CartoonDems

 

Election Security Fight Heats Up Ahead of Crucial Midterms

Two Democratic lawmakers are demanding that the Trump administration release nearly $40 million in election-security funding ahead of the November midterm elections, warning that states and local election officials have limited time to prepare for cyberattacks and foreign interference.

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif.,

 

and Rep. Joseph Morelle, D-N.Y., 

 

made the demand in a Sept. 2 letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Nick Anderson, the acting head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, NPR reported Thursday.

The lawmakers are seeking the release of more than $39.6 million that Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to provide for election-security efforts in fiscal 2026.

"With the midterm elections occurring in two months, we write with grave concern that time is running out," the lawmakers wrote, according to NPR.

Padilla and Morelle said the funding is needed to help state and local election officials protect voting infrastructure from cyberattacks and foreign interference.

They specifically raised concerns about threats from Iran, Russia, China and other foreign actors.

Much of their concern centers on the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or EI-ISAC, which provides election offices with information about cyber threats and guidance on protecting election systems.

The lawmakers said changes in federal funding have made it more difficult for some state and local jurisdictions to obtain cybersecurity assistance.

Trump's Election Security Priority

The funding dispute comes as the Trump administration has increasingly emphasized another aspect of election security: the mechanics of voting itself, particularly mail-in ballots.

President Donald Trump has made tighter controls on mail voting a prominent part of his broader election-security agenda, alongside efforts involving voter-registration records, citizenship verification and ballot-counting procedures.

That effort is currently tied up in a separate legal battle that reached the Supreme Court again Thursday.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block a federal judge's order preventing the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new rules governing mail-in ballots, Reuters reported.

The administration's latest filing came as U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston considered whether to extend her temporary block on portions of the Postal Service rules.

Talwani issued the 14-day temporary restraining order last week after Democratic-led states and voting-rights groups challenged the USPS rules, arguing that the federal government lacked the authority to impose the requirements and that the changes could disrupt the November elections.

Newsmax reported Thursday that Talwani was weighing whether to extend the temporary block while considering the challengers' request for a longer-term injunction.

The Postal Service rules stem from Trump's March executive order on elections.

Among other provisions, the order directs the federal government to compile information on eligible voters and directs the Postal Service to limit delivery of mail ballots to voters on state-approved lists.

The USPS rules would require states to provide lists of mail-ballot recipients and use standardized ballot envelopes containing unique barcodes.

The administration argues that the requirements are intended to strengthen election integrity and improve the security of mail voting.

Opponents argue that the rules improperly intrude on states' authority to administer elections and could result in eligible ballots being rejected or delayed.

The latest Supreme Court filing marks another turn in the legal fight.

The justices in August cleared away an earlier injunction against Trump's mail-voting order after finding that the states' initial challenge had come before the administration had taken enough concrete steps to implement the policy.

That decision did not resolve the underlying constitutional questions surrounding the order.

The states and voting-rights groups subsequently filed a new challenge after the Postal Service moved forward with its implementing rules.

Talwani then temporarily blocked portions of those rules, setting up the current hearing and the administration's latest Supreme Court appeal.

The timing is significant because states are beginning the process of preparing and sending mail ballots for the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

The dispute illustrates two competing emphases in the current election-security debate.

Padilla and Morelle are urging the federal government to devote resources to protecting election infrastructure from cyberattacks, foreign interference and other security threats.

The Trump administration has placed increasing emphasis on the integrity of the voting process itself, including who receives mail ballots and how those ballots are processed.

The administration has pursued similar goals through other election initiatives involving voter rolls, citizenship verification, paper ballots and election audits.

Trump has argued that stronger safeguards are needed to protect election integrity and increase public confidence in election results.

Democratic officials and voting-rights groups have challenged several of those initiatives in court, arguing that election administration is primarily the responsibility of states and local governments.

The separate battles over DHS funding and mail-in voting are therefore unfolding around different visions of election security, even as both sides say they are focused on protecting the integrity of the November elections.

With the midterms less than two months away, the fight over federal election-security funding is continuing at the same time the administration's mail-ballot rules face another critical test in federal court and at the Supreme Court.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Is This Why Maria Bartiromo Was Fired by Fox?

We're getting a clearer picture of what may have led to the abrupt firing of longtime Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Thursday – and if the latest reporting is accurate, it wasn't just a simple editorial disagreement.

