Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Biden, DOJ and academics counter Trump's attacks on democracy

President Joe Biden

President Biden said the Senate must go ahead with the second impeachment trial.

Pool/Getty Images

While ample attention remains on the most frontal of Donald Trump's assaults on our democracy — his role in the Capitol riot that has led to his looming impeachment trial — the Biden administration has started to tackle some of its predecessor's less public upending of governing norms.

The latest moves were revealed without fanfare Wednesday. The Justice Department rescinded two policies instituted in the weeks after the election, designed to give the defeated president extraordinary support as he promulgated his campaign of lies claiming flawed election rules and rampant cheating had robbed him of a rightful second term.

The reversals came as President Biden professed his strongest support yet for conducting the Senate impeachment trial, saying to do otherwise would be "farcical," and a panel of election law experts declared that simple math proved there was "no evidence" to support the Trump crusade.


Monty Wilkinson, a career civil servant who is the acting attorney general until the confirmation of Merrick Garland, rescinded two directives issued by Attorney General William Barr near the end of his tenure.

One, issued a week after Election Day as Trump was escalating his baseless claims of a stolen victory, repealed decades-old policies of restraint for field offices across the country investigating allegations of ballot fraud — allowing them, for example, to bypass such procedural steps as getting permission from Justice Department headquarters before interviewing witnesses.

The point of the longstanding policy was for the government to stay out of the way so states could conduct their vote certification processes.

Barr's move prompted his chief election law prosecutor, Richard Pilger, to resign. Fifteen of his career lawyers then urged Barr to revert to previous the status quo, saying the policy change was "was not based on fact" and "thrusts career prosecutors into partisan politics."

The other directive abandoned Wednesday was the last Barr signed before leaving office in December.

By that point he had infuriated Trump by telling the nation his department had found no evidence of election fraud or other irregularities significant enough to come close to changing the outcome in any state. But Barr told the Civil Rights Division to leave states alone if they decided to reimpose strict rules for absentee or early voting that had been relaxed because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

"A change in voting laws or procedures by a state or local jurisdiction which readopts prior laws or procedures shall be presumed lawful unless the prior regime was found to be unlawful," he declared.

Because that policy is now abandoned, it could make it more difficult for states to withstand lawsuits alleging the reimposition of voter suppression statutes. Republicans in charge of the General Assembly in newly purple Georgia are moving to do so most prominently, but the Brennan Center for Justice has tabulated 106 bills in 28 states designed to make access to the plls more difficult than in 220 — a huge increase from a year ago.

Meanwhile, a paper circulated Wednesday by three election scholars — Andrew Eggers of the University of Chicago and Haritz Garro and Justin Grimmer of the Democracy and Polarization Lab at Stanford — cited an ocean of calculations to debunk the efforts of Trump and his loyalists to discredit the election with statistics suggesting foul play.

"Reviewing the most prominent of these statistical claims, we conclude that none of them is even remotely convincing," they said. "The common logic behind these claims is that, if the election were fairly conducted, some feature of the observed 2020 election result would be unlikely or impossible. In each case, we find that the purportedly anomalous fact is either not a fact or not anomalous."

Nonetheless, Trump pointed to these and other specious allegations time and again after the election — culminating in his Jan. 6 speech exhorting allies to head to the Capitol to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes. Six people died in the ensuing riot, and a week later the House impeached him for inciting the insurrection.

The Senate trial of that charge is set to start Tuesday, with Trump's lawyers arguing the proceedings are unconstitutional now that Trump has left office. The consequences of conviction, which would require the highly unlikely support of at last 17 Republcian senators, is that Trump would be barred from a presidential comeback.

Canceling the trial would "make a mockery of the system," Biden said in an interview with People published Wednesday. "He was impeached by the House and it has to move forward, otherwise it would come off as farcical what this was all about."


Read More

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs at a rally, one reads, "Trump is not above the law."

Protesters gather at a Nobody Is Above the Law rally protesting President Trump's interference in the Mueller investigation on November 08, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Larry French/Getty Images

The Double Standard Presidency: When We Watch Leaders Act Above the Law

Americans are told that no one is above the law. Yet every day, they watch a president behave in ways that would get any ordinary citizen fired, disciplined, confronted, or held accountable — and they watch some Americans excuse it. What makes this moment even more striking is that critics across the political spectrum, including conservatives, now warn that the presidency is operating on a dangerous double standard. This is not a partisan concern. It is a constitutional one. And it is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

For generations, the Constitution has provided guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, oversight mechanisms, and limits on executive authority — designed to prevent any leader from functioning above the law. The framers feared concentrated power more than anything else. They believed that the presidency must be constrained not only by written law but by norms of restraint, dignity, and respect for institutions. Those norms held for centuries because presidents understood that the office was larger than any individual, and Congress understood that oversight was not optional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos differ sharply in how much their identity shapes their daily lives, according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center’s 2025 National Survey of Latinos. The survey shows that Latino immigrants are far more likely than U.S.-born Latinos to say their identity is central to who they are, and that it influences their experiences in the United States. Pew researchers Gabriel Piña, Mark Hugo Lopez, Sahana Mukherjee, Dalia Fahmy, and Alexandra Cahn report that the divide reflects differences in cultural connection, lived experience, and generational distance from immigrant roots.

Pew’s analysis finds that Latino immigrants are significantly more likely to say their origins are central to their identity, while U.S.-born Latinos — especially those in the third generation or higher — are less likely to feel that connection. The report notes that “U.S. Hispanics are divided on whether their identity helps or hurts them in America,” with some respondents describing their Latino identity as a source of pride and connection, and others saying it is tied to discrimination or barriers.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.

Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

Keep ReadingShow less