Thanks to a loophole in federal law, cash from foreign nationals could make the difference in a battle over Michigan election security. 
Earlier this month, the group Citizens Only Voting turned in 750,000 signatures to place a citizen-only voting proposal on the 2026 ballot in Michigan. Leftist groups that have taken millions in foreign-linked money have already come out swinging against the proposal, suggesting they will mount a stiff campaign against the election integrity measure. 
Those groups include Promote the Vote and Voters Not Politicians, groups that have been funded by dark money group Sixteen Thirty Fund during previous election-related campaigns. The Sixteen Thirty Fund has received a whopping $305 million from the Berger Action Fund, <a href="https://americansforpublictrust.org/reports/hansjorg-wyss-berger-action-fund-totals-2009-2024/">according</a> to Americans for Public Trust. The Berger Action Fund is tied to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, who has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into influencing American politics. 
“It would be incredibly ironic if it remains possible in Michigan for groups to spend foreign-tied money to try to defeat a ballot measure to prevent non-citizens from voting in Michigan elections,” Honest Elections Project Executive Director Jason Snead told The Daily Wire.
Of all the foreign-linked money the Sixteen Thirty Fund has spent on ballot initiatives, the most has been spent in Michigan. This spending has topped $34.5 million since 2014, <a href="https://americansforpublictrust.org/reports/sixteen-thirty-fund-cumulative-spending-on-ballot-issue-campaigns/">according</a> to Americans For Public Trust. 
Promote the Vote reportedly <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2%2C_Voting_Policies_in_Constitution_Amendment_%282022%29">took</a> over $11 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund in 2022 to successfully push a ballot initiative critics said effectively banned voting requirements for photo ID by giving broad ability for people to just sign affidavits instead of presenting IDs. Snead said this made photo ID optional rather than required and would prevent localities from demanding proof of identity. 
Earlier this month, Promote the Vote Action <a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2026/03/04/citizens-only-voting-ballot-group-to-turn-in-750k-signatures-to-state-well-ahead-of-deadline/">told</a> local outlet Michigan Advance that it would oppose efforts to require proof of citizenship to vote. Michael Davis, Jr., the group&#8217;s executive director, told the outlet that the citizen-only requirement will &#8220;make it more difficult for all of us to register and vote, resulting in the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of eligible American citizens across the state. It’s voter suppression, pure and simple, and we’re confident Michigan voters will see this effort for what it really is.”
Voters Not Politicians, the other group that released a statement opposing the citizen-only ballot initiative, has also taken millions in foreign-tied money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund. In 2018, it <a href="https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/republican-bill-would-shield-donors-dark-money-groups-michigan">took</a> over $5 million from Sixteen Thirty to promote a ballot initiative that took away redistricting power from state legislators and transferred it to a supposedly bipartisan commission. 
Regarding the Michigan ballot initiative, Voters Not Politicians Executive Director Christy McGillivray said, “F**k this sh*t, actually.”
While her group has been supported by a billionaire-backed dark money organization, McGillivray attacked Citizens Only Voting for having wealthy supporters. 
“A billionaire from Illinois has bankrolled this entire campaign with the only goal to trick Michiganders into throwing away their own political power,” she said. “This ballot initiative is part of a wider national power grab by wealthy political elites who are trying to take power away from the people by blocking them from voting.”
Americans For Public Trust executive director Caitlin Sutherland said that the foreign influence loophole is “a huge threat to the state of Michigan.”
“We&#8217;re eager to work with legislative leaders to shut off foreign funding in state ballot issues across the country, and especially in Michigan,” she said. 
Advocates of the proposal say it would safeguard Michigan elections. Last year, a Chinese student in Michigan was charged with illegally voting in the 2024 election by the Justice Department. Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the vote would count because it could not be taken out of the system even though it was illegally cast. 
“This is really to cement and restore the public’s confidence and trust in elections. It is not a high threshold,” <a href="https://michiganadvance.com/2026/03/04/citizens-only-voting-ballot-group-to-turn-in-750k-signatures-to-state-well-ahead-of-deadline/">said</a> state Rep. Ann Bollin. “This is something I am sorry that I actually have to be here to say, that we need a constitutional amendment to do this.”
A bipartisan bill to ban foreign funding of ballot initiatives easily <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2026/02/06/michigan-house-votes-to-ban-foreign-cash-in-ballot-campaigns-election-administration/88534044007/">passed</a> the Michigan House earlier this year but has currently stalled out in the Democrat-controlled Senate. 
“Are they really interested in keeping Michigan exposed to foreign spending and foreign influence, especially with a ballot measure coming up in November on an issue as crucial as trying to prevent non-citizens from voting in our elections?” Snead asked.
At least nine states have <a href="https://americansforpublictrust.org/stop-foreign-funding/">passed</a> laws to ban foreign funding for ballot initiatives with support from the Honest Elections Project and Americans for Public Trust.