According to multiple sources familiar with what transpired, Bartiromo wanted to do a story on China and its involvement in election-related conspiracy claims during the 2020 presidential election, a sensitive subject for Fox given the network's costly Dominion settlement and ongoing Smartmatic litigation. An executive with Fox Business reportedly sent producers a message making it clear that the story would not air.

That's not all. Oliver Darcy at Status News

 

 reports that Bartiromo then shared the network's internal guidance with senior White House officials after Fox bosses ordered staff not to pursue the story.

Bartiromo also allegedly took a screenshot of the message and sent it over to the White House. Fox leadership reportedly learned what she had done this when they received a phone call from administration officials; they apparently viewed the sharing of internal network communications as a fireable offense.

Dylan Byers at Puck News separately confirmed the new information, and reported that Fox pulled Bartiromo from the air after Aug. 9 before making her departure official on Thursday. 

NEW: The Maria Bartiromo backstory, per multiple sources familiar....

Maria Bartiromo wanted to pursue a story related to China and 2020 election voting conspiracies... a major sensitivity for the network given its Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits.

A Fox Business executive sent a text to Fox Business producers informing them that that story could not go to air.

Bartiromo took a screen shot of the guidance and sent it to senior White House officials.

Fox News leadership learned about that after receiving a call from the White House, which they viewed as a fireable offense.

Fox pulled Bartiromo from air after Aug. 9. She was fired today. I have also learned that her executive producer Patrick Ignozzi was also  fired after the annoucnement.

 

Maria had resigned her contract with Fox last February.

Fox said her departure was merely "business decision," but the new reporting suggests it went much deeper than that.

Byers tweeted that he'll have additional information to share on Friday, so this may not be the last surprising detail to emerge about Bartiromo's sudden exit from Fox.

 

This One Photo Perfectly Encapsulates the Democrat Temper Tantrum After That Socialism Vote

House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (MA-02) decided he had no interest in looking like the grown-up in the room during testimony by his colleague, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) on Wednesday.

Why? Because she and Rep. Jared Golden (ME-02) had the audacity — nay, the temerity — to cross party lines and cast a procedural vote that cleared the way for a Republican resolution denouncing socialism.

McGovern, who is listed as 66 years old, opted to act one-eighth that age by balling up his little fist and getting all stompy-foot when Perez began to testify.

If ever an image encapsulated the absolute temper tantrum Democrats were having because two of their own finally had an independent thought, this is it.

 

What a rube.

McGovern later told the Washington Examiner he was checked out.

“I really wasn’t interested and paying attention,” he said, a bold line from a man whose only job at that moment was to sit there and pay attention.

That wasn't all of it, however. The truth came out shortly afterward.

“To be honest with you, I didn’t even get the courtesy of even a heads up that she was going to vote [for] the rule," he added.

He then quickly went back to finger-painting, macaroni art, and eating paste. (Just kidding, fact-checkers!)

Recommended

To further demonstrate the childishness of McGovern's actions, here is a video of a grown man (allegedly) turning his back on a woman because she didn't tell him what she was planning to do.

Perez was testifying about proposed House rules changes, including a congressional sexual harassment policy, and McGovern treated that as background noise because she had committed the sin of not asking him permission first to help advance a resolution condemning socialism.

Yikes. There was a time not too long ago that the MeToo movement would have risen up and swallowed him whole for not taking sexual harassment seriously.

RedState reporter Teri Christoph 

 

notes that McGovern didn't stop with the petty nonsense either. He tried to dismiss the resolution as “nonsense” while suggesting Republicans should focus on the costs of groceries instead of socialism.

"So you're concerned about rising gas, or are you concerned about grocery prices? You know, don't worry," he sniped. "Republicans in Congress are passing another non-binding resolution condemning socialism."

Who wants to tell him what a socialist takeover of the party that could regain power after the midterms will do to gas and grocery prices?

Aside from McGovern's antics, House Democrats have been turned on each other after Golden and Perez stepped off the party plantation and thought for themselves.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08) said he got no warning. He pointed reporters to Whip Katherine Clark (MA-05), called the defections a “significant breach of trust,” and sent the pair to the Committee on Caucus Rules. Some members are already floating stripping their committee assignments.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a member voting for the other party’s rule was something “we didn’t even consider” when she held the gavel, and that she was “disappointed.” The remark was aimed at Golden and Perez, but it also landed on Jeffries’ grip on the caucus.

