
By Michael R. Gordon and Laurence Norman - Sep 2, 2026
Wall Street Journal
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The Trump administration’s agreement to provide Saudi Arabia with a civilian nuclear program is facing criticism for potentially increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation. The accord outlines a pathway for uranium enrichment in Saudi Arabia, raising concerns about the diversion of nuclear material for military purposes. While the agreement aims to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry and strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, critics argue that the benefits may not outweigh the inherent proliferation risks.
Key Points
- Core Technical Provisions and Proliferation Concerns
- The accord establishes a stepped roadmap that could eventually allow uranium enrichment on Saudi soil. While initial sales prohibit enrichment, a mandatory two-year joint study could greenlight American-run facilities to enrich uranium up to 5%, with potential further expansions approaching 20%. Though 20% enrichment can power small modular civilian reactors, experts warn it completes most of the necessary work toward weapons-grade material, raising alarms given Saudi Arabia's past statements about acquiring nuclear weapons if Iran does.
- Political and Economic Drivers
- Supporters argue the deal provides major benefits by revitalizing the U.S. nuclear industry and deepening strategic ties. Securing a primary operational role for American companies and their foreign partners is designed to squeeze out Russian and Chinese influence while providing direct oversight to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials.
- Contradictions and Congressional Barriers
- A disconnect exists between public statements and the legal text: while President Trump publicly claimed the deal prohibits enrichment, he signed an internal memo endorsing this potential pathway, and the text omits political conditions like requiring Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel. Congressional critics express frustration that lawmakers will have no veto power once the study concludes, while blocking the overall deal requires a prohibitive two-thirds veto-proof majority in both houses.
- Oversight and Verification Gaps
- While IAEA leadership considers the planned verification arrangements adequate, arms control experts note the deal falls short of the IAEA’s standard "Additional Protocol" inspection powers used in over 100 countries. Furthermore, former nonproliferation officials are demanding transparency regarding unclassified omissions, specifically unverified claims of a 10-year ban on independent Saudi enrichment if the U.S. ultimately backs out.
Article's Full Text:
New details of the Trump administration’s agreement to provide Saudi Arabia with a civilian nuclear program are spurring criticism that the landmark deal doesn’t do enough to head off the risk of nuclear proliferation.
The text of the accord was shared with lawmakers last week along with a raft of related documents. It outlines a road map for how uranium might be enriched in the kingdom’s territory after further consultations, including at a level of nearly 20%.
Such an enrichment level could be needed to power a small modular civilian reactor, but it would add to the risk nuclear material could be diverted for military purposes unless there were stringent controls.
“There is a civilian case for it,” said Scott Roecker, a former Energy Department official who is vice president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit security organization.
“But the flip side is that at that level of enrichment you are most of your way toward producing weapons-grade material in terms of the work that needs to be done,” Roecker added. “So you would want to be sure you know exactly where that material is and be sure you control it.”
President Trump has said on social media that the accord wouldn’t allow enrichment in Saudi Arabia, but signed a memo to top aides in July that endorsed the accord and its potential pathway to enrichment.
The U.S. spent years trying to prevent Iran from producing 20% enriched material. Under the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement reached by the U.S., five other world powers and Tehran, Iran’s enrichment of uranium was to be capped at 3.67% for 15 years at which point that restriction would lapse.
Trump withdrew from that agreement during his first term as president, setting in motion a dynamic in which Iran enriched uranium to as much as 60% during years of stop-and-start negotiations that were finally superseded by U.S. and Israeli military strikes. A 90% enrichment level is considered to be bomb-grade.
U.S. companies and their foreign supplies would have a favored place under the agreement with Saudi Arabia and would run a potential enrichment facility, squeezing out the Russians and the Chinese, U.S. officials say.
“The deal provides some important benefits for the United States, including the revitalization of the U.S. nuclear industry and the strengthening of U.S.-Saudi strategic ties,” said Robert Einhorn, a former senior State Department official who worked on nonproliferation issues.