US Elections Vote

Foreign Money Could Pave The Way For Non-Citizen Voting In Key Swing State

Ballot Measures

election integrity

Elections

Michigan

While the nation focuses on Congress and the fierce debate over the SAVE America Act, a critical lawsuit is playing out in the United States Supreme Court. This week, the Justices heard oral arguments in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/watson-v-republican-national-committee/">Watson v. RNC</a>. The central question: Can states count mail ballots that arrive days — even weeks — after polls close? According to the law, history, and common sense, the answer must be no.
For most of American history, states required that ballots be received by Election Day. Congress acted as early as 1845 to set a uniform election date, and until the last few decades it was well understood that states cannot unilaterally extend voting beyond it.
Yet, that is exactly what 14 states and the District of Columbia are doing. Mississippi’s law offers a five-day grace period, while others range from as few as one day to two weeks or more. But the exact length of these periods is not important. Historically, a ballot has not been considered “cast” until it is in the hands of an election official. By extending their deadlines, states are illegally extending the election itself. As the Secretaries of State of Louisiana and Wyoming point out in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/396453/20260217143551649_24-1260_Brief.pdf">brief</a> to the Court, this scheme risks delays and public spectacles where late ballots flip results after voting is over, both of which sap trust from the system.
Most states require ballots be received by Election Day, and that <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/table-11-receipt-and-postmark-deadlines-for-absentee-mail-ballots">list is growing.</a> Last year, Kansas, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota all set Election Day deadlines. The public overwhelmingly supports this. A new <a href="https://honestelections.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Watson-v-RNC-Polling-Memo.pdf">poll</a> by Honest Elections Project shows that 83% of Americans agree that every ballot should be received by Election Day, while 78% say Election Day deadlines make voting more secure. Nearly 60% say they would not trust election results if late ballots are counted, with Democrats evenly split — clear evidence of deep, bipartisan distrust.
Despite this, the (mostly blue) states with late deadlines argue they are crucial to ensure that “every vote counts.” Yet most sprang up in just the last few years; <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/396356/20260217101242321_Amicus%20Brief%20Merits.pdf">seven</a> states only <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/the-evolution-of-absentee-mail-voting-laws-2020-through-2022">adopted</a> them in the COVID era. If they were not necessary in 1900, 2000, or even 2018, how can they be indispensable now?
With more people voting by mail, critics claim extended deadlines guard against postal delays and ballot rejection. U.S. Election Assistance Commission <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/396356/20260217101242321_Amicus%20Brief%20Merits.pdf">data</a> show otherwise. Massachusetts established a three-day grace period and rejected as many late ballots in 2024 as it did in 2016 under the old rules. Nevada rejected more in 2024 than in 2016 after adopting a four-day grace period and all-mail elections.
These states ignore an easy alternative: encourage mail-in voters to request and mail their ballots earlier. When Ohio moved from 10 days to just four, rejections declined. The same is true in Iowa under its new Election Day deadline. Clearly, voters adapt when laws change. When states move deadlines up, voters act sooner. When they push deadlines back, voters delay.
That sets them up for failure. Ballots frequently miss even extended deadlines due to mail delays. There are other obstacles, too: states typically require that late ballots be postmarked, but postmarking is inconsistent. Many ballots are never postmarked, or their marks are smudged or illegible. A new USPS <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/24/2025-20740/postmarks-and-postal-possession">rule</a> means that ballots may not be postmarked the day they are mailed. In other words, late ballot laws leave voters one bad postmark away from disenfranchisement.
The Post Office has long <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7035581-USPS-General-Counsel-Letter-July-2020/">admonished</a> states to adjust their voting laws to fit the realities of today’s mail service. Many have refused. The Watson case could be the nudge they need to fix their broken systems.
With a ruling likely in June, critics are predicting chaos in the midterms. They ignore that states would have more than four months to adjust. They claim that military voters will be hard-hit but overlook that federal law requires overseas ballots be mailed 45 days before elections and specifically exempts them from the broader Election Day deadline.
Rather than stoking outrage, election officials in these states should focus on preparing for the change, or better yet, for legislatures to repeal their late ballot laws immediately. The public won’t look kindly on officials delaying action, especially if they aim to score points from entirely avoidable chaos.
For too many years, late ballot laws have turned elections into a guessing game while fueling doubt and distrust. Election Day deadlines are clear, simple to administer, and easy for voters to adjust to. With Watson v. RNC, the Supreme Court has a chance to end late ballots once and for all. Every voter should hope they do.
* * *
Jason Snead is the executive director of Honest Elections Project.