 

Who Is Renaming Everything on the Map? It's Not Just Trump.

In one of his Truth Social bombs, President Donald Trump insisted we should rename Lake Ontario to Lake America after Canada refused to accept his trade negotiation terms. It obviously echoes his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

It's easy to find these whole geographic kerfuffles unnecessary. But the media hated the first one so much that the Associated Press found itself restricted from the White House press pool for refusing to accept the new Gulf terminology. What they hate is anything Trump does to add a patriotic pro-America tinge to something that they associate more with his ego than with patriotism. They see red — as in a red MAGA cap.

On the Lake Ontario battle, HBO host Bill Maher joked: "The liberals are very pissed at this. They say you can't just go around changing things to fit your political agenda. Just ask any Latinx birthing person."

 

As anyone who watches the "evolution" of what terms are acceptable, the Left regularly changes the terminology and expects everyone to follow their changes. Try to keep up with the Associated Press Stylebook, which calls the tune for the press.

These term tyrants routinely genuflect ethnic and LGBTQ pressure groups and their demands to remake the language we're all supposed to use. They tried to force "Latinx" on people, but the Latinos seemed to hate it the most. Illegal aliens are "undocumented," homeless people are "unhoused," and gender is "assigned at birth."

Describing a woman as a "birthing person" — to include "men" with a uterus — strikes most people as waging war on biological truth. The use of "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman" has caused some pushback from feminists.

But those aren't on the map, the Left might suggest. OK, well they want to cancel and rename all kinds of landmarks to satisfy their urge for wokeness. Just in this decade, they've pulled down all kinds of statues. Last week, they removed three statues in Richmond to clean that Old South house: Confederate Generals Stonewall Jackson and "Extra Billy" Smith, as well as Confederate doctor Hunter Holmes McGuire.

REMEMBER? President Joe Biden renamed nine major U.S. Army bases

 that honor Confederate leaders, including Fort Bragg, Fort Benning, Fort Pickett, Fort Hood and Fort Rucker. He also renamed nearly 650 geographic features across this country.

Under Native American (or is that "indigenous"?) Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, they created a "Derogatory Geographic Names Task Force" and changed the names of things with offensive terms like "Squaw." None of this was considered controversial by our media elites because everything a Democrat renames in the cause of wokeness is good news. Or not news.

The woke police forced name changes for the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians and many college and high school athletic teams with "derogatory" mascots. But now they also seem to find the use of "America" on the map to be offensive.

Conservatives are usually the ones who like to stick with traditions and not rename things based on the newest ideological fads. Liberals can't seriously object to renaming things. They just want to be the only people who get to rename things.

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. 

 

CDC Officially Rejects PA Measles Reports

It’s about time, and it’s right that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did this because there’s no evidence. Pennsylvania jumped the gun, declaring that they had two measles deaths, and shame on President Trump and his administration for tweaking the vaccine schedule. There’s just one problem: dying from measles and dying with measles are two different things, so Gov. Josh Shapiro spread panic over nothing. 

 

One of the fatalities was a baby whose cause of death was a lacerated spleen. We still don’t have any additional information about the second measles-associated victim. Funny how we went from ‘death by measles’ to measles-associated — it’s why this story has died. There’s nothing left to use to attack Trump (via NYT):

The new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered agency officials to challenge two measles deaths reported by Pennsylvania, shunning the agency’s normal procedure of accepting data shared by states and amplifying comments made by her boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The incident draws the C.D.C. into a highly political disagreement about whether the deaths were a result of measles or merely coincided with the infection, echoing similar disputes over causes of death during the coronavirus pandemic.

It also pits the agency against a state health department, an extraordinary move for the C.D.C. But the episode is emblematic of the Trump administration’s continuing tussle with states, particularly those led by Democrats, over health policies and priorities.

[…]

One of the two deaths involved a newborn with a ruptured spleen. Details of the second case have not been disclosed, but both people were unvaccinated and both tested positive for the measles virus, according to the Pennsylvania Health Department.

