Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump makes his case in Pa. as most everyone else makes the case he's done

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani, one of President Trump's most vocal surrogates, is back in a courtroom today, trying to block the certification of the election in Pennsylvania.

Chris McGrath/Getty Images

The most ambitious of President Trump's longshot and counterfactual claims against the election is getting its day in federal court Tuesday.

The hearing in Pennsylvania comes two weeks after the nation voted decisively to deny Trump a second term, which in public he steadfastly refuses to realize — while almost all Republicans in authority continue to enable the fiction. The consequence is that the bedrock of American democracy, which by all accounts was remarkably fair and efficient despite a deadly pandemic, has been sullied as never before by a presidential disinformation campaign.

Underscoring that, 59 top election security experts and computer scientists have rebuked Trump for his baseless assertions about voting fraud and cheating by election hackers, saying "these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent."


"Anyone asserting that a U.S. election was 'rigged' is making an extraordinary claim, one that must be supported by persuasive and verifiable evidence," the group wrote in a statement they are posting on their websites. "To our collective knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise."

That blunt pushback was delivered at the same time President-elect Joe Biden amped up his own impatience with Trump's refusal to accept the outcome. Presumably, once Trump does admit his loss, the outgoing government could begin cooperating with the incoming administration.

"More people may die" of the coronavirus, Biden warned Monday, unless his team and Trump's team can begin coordinating now on pandemic policy — especially to allow the earliest possible start of Covid-19 vaccinations after the inauguration.

The hearing that began Tuesday afternoon is an effort by Trump's campaign to block Pennsylvania from certifying its final election result. The deadline is Monday, and with less than 2 percent of ballots still in limbo, Biden is ahead by 74,000 votes. The state's 20 electoral votes are no longer crucial to his path toward the presidency, though, because even without them he has 286 electoral votes, 16 more than the number assuring victory.

The president's most high-profile attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has been permitted to represent the Trump campaign before Judge Matthew Brann at the federal courthouse in Williamsport — apparently his first courtroom appearance since he moved from federal prosecutor to mayor of New York nearly three decades ago

During an interview Tuesday on Fox Business, Giuliani claimed without offering any further explanation that his argument hinges on 700,000 ballots that "were counted surreptitiously," adding: "Frankly, that is a case that we would like to see get to the Supreme Court."

The Pennsylvania claim, which hinges on the fact that tabulating rules were not uniform statewide, is among more than a dozen lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and Republican voters hoping to slow or prevent the certification of election results — mainly in battleground states that Trump lost narrowly.

Suits brought by his GOP allies in Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia were abandoned on Monday, joining a roster of more than a dozen claims that have been dismissed by various state and federal courts. And a Michigan appeals court on Monday denied another bid to stop the certification of Detroit-area votes.

But the president's team is still fighting the steeply uphill cause of getting the results in those and other states upended with more litigation yet to be filed — or with recounts. While Georgia is conducting its own recanvass that has shifted votes minimally, Trump would have to foot an $8 million bill for a do-over tally in Wisconsin. He lost both states by less than 1 point but at least 14,000 votes.

The election experts' letter followed a similarly strong rebuttal of the president's claims last week by a panel of experts convened by Trump's own Department of Homeland, who declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history"because "there is no evidence" any voting systems were compromised.

For the four years since Russians made virgous attempt to hack the previous election, election integrity experts and good-governance advocates have been promoting an array of measures to make voting more secure, transparent and trustworthy — but legislation embodying these ideas has been spurned by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on the grounds that the ideas were partisan and unnecessary. McConnell, of course, is now the most powerful Republican allowing Trump to go unchallenged in his baseless complaints that he's being robbed of a second term by weak election security.

Another, even higher-volume Republican proponent of the president's fraud claims in recent days has been Trey Trainor, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission since his confirmation this summer. While his agency would be in charge of deciding whether money spent on election controversies was in line with federal campaign finance law, Trainor has felt unbound by any complaints about conflicts of interest.

Trainor has declared his view that many reports of voter fraud in battleground states are credible and that Democratic officials have broken federal law by making life difficult for GOP poll watchers. And on Monday he tweeted his endorsement of one of the Trump team's attorneys, fellow Texan Sidney Powell, saying he's never known her "to be anything but forthright and honest in every case she's ever taken on. If she says there is rampant voter fraud in #Election2020, I believe her."

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less