Pennsylvania Elections Officials Process Ballots On Election Day

You Can Kiss Republicans Goodbye If This Election Rule Doesn’t Change

You Can Kiss Republicans Goodbye If This Election Rule Doesn't Change

2026 Midterms

Election Laws

Mail-In Voting

Opinion

Supreme Court

Voter Integrity

Voting

A Democrat flipped a solidly red Florida state House seat Tuesday in a special election held in President Donald Trump’s home district.
Democrat candidate Emily Gregory defeated Republican Jon Maples in a district that includes Mar-a-Lago, <a href="https://enr.electionsfl.org/PAL/3942/Summary/">winning</a> 51.19% of the vote to Maples’ 48.81%. County data showed Gregory had a significant lead through mail-in voting, while Maples held a slight edge in early in-person turnout. 
The special election was triggered after former Rep. Mike Caruso, a Republican, left office to become Palm Beach County Clerk. Caruso had won his last election by 19 points, while Trump carried the district by about 10 points. 
Trump, who cast his ballot by mail, endorsed Maples on Monday night. 
“There is a very important Special Election tomorrow, Tuesday, March 24th, for Florida State House District 87 in beautiful Palm Beach County — JON MAPLES HAS MY COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Jon is a very successful Businessman and Civic Leader, who is known and loved, and also endorsed by so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
Immediately after Gregory&#8217;s victory became evident, the Democratic National Committee quickly moved to fundraise off the party&#8217;s win, calling the result a “humiliating defeat” for President Trump. 
“Americans are furious with Trump and his cronies for jacking up costs, ripping away their health care, and working in the interests of their billionaire donors instead of the people they’re supposed to serve,” one fundraising email said. “The message here is loud and clear: If Democrats can win in Trump’s own backyard, we can win anywhere.”
Gregory, who positioned herself as a moderate Democrat, was endorsed by several local leftist activist groups. On her campaign website, she called for increased government spending on &#8220;affordable housing,&#8221; healthcare, and education. 
Republicans downplayed the loss, pointing to the typical low turnout and unpredictable nature of special elections.  
“A low-turnout state House special election is a snapshot of local quirks, candidate dynamics, and turnout math — not some grand verdict,” said Republican National Committee senior adviser Danielle Alvarez.
Despite the upset, Republicans still have a dominant majority in the Florida House, holding 84 seats to the Democrats&#8217; 34. In other Florida races on Tuesday, Republican Hilary Holley defeated Democrat Edwin Perez to retain a state House seat, while Democrat Brian Nathan narrowly edged out Josie Tomkow in a state Senate contest.

President Trump Attends Dan Scavino’s Wedding At Mar-a-Lago

A Special Election In Trump’s Backyard Shows What’s At Stake For Republicans

Donald Trump

Florida

Mar-a-Lago

The University of Southern California canceled a high-profile gubernatorial primary debate just hours before it was set to take place following backlash over the event’s lack of racial diversity among invited candidates. The debate, scheduled for Tuesday and hosted by USC’s Dornsife Center for the Political Future, was scrapped after criticism that the selection criteria excluded several candidates of color.
The original lineup featured six candidates: Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, and Democrats Tom Steyer, Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Matt Mahan. Absent were several established Democratic candidates of color, including former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former State Controller Betty Yee, and State Superintendent Tony Thurmond.
USC had initially defended its selection process, saying invitations were based on a “data-driven” formula developed by a university professor that weighed polling and fundraising. But critics argued the methodology produced a skewed outcome in a crowded race with no clear frontrunner.
The controversy escalated after California legislative leaders <a href="https://x.com/Elex_Michaelson/status/2036275609316499957">demanded</a> the university expand the debate field. “Every excluded leading candidate—Xavier Becerra, Betty Yee, Tony Thurmond, and Antonio Villaraigosa—is a person of color,” lawmakers wrote in a letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. “When a methodology produces this outcome … the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it.” The letter went further, calling on voters to boycott the event if the university refused to revise its criteria.
“If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate,” the lawmakers wrote. “If the university will not give voters a fair shot at evaluating everyone running for governor, voters should find other ways to learn about the candidates.”
Despite standing by the formula’s academic backing, USC ultimately <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-governor-debate-usc-candidates-bias-91539c81a8ecaf8612c0eacd04dc1312">reversed course</a> late Monday, announcing the debate would be canceled after organizers failed to reach an agreement on expanding the stage. “We recognize that concerns about the selection criteria … have created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters,” the university said in a statement.
The decision comes amid an unusually crowded and fluid race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, with no candidate <a href="https://www.270towin.com/2026-governor-polls/california">polling</a> above 20% in the last month and multiple contenders clustered within single digits of one another. That lack of a clear frontrunner has heightened the stakes around debate access, with candidates arguing that exclusion from major forums could significantly impact voter awareness in a low-information primary.
California’s primary system adds another layer of complexity. Under the state’s “top-two” format, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot, and only the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election. That structure has raised concerns among Democrats that a fragmented field could allow two Republicans to advance if the vote is split.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, whose inclusion drew particular scrutiny due to his late entry into the race and strong fundraising from <a href="https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/02/14/matt-mahan-billionaire-tech-donors-california-governor/">wealthy donors</a>, said canceling the debate was the wrong approach. “The answer isn’t to cancel debates, it’s to hear all voices,” he wrote on <a href="https://x.com/MattMahanSJ/status/2036437715823239453">X</a>.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, one of the excluded candidates, praised the decision. “USC made the right call, even if it came late and under pressure,” he wrote in a <a href="https://x.com/AVillaraigosa/status/2036421070748787047">post</a> after the decision.
The tension surrounding how institutions balance data-driven decision-making with political and social considerations is not unfamiliar in California, a state where <a href="https://www.govops.ca.gov/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/#:~:text=California%20has%20taken%20action%20to%20embed%20equity,methodologies%20and%20opportunities%20to%20advance%20racial%20equity">diversity</a> is treated as a central benchmark of legitimacy. In this case, sadly, a formula designed to measure candidate viability ended up triggering the very kind of equity concerns it was meant to avoid, ultimately leaving voters with no debate at all.
The California gubernatorial primary election will be held on June 2, 2026.

