Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bipartisan group asks DOJ to further protect election workers

Bipartisan group asks DOJ to further protect election workers

A line of people voting at voting machines in a polling place with their backs facing the camera.

After an increase in threats to election workers during and following the 2020 election, a bipartisan group is calling on the Department of Justice to bolster and reinforce protections for the people who maintain the integrity of U.S. elections.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy and the Bipartisan Policy Center released a report last week with recommendations for improving the DOJ’s Election Threat Task Force. The report focused on reimagining federal laws and enhancing the DOJ’s guidance for law enforcement and local and state governments.


Threats against poll workers had been exacerbated by false, widespread claims of election fraud in the 2020 election. Two years later, as the country holds primaries and caucuses for the midterm elections, the danger of those threats has not waned.

In June, the DOJ released a report warning that calls for violence against poll workers is likely to increase as elections continue, designating that violence as part of their summary of terrorist threats to the country.

However, there is worry the Justice Department has not done enough to address the problem. That is leading to a number of issues - including the loss of experienced election officials who are leaving the field.

David Levine, a co-author of the report and the elections integrity fellow for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, said it’s critical to make sure the people on which American democracy rests feel safe and remain in their roles.

“What we want is the DOJ then to be able to provide guidance to others involved in these efforts… we want them to be aware of what other tools exist to help make election workers feel safe,” Levine said.

The main call to action of the report was for the DOJ to release guidance for local law enforcement, the FBI’s field offices and all others on the “front lines” of elections to show how federal laws can deter and hold accountable those threatening election officials.

The report states that such guidance would serve three purposes:

  • show that the issue of threats to election workers remains a priority;
  • ideate around safety mechanisms for poll workers, and;
  • help explain when a threat can be prosecuted.

Even if a threat to an election official isn’t criminally prosecutable, there are still measures to take to ensure the safety of election workers. The DOJ’s Election Threat Task Force could be a resource for issuing guidelines for how legislatures can go about holding individuals civilly accountable for threats toward or intimidation of election workers, the report said.

Levine thinks the report offers a way for the DOJ to more effectively achieve the purpose of its task force and protect election security.

“People don’t perceive the folks that run our elections to be our stewards of democracy,” Levine said. “They see them as obstacles to their own political ends, and that’s just a really dangerous place to be.”


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less