Dr. Erica Schwartz,

 

who has expressed strong, public support of childhood vaccines, was confirmed as C.D.C. director this month, despite persistent questions during her confirmation hearing about her willingness and ability to push back against Mr. Kennedy’s actions. She has repeatedly promised to “follow the science” and promised the agency’s staff that she was prepared to disagree with her superiors when needed, and that she would work to build trust with state partners.

But the current incident threatens to do the opposite, some public health experts cautioned.

God, is it too early to start drinking? If they didn’t die of measles and the state says otherwise, then yes, you challenge the findings. They’re crap — this isn’t COVID anymore. No one died of measles in Pennsylvania. And can we stop acting like unvaccinated people are a new Trump-era phenomenon? Marin County, California, had measles outbreaks, and its residents are pink right down to their underwear. 

 

Vance leads first WH press briefing since Leavitt's departure, discussing Iran conflict, gas prices and military successes

U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on September 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Vice President JD Vance led the White House’s first press briefing since the departure of former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, where he addressed the recent Venezuela oil deal, updates on the Iran conflict and other key issues.

When questioned how the Trump Administration plans to build on Leavitt’s legacy, Vance pointed to her outreach to independent journalism noting that one of her “many legacies” was her efforts to include “non-legacy media.”

Rather than viewing the influx of non-traditional journalists as a “threat,” Vance noted that it is a “way to democratize access to information,” grounding the move in First Amendment principles and Leavitt’s push for press diversity.

When the conversation shifted to national economic pressures, Vance acknowledged ongoing concerns over soaring costs for American households, highlighting that unraveling complex economic issues inherently requires time.

“No taxes on Social Security, no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime—we’ve seen $19 trillion of new investment coming into the country,” he said. “Because America’s inflation problem wasn’t created in a day—it was created by very bad policies of the Biden Administration, trillions of dollars of new spending that was going more to fraudsters than it was to the American people, it takes a little bit of time to rebuild the foundation of America’s middle class economy,” he explained.

Responding to questions about gas prices, the vice president attributed the surge directly to Iran’s ongoing attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The fundamental reality is that the reason gas prices are so high right now is because the Iranians are shooting at commercial shipping,” Vance explained, noting that Iranian forces resumed targeting vessels even after agreeing to stop. Framing the situation as a lesson in energy independence, he argued that initiatives like the recent Venezuela oil deal are crucial to ensure the U.S. isn’t “over-reliant on anybody for the world supply of energy and gas. 

“The Iranians are going to shoot at ships like crazy people and we’re going to do what we have to do to ensure that their efforts don’t lead to a worldwide energy crisis,” he continued. “We’ve been quite successful up to this point. Gas frankly, could have been much much higher if it weren’t for our efforts but I’m not going to make a promise about when its going to return to three dollars.”

 

Praising the military’s current standing under the Trump administration, Vance declined to outline specific next steps regarding the conflict with Iran. However, he emphasized that the White House is keeping all options open.

“Anything that could happen is on the table—economic pressure, military pressure, diplomatic pressure, covert pressure. Of course, these are tools in the president’s toolkit,” he remarked. 

When asked about when talks will proceed with Iran, Vance reiterated that Washington refuses to continue diplomatic discussions while Iran continues to strike commercial shipping.

“The president has been very clear,” he stressed. “We aren’t talking to them. And we’re not going to talk to them unless they stop shooting at commercial shipping.”

Pointing to eight consecutive months of expansion in U.S. manufacturing, OAN’s Daniel Baldwin asked Vance if he’s seen a “trickle down effect” from the administration’s tax and trade policies on the trail, and whether that makes initiative ideas like the Foundry School even more crucial.

 

Vance credited President Trump with sparking a “renaissance in American building and American manufacturing” by rejecting decades of policy that shipped jobs and industries overseas. Touting the Working Families Tax Cuts alongside record-high manufacturing metrics, Vance attributed the economic momentum to local investment.

“I do not think that you could have the beginning of a manufacturing renaissance were it not for President Trump’s willingness to penalize corporations and foreign countries that take advantage of the American worker,” he said.

During the press conference, Vance also shared how honored he is to attend the upcoming 25^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks at Ground Zero in Manhattan, while President Trump attends a ceremony at the Pentagon.

 

L.A. County Targets Celebs for Jet Taxes, But Is It Fair Game?

