Merloe is a member of the Election Reformers Network Advisory Council and provides strategic advice on democracy and elections in the U.S. and internationally.
Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee recently announced “the most extensive and monumental election integrity program in the nation’s history,” involving 100,000 “dedicated volunteers and attorneys across every battleground state.” The plan is to deploy election workers, poll watchers, challengers and “aggressive attorneys” to targeted areas in “an historic collaboration between the RNC, the Trump Campaign, and passionate grassroots coalitions who are deeply vested in fighting voter fraud.”
Should this be cause for alarm about potential disruptions of the 2024 elections? The answer is: It depends — on their actions and what others do to better ensure a credible process.
In the announcement, RNC Chair Michael Whatley said the lawyers and volunteers “are committed to the sanctity of our elections.” Who can take issue with that — unless the effort spuriously depicts non-existent widespread election fraud as has been proclaimed by passionate groups welcomed into the initiative by, among others, the director of the RNC’s Election Integrity Department, Christina Norton, during an April 4 call posted online.
The New York Times reported in late April that the RNC effort will target Democratic districts, including cities and African-American neighborhoods. The reporters pointed to new RNC leadership driving this initiative, including Whatley, Norton, Co-chair Lara Trump and Christina Bobb, senior council for election integrity. Bobb is among the 18 people indicted April 24 on felony charges for her role in the Arizona scheme to undo Joe Biden’s election by presenting fraudulent presidential electors to Congress.
One concern about deploying election monitors who are both partisan and convinced that widespread fraud exists is that they may see things that are not there or interpret things incorrectly (like believing someone passing a ginger mint is really illegally passing a USB drive). Having lost more than 60 court challenges, when wrongly declaring the 2020 elections suffered widespread fraud, election deniers only doubled down. And, they have since concocted bogus theories and faulty evidence of voter registration fraud (a rising battle arena), mailed ballot fraud and conspiracy theories about “rigged” election technologies. And now they are falsely claiming that throngs of undocumented immigrants are pouring into the country to illegally vote for Biden.
Needless to say, if such passionate grassroots volunteers are to be integral to the 100,000 strong effort, they will face a daunting challenge in developing accurate observations required for genuine election monitoring and reliable evidence required to back up legal cases. Given the flood of post-election challenges following the 2020 election and the breadth of 2024 cases already lodged, it is possible to see the risks of challenges based on flimsy evidence. We can only hope that rigorous training based on established principles and good practices will lead to accurate, constructive reports.
The 100,000 person effort will monitor logic and accuracy testing of voting machines as well as procedures for early voting, Election Day voting, mailed ballot processing, and post-election canvassing (vote counting and tabulation), audits and recounts. The passionate volunteers are to be linked with a hotline in each key state that is tied to a state party “war room” and litigators at the ready. All of this will take place in the age of social media and the likelihood of deep fakes. Any problem — real or imagined — could easily become a viral source of information or disinformation potentially affecting voter participation and public confidence in the elections.
The potential for physical confrontations at the polls and other election facilities also is concerning in light of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the peaceful transfer of the presidency, Trump not ruling out violence should he lose the 2024 election and his inflammatory campaign rhetoric. Passionate volunteers on a crusade against improbable election fraud going to precincts with heavy Democratic Party support, including large cities and African American neighborhoods, could generate confrontations, with images that negatively affect public opinion about the elections.
What should be done to safeguard the elections?
The first thing to do is educate yourself about election processes, whether you are a voter, an activist or a journalist. It will be invaluable to know what procedures prevent illegal voter registration and ensure the proper functioning of electronic voter lists (pollbooks) at voting places, what mechanisms protect the security of voting and vote tabulation, how the integrity of mailed ballots is secured, what the proper roles of poll watchers are, and more. Simultaneously, get a sense of how your state and local election administration conduct themselves.
Such learning is important for personal understanding and interactions with others should incidents flare up in the heat of elections. Good places to start are secretary of state websites, which often describe election procedures. Some media outlets are developing learning tools, like SpotlightPA ’s Elections 101 pages, while the Election Reformers Network and the Bridge Alliance are collaborating in the Election Overtime Project to present such materials for six battleground states. Plus, the Brennan Center for Justice, Votebeat and others are reliable sources.
Direct civic engagement is crucial for safeguarding elections. Engaging with efforts to recruit polling officials is important. That can be done by reaching out to local county election boards about poll worker opportunities and encouraging other reliable people to do so. The Election Assistance Commission provides resources on being a polling official and a way to contact local boards across the country as National Poll Worker Recruitment Day (the Aug. 1) approaches.
Joining or otherwise supporting voter registration efforts helps to realize universal and equal suffrage. Nonpartisan national efforts, like VoteRiders, engage volunteers nationally while providing information and assistance to individuals in each state. There is an array of national and state-specific organizations that focus on voter-registration and turnout, some targeting traditionally disenfranchised communities.
Volunteering with candidates and political parties to encourage voting and safeguard electoral integrity is also crucial. Party/candidate poll watching and related monitoring is a public service, not a gladiatorial contest. Such monitors can reassure their party’s supporters that the process is being protected and can help encourage officials to ensure smooth processes, even identifying and alleviating problems as they develop. Proper training emphasizes cooperation, rather than conflict with election officials, opponents’ poll watchers and voters — both inside and outside voting and canvassing centers.
In many elections that I’ve observed, internal reports of party election monitors played a critical role in helping candidates accept that the process was credible, even when they lost, and at times provided the factual basis for electoral challenges. Those circumstances typically required strong election administration and good-faith actions of well-trained party agents. Many other countries have the advantage of respected nonpartisan election monitors and international observers who are trusted to report accurately, but who, unfortunately, do not play major roles in the United States. That places a heightened obligation on journalists to understand election intricacies and accurately cover electoral controversies.
“All eyes on the election process” is a fitting call this year, but like observing any phenomenon, accurate monitoring requires refining one’s understanding of it. Learning and engaging are essential to safeguarding the credibility of elections, and helping others to see accurately is part of bolstering democracy. No time is more important for that than the next few months as we move toward Nov. 5, 2024, and Jan. 6, 2025.












Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.