Peak California: USC Backs Out Of Gov Debate Over Lack Of Diversity

California

Debates

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Gavin Newsom

IL Senate Candidate Juliana Stratton Holds Primary Night Event

Project 2029: Democrats Unveil Violent Retribution Plan

Chris Murphy

Democrats

J.B. Pritzker

Leftists

Matt Walsh

As early voting rolls along, Virginia Democrats are nervous about their ludicrous gerrymander of the Commonwealth. But they have help from the state election board thanks to a recommendation that prevents voters from even seeing the bizarrely drawn map before they cast their ballots.
According to documents provided to the Daily Wire thanks to a freedom of information act request, a “Redistricting Webinar FAQ,” provided by the General Registrars and Elections Office staff recommends that the proposed map not even be publicly posted by Virginia&#8217;s 133 localities:

<div id="attachment_1065357" style="width: 792px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1065357" class="wp-image-1065357 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections." width="782" height="147" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election.jpg 782w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election-300x56.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election-768x144.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 782px) 100vw, 782px" />Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections.</div>
Among the Congress-critters benefiting from the new map is longtime Democrat Rep. Don Beyer, who stands to see a dramatically redrawn district — more than half of voters in it are new to him — and admitted this week that the map looks “unfair.”
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/not-done-deal-democrats-start-sweat-virginias-redistricting-referendum-rcna263726">NBC News</a>. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
“It’s unfair, sure, but Trump” has been the Democrats’ argument for the absurdly redrawn districts, designed to turn a 6-5 majority delegation into a 10-1 blue slate. The fact that voters will be unable to see how ridiculous it is that five Democratic reps could live in Northern Virginia while representing most of the state is one of the best things they have going for them. They&#8217;re counting on voters to stay ignorant of the truth.

Virginia Marked on Map

Democrat Admits To ‘Unfair’ Map — While Keeping Voters In The Dark

Top Democrat Admits Virginia Gerrymander Is 'Unfair', But Don’t You Dare Let Voters See The Map

Congress

gerrymandering

U.S. House of Representatives

Virginia

Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) admitted during a recent podcast interview that there was one thing he truly admired about President Donald Trump, despite their obvious and often contentious political differences.
Newsom told Politico&#8217;s Jonathan Martin — for Tuesday&#8217;s episode of his &#8220;<a href="https://www.politico.com/video/2026/03/24/newsom-we-could-lose-the-country-in-2028-1971501">On the Road with Jonathan Martin</a>&#8221; podcast — that Trump&#8217;s constant desire to close the deal, to win people over in person, was what he admired about the president.
Martin began by pointing out that Trump and Newsom, despite the heated words that often pass between them on social media, were not necessarily on the worst of terms when they met in person.
&#8220;And even most recently, Davos, he was there, you were there at the same time, and he’s talking to you backstage, but he’s like coaching you on politics and PR, right?&#8221; Martin asked. &#8220;What did he say?&#8221;
&#8220;It was a fascinating conversation where he’s just, you know, saying, &#8216;We used to get along great! What the hell? Hey, we’re gonna be great–&#8217;” Newsom replied.
&#8220;He wants to win you over in person,&#8221; Martin summed up the situation.
&#8220;Yeah he wants to win everyone over,&#8221; Newsom agreed. &#8220;That’s who he is.&#8221;
Martin observed, &#8220;He wants to sell you the car.&#8221;
&#8220;Yeah, everybody. And look, yeah, I admire that on some level,&#8221; Newsom admitted, suggesting that it implied Trump&#8217;s need to be accepted was somewhat pathological. &#8220;I mean, there’s a human quality to that. He needs to be needed. He needs to be loved. And you know and – but then you get into some clinical components of that as well.&#8221;
Newsom concluded by saying that his main goal was never just to &#8220;get&#8221; Trump: &#8220;So look, I’m not – I don’t wake up every day to try to find, you know, a crowbar to put in the spokes of his wheel.&#8221;
Newsom pivoted then to claim that Democrats needed to win back the House in 2026, claiming that if they didn&#8217;t, he couldn&#8217;t promise that the 2028 presidential election would be without underhanded actions from Republicans.
&#8220;That said, I’m going to stand my ground. I’m going to fight fire with fire. We’re going to have the backs of our diverse communities, and we’re going to fight back. And, yeah, fight fire with fire. And I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but with all due respect, we’ll lose this country as we try to win that argument, and Democrats are constantly trying to be right,&#8221; Newsom claimed. &#8220;The other side is ruthless, and with respect, my party needs to be more ruthless about winning, because if we don’t win back the House of Representatives, we may not have a fair and free election in 2028, and I really believe that.&#8221;