Los Angeles County quietly mailed tax notices this week to a string of high-profile private jet owners — including Jeff Bezos and Rihanna — saying they owe six-figure sums for unpaid aircraft property taxes. The move lit up headlines after the county’s effort to find “habitually situated” planes turned up what officials say are millions in escaped assessments.

Under California law, private aircraft that are routinely based in a county are subject to an annual property tax of roughly 1% of assessed value, and owners are supposed to self-report those planes to local assessors. County investigators leaned on flight-tracking records to pinpoint where jets actually spend their time and to calculate what they say is owed.

The list of names is eyebrow-raising: Bezos reportedly faced about $244,000, a jet tied to Rihanna about $104,000, Stan Kroenke was billed for roughly $290,000 across two planes, and other figures include notices to Phil Knight and the creators of South Park. County officials say the sweep could account for roughly $38 million in unpaid taxes and reassessed value.

Conservatives should welcome the principle that no one is above the law, but we must also be clear-eyed: this smells a lot like performative grandstanding from county officials who want headlines and political points. Enforcing tax law is one thing; weaponizing surveillance to shame successful Americans is another, and the line between the two must be guarded.

There are real due-process questions here. Aircraft owners can and do dispute assessments when a plane spends considerable time outside the county — the assessor’s office is supposed to prorate based on actual usage — and notices are not the same as final judgments. If local officials are going to use flight-tracking firms to build cases, taxpayers deserve a transparent, auditable process and a chance to defend themselves.

This episode also exposes a double standard from coastal elites who lecture the rest of America about fairness while quietly structuring assets to minimize scrutiny. If the law requires reporting, then report and pay; but if the law is being stretched or applied selectively to feed a political narrative, that’s a problem conservatives should oppose just as loudly.

Prudence demands two things from our side: insist on equal enforcement of tax laws without selective persecution, and insist on protecting property rights and privacy against overbroad government snooping. Call out the hypocrisy when celebrities dodge scrutiny, but do not applaud a tax-collector circus that treats law enforcement like a press release.

Hardworking Americans want fair rules and honest government, not spectacle. If Los Angeles County has legitimate claims, pursue them through fair hearings and clear evidence; if this is cheap virtue-signaling from elected bureaucrats, voters should remember who is busy policing private property while leaving real problems unanswered.

 

Judge Greenlights Trial for Man Charged in Assassination of Charlie Kirk

A Utah judge has now ruled that Tyler Robinson will stand trial on aggravated murder charges in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a development that should reassure Americans who demand accountability for political violence. Prosecutors told the court they have what they called a “mountain of evidence” tying Robinson to the roof from which the fatal shot was fired, and the decision makes him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

Court filings and testimony revealed a string of damning evidence prosecutors presented during the preliminary hearing: campus surveillance video, messages allegedly from Robinson claiming responsibility, and a recorded interview from his roommate that prosecutors say confirmed a confession and identification. For those paying attention, this isn’t speculation — it’s the kind of hard, corroborated material juries are supposed to weigh.

Charlie Kirk was shot on September 10, 2025, while speaking at Utah Valley University, a killing that shocked the nation and exposed how far political rancor can be twisted into deadly action. That a young conservative leader was gunned down on a college campus during a speech should make every freedom-loving American uneasy about the culture of violence now tolerated in some circles.

Make no mistake: conservatives are not calling for vengeance so much as justice and clarity. When the state presents evidence and seeks the harshest penalties available, patriotic citizens should want the full weight of the law to be applied swiftly and transparently — not diluted by political theater or selective outrage from the coastal commentariat. Opinion and rhetoric have consequences; when those consequences are murder, the law must be unequivocal.

The preliminary hearings also showed the seams of how modern investigations unfold: digital footprints, DNA links, and witness statements that together form a narrative prosecutors say proves premeditation and aggravating factors. If the state’s presentation holds up in a trial, there should be no surprise that prosecutors are pursuing every available avenue to secure justice in a case that targeted speech and life itself.

Patriots who cherish free speech must do more than tweet sympathy — we must insist our institutions stop coddling political violence and start protecting Americans who show up to speak their minds. Hold the courts to a high standard, demand transparency in the proceedings, and make clear that assaults on speech will be met with the full force of the law so that no campus or podium becomes a killing field.

 

CartoonDems