Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Friday, July 17, 2026

Georgia’s Senators Ridicule Trump’s Election Fraud Claims

 

Georgia’s Senators Ridicule Trump’s Election Fraud Claims

Georgia Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, both Democrats, have countered former President Trump’s false claims of election fraud in their 2020 victories. They argue that Trump’s claims are driven by his ego and efforts to undermine trust in the electoral process. Both senators emphasize their commitment to their constituents and dismiss Trump’s attempts to relitigate the past.

Senators in both parties say the state’s 2020 Senate election is a long-settled issue.

Warnock and Ossoff wave as they embrace with a crowd of people behind them.
Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff at a campaign event last year.Mike Stewart/Associated Press

Georgia’s two Democratic senators didn’t wait for President Trump to try to undermine their legitimacy with false claims about their crucial election victories in 2020 that propelled Democrats to the Senate majority.

In interviews and social media posts, Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff have aggressively countered a potential presidential claim that they did not win their seats fairly.

They acted after reports that the president would use a speech scheduled for Thursday evening to take aim at them, alleging widespread fraud in Georgia voting six years ago despite multiple inquiries that produced no evidence of wrongdoing.

The two senators and their Democratic allies have ridiculed the president’s fixation on his loss in 2020 and the accompanying Democratic victories as driven by the president’s fragile ego, his efforts to sow distrust about the coming election results and to pressure congressional Republicans to pass new voting restrictions.

“The world’s most famous sore loser will deliver a prime-time address to pursue his six-year-old grievances about the 2020 election while his war in the Middle East spirals out of control and the cost of living continues to rise for Americans,” Mr. Ossoff, who is up for re-election this year, said in advance of the speech. He said that any claim about the Georgia election would be an attack on the state’s voters and elected officials.

“If the president declares Georgia’s elections illegitimate, or if the president declares Georgia’s sitting United States senators illegitimate, he is declaring Georgia voters illegitimate,” Mr. Ossoff said.

Mr. Warnock also brushed off the president’s continued anger over the long-decided and certified election.

“The president can spend every day relitigating 2020 if he wants,” Mr. Warnock wrote on X in one of multiple posts challenging Mr. Trump, including one calling him a “liar, a cheater and a fraud.”

“I’ll spend every day doing the job the people of Georgia elected me to do,” Mr. Warnock wrote.

The 2020 Georgia race has long figured into the president’s claim that he won the election and was defrauded. He was indicted on charges that he illegally tried to overturn the results, though they were dropped after he was re-elected.

His efforts in Georgia were believed to have discouraged some Republican voters from turning out in runoff elections, as members of both parties said at the time, contributing to both Democrats’ winning on Jan. 5, 2021.

Senate Republicans learned that the two men had triumphed and given Democrats the majority while lawmakers were held in a secure area of the Capitol during the Jan. 6 rampage by Trump supporters.

Despite Mr. Trump wanting to revisit 2020, Senate Republicans made clear this week that they wanted little to do with his challenge to the Georgia senators and saw the exercise as a distraction from their efforts to build a legislative record to run on in November.

“The only thing I can tell you is we are focused on the 2026 election — at least I am, and I think most of my colleagues are,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader. He dismissed questions about the legitimacy of the two Georgia Democrats.

“That election was a closed issue back in 2020,” he said. “The election in 2026 gives us an opportunity to take a run at and to win one of those seats in Georgia, and we’re going to do everything we can to do that.”

Members of both parties also said that they viewed the president’s speech as part of a campaign to force Republicans to change Senate rules and push through new voter identification requirements, even though Mr. Thune has said repeatedly that the votes do not exist in the Senate to move ahead.

Senate Democrats said they intended to aggressively counter the president’s claims. Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and minority leader, said those claims were aimed at laying the groundwork for a presidential challenge to the results in the midterm elections.

“It’s about the election he’s afraid to lose this November,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s about undermining the 2026 election before a single vote has been cast.”

