Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Opinion

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Mark Kelly speaks on the failed grand jury indictment against him during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 11, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

(Getty Images)

If you’ve ever thought about running for president, don’t. You probably don’t have what it takes.

That’s not because you’re inherently unqualified — hell, if Donald Trump can get elected, it sure feels like anyone can, and I have no doubt you’d probably do a better job. But a good presidential candidate must have a few important things going for him or her that would make running for president nearly impossible for most people.


They have to have money, for one, or access to people with lots of it. Some relevant experience helps, usually in politics, law, or the military. Trump is, in fact, the only U.S. president to have never held public office or a military position when he was elected in 2016.

A good personality isn’t a must — see Richard Nixon. But there is one intangible that is a must, and it’s nearly impossible to buy it or create it overnight: Name ID.

Trump, for all his moral, ethical, and intellectual failings, was able to trade mostly on his name and brand to get elected the first time, convincing a not small number of voters that, despite his lack of political experience — or interest in policy — he was the right man for the job.

A new crop of Democrats is eyeing the 2028 election, each hoping they have the right combination of things to get across the finish line. But one just got a huge boost in name ID — and from Trump himself.

If Sen. Mark Kelly is thinking of running for president — and there are plenty of indications he is, including his own words — he couldn’t buy the exposure he got this week.

In a one-two punch to the administration, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts at punishing Kelly for a video in which he and five other Dem lawmakers urged military service members to not follow illegal orders, were swatted down.

The video was released by Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Reps. Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow — all veterans of the military or intelligence community — as Trump was authorizing constitutionally-questionable strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and deploying troops to American cities to combat crime and illegal immigration.

What they said in the video was a simple and irrefutable fact: “You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.”

Trump, deep in his authoritarian era and having no use for subtlety, clapped back and called the video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Ever the loyal foot soldier, Hegseth followed by announcing he’d look to strip Kelly of his Navy rank and reduce his military pension.

But on Thursday, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that was a violation of Kelly’s First Amendment rights. In the words of James Madison, “Duh.”

Earlier in the week, another blow — former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, now the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, failed to get an indictment against Kelly and the other lawmakers because they couldn’t get a grand jury to support it. So much for the ham sandwich theory.

So Trump went 0-2 at rebuking Kelly, but for Kelly, it couldn’t have gone any better. Trump made him a Democratic hero, a free speech warrior, and most importantly, he gave him weeks of free media, his face and name splashed across the cable news shows.

In other words, Trump’s authoritarian impulses, his Justice Department’s incompetence, and his defense secretary’s thin skin helped set Kelly up for a real shot at a presidential nomination, elevating him in stature and boosting his name ID.

The other Dems eyeing 2028 wish they were so lucky.

S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.


Read More

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control

When it comes to the issue of open primaries, DSA true believers like Brad Lander in New York and MAGA mouthpieces like Governor Abbott in Texas sing from the same hymnal: open primaries invites mischief and party raiding. If we let independents vote we’d get pandemonium. Democracy needs guardrails, and political parties need integrity. You wouldn’t want Elks voting in Rotarians’ elections would you?

There is a certain logic to it. Except Abbott, Lander and all their fellow partisan warriors have it completely backwards.

Keep ReadingShow less
If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

wallet with dollar bills, on top of an American flag

hartcreations/Getty Images

If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?

Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., speaks at a press event about free and fair elections. A recent study from MIT ranked Nevada second in the nation for quality of election administration, based on measures of accessibility and security.

(Battle Born Progress)

Nevada pro-democracy groups condemn SAVE Act

President Donald Trump has made passing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act a top priority before the midterms but supporters of safe and fair elections in the Silver State said it would be a disaster for democracy.

The bill, which purports to combat noncitizen voting, would make it much harder to register to vote. It passed the U.S. House but is stalled in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

A sign that reads: Voting

E4C

How A 2022 Law Changed Election Certification: Assessing the Electoral Count Reform Act

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • The Electoral Count Reform (ECRA) of 2022 modernizes the 1887 Electoral Count Act, which governed how Congress counts Electoral College votes. The original Act has been widely criticized as vague and susceptible to exploitation.
  • The ECRA clarifies that the Vice President’s role is ceremonial, raises the objection threshold to 20 percent of both chambers, and designates governors as responsible for submitting elector certificates.
  • Supporters argue that the bipartisan reform prevents future election disputes and protects democratic stability, while critics contend that it was rushed, doesn’t address deeper election integrity issues, and raises concerns about federalism.
  • The Act reflects bipartisan cooperation but continues debates about federalism and the balance of power between states and Congress.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act (ECRA) was introduced by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in July 2022 and signed into law by President Joe Biden in December 2022. It is a reform to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), a law that governs how Congress counts the Electoral College votes for president every four years. The Act is also a response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to dispute the 2020 presidential election results, which revealed several gaps in the law that could be exploited by a presidential candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less