Who's Taking Apart What America Built?

About The Things That We All Depend On ~1200 words | approx. 9 minutes

Speaker's Note: Are you affiliated with a non-profit? Deliver this personally, not as an official function — 
if you lead a 501(c) (3) (clergy, board chair, director), share it in conversation or a community 
forum, not from the pulpit. That keeps it separate from your organization's tax status. 

Preface: Our communities are facing real struggles. Families have been separated. Public health systems are under pressure. Voting access is being questioned in ways it hasn't been in decades. What's driving that? Something has been changing over the past year or more. The concern in living rooms, congregations, and union halls isn't new — but it's moving from private worry toward public conversation. Think of it like hot coals that have been smoldering: the heat has been there, spreading person to person, but it needs oxygen to become visible. Leaders speaking out — clearly, consistently, together — provides that oxygen.

Something has been changing over the past year or more. The concern in living rooms, congregations, and union halls isn't new — but it's moving from private worry toward public conversation. Think of it like coals that have been smoldering: the heat has been there, spreading person to person, but it needs oxygen to become visible. Leaders speaking out — clearly, consistently, together — provides that oxygen.

Think about the last time your child needed a doctor and help was there. The last time a flood struck your community and emergency workers showed up ready to help.  Think of the times you've fed your family without worrying whether the food was safe.

What made those things possible? Who was keeping watch?

 For discussion of these states, follow the links.

   Alaska    Georgia    Iowa    Maine    Michigan    N Carolina    Ohio

To continue with the the national concerns,  

When Rules are Optional

Courts, Congress, and the Presidency

An Address for Community Conversations | Leaders One Voice

Approximate length: 1,200 words | About 9 minutes, spoken

Speaker's Note: Are you affiliated with a non-profit? Deliver this personally, not as an official function — 
if you lead a 501(c) (3) (clergy, board chair, director), share it in conversation or a community 
forum, not from the pulpit. That keeps it separate from your organization's tax status. 

Preface: Rules work best when applied regularly, evenly and consistently. The same is true of sharing ideas. The more people hear a well-sourced account — and the more trusted voices they hear it from — 
the more seriously they tend to take it. And the more likely they are to vote for candidates who will take congressional oversight seriously.. Repetition isn't a problem. It's how ideas take hold. We are ensuring communities have what they need to decide for themselves — and that they hear it from someone they know and respect. That is what you provide. It matters more than you may think.

Speaker's Note:

Are you affiliated with a non-profit? Deliver this personally, not as an official function — if you lead a 501(c) (3) (clergy, board chair, director), share it in conversation or a community forum, •not from the pulpit. That keeps it separate from your organization's tax status.Preface: Rules work best when applied regularly, evenly and consistently. The same is true of sharing ideas. The more people hear a well-sourced account — and the more trusted voices they hear it from — 
the more seriously they tend to take it. And the more likely they are to vote for candidates who will take congressional oversight seriously.. Repetition isn't a problem. It's how ideas take hold. We are ensuring communities have what they need to decide for themselves — and that they hear it from someone they know and respect. That is what you provide. It matters more than you may think.

Preface:

Rules work best when applied regularly, evenly and consistently. The same is true of sharing ideas. The more people hear a well-sourced account — and the more trusted voices they hear it from — •the more seriously they tend to take it. And the more likely they are to vote for candidates who will take congressional oversight seriously.. Repetition isn't a problem. It's how ideas take hold.

We are ensuring communities have what they need to decide for themselves — and that they hear it from someone they know and respect. That is what you provide. It matters more than you may think.

I. What the Rule of Law Actually Means

What it actually means is simple: the same rules apply to everyone. A contract you sign is enforceable. A court order must be followed. The law doesn't bend depending on who you are — including the most powerful person in the room.

Today I want to look carefully at whether that principle is holding up. I'll raise some questions. You'll draw your own conclusions.