Mr. Ossoff said Thursday that the president’s continuing focus on Georgia would only generate a backlash and boost Democrats.

“These attacks on voting rights are galvanizing a defiant determination to show up at the polls like never before,” he said. “Remember that Georgia is the seat and the spiritual and civic home of the civil rights movement and the movement that secured the Voting Rights Act.”

Mr. Ossoff added that “when Donald Trump and his allies come down to Georgia and attack voting rights, they’re just motivating people to participate in our democracy.”

Carl Hulse is the chief Washington correspondent for The Times, primarily writing about Congress and national political races and issues. He has nearly four decades of experience reporting in the nation’s capital.“

. Joy's Lindsey Graham Obit: He Was a Traitor and a Coward | The Joy Reid Show

 

Trump Didn't Want to Sign This Housing Bill (It Became Law Anyways)

 

Thursday, July 16, 2026

Trump makes unverified claims of ‘sinister election meddling’ in primetime address

 

Trump makes unverified claims of ‘sinister election meddling’ in primetime address

“In a primetime address, Donald Trump accused China of interfering with the 2020 election, claiming the US electoral process is vulnerable to foreign interference. He announced the declassification of intelligence revealing vulnerabilities in the election infrastructure and called for investigations into those who hid this information. Critics, including Vice President Kamala Harris, denounced Trump’s speech as a smokescreen for voter suppression and a means to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections.

Opponents warn president’s speech is smokescreen for him to meddle in upcoming congressional midterms

Trump in front of yellow curtain, speaking.
Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington DC on 16 July. Photograph: Saul Loeb/CNP Pool/Shutterstock

Donald Trump accused China of interfering with the 2020 election in a primetime televised address that laid bare his continuing obsession with his defeat to Joe Biden but which opponents warned was a smokescreen for him to meddle in the forthcoming congressional midterms.

In a 25-minute speech on Thursday that had been hyped by Trump himself, the US president cast extraordinary doubts on the integrity of the US electoral process, saying it was “catastrophically” short of standards of fairness and trust, while vulnerable to trespassing by foreign powers.

“No country can be great without fair and honest elections,” Trump said at the White House in an address that began with a familiar rehashing of his favorite campaign boasts, including claims of an unprecedentedly booming economy.

“If there can be no trust, there can be no greatness. Unfortunately, the system we have falls catastrophically short of that standard.”

As a prelude to his claims of interference by China, he went on: “Tonight, I’m announcing the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence, revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure.”

He asserted that evidence showed the electoral system was “dangerously expose[d] … to hacking, exploitation and interference”.

Trump’s allegations have long been at odds with the views of officials who served in his first presidency, who concluded that the 2020 election was the most secure in the US’s history. However, Trump took issue with those findings, accusing intelligence agencies – whom he tarred as “the deep state” – of a deliberate coverup.

“Just as disturbingly, this vital information has for many years been covered up and hidden from you,” he said. “Those responsible for sounding the alarm instead kept the information secret and hidden. They did not disclose to me as president or to anyone else and, to the best of our knowledge, they did not inform Congress.

“In fact, all they kept saying is: ‘This is the most secure election in the history of our country.

“Today, I’m asking the director of the office of national intelligence, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA to investigate how and why such crucial information was hidden, to fire those involved in the coverup and to file criminal charges, if appropriate, against those people.”

Trump recently installed a key ally, Bill Pulte, as acting director of national intelligence, despite the fact that he has no previous intelligence experience. Pulte, who used his previous position in charge of the federal housing finance agency to dig for evidence for retribution against Trump’s adversaries, is believed to have provided intelligence documents meant to validate the president’s claims of interference in the 2020 poll.

He spearheaded a drive to release previously classified documents along with John Solomon, a rightwing former journalist who has been active in spreading election conspiracy theories and was hired as a White House special adviser last month.

In Thursday’s speech, Trump repeated calls for the passage of the Save America Act, legislation requiring strict voter ID, which is currently stuck in Congress.

“Addressing this crisis of election security demands that Congress must pass the Save America Act,” he said. “How easy is that to do? Unless you want to cheat.”

The speech barely touched on the subject of Iran, despite coming just days after Trump jettisoned last month’s vaunted ceasefire deal and resumed ordering military strikes in an effort to loosen Tehran’s grip on the strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed to commercial shipping since the start of the war on 28 February, causing global energy costs to soar.

“We are … winning big in Iran, and you will see the fruits of that labor very, very shortly,” he said in a reprise of previous claims that victory in the conflict was at hand.

Despite holding regular media briefings, Trump has delivered relatively few set-piece addresses from the White House – a stratagem frequently used by past presidents to convey messages deemed of paramount national importance.

The setting involves reading a set text from a teleprompter for a limited period, constraints at odds with Trump’s speaking style, which often deviates from a written script and meanders at length.

During Thursday’s address, Trump appeared at times to have difficulty following the syntax in the written text. He frequently adopted the sarcastic tone characteristic of his stump speeches.

Several networks, including NBC, ABC and CNN, declined to air the speech on their main broadcast networks, citing concerns that the content could be politically partisan or inflammatory. The move drew rebukes from Trump, who called for their broadcast licenses to be revoked. All three stations gave live coverage on their streaming services, and some ABC affiliates chose to air the speech.

Television networks are not legally obliged to grant a president’s request to air a speech live. Joe Biden and Barack Obama had requests for White House speeches to be broadcast live refused during their presidencies.

Even before Trump spoke, a succession of Democrats issued denunciations in the expectation that he would intensify his accusations about the 2020 election. Several said his focus on the past masked a more forward-looking agenda: to interfere in November’s congressional midterm elections, when Democrats will attempt to take control of the House of Representative and the Senate.

Leading the counterattack was Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and the defeated Democratic candidate in the 2024 presidential election, who – less than 20 minutes before Trump was due to speak – accused him of planning “to peddle lies and conspiracy theories”.

“Here is what you need to know: The 2020 election was not stolen; we won and he lost,” she wrote on social media. “The Save Act is voter suppression. It is part of a larger agenda of conservatives trying to steal power from the people.”

After the speech, critics doubled down.

“Tonight, Americans heard the president once again repeat claims about our elections that have been investigated for years and repeatedly rejected by the Intelligence Community, the FBI, DHS, DOJ, bipartisan state election officials, audits, recounts, and the courts. The facts have not changed,” said Mark Warner, a Democratic senator from Virginia.

“As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have spent years overseeing our nation’s efforts to defend against foreign meddling in our elections. China is a serious strategic competitor, and it absolutely seeks to advance its interests at America’s expense. So do Russia and Iran. We should confront those threats with facts, not distort them for political purposes.

You've read 14 articles in the last year

At this dangerous time

We hope you appreciated this article. Before you close this tab, we want to ask if you could support the Guardian at this dangerous time for journalism in the US.

According to a leading global watchdog, American democracy is now more imperiled than at any point since the 1960s, marked by a precipitous decline in press freedom – driven by mounting pressure from the Trump administration in the form of threats, criminal investigations, politicized regulation, frivolous lawsuits and, for public media, catastrophic funding cuts. 

Meanwhile, organizations that are supposed to be independent like the FBI and the FCC, our radio and television regulator, have also been targeting press freedom under Trump-aligned leadership, with the FBI raiding a reporter’s home and the FCC threatening ABC’s TV licenses after Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Melania Trump.

The response from some ultra-wealthy and corporate media owners, keen to appease the president, has been chilling: CBS News has been taken over by a Trump ally; CNN is poised to be taken over by the same billionaire; Jeff Bezos has continued to impose cuts and editorial interventions at the Washington Post; and multiple outlets have settled multimillion-dollar lawsuits from the administration to protect their business interests.

Democracy is best served by a robust, thriving free press. But when that freedom is under attack, it falls to a determined few news organizations to ensure the full truth still reaches the public. Owned neither by a billionaire nor a corporation, the Guardian remains dedicated to covering this administration with uncompromising moral and factual clarity – and to keeping trustworthy journalism paywall-free for the world.“

Why the Trump Admin Tries to ERASE Black History

 

The Real Reason Trump Is Targeting Marginalized Communities

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

Opinion | Who Will Win the Midterms? Nate Silver and 5 Other Experts Have Thoughts. - The New York Times

Who Will Win the Midterms? 6 Pollsters and Pundits Make Educated Guesses.

With the midterm elections about four months off, ​Times Opinion asked six polling and politics experts to look into their crystal balls and guess who would win control of the House and the Senate if the elections were held today. These are not scientific computations but educated guesses from people who think a lot about politics.


Which party will control the House and the Senate?

To win a majority, 218 is the magic number in the House. Democrats would need to pick up at least four seats for control of the Senate.

+4D+3D+2D+1D+1R+2R+3R+4R +12D+10D+8D+6D+4D+2D+2R

Democratic Senate majority

Republican Senate majority

Democratic House majority

Republican House majority

Carlos Odio +10D House, Even Senate

Note: House scores are reported as seats over the 218 baseline needed for a majority.

As of today, almost all of our contributors believe the Democrats will gain control of the House but fall just short of a majority in the Senate. We also asked them to pick data points, races and candidates that capture the state of play in midterm contests across the country.

If the elections were held today …

Donald Trump’s dismal approval ratings would suggest a massive House defeat for the president’s party, similar to 2006, 2010 and 2018. But polarization and the sorting of the electorate (meaning fewer swing districts than in previous cycles) as well as the seats Republicans gained through redistricting will minimize G.O.P. House losses. For the Senate, North Carolina seems like a clear flip for Democrats. Maine is a real tossup — Susan Collins has a strong chance even against a Democrat without Graham Platner’s baggage. If you give Democrats both those seats, I still don’t see them winning more than one in the red states of Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Texas — and the Democrats need four to take the majority.

Mr. Odio is a founder of Equis Research.

All signs point to a Democratic House majority. But there is a drag on Democrats keeping them from a larger tsunami. My informed suspicion is that groups that swung the most toward Trump in 2024 haven’t entirely turned against his party — yet. For a Senate majority, Democrats need to win in at least two states where Trump won by double digits. Even in the blue wave of 2018, only two incumbents (Jon Tester in Montana and Joe Manchin in West Virginia) did that. Today, I can see Democrats pulling off one miracle — but it’s too early to anticipate more. I still think Maine will move on from Susan Collins.

Mr. Ruffini is a pollster at Echelon Insights.

An election being fought on the G.O.P.’s home turf and in districts engineered not to be competitive means it will be hard for Democrats to translate a generic ballot advantage into large seat gains. Without mid-decade redistricting, the G.O.P. would be staring down a 25- to 30-seat loss. Still, the redrawn maps don’t insulate them from losing their majority. For the Senate, elections have become tightly coupled with state partisanship. A Democratic majority would require challengers to win in multiple red states, and the last time a nonincumbent won in a state the other party carried by 10 points or more was Doug Jones in Alabama in 2017. The last time a nonincumbent won in a regularly scheduled election was in 2012.

Mr. Silver writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.

With the Democratic lead on the generic ballot (currently about D+6), you’d expect them to overcome the Republican advantage from redistricting. That could grow, because most polls right now are among registered voters, and Democrats are likely to have an enthusiasm advantage that will show up once there’s a switch to likely-voter polls. In the Senate, to win those four seats, Maine is a problem. There’s not much polling on non-Platner alternatives versus Collins, and any bridge burning by him on the way out could make it hard to unify around the new nominee. Coupled with the recent Times/Siena Senate polling, that makes for more combinations where Democrats come up short.

Ms. Swasey writes the newsletter Medium Data.

Democrats are very, very likely to win a House majority. They’re only a few seats shy, and midterm elections are highly thermostatic, with the president’s party losing seats in every midterm since 2002. The real question is if they can get a Senate majority to match it. I think not quite — the overall Democratic shift seems likely to sweep North Carolina, but past that you run into a wall of states with either unusually strong Republican candidates (Maine) or solid Trump margins (Ohio, Alaska, Texas, Iowa). The polling is so patchy that it’s hard to know which of those seats might flip.

Ms. Vavreck is a political scientist at U.C.L.A.

Political scientists have learned a lot about the regularities of congressional elections: Incumbents typically win, the president’s party usually loses seats in the off year, his or her approval rating is linked to the way races swing, and turnout matters. These factors mainly suggest Democrats should pick up seats in 2026 — but how many? Given how calcified, or stuck, our politics has become, I expect a modest Democratic pickup. At this stage, my rule was to examine the close races in each chamber and assume Democrats win the competitive seats they already hold, pick up close seats if they won them recently and otherwise lose.

Pay attention to these numbers

Trump’s slumping approval rating

JAN 21, '25 51.6%

TODAY 39.7%

39.7% JUL 12, '26

Source: Silver Bulletin

Ms. Swasey writes the newsletter Medium Data.

Midterms are a reaction to what the president is doing, and right now the president is doing poorly: Trump’s approval rating is below 40 percent. But we don’t have strong historical evidence on what happens with an approval rating like this. Pure correlation would suggest a big Democratic wave, but the Republican wave in 2022 was smaller than expected, on the back of a similarly low approval rating for Joe Biden. My guess is the relationship between approval ratings and midterm results isn’t linear, making 2026 a strong Democratic year but not a re-enactment of 2018.

Ms. Vavreck is a political scientist at U.C.L.A.

Changes in midterm election outcomes from cycle to cycle partly reflect changes in the way people think things are going in the country. Right now, that’s not good for Republicans. Polls also suggest more Americans see important differences between the two parties than ever before. So if Republicans are dismayed, they probably won’t vote for a Democrat — but maybe they stay home instead. There just aren’t that many swing voters, but the few who remain are deciding elections. If Trump’s approval rating improves among them, so will Republicans’ prospects.

Trump’s dismal marks on the economy

JAN 21, '25 42.0%

TODAY 35.2%

35.2% JUL 12, '26

Source: Silver Bulletin

Mr. Odio is a founder of Equis Research.

In his first term, Trump often enjoyed higher approvals on his handling of the economy than on his overall job performance. It was something of a safety net: Voters who didn’t like him for other reasons could say, “But the economy.” That net is gone. He is now regularly rated worse on the economy than on his overall job. What was a hidden strength is now an underlying weakness for him and his party, keeping them from bouncing back before the midterms. It could act as a tiebreaker in Democrats’ favor among less partisan voters.

Democrats are winning on the generic ballot

Net Democrats 

Net Republicans 

JAN 17, '25 +3.3R

TODAY +6.3D

+6.3D JUL 12, '26

Source: Silver Bulletin

Mr. Bacon is a staff writer at The New Republic.

Generic ballot is more useful than approval rating, because ultimately voters aren’t choosing between “I like Trump” and “I don’t like Trump” but between Republican and Democratic candidates. It’s particularly helpful in projecting results for the House, where Americans tend to vote by party, as opposed to the individualized way people evaluate Senate candidates. Democrats lead the generic ballot by about 6.2 points. On Election Day in 2010 and 2018, the out party (the G.O.P. in 2010, Democrats in 2018) led the generic ballot by around eight. A roughly six-point lead portends Democrats winning the House — but they need a few more points for a huge wave.

Mr. Silver writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.

You can squint and say there’s been some slippage for Democrats on the generic ballot, but in our tracking it’s been pretty minor. They peaked at D+6.6, and now it’s around D+6.2. Some people might attribute that to stories of Democratic infighting in Maine, New York and Michigan — or that the World Cup is giving people a much-deserved break from politics. But my guess is the more likely factor is that gas prices have declined by about 75 cents from their peak.

Gas prices have spiked

JAN 6, '25 $3.17

TODAY $3.91

$3.91 JUL 6, '26

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Mr. Ruffini is a pollster at Echelon Insights.

Inflation is a key indicator — and more to the point, gas prices. Figuratively and literally, gas prices are the scoreboard people drive by every day that tells them if things are going well or poorly in the economy. They’re also a decent barometer of whether Trump will have succeeded in extricating the country from the war in Iran. A national average price of $3.50 or lower — they are currently at about $3.90 — is probably table stakes for any chance that the G.O.P. has of exceeding expectations.

Keep an eye on these races

An Ohio comeback?

Mr. Bacon is a staff writer at The New Republic.

I have never understood why Ohio became decidedly Republican post-2012 while Michigan and Pennsylvania (similar states in many ways) did not. In 2024, Trump easily won there (11 points), while the Democrat Sherrod Brown, a skilled politician, lost to the newcomer Republican Bernie Moreno by four points. This year, Brown is seeking a return to the Senate and leads in some polls over Senator Jon Husted, who was appointed after JD Vance became vice president. I am intrigued (but still doubtful) that a Democrat can win Ohio again. And while I respect Brown, in this era of skepticism about Washington and career politicians, I am surprised a retread remains so competitive.

A Texas shift?

Mr. Odio is a founder of Equis Research.

Many Hispanic voters are souring on Trump, but it is still unclear how far back the clock can be rewound. To 2022? 2018? Among the seats to watch for that answer are Texas’ 15th Congressional District, which is 75 percent Hispanic by eligible population. Under the new lines of the district, Democrats would have won it before 2020 but lost it since. If Texas Hispanics vote in 2026 the way they did in 2018, Democrats will win this race. Our polling at Equis, including a national survey of Latino voters from May, suggests they’re not there yet. Part of how Democrats could get those levels of support is by running candidates that distinguish themselves from the generic Democratic brand. Bobby Pulido — a superpopular Tejano singer who plays quinceañeras and campaigns with slogans like “I’m not team red, I’m not team blue — I’m team you” — offers a strong example.

A Michigan test

Mr. Ruffini is a pollster at Echelon Insights.

Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate bid in Michigan may become the clearest test of whether this year’s progressive surge can survive contact with a swing-state electorate. The backlash to Joe Biden-era gerontocracy has raised Democratic primary voters’ appetite for risk and injected an unruliness into the party’s primaries that we are more used to seeing on the Republican side. If El-Sayed wins the nomination and then carries Michigan in November, progressives will treat it as proof that their brand can compete in a 2028 swing state. If he wins the primary and loses the general, it will be taken as evidence that the Democratic left flew too close to the sun and cost the party a very winnable Senate seat.

An Iowa sleeper

Mr. Silver writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.

Iowa has been a little bit under the radar. But the Democratic candidate, the former Paralympian Josh Turek, is roughly in a tossup in polls against Representative Ashley Hinson. Democrats have been teased by Iowa polls before: People in my world still remember the Selzer poll that showed Kamala Harris winning the state late in the 2024 cycle (which led to Trump suing The Des Moines Register). But sometimes being below the radar is helpful. The race won’t attract as much money as, say, Texas, and Turek might not be as easy for Republicans to typecast as James Talarico.

A Kansas microcosm

Ms. Swasey writes the newsletter Medium Data.

The Kansas primaries for governor feature a pile of candidates on both sides, in an under-covered race. Unlike Maine, where Democratic candidates flocked to the gubernatorial primary to avoid the tricky Senate race, Kansas Democrats seem more excited about the long-shot Senate election than the (somewhat less long-shot) one for governor. The Democratic side features three candidates, all from the same county, and an endorsement by Gov. Laura Kelly that doesn’t seem to have moved the needle for her preferred candidate, Ethan Corson. The Republican side has six candidates, with the Trump endorsee and State Senate president Ty Masterson still feeling enough pressure to spend big on ads. It’s a microcosm of the dynamics of both parties: Republicans are grappling with the extent of Trump’s control over the party, and Democrats are watching the sway held by incumbents and party leadership degrade in real time.

A Pennsylvania bellwether?

Ms. Vavreck is a political scientist at U.C.L.A.

Josh Shapiro is on the ballot in November seeking a second term as governor of Pennsylvania, and I’m watching. It’s not a competitive race, but he’s a popular Democratic governor in a swing state (he won by 15 points in 2022), he has a national profile, and he’ll use all of this to try to swing Pennsylvania’s highly competitive Republican-held districts. If the Democrats pick up the Seventh and 10th Districts, they are probably on track for a House majority. If the Eighth District flips, they are expanding into working-class territory, raising the possibility that places like northeastern Pennsylvania remain open to Democrats like Shapiro. Results like these will deepen the conversation about the party’s post-2026 future — and Shapiro’s potential role in it.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads."

Opinion | Who Will Win the Midterms? Nate Silver and 5 Other Experts Have Thoughts. - The New York Times

Watch Live: Todd Blanche, Trump's Attorney General Pick, Answers Questions at Confirmation Hearing - The New York Times

Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general nominated by President Trump to oversee the Justice Department, faced pointed questions during a confirmation hearing on Wednesday from Senator John Cornyn, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee whose support could be crucial.


Mr. Cornyn, one of two G.O.P. lawmakers on the committee who has expressed reservations about Mr. Blanche, pressed him over a deal the department reached with the president that a federal judge said this week amounted to self-dealing. Even a single Republican vote against Mr. Blanche could be enough to sink his nomination, and Mr. Cornyn said during a brief recess that he was undecided.

U.S. War Against Iran Enters a New Phase - The New York Times

U.S. War Against Iran Enters a New Phase

"As President Trump resumes his war, the focus is now on the Strait of Hormuz. But it remains unclear how far the U.S. military will go to exert control.

President Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday. The latest phase of the U.S. military campaign in Iran has a new focus, but not necessarily a clearer strategy.Doug Mills/The New York Times

The Trump administration has lurched back into a war against Iran that had never really ended.

When the war started more than four months ago, U.S. forces targeted Iranian military bases, missile launchers, ships and naval facilities. Israel, fighting alongside the United States, hit leadership targets, hoping to bring down Iran’s hard-line government.

Their record of success has been mixed, at best. Israel killed the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but the leaders who succeeded him were even more hard-line. U.S. forces struck thousands of targets, but did not destroy Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil typically flows.

For roughly 90 days beginning in April, an on-again-off-again cease-fire prevailed. And then it was over.

The United States now appears to be entering Round 2 of its military campaign. This round has a new focus — but not necessarily a clearer strategy.

Iran’s ability to control the strait, despite the pummeling its navy took, is by far the most important lesson of the first phase of the war. So it is no surprise that the Trump administration is focused on trying to loosen Iran’s grip on it.

Last Tuesday, in retaliation for attacks on tankers, President Trump ordered airstrikes on dozens of targets in Iran, including coastal radars, anti-ship missile launchers and a fleet of small Iranian attack boats.

After a short lull, the United States hit 140 military targets in the first of three consecutive days of heavy bombing this week.

U.S. forces carried out new rounds of attacks on Iran throughout Tuesday and resumed a naval blockade of Iranian ports, a strategy that showed some success in the earlier phase.