US-POLITICS-TRUMP-fires

Gavin Newsom Admits There’s Something He ‘Admires’ About Donald Trump

Media

Politics

Democrats would never win another majority in Congress if Americans knew where they stood on the issues. The Democratic Party supports and promotes positions opposite the views held by a large majority of Americans.
Democrats are against any form of verifiable voter identification or common-sense changes to promote honest elections. They promote gender surgeries on children, boys in girls’ bathrooms, and men in women’s sports. They support abortion until the day of birth. They celebrate aberrant lifestyles with parades and Pride Month. They are soft on crime and oppose adequate policing for safe communities. They support open borders and promote amnesty, citizenship, voting rights, and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. They oppose school choice and support government-run healthcare. They support bigger government and higher taxes. And few Americans know that Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, and they led the longest filibuster in Senate history to block the Civil Rights Act.
How do Democrats continue to get elected? Americans don’t know the truth because no one tells them the truth.
The most important part of any political campaign is to drive up the negatives of your opponent. The second most important part is to drive up your own positives. Republicans are counseled by their pollsters to campaign on issues voters agree with, so they run all around their districts and states criticizing their opponent and talking about border control, safe communities, voter identification, and the like. The problem is they rarely associate the wrong side of these issues with their real opponent — the Democratic Party.
Elections are between Republicans and Democrats. Over 95% of the voting decisions for the 2026 midterms have already been made based on perceptions of the two political parties. Even independents will vote based on whether they want Republicans or Democrats in power. Candidates and issues are secondary — they may change the perception of the parties, but the final decisions will be based on voter preferences for one of the two political parties. Trump changed the perception of both parties among some Black Americans when he challenged them with “what have you got to lose?” This question was a permission slip for a few Black voters to change their vote from Democrat to Republican. 
“Brand” is an odd term to use in politics, but it is the most important aspect of any election. There are only two relevant brands on the ballot: Republican and Democrat. For decades, Democrats have been denigrating the Republican brand with cries of racism, hate, bigotry, opposition to Social Security and Medicare, and support for the rich and big corporations. They’ve done a good job. Voters often agree with Republicans on almost every issue but still vote Democrat because they have been convinced Republicans are essentially evil.
Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations and media have been … well … stupid. You’ll hear them blame the Biden border, woke corporations, biased media, DEI hiring, Somali fraud, the Schumer shutdown, liberal politicians, and, far, far too often, they blame the Left. None of these will be on the ballot in November. Just listen to Republican leaders or any Republican aligned media, and you’ll likely hear them blame just about everything on the Left. They might as well blame everything on the boogeyman.
Trump’s recent State of the Union address should give all Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations a tutorial. He understands branding better than anyone in the world. Trump used most of his speech to set up and bash “crazy” Democrats while thanking Republicans for assisting his success.
Republicans only have a few months to drive up the negatives of the Democratic Party, but they have plenty of ammunition. Just remember it’s the Democrat open border, Democrat daycare fraud, Democrat shutdown, Democrat child mutilation, and all the rest. The Republican messaging strategy should not be to convince Democratic voters they have been wrong in the past, but to convince them the Democratic Party has changed: it is now controlled by radical progressive Democrats or crazy Democrat Socialists. Republicans should always put a negative word or phrase in front of Democrats to remind voters the Democratic party has left them — because it has.
* * *
Jim DeMint is a former Senator from South Carolina and a best-selling author. His latest book is &#8220;What the Bible Really Says about Creation, End Times, Politics and You.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

New York Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani Holds Election Rally With Bernie Sanders And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The Quiet Disconnect Between Democrats And Voters That Could Decide 2026

Abortion

Republicans

Transgender

transgender surgery

A North Austin church attended by Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D-TX) is drawing increased attention amid his U.S. Senate campaign, with church leadership citing both heightened visibility and security concerns.
St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, where Talarico has been a member since childhood, has recently hosted and is continuing to promote a series of events that include political organizing and activist training sessions. Pastor Jim Rigby told congregants in a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/StAndrewsAustin/posts/dear-friend-member-or-potential-visitoras-you-probably-know-james-talaricos-camp/1372459444919630/">Facebook post</a> that the attention surrounding Talarico’s campaign has led to an increase in both positive engagement and “hostile press” and negative communications.
“Because we have also received some hostile press and an influx of negative communication, we have temporarily hired plain clothes security as a safety precaution,” Rigby wrote, adding that the church is considering longer-term safety measures. Among the events promoted by the church was a gathering tied to the “No Kings” protest movement, which took place Sunday, June 22, following the church’s morning service.
“Join us this Sunday following the 11:00 service in the sanctuary as we prepare together for the upcoming No Kings protest,” the church said in an event listing. “We’ll review key materials and relevant training, set up shared communication channels … and close with a digital safety training.”
The session included guidance on “personal privacy, protest device recommendations, and best practices for keeping yourself safe,” according to the church’s website. <a href="https://www.nokings.org/">A third wave</a> of “No Kings” protests is scheduled to take place nationwide on March 28, including an event in Austin planned from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CDT.
The church has also advertised a self-defense seminar, coached by a man described as “a martial artist trained in boxing, MMA, and traditional disciplines.” The event, open to the public, notes that instruction will incorporate “gender-neutral and body-affirming language.”
Rigby has not replied to The Daily Wire’s request for comment on the training at the time of publishing.
Talarico, an Austin Democrat, is running in a high-profile Senate race that will pit him against either Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton or Sen. John Cornyn, depending on the outcome of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas-gop-battle-between-cornyn-and-paxton-will-head-to-runoff">Republican primary runoff</a>.
Conservatives have highlighted Talarico’s public statements about Christianity, such as <a href="https://x.com/realDailyWire/status/2029235718824857949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">abortion being a biblical teaching</a> and that <a href="https://x.com/realBrandonGill/status/2029031304126255588">God is nonbinary</a>, arguing that his views are out of step with many Texas voters. Talarico, who began pursuing a master of divinity degree at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 2022, has defended his positions as grounded in his faith.
He has also criticized Republican-backed policies, including a Texas law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools, describing such measures as inconsistent with Christian teaching.
Talarico has said he aims to &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-james-talarico.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share">reclaim Christianity for the Left</a>,&#8221; framing his political positions as rooted in biblical principles and social justice concerns. His approach reflects a broader trend within mainline Protestant denominations that have aligned with progressive political priorities. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the denomination to which St. Andrew’s belongs, has experienced <a href="https://pres-outlook.org/2025/09/the-future-of-the-presbyterian-church-u-s-a-decline-renewal-and-shifting-trends/">decades of membership decline</a>, falling significantly from its peak in the mid-20th century, even as more theologically conservative Presbyterian groups have reported growth in recent years.
As Talarico’s Senate campaign gains national attention, his home congregation will likely continue to be viewed not just as a place of worship, but as a venue where faith and contemporary political activism intersect in highly visible ways.

