Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

USPS warns tossup states of delivery challenges as Trump walks back threat

Mail delivery
Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

The Postal Service is warning the two biggest Midwest presidential battlegrounds, Pennsylvania and Michigan, that much of their election mail won't get delivered on time because the states' absentee ballot deadlines are too tight.

That sounding of the alarm bells preceded President Trump's explicit declarations this week that he wanted to deny the USPS an emergency bailout in order to suppress voting by mail this fall, a line in the sand he backed away from late Thursday.

With or without the money, however, the Postal Service's concessions provide fresh evidence the outcome of a close November election could remain unclear for weeks — offering the president ample time to press his unfounded claims that fraudulent manipulation of the mailed-in vote threatens to cripple democracy and steal the re-election from him.


Trump carried both Pennsylvania and Michigan, with a combined 36 electoral votes, by less than 1 percentage point last time — his combined margin of victory of just 55,000 votes central to his upset win. Polling now shows Joe Biden with clear although hardly insurmountable leads in each state, however.

And both look certain to see huge increases in voting by mail amid the Covid-19 pandemic — Pennsylvania because of this year's elimination of an excuse requirement to vote absentee, Michigan because an application for a mail ballot is being sent to every active registered voter. Records for the share of votes cast absentee were shattered in both states during their primaries.

The warning to Pennsylvania prompted Democrtatic Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar on Thursday to ask the state Supreme Court to order that ballots get tabulated even if they arrive three days after Election Day, which would boost the likelihood the state's presidential winner won't be clear before the first weekend in November.

Pennsylvania has been combating a lawsuit against the current deadline, which like 32 other states is when the polls close, making Boockaver's request all the more significant.

The warning to Michigan prompted Sen. Gary Peters — the top Democrat on the committee that oversees the Postal Service, and also one of less than a handful of Senate Democrats in tough reelection races this year — to promise an investigation of the post office's operations.

"We have been working with USPS officials in Michigan to ensure that election mailings are prioritized," said a spokesman for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, also a Democrat. "If this letter aims to backtrack on that collaboration or the promise of prioritization of election mail, that would be very concerning."

Both letters were sent last week from the USPS general counsel, Thomas Marshall. He said the late deadlines for requesting a mailed absentee ballot — a week before the election in Pennsylvania, the Friday beforehand in Michigan — and requirements in both states that ballots arrive before the polls close are "incongruous with the Postal Service's delivery standards."

"This mismatch creates a risk that ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not be returned by mail in time to be counted under your laws as we understand them," Marshall wrote.

The warnings put a big asterisk on what USPS has been saying about its capacity to handle election mail, which could crest 100 million envelopes if fears of the coronavirus prompt two-thirds of Americans to cast ballots remotely, up from one-quarter in 2016.

"The Postal Service has ample capacity to adjust our nationwide processing and delivery network to meet projected election and political mail volume, including any additional volume that may result as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic," the agency has declared.

That statement was issued only last week, after Trump publicly doubted the ability of the USPS to deliver ballots and intensified his longstanding and unfounded claims that opening up mail voting to everyone will assure corruption.

That campaign reached a new peak Thursday morning, when Trump declared he would flatly oppose Democratic demands for $25 million in aid to the pandemic-hobbled Postal Service, as well as $3.5 million to help states conduct their elections, in order to minimize the volume of mailed ballots. In the evening, however, he told reporters he was open to the possibility such line items would be part of a new round of economic stimulus.

Negotiations on such a deal, which broke down this month, may be revived after Labor Day.

"We have to have an honest election," the president said when pressed on his spending threats at a news conference. "And if it's not going to be an honest election, I guess people have to sit down and think really long and hard about it."

Trump's attacks on mail voting have fueled a partisan divide over the method, with a majority of Democrats signaling a desire to vote by mail this fall and a majority of Republicans saying they plan to go to a polling place.

Marshall said voters should ask to vote by mail at least two weeks before the election, and those completing absentee ballots within a week of Nov. 3 should deliver their envelopes in person — which is easier to do in Michigan, where drop boxes are widely used, than Pennsylvania, where they are not but a lawsuit is seeking to change that.

The Postal Service normally treats all election mail as first class, even when jurisdictions don't pay that amount for postage, but says it's not in a financial position to do so this year. That is one of the budget cutbacks announced last month by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a major Trump donor, prompting allegations from Democrats that he's trying to help the president sabotage the election.

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