“The question for Congress is whether those benefits, as well as the restrictions built into the agreements, are sufficient to offset the inherent proliferation risks of sensitive nuclear cooperation with a country that has expressed an interest in nuclear weapons,” Einhorn said.
Trump has been sensitive to criticism from Israel supporters and arms control proponents that the U.S. should not sell nuclear technology to a country whose de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, said in 2018 that the kingdom would develop a nuclear weapon if Iran ever got one.
Soon after U.S. and Saudi officials signed the nuclear deal, Trump wrote in a July 23 social-media post that there “will be no enrichment of material!” under the agreement.
But while the accord doesn’t provide a green light at the outset for the enrichment of uranium on Saudi soil, it outlines a series of steps that could allow work to begin on an enrichment facility within several years.
Nor does the deal include the political condition Trump later added that Saudi Arabia must normalize relations with Israel and embrace the Abraham Accords. The White House says that Trump is determined to stick to that stipulation, but there is nothing in the accord that would preclude the president from changing his mind.
According to the deal, U.S. and Saudi officials will carry out a “Joint Enrichment and Conversion Study” within two years to study “the economic viability” of enriching uranium and arrangements to guard against proliferation risks.
During that study period, reactors could be sold, but enrichment would be prohibited.
If U.S. and Saudi officials agree on the need for enrichment, American companies and their foreign suppliers would construct a facility that would enrich uranium to a level of 5%. Further study by the two sides could lead to uranium enrichment that would approach 20%.
Lawmakers who have poured over the text say there is no opportunity for Congress to challenge a decision to enrich if it is endorsed by the study.
“There is supposed to be a consultation that could last two years. Well, they could agree in two days,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who is a sharp critic of the deal. “We know that Congress won’t be involved.”
Blocking the agreement will be an uphill battle for congressional critics. The Senate and House would need to adopt a joint resolution of disapproval by a two-thirds veto-proof majority to stop it. Barring such a step, the accord would legally take effect after 90 legislative days.
Trump administration officials say that the central role of American companies will ensure that nuclear materials cannot be diverted for military purposes.
Negotiators have also worked out an inspection agreement that would cover a list of sites involved in sensitive U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation. Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week that the verification arrangements appeared to be adequate.
“What is important for me is that I will have the capacity to do what I need to do in the country to verify that there is no diversion of nuclear material or no undeclared activity,” he said in an appearance at the Stimson Center think tank.
But Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the arrangement stopped well short of the IAEA’s “Additional Protocol,” which allows the agency to visit any facility considered suspicious even if there is no nuclear material present. Iran was obliged to implement the protocol under the 2015 deal.
“This agreement establishes a standard that is far lower than that required by more than 100 countries around the world,” said Kimball. “And in this case we are dealing with a country that has threatened to pursue nuclear weapons.”
For all of the detail, some key elements of the deal haven’t been publicly disclosed. The Trump administration has said that the Saudis would be prohibited from enriching uranium on their own or with a foreign partner for 10 years if the U.S. opts not to support enrichment.
But such a commitment isn’t outlined in the unclassified information provided to Congress. And administration officials haven’t said if it is addressed in side letters or other documents that are to be shared on a classified basis.
A group of former nonproliferation officials from Republican as well as Democrat administrations have urged that any classified side agreements be made public so that the deal can be more carefully scrutinized.
“If the agreement and supporting side letters were negotiated to promote a peaceful, safe, nuclear exchange, what is it that the Energy Department or the administration has to hide?” the former officials said in a written request to Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
The White House denied it is withholding vital information. “These classified documents were transmitted to Congress consistent with the Atomic Energy Act,” said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly. “This transmission was intended to inform legislators with active security clearances.”
The text of the accord was shared with lawmakers last week along with a raft of related documents. It outlines a road map for how uranium might be enriched in the kingdom’s territory after further consultations, including at a level of nearly 20%.