II. The Money Congress Approved — and the Programs That Went Dark

The Constitution is plain: Congress decides what gets funded by passing laws. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the president to notify Congress before changing any appropriated funds.

In early 2025, the Trump administration froze or canceled billions of dollars Congress had already approved — without following that process. The National Institutes of Health canceled 1,800 research grants. Head Start programs in more than 40 states missed funding; 65,000 children were put at risk. Medicaid portals went offline in all 50 states. FEMA shelter grants were withheld. Nearly $2 billion in foreign aid that Congress approved for USAID was suspended.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled the administration's freeze "likely unconstitutional." By September 2025, the Government Accountability Office had issued six formal rulings finding that President Trump unlawfully blocked funds, with 39 investigations still open. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, stated: "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law."

When a federal judge, the nonpartisan congressional watchdog, and the president's own party's senior senator reach the same conclusion — what should we think?

Sources: U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §9. Impoundment Control Act of 1974. GAO: 39 investigations, 6 rulings (May-September 2025); Comptroller General Dodaro testimony, April 2025. Judge McConnell, No. 1:25-cv-39 (D.R.I.), March 6, 2025. Sen. Collins, Government Executive, August 29, 2025. NIH: GAO ruling, August 2025. Head Start: PBS NewsHour, February 2025; FFYF tracker, March 2026. USAID: U.S. District Court, March 2025.

III. When Courts Say Stop

A Washington Post analysis reviewed 165 federal lawsuits in which courts ruled against the administration. In one third of those cases (57) Trump officials defied, delayed, or manipulated the courts' rulings.

Kilmar Abrego García is a sheet metal worker and father of three, a Maryland resident of more than a decade. A U.S. immigration judge ruled in 2019 he could not be deported to El Salvador because his life would be in danger there. In March 2025 he was deported to a harsh prison there anyway. His wife and three children, all U.S. citizens, did not know where he was. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2025 that the government must facilitate his return. The administration stalled for months — what judges called "willful disregard" for court authority. Was Mr. Garcia's case an aberration?

On March 15, 2025, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued an oral order stopping deportation flights of Venezuelan men to the same prison. The two planes were on their way and did not turn around. Boasberg found probable cause for criminal contempt, writing: "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders."

Minnesota's chief federal judge, Patrick Schiltz, found ICE ignoring more than 90 court orders across 70 cases in his district alone: "ICE is not a law unto itself."

If government officials feel free to ignore court orders, how can we trust that the rule of law will be upheld?

Sources: Washington Post analysis, July 21, 2025. Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Supreme Court, unanimous, April 10, 2025. Boasberg contempt finding, NPR/NBC News, April 16-17, 2025. ABC News flight record review, April 3, 2025. Judge Schiltz: PBS NewsHour, January 29, 2026.

IV. Inside the Justice Department

The courts have determined that the IRS broke the law when it shared roughly 47,000 names, and last known addresses, with ICE on August 7, 2025. Nina Olson, Executive Director, Center for Taxpayer Rights says that "trust in the tax system depends on protection of taxpayer information,” and "the IRS violated that trust.” This has be described as unprecedented, outrageous and alarming.

Erez Reuveni was a senior DOJ attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint in 2025 alleging that Emil Bove, a senior DOJ official, directed staff to ignore court rulings. When Reuveni raised objections, he was threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged. Bove was subsequently nominated by the president to serve as a federal judge.

In a separate case, after a court blocked a federal grant freeze, the Office of Management and Budget publicly rescinded its policy memo — but kept the freeze in place. The White House press secretary confirmed the memo was retracted to "end any confusion," that is, to appear to comply with the court's order, while actually keeping the freeze in place. Judge Loren AliKhan wrote: "The court can think of few things more disingenuous."

In a separate set of events, What does it mean when the officials sworn to enforce court orders direct staff to ignore them — and a lawyer who objects is fired?

Sources: Reuveni whistleblower complