Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump pick's in line for FEC after enduring Democratic jabs

Trey Trainor's confirmation hearing

Republican attorney Trey Trainor appeared before the Senate Rules Committee on Tuesday. He is expected to be confirmed to the FEC.

Sara Swann/The Fulcrum

Much to the chagrin of good governance groups, it appeared clear Tuesday that conservative campaign lawyer Trey Trainor is on his way to a seat on the Federal Election Commission.

Republicans said nothing at all critical, Democrats said nothing supportive and Trainor said almost nothing revelatory about his views during a Senate confirmation hearing lasting less than an hour and a half.

The pro forma nature of the proceedings was a clear signal that, as he runs for re-election, President Trump will be able to break with precedent by adding just one person, and from his own party, to the panel charged with regulating how presidential, congressional and outsider organizations raise and spend campaign contributions.


The longstanding practice has been FEC commissioners are nominated in bipartisan pairs, but much about the FEC hasn't followed precedent in years. It hasn't had a new member since 2013 and since September it's been almost entirely neutered for lack of a four-person quorum.

Trainor's presence would allow the agency to consider complaints and perform routine oversight during the height of the campaign season, but launching investigations or revamping policy would be almost impossible because four votes are required and a 2-2 split on ideological lines would be nearly assured.

Democrats and campaign finance watchdog groups are eager for the agency to get back on the job, but not with Trainor as the one reopening the doors. They say his career as an elections lawyer for Republicans in Texas and for Trump's 2016 campaign, and his clearly hands-off view about regulating or disclosing much about money in politics, don't bode well for the FEC over what would be a six-year term.

"I view the role of the FEC first and foremost as giving the American people confidence in our electoral system," Trainor told the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

All three Democratic senators on hand voiced disappointment that Trump has not done what party leaders have asked and named Shana Broussard, a senior attorney at the FEC since 2015, to become a commissioner alongside Trainor.

"Abandoning bipartisan norms and pushing forward a controversial nominee is not the way to do it," Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said of restoring the agency to working order. "Moving forward in this way will do more harm than good."

Asked by Tom Udall of Arizona if he supports a bipartisan pairing, Trainor said "the commission is in need of new ideas and new perspectives."

Republicans emphasized the importance of restoring functionality to the FEC. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the most prominent campaign finance deregulator in Congress and a member of the committee, appeared briefly to say he would like to see Trump submit five more nominations in order for a total turnover of membership. (The three current commissioners are all serving on expired terms, as the law allows. By law no more than three members of each party can sit on the panel, so Trump would have to pick some Democrats to grant McConnell's wish.)

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, also a panel member, said Trainor's sole qualification was his "long career as a conservative political operative."

When asked if he would recuse himself from matters before the FEC involving the president, Trainor said he would "approach all issues objectively," but refused to promise such a "blanket recusal" if confirmed.

Republicans lobbed mostly softballs at the nominee, while Democrats pressed for specifics on how he would handle particular issues. Trainor gave nonanswers to almost all the questions, saying he "didn't want to opine on something I would do as a commissioner" before being confirmed. But he promised to work to forge consensus on the commission.

Chairman Roy Blunt of Missouri did not say when the panel would send the nomination to the full Senate.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less