Such an enrichment level could be needed to power a small modular civilian reactor, but it would add to the risk nuclear material could be diverted for military purposes unless there were stringent controls.
“There is a civilian case for it,” said Scott Roecker, a former Energy Department official who is vice president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit security organization.
“But the flip side is that at that level of enrichment you are most of your way toward producing weapons-grade material in terms of the work that needs to be done,” Roecker added. “So you would want to be sure you know exactly where that material is and be sure you control it.”
President Trump has said on social media that the accord wouldn’t allow enrichment in Saudi Arabia, but signed a memo to top aides in July that endorsed the accord and its potential pathway to enrichment.
The U.S. spent years trying to prevent Iran from producing 20% enriched material. Under the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement reached by the U.S., five other world powers and Tehran, Iran’s enrichment of uranium was to be capped at 3.67% for 15 years at which point that restriction would lapse.
Trump withdrew from that agreement during his first term as president, setting in motion a dynamic in which Iran enriched uranium to as much as 60% during years of stop-and-start negotiations that were finally superseded by U.S. and Israeli military strikes. A 90% enrichment level is considered to be bomb-grade.
U.S. companies and their foreign supplies would have a favored place under the agreement with Saudi Arabia and would run a potential enrichment facility, squeezing out the Russians and the Chinese, U.S. officials say.
“The deal provides some important benefits for the United States, including the revitalization of the U.S. nuclear industry and the strengthening of U.S.-Saudi strategic ties,” said Robert Einhorn, a former senior State Department official who worked on nonproliferation issues.
“The question for Congress is whether those benefits, as well as the restrictions built into the agreements, are sufficient to offset the inherent proliferation risks of sensitive nuclear cooperation with a country that has expressed an interest in nuclear weapons,” Einhorn said.
Trump has been sensitive to criticism from Israel supporters and arms control proponents that the U.S. should not sell nuclear technology to a country whose de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, said in 2018 that the kingdom would develop a nuclear weapon if Iran ever got one.
Soon after U.S. and Saudi officials signed the nuclear deal, Trump wrote in a July 23 social-media post that there “will be no enrichment of material!” under the agreement.
But while the accord doesn’t provide a green light at the outset for the enrichment of uranium on Saudi soil, it outlines a series of steps that could allow work to begin on an enrichment facility within several years.
Nor does the deal include the political condition Trump later added that Saudi Arabia must normalize relations with Israel and embrace the Abraham Accords. The White House says that Trump is determined to stick to that stipulation, but there is nothing in the accord that would preclude the president from changing his mind.
According to the deal, U.S. and Saudi officials will carry out a “Joint Enrichment and Conversion Study” within two years to study “the economic viability” of enriching uranium and arrangements to guard against proliferation risks.
During that study period, reactors could be sold, but enrichment would be prohibited.
If U.S. and Saudi officials agree on the need for enrichment, American companies and their foreign suppliers would construct a facility that would enrich uranium to a level of 5%. Further study by the two sides could lead to uranium enrichment that would approach 20%.
Lawmakers who have poured over the text say there is no opportunity for Congress to challenge a decision to enrich if it is endorsed by the study.
“There is supposed to be a consultation that could last two years. Well, they could agree in two days,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who is a sharp critic of the deal. “We know that Congress won’t be involved.”
Blocking the agreement will be an uphill battle for congressional critics. The Senate and House would need to adopt a joint resolution of disapproval by a two-thirds veto-proof majority to stop it. Barring such a step, the accord would legally take effect after 90 legislative days.
Trump administration officials say that the central role of American companies will ensure that nuclear materials cannot be diverted for military purposes.
Negotiators have also worked out an inspection agreement that would cover a list of sites involved in sensitive U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation. Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week that the verification arrangements appeared to be adequate.
“What is important for me is that I will have the capacity to do what I need to do in the country to verify that there is no diversion of nuclear material or no undeclared activity,” he said in an appearance at the Stimson Center think tank.
But Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the arrangement stopped well short of the IAEA’s “Additional Protocol,” which allows the agency to visit any facility considered suspicious even if there is no nuclear material present. Iran was obliged to implement the protocol under the 2015 deal.
“This agreement establishes a standard that is far lower than that required by more than 100 countries around the world,” said Kimball. “And in this case we are dealing with a country that has threatened to pursue nuclear weapons.”
For all of the detail, some key elements of the deal haven’t been publicly disclosed. The Trump administration has said that the Saudis would be prohibited from enriching uranium on their own or with a foreign partner for 10 years if the U.S. opts not to support enrichment.
But such a commitment isn’t outlined in the unclassified information provided to Congress. And administration officials haven’t said if it is addressed in side letters or other documents that are to be shared on a classified basis.
A group of former nonproliferation officials from Republican as well as Democrat administrations have urged that any classified side agreements be made public so that the deal can be more carefully scrutinized.
“If the agreement and supporting side letters were negotiated to promote a peaceful, safe, nuclear exchange, what is it that the Energy Department or the administration has to hide?” the former officials said in a written request to Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
The White House denied it is withholding vital information. “These classified documents were transmitted to Congress consistent with the Atomic Energy Act,” said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly. “This transmission was intended to inform legislators with active security clearances.”
Why America should fear gerrymandering, not voter fraud
By Sheldon H. Jackson - Sep 2, 2026
The Hill
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The 2026 midterms are approaching, and while concerns about voter fraud are prevalent, the real threat lies in gerrymandering. This practice, where congressional maps are redrawn to favor certain candidates, undermines the democratic process by effectively determining election outcomes before voters even cast their ballots. While individual vote manipulation is difficult to execute without detection, gerrymandering is openly practiced and has significant negative consequences for democracy.
Key Points
- Election manipulation in the upcoming 2026 midterms is far more likely to occur through legal map-redrawing than through actual vote tampering. By focusing public debate on claims of stolen elections, politicians distract voters from the measurable impact of partisan gerrymandering.
- While candidates from both major parties increasingly claim lost elections were stolen, evidence of large-scale, undetected vote count manipulation remains virtually non-existent. Electoral infrastructure relies on robust safeguards, including paper audit trails covering roughly 99 percent of voters and bipartisan review protocols, making covertly altering enough votes to flip an outcome nearly impossible without leaving incriminating evidence.
- In contrast, gerrymandering operates in plain sight. Using advanced computational algorithms to pack and crack voting blocs, state lawmakers can design districts where general election outcomes are largely predetermined, effectively stripping power from voters long before they enter the polling booth.
Article's Full Text:
The 2026 midterms are fast approaching, and discussions of voter fraud are ubiquitous. Yet election manipulation is certain to occur during the midterms — though much of it will have little to do with how votes are cast or counted.
Rather, it is how congressional maps were redrawn in several states over the past year to ensure that certain candidates would win their seats. In doing so, and by shifting attention away from partisan district boundaries to the voters themselves, politicians have normalized map meddling while guiding voters to look for threats in all the wrong places.
Since 2020, there has been a new standard mode of operation spreading for elected officials; they either win their election, or if they lose, they claim that the election was stolen from them.
Those claiming stolen elections have been from both the Republican and Democratic parties. The phenomenon has become more visible, amplified by social media, dating back to the 2020 election when Joe Biden defeated incumbent President Trump. However, it was heard even in 2016, when then candidate Donald Trump, anticipating a loss to Hillary Clinton, preemptively claimed that the election could be rigged against him. After Trump won, Clinton proceeded to claim that the election was stolen from her.
The issue up for debate is whether election vote counts can be manipulated to yield a different outcome. In theory, they can. However, the more salient issue is whether such manipulation can be executed with no evidence left behind for others to uncover during audits or recounts.
There are numerous ways that states conduct elections and count votes. Multiple layers of infrastructure make a large-scale manipulation of votes without detection very difficult. There has also been no evidence that foreign actors have successfully changed votes or, more importantly, changed the outcome in a U.S. federal election.