Texas State Representative Talarico Campaigns Ahead Of Primary Election

It Turns Out James Talarico’s Church Is As Weird As He Is

James Talarico

Religion

Texas

Republicans are at risk of losing up to four congressional seats in Virginia under a proposed redistricting amendment set for a statewide vote in an April 21 special election.
The measure, backed by Democrats, would redraw the state&#8217;s congressional map mid-decade. Critics say the proposal could result in a 10-1 Democratic advantage until after the 2030 census.
Currently, Virginia&#8217;s delegation is 6-5 in favor of Democrats.
The group &#8220;Virginians For Fair Elections,” which supports the amendment, has raised more than $22 million, compared to roughly $495,000 raised by the opposition group, &#8220;Virginians for Fair Maps,&#8221; according to <a href="https://wset.com/news/local/early-voting-underway-in-virginia-as-redistricting-groups-report-22m-vs-495k-raised-virginians-for-fair-elections-virginians-for-fair-maps-march-2026" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABC 13 News</a>.
Former Attorney General Jason Miyares, who’s leading the charge against the redistricting proposal, argued that voters are pushing back despite the funding gap.
“We&#8217;re seeing a groundswell of support,” he said during a series of campaign stops throughout the state. Miyares described the proposal as a &#8220;power grab by left-wing politicians&#8221; that would diminish representation for Republican-leaning areas.
Miyares also pointed to recent Democratic wins in statewide races as a potential motivator for Republican voters. The Democratic slate replaced Republicans in the top statewide offices in November, with Jay Jones defeating Miyares for attorney general and Abigail Spanberger defeating Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears for governor.
“It is a message from Democratic politicians to Republicans: drop dead. This is the single most gerrymandered map in the entire country,” Miyares added, noting that “48% of Virginians voted for a Republican to represent them in Congress, and this would leave them with 9% representation.”
On the flip side, those advocating for the constitutional amendment said this is about countering President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as redistricting efforts he has encouraged in states like Texas.
“Across the country, Trump and MAGA-controlled legislatures are taking unprecedented steps to redraw congressional maps — without voter approval — to rig upcoming elections,” the Virginians for Fair Elections website states.
The group argues that without action, Virginia risks losing influence in Washington as other states adjust their maps.
Gov. Spanberger, who’s supporting the amendment, described the situation as an “extraordinary moment” where temporary redistricting is necessary.
“First, it&#8217;s temporary. Second, it&#8217;s directly in response to what other states decide to do. Third, and most importantly for me, it preserves Virginia&#8217;s fair redistricting process into the future,” she said.
As for Miyares, he’s not impressed with the high level of spending in the race from proponents.
“It&#8217;s not like all this California money cares about Virginians or care about voices of rural Virginians in Congress,” he said.
Control of the House of Representatives could hinge on outcomes like Virginia&#8217;s. Republicans currently hold a narrow 218-214 majority, with three vacant seats.

CLIFTON, VA – JUNE 17: Yolanda Hutcherson surveys Northern Virg

Your Voice In Congress Could Shift – And This Vote Could Decide It

2026 election

Redistricting

A Democrat candidate reiterated her call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Tuesday shortly after winning her party’s primary for a United States Senate seat in Illinois.
Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton won the Democratic nomination to replace outgoing Sen. Dick Durbin, winning 40% of the vote and defeating Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly. In her victory speech, Stratton doubled down on the far-left priorities she emphasized during the campaign. 
“We will fight for Medicare for all. We will fight to abolish ICE. We&#8217;ll fight for a real living wage, not just the bare minimum,” Stratton said. “We&#8217;ll fight to defend our rights and claw our democracy back from the brink.”
Stratton openly campaigned on abolishing ICE, framing her bid as a direct challenge to President Donald Trump. 
“Courage inspired me to run. Courage powered this campaign and courage will bring this fight straight to Donald Trump’s door,” she said on Tuesday. 
During the primary, Stratton ran ads emphasizing her opposition to Trump, including one spot featuring supporters saying, “F*ck Trump, vote Juliana.”
“They said it, not me,” Stratton <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svuh7mIxukk">said</a> in the ad. “I’m not scared of a wannabe dictator. I’m running for Senate to stand up to Donald Trump. I’ll abolish ICE and hold Trump accountable for the crimes he committed.”  
Illinois Democrat Gov. JB Pritzker backed Stratton and contributed $5 million to a political action committee supporting her campaign. Pritzker said Tuesday that electing Stratton was “personal” for him. 
Stratton will face GOP nominee Don Tracy, the former chair of the Illinois Republican Party. Tracy has said that the Democratic Party has become out of step with voters in the state by pushing “open border” policies and abolishing ICE. 
“It’s especially important, I would suggest, for the Republican side, then the Democrat side, because it’s an opportunity to make Illinois a two-party state again,” Tracy told WTAX News, noting that Democrats currently hold all eight statewide offices. 
Illinois has leaned reliably Democratic in recent elections. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won the state by about 11 points in the 2024 presidential race.