The strikes are intended to open the waterway to shipping. The purpose of the naval blockade is to put economic pressure on Iran by choking off its trade and to flex American military might.

Mr. Trump was quick to declare success.

“The Strait of Hormuz is open to ALL Ship traffic except for Iran — and that is because of their lying, violent, malicious leadership, which is taking them down the path of TOTAL DESTRUCTION,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday morning.

But exactly what the U.S. military will do to enforce the blockade, and how far it will go to exert control of the strait, is not clear.

Round 1 of the war came at a high cost. Tehran has estimated that at least 3,500 Iranians have died in the war, including 175 at an elementary school. Thirteen U.S. service members have been killed. And the war has cost tens of billions of dollars already, and the new round could drive those financial costs up substantially.

A critical question for the next phase is whether Mr. Trump will consider an operation to take Kharg Island, a key export hub for Iran’s oil in the northern Persian Gulf.

Mr. Trump publicly mused about ordering the Marines to take control of the island during the first phase of the war, but ultimately abandoned those plans for fear of high U.S. casualties.

Such an operation would be a far bigger escalation than Mr. Trump has undertaken so far. But it would be difficult, and lives could be lost in either taking or holding the island.

The United States continues to have a fearsome arsenal in the region, including two aircraft carriers, and dozens of carrier- and land-based attack and surveillance planes.

“There are currently more than 20 U.S. Navy warships and hundreds of military aircraft operating across the Middle East," Central Command said in a statement announcing the resumption of the blockade. “American forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.”

In the strikes last week, U.S. forces hit more than 170 Iranian military targets. In three consecutive days of heavy bombing this week, the United States has hit 140 military targets.

Analysts said the Trump administration was sending a pointed message to the government in Tehran that the United States was willing to broaden its mission again and hit sites that have both military and civilian uses.

But senior U.S. officials said the real focus of the current phase is undoubtedly the strait.

The U.S. military has hit some targets far from the strait, but they are also connected to the central mission. For example, U.S. forces last week appeared to hit a railway bridge in northeastern Iran more than 700 miles from the strait. Online video verified by The New York Times showed several people inspecting a crater at the site.

Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for Central Command, said in a phone interview that those targets included Iranian military logistics infrastructure targets that enabled Iran to direct weapons, munitions and other military supplies to the most contested area of the conflict.

So far, Mr. Trump had not ordered resumption of such an all-out conflict, in part because that could prompt Iran to target not only U.S. military bases in Gulf countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, but also energy infrastructure in those nations.

Attacks on those facilities could send oil and natural gas prices skyrocketing even higher.

Senior officials said the goal of the new military campaign is to force Iran to allow tankers and other commercial cargo ships to pass freely through the strait, and ultimately to return to the bargaining table to resume nascent talks on more difficult, long-term issues like the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium.

Administration officials acknowledge that the military strategy is not without risks. Iran has shown it has an asymmetric advantage. Iranian forces do not have to hit every ship passing through the strait, or sink any of them. They only have to cause enough damage and issue enough threats to scare shipping companies and insurers.

This week, Iranian missiles struck two crude oil carriers that were transiting the southern part of the strait. The attack killed an Indian crew member. Another tanker, carrying liquefied natural gas, was also hit and caught fire near the Omani coast.

Senior U.S. officials said time remains on the American side as Iran’s economy collapses.

During the uneasy peace, Iran was able to get many of its tankers out, and to empty storage tanks that were overflowing with oil.

The resumed blockade will cause that oil to back up once more, and the money Iran has made from its oil exports will begin to dry up.

But the real question is: Can Iran’s hard-line leadership outlast Mr. Trump’s anxiety over rising oil prices?

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.

Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades. Contact him securely on Signal: @ericschmitt.36.

David E. Sanger covers the Trump administration and a range of national security issues. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written four books on foreign policy and national security challenges."

U.S. War Against Iran Enters a New Phase - The New York Times