For a person or group to compromise the outcome of an election, voting infrastructure or ballots would have to be tampered with so that a vote for one candidate would be disqualified or counted for another candidate. Even with guardrails placed around these infrastructures, including bipartisan review and handling protocols, small-scale irregularities can occur. But it is extraordinarily difficult to covertly alter enough votes to change the election outcome without leaving behind incriminating evidence.
If paper ballots are used or are available, then a paper trail exists to count and, if necessary, recount ballots. Around 99 percent of registered voters live in an area that offers some form of paper vote documentation. Such physical records provide a natural audit trail that helps protect the integrity of the election and the results.
When one begins to stack all these unlikely events together, it becomes clear that accusations of election fraud lack credible evidence.
Yet Trump and many of his political allies have continued along this path. This recently included Mike Lindell, who lost his primary race for governor to Lisa Demuth by 11 points. His claims of irregularities in the vote totals are a continuation of such rhetoric. Note that when election irregularities have been investigated, the outcomes have rarely led to an overturn of the certified election results. There are exceptions, of course; after Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) lost his primary, he explicitly denounced those who claim election fraud.
The U.S. Constitution leaves most election administration to the states. Yet there is another form of election manipulation that the Constitution is silent on: gerrymandering. With computational redistricting algorithms, mapmakers can configure voters into districts, packing some voters together and cracking others apart, producing districts in which the general-election outcomes are insensitive to changes in voter shifts.
Forecasts for the 2026 midterm election show that 21 of the 435 House seats are toss-ups, and another 16 are leaning to one party, according to the Cook Political Report. Unlike covert vote manipulation, gerrymandering represents electoral manipulation that is overtly measurable and often legal under current laws, with negative consequences for democracy.
Undoubtedly, individual votes can be manipulated. But translating such manipulation into changed election outcomes that remain undetected is very difficult. On the other hand, election manipulation via gerrymandering is openly and unabashedly done by state lawmakers, taking the power of choice away from voters.
The biggest threat to the value of an individual vote may not be someone secretly changing it. It may be drawing a district with such care that the outcome is effectively determined before the voter ever enters the booth.
Ultimately, for those who claim that their election was stolen, the appropriate response is: “Show me the evidence.” As for gerrymandering, the evidence already exists in every state congressional map, in plain sight for all to witness.
Rather, it is how congressional maps were redrawn in several states over the past year to ensure that certain candidates would win their seats. In doing so, and by shifting attention away from partisan district boundaries to the voters themselves, politicians have normalized map meddling while guiding voters to look for threats in all the wrong places.
Since 2020, there has been a new standard mode of operation spreading for elected officials; they either win their election, or if they lose, they claim that the election was stolen from them.
Those claiming stolen elections have been from both the Republican and Democratic parties. The phenomenon has become more visible, amplified by social media, dating back to the 2020 election when Joe Biden defeated incumbent President Trump. However, it was heard even in 2016, when then candidate Donald Trump, anticipating a loss to Hillary Clinton, preemptively claimed that the election could be rigged against him. After Trump won, Clinton proceeded to claim that the election was stolen from her.
The issue up for debate is whether election vote counts can be manipulated to yield a different outcome. In theory, they can. However, the more salient issue is whether such manipulation can be executed with no evidence left behind for others to uncover during audits or recounts.
There are numerous ways that states conduct elections and count votes. Multiple layers of infrastructure make a large-scale manipulation of votes without detection very difficult. There has also been no evidence that foreign actors have successfully changed votes or, more importantly, changed the outcome in a U.S. federal election.
For a person or group to compromise the outcome of an election, voting infrastructure or ballots would have to be tampered with so that a vote for one candidate would be disqualified or counted for another candidate. Even with guardrails placed around these infrastructures, including bipartisan review and handling protocols, small-scale irregularities can occur. But it is extraordinarily difficult to covertly alter enough votes to change the election outcome without leaving behind incriminating evidence.