Dem Voters Nominate Radical ‘Abolish ICE’ Candidate For Key Senate Seat

Dick Durbin

Illinois

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Senate

If you have ever lived in a country that is not governed by a functional democratic system, you would probably notice that, by and large, its citizens hold a different standard for fairness and justice. For them, getting unmerited benefits through one’s connection to the powerful is entirely acceptable. In fact, forfeiting such a backdoor opportunity and going through proper channels is considered utterly foolish. However, it would be a mistake to assume that people in such a society are inherently dishonest. Since their culture does not stress the notion of fairness and justice as exercised in the United States, they find other ways to achieve the same end.
Many practices in China can be considered fraudulent when judged by American standards. But there is one institution that remains untouched by corruption – the annual National College Entrance Exam, also known as the Gaokao Exam. As long as I can remember, the process upholds the highest degree of integrity, standing as a startling aberration in Chinese culture. This is the area where one’s reward correlates with one’s performance irrespective of one’s connections and social status.
<h3>The Annual National College Entrance Exam</h3>
Why do the Chinese people behave so differently in this particular area? What drives them to overcome cultural norms and vigilantly guard the integrity of this examination process?
<div id="attachment_1059965" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1059965" class="size-large wp-image-1059965" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828188-864x576.jpg" alt="NANJING, CHINA - DECEMBER 20: Examinees review their study materials outside an examination site for the 2026 postgraduate entrance exam on December 20, 2025 in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province of China. 2026 China's national exam for postgraduate enrolment kicked off on December 20. (Photo by Liu Jianhua/VCG via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828188-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828188-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828188-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828188.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Liu Jianhua/VCG via Getty Images</div>
Confucianism, the primary philosophy in Chinese culture, puts great emphasis on education. Confucius believed that knowledge provides the foundation for morality. The more knowledge one has, the deeper one’s moral conviction becomes. Accordingly, a government official who is intelligent and learned would govern more judiciously, for such an erudite person certainly holds a higher moral standard. In the 7th century, the Chinese government formally began to select its administrators using a vigorous and elaborate system called the Imperial Examination. Through this process, the brightest and the most knowledgeable men were chosen to serve in government posts. In reality, however, a person’s high intelligence and profound knowledge did not necessarily reflect his moral conviction, nor his ability to govern. There have been plenty of immoral and incompetent government officials in Chinese history.
Nonetheless, success on the Imperial Examination can change one’s destiny, especially for those from a lower social stratum. In a culture where bribery receives tacit consent, holding a government post opens up endless opportunities for personal gain. This was the primary reason for the creation of a national obsession with education. Eventually, education became the national identity. After the Imperial Examination was abolished in 1905, the annual National College Entrance Exam – though with a much broader purpose – took its place in cultural significance. It was only briefly interrupted during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76).
The survival of this national identity is entirely contingent upon the integrity of the examination process. Should corruption occur, such as changing one’s score or using an imposter as a substitute, education would lose its objective measure and become culturally meaningless. Indeed, any dishonesty would pose a direct threat to the existence of the national identity. Consequently, any misstep in the process must be categorically eliminated. Considering that Chinese culture is based on intricate and complex relationships and is highly prone to corruption, the successful guarding of the examination process is by no means a small feat.
<div id="attachment_1059967" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1059967" class="size-large wp-image-1059967" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828256-864x576.jpg" alt="FUYANG, CHINA - DECEMBER 20: Examinees walk out of an examination site for the 2026 postgraduate entrance exam on December 20, 2025 in Fuyang, Anhui Province of China. 2026 China's national exam for postgraduate enrolment kicked off on December 20. (Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828256-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828256-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828256-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2252828256.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />VCG/VCG via Getty Images</div>
<h3>What Sets America Apart?</h3>
What sets America apart from other nations? What is America’s national identity?
As an immigrant from an authoritarian regime, I can unequivocally state that America stands for freedom, human rights, and equality under the law. This identity is protected and secured by our political system of a constitutional republic, within which the right of the citizen to participate in different electoral processes serves as the linchpin.
However, America is not the only place that holds elections. I participated in an election in China during my senior year in high school in the 1980s. The whole process felt contrived and incongruent with the cultural environment I was in. Knowing very little about democracy and the value of voting, I simply followed the direction of the lady at the voting station who guided me to select the predetermined names. Authoritarian regimes can also call an election – and they often do – masquerading as lovers of democracy. But their process is only a sham, an exercise in fraud.
What sets America apart is its electoral integrity, the cornerstone and prerequisite of our political system that safeguards our national identity – freedom, rights, and equality under the law. For over 200 years, our electoral system has seldom faced challenges. For most Americans, electoral fraud is not just downright wrong but unthinkable. Indeed, our relatively lenient election law, compared with many other nations, suggests that electoral integrity is so engraved in the hearts and minds of the American people that it is taken for granted. Consequently, any claim of large-scale electoral fraud comes across as incredibly conspiratorial, provoking cognitive dissonance and will be met with denials.