If paper ballots are used or are available, then a paper trail exists to count and, if necessary, recount ballots. Around 99 percent of registered voters live in an area that offers some form of paper vote documentation. Such physical records provide a natural audit trail that helps protect the integrity of the election and the results.
When one begins to stack all these unlikely events together, it becomes clear that accusations of election fraud lack credible evidence.
Yet Trump and many of his political allies have continued along this path. This recently included Mike Lindell, who lost his primary race for governor to Lisa Demuth by 11 points. His claims of irregularities in the vote totals are a continuation of such rhetoric. Note that when election irregularities have been investigated, the outcomes have rarely led to an overturn of the certified election results. There are exceptions, of course; after Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) lost his primary, he explicitly denounced those who claim election fraud.
The U.S. Constitution leaves most election administration to the states. Yet there is another form of election manipulation that the Constitution is silent on: gerrymandering. With computational redistricting algorithms, mapmakers can configure voters into districts, packing some voters together and cracking others apart, producing districts in which the general-election outcomes are insensitive to changes in voter shifts.
Forecasts for the 2026 midterm election show that 21 of the 435 House seats are toss-ups, and another 16 are leaning to one party, according to the Cook Political Report. Unlike covert vote manipulation, gerrymandering represents electoral manipulation that is overtly measurable and often legal under current laws, with negative consequences for democracy.
Undoubtedly, individual votes can be manipulated. But translating such manipulation into changed election outcomes that remain undetected is very difficult. On the other hand, election manipulation via gerrymandering is openly and unabashedly done by state lawmakers, taking the power of choice away from voters.
The biggest threat to the value of an individual vote may not be someone secretly changing it. It may be drawing a district with such care that the outcome is effectively determined before the voter ever enters the booth.
Ultimately, for those who claim that their election was stolen, the appropriate response is: “Show me the evidence.” As for gerrymandering, the evidence already exists in every state congressional map, in plain sight for all to witness.
Voting groups file federal challenge against Florida's 'SAVE' Act
By Jag Waagmeester - Sep 2, 2026
Florida Phoenix
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access): https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/09/02/voting-groups-file-federal-challenge-against-floridas-save-act/
Summary
Two voting advocacy groups, Black Voters Matter Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s new law requiring proof of citizenship to vote. The law, effective January 1st, mandates voters to show proof of citizenship with a driver’s license, removing student IDs as acceptable identification. The lawsuit argues the law disproportionately impacts Black and Brown communities, naturalized citizens, and working Floridians, violating the National Voter Registration Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Key Points
- Federal Lawsuit Challenges Florida’s Citizenship Law
- Two voting rights groups—Black Voters Matter Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens—filed a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s new law, HB 991, which requires voters to prove U.S. citizenship. Represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Democracy Defenders Fund, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and permanently block its implementation before it takes effect on January 1.
- Arguments Against the New Requirements
- Opponents argue the legislation erects discriminatory barriers that disproportionately impact Black, Brown, and naturalized citizens who may lack access to expensive or difficult-to-obtain documents like passports or birth certificates. The suit highlights that outdated government databases often fail to reflect recent naturalization status, placing the burden of system errors on eligible voters. Additionally, the new regulations divert resources from voting advocacy groups and restrict accepted voter identification, such as removing student IDs.
- State Justification and Legal Defense
- Proponents, including Governor Ron DeSantis and Secretary of State Cord Byrd, defend the measure as a necessary enforcement of the state constitution to ensure only legal citizens vote in Florida elections. DeSantis anticipated the legal battle, expressing confidence that the law would ultimately survive appellate review despite immediate court challenges.
Article's Full Text:
Two voting advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday, challenging Florida’s new law requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
The law passed the Legislature this year on a near-party-line vote and was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April. It goes into effect Jan. 1.
The two groups are Black Voters Matter Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Democracy Defenders Fund.
“This is a political ploy to determine who wins our elections by picking who votes,” Tianna Mays, legal director for DDF, said in a news release. “This scheme targets Black and Brown communities by erecting barriers to voting for hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, including naturalized citizens and other Floridians who don’t have a passport.”
HB 991 appeals to the same sentiment as the federal SAVE Act, which has passed the U.S. House but not the Senate.
“Florida lawmakers are reviving a bill that couldn’t survive Congress and dressing it up as state law,” said Matletha Bennette, senior staff attorney for the SPLC. “This purposely manufactures a crisis for people who have done nothing wrong, and it does so on the backs of naturalized citizens, Black families, and working Floridians.”
A group of voting rights advocates filed suit against the law in federal court minutes after the bill was signed. That suit is scheduled for a trial in late 2027.
The latter suit lists Secretary of State Cord Byrd and supervisors of elections in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Osceola counties.
The groups are asking the court to declare the law in violation of the National Voter Registration Act and the Fourteenth Amendment and permanently enjoin Byrd and the supervisors from implementing or enforcing the provisions the lawsuit challenges.
Those include “conditioning federal voter registration on requirements prohibited by federal law, removing registered voters on unauthorized grounds or without constitutionally adequate procedures, conducting nonuniform or discriminatory list maintenance, or conducting systematic voter removal activities during the 90 days preceding a federal primary or general election.”
Proving citizenship
In 2020, Floridians voted in favor of a state constitutional amendment that allows only U.S. citizens to vote in state elections.
The new law requires all voting to be done on paper. Voters would show their status with a driver’s license, and the law removes student IDs as acceptable for voting purposes.
The suit bemoans that voter registration will be conditioned on the “state’s ability to independently verify citizenship through government records.”
“Naturalized citizens are particularly vulnerable because government records may reflect their prior noncitizen status while failing to reflect their subsequent naturalization,” the suit claims.
“H.B. 991 likewise permits eligible applicants who timely submit valid registration applications to remain unverified and unable to cast a regular ballot. The consequence of incomplete, outdated, or inconclusive government records thus falls on the eligible citizen rather than the State.”
Black Voters Matter, which works to encourage people to vote, says the law “frustrates BVM’s ability to carry out its existing programs and forces BVM to expend resources it would not otherwise expend.”
The law requires a voter to prove citizenship by providing, among other things, a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license that indicates citizenship, or an order from a federal court granting citizenship.
Obtaining the most common forms of identification “can impose meaningful costs” in time and money, the suit argues, noting the cost to obtain a passport ($130 to renew and $165 for a first-time issuance).
A birth certificate may be less expensive to obtain, the suit acknowledges, “but obtaining one still requires navigating the vital-records system of the jurisdiction in which the voter was born.“
During a debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, cited statistics from the state showing that in January 20.6 million people in Florida held REAL-ID-compliant driver’s licenses and 872,408 did not.
The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, who has since been appointed by the governor as Lee County’s supervisor of elections.
“I sign it, they sue us,” DeSantis said while signing the bill. “They go to a liberal judge. The liberal judge sides with them. Then we appeal, and then we win. So, that’s probably what will happen on this — I’ve just seen it enough.”
During the Legislature’s consideration of the legislation, Democratic Rep. Ashley Gantt shared the story of her aunt, who was born in the Jim Crow era and not issued a birth certificate.
“The burden of locating and replacing citizenship documents also carries a history that cannot be separated from race,” the suit notes. “Rep. Gantt explained that the problem was not hypothetical for Black families whose births occurred during the Jim Crow era, when access to hospitals and formal systems of birth documentation was not equal.”
The suit cites a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that shows Florida had the second-highest population of newly naturalized residents during 2024, at 93,240 new citizens.
“The Florida SAVE Act upholds the Florida Constitution by ensuring only citizens can vote in Florida elections,” Byrd said in a news release after it became law.
The law passed the Legislature this year on a near-party-line vote and was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April. It goes into effect Jan. 1.
The two groups are Black Voters Matter Fund and the League of United Latin American Citizens, represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Democracy Defenders Fund.