Yet, electoral fraud does occur in America. Even before Covid, there were <a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108824/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20190129-SD020.pdf">proven cases</a>. A look at the 2018 congressional race in North Carolina shows the result was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/mark-harris-nc-voter-fraud.html">overturned</a> by the state election board because of mail-in ballot fraud. In 2019, Elbert Melton, the mayor of Gordon, Alabama, was <a href="https://electionfraud.heritage.org/case/200627">convicted</a> of voter fraud and removed from office. And, of course, the electoral integrity of the 2020 election, in the midst of the Covid outbreak, still remains in question for many.
<h3>The New Threat To Electoral Integrity</h3>
Today we are facing yet another tangible threat. How can we prevent the illegal immigrants Biden’s open-border policy produced from participating in the voting process only granted to American citizens? The law that prohibits illegal immigrants from voting has not been strictly enforced. For instance, according to court documents, in Pennsylvania, an illegal immigrant who had been ordered to leave the United States was able to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-immigrant-charged-voting-pennsylvania-5-presidential-elections">cast ballots</a> in every presidential election since 2008. This is far from being an isolated case. The two million illegal immigrants the Trump administration has deported is still a small minority compared with the army of foreign voters the Biden administration intentionally let in. Today, they pose a substantial threat to electoral integrity.
<div id="attachment_816347" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-816347" class="size-large wp-image-816347" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/Untitled-design-43-1024x576.jpg" alt="A migrant caravan walks into the interior of Mexico after crossing the Guatemalan border on October 21, 2018 near Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico The caravan of Central Americans plans to eventually reach the United States." width="1024" height="576" />(Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)</div>
The Safeguard America Vote Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act) is specifically designed to deal with this threat, prohibiting states from registering voters who are not American citizens, requiring voter ID at the point of voting, and eliminating mail-in ballots with a few exceptions. The bill has already passed the House vote and is currently in the Senate. Yet, Senate democrats rallying around Chuck Schumer vowed to kill it.
If we fail to prevent electoral fraud from taking place, America would soon evolve into a nation no different from many other places where corruption, rather than law and order, marks the characteristics of the society. Citizens, ruled by a corrupt and unaccountable government, would live without freedom, rights, and the protection of law. America would lose her identity and cease to be America.
The Chinese, who are culturally lenient towards bribery and cheating, have meticulously protected the integrity of their examination process in order to safeguard their national identity. Should we, who hold a higher standard of honesty, do less?
<h3>American Identity</h3>
Further, if the Chinese lost their national identity, the obsession with education, China would still survive. At most, they would have a reduced number of highly educated people. However, if America forsook our national identity, America would not survive. America would become just like any other nation where tyranny replaces freedom, scarcity substitutes for prosperity, and obedience is swapped for liberty. America as the “city on a hill” would vanish in history. Consequently, the threat of electoral fraud we are facing is not just an inconsequential blunder, but an existential threat to our nation, the equivalent of a foreign invasion.
When the Japanese invaded China during WWII, the Chinese Communist Party of Mao and the Chinese Nationalist Party of Chiang Kai-shek temporarily joined forces in order to deal with their common threat. They recognized that if they allowed this threat to destroy their country, neither party would survive even though in peacetime they themselves had been rivals.
American citizens have recognized the common threat we are facing. Gallup polls show that 83% of Americans <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx#:~:text=Stacked%20bar%20chart%20showing%20Americans,applications%20to%20all%20eligible%20voters.">support</a> requiring proof of citizenship for first-time voter registration. Pew research also suggests that 83% of Americans are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/22/majority-of-americans-continue-to-back-expanded-early-voting-voting-by-mail-voter-id/#:~:text=Requiring%20all%20voters%20to%20show%20government%2Dissued%20photo%20identification%20(83%25)">in favor</a> of voter ID laws. These statistics reveal that SAVE America Act has received a wide range of support transcending political and ethnic barriers. Yet, in spite of the unity behind this bill, Senate Democrats – and a few Republicans – have been going all out to stop it, laying out various pretexts, such as discrimination against the poor who do not possess the required documents for proof of citizenship. 
<div id="attachment_1059985" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1059985" class="size-full wp-image-1059985" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2266146798.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 12: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) (C) talks with reporters as he heads for the Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on March 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. Thune is being pressured by conservatives to do away with the 60-vote cloture threshold and move the SAVE America Act forward, a priority for President Donald Trump going into the midterm elections. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)" width="1024" height="574" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2266146798.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2266146798-300x168.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2266146798-768x431.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</div>
The truth is that Democrats care little about the poor who are merely a useful tool in their power struggle. Neither do they care about Biden’s illegal population. Hiding behind egalitarianism is the real intention – using an illegal voting bloc to seize political power. Their willingness to sacrifice America in order to gain power is treasonous. Even ruthless Mao, a man responsible for the deaths of millions of Chinese, didn’t have the nerve to surrender his own country. Those who oppose this bill have managed to sink below the monstrous Mao.
Today, whether you are left or right, blue or red, we are facing a common threat, and have a mutual self-interest in electoral integrity, without which our freedom and rights will vanish. And we, too, will vanish with it. At this crucial moment before the midterms, we must get behind President Trump and demand that the Senate pass the SAVE America Act to save America.
* * *
Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the United States and studying at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor at Christian colleges and seminaries. She and her husband live in Northern California and have two grown children.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Correction: The term Gaokao Exam refers to China&#8217;s annual National College Entrance Exam, not the Imperial Examination.

Menu