“This is a political ploy to determine who wins our elections by picking who votes,” Tianna Mays, legal director for DDF, said in a news release. “This scheme targets Black and Brown communities by erecting barriers to voting for hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, including naturalized citizens and other Floridians who don’t have a passport.”
HB 991 appeals to the same sentiment as the federal SAVE Act, which has passed the U.S. House but not the Senate.
“Florida lawmakers are reviving a bill that couldn’t survive Congress and dressing it up as state law,” said Matletha Bennette, senior staff attorney for the SPLC. “This purposely manufactures a crisis for people who have done nothing wrong, and it does so on the backs of naturalized citizens, Black families, and working Floridians.”
A group of voting rights advocates filed suit against the law in federal court minutes after the bill was signed. That suit is scheduled for a trial in late 2027.
The latter suit lists Secretary of State Cord Byrd and supervisors of elections in Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Orange, and Osceola counties.
The groups are asking the court to declare the law in violation of the National Voter Registration Act and the Fourteenth Amendment and permanently enjoin Byrd and the supervisors from implementing or enforcing the provisions the lawsuit challenges.
Those include “conditioning federal voter registration on requirements prohibited by federal law, removing registered voters on unauthorized grounds or without constitutionally adequate procedures, conducting nonuniform or discriminatory list maintenance, or conducting systematic voter removal activities during the 90 days preceding a federal primary or general election.”
Proving citizenship
In 2020, Floridians voted in favor of a state constitutional amendment that allows only U.S. citizens to vote in state elections.
The new law requires all voting to be done on paper. Voters would show their status with a driver’s license, and the law removes student IDs as acceptable for voting purposes.
The suit bemoans that voter registration will be conditioned on the “state’s ability to independently verify citizenship through government records.”
“Naturalized citizens are particularly vulnerable because government records may reflect their prior noncitizen status while failing to reflect their subsequent naturalization,” the suit claims.
“H.B. 991 likewise permits eligible applicants who timely submit valid registration applications to remain unverified and unable to cast a regular ballot. The consequence of incomplete, outdated, or inconclusive government records thus falls on the eligible citizen rather than the State.”
Black Voters Matter, which works to encourage people to vote, says the law “frustrates BVM’s ability to carry out its existing programs and forces BVM to expend resources it would not otherwise expend.”
The law requires a voter to prove citizenship by providing, among other things, a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license that indicates citizenship, or an order from a federal court granting citizenship.
Obtaining the most common forms of identification “can impose meaningful costs” in time and money, the suit argues, noting the cost to obtain a passport ($130 to renew and $165 for a first-time issuance).
A birth certificate may be less expensive to obtain, the suit acknowledges, “but obtaining one still requires navigating the vital-records system of the jurisdiction in which the voter was born.“
During a debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, cited statistics from the state showing that in January 20.6 million people in Florida held REAL-ID-compliant driver’s licenses and 872,408 did not.
The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, who has since been appointed by the governor as Lee County’s supervisor of elections.
“I sign it, they sue us,” DeSantis said while signing the bill. “They go to a liberal judge. The liberal judge sides with them. Then we appeal, and then we win. So, that’s probably what will happen on this — I’ve just seen it enough.”
During the Legislature’s consideration of the legislation, Democratic Rep. Ashley Gantt shared the story of her aunt, who was born in the Jim Crow era and not issued a birth certificate.
“The burden of locating and replacing citizenship documents also carries a history that cannot be separated from race,” the suit notes. “Rep. Gantt explained that the problem was not hypothetical for Black families whose births occurred during the Jim Crow era, when access to hospitals and formal systems of birth documentation was not equal.”
The suit cites a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that shows Florida had the second-highest population of newly naturalized residents during 2024, at 93,240 new citizens.
“The Florida SAVE Act upholds the Florida Constitution by ensuring only citizens can vote in Florida elections,” Byrd said in a news release after it became law.
Meet the Megadonors Who Have
Poured $1.2 Billion Into the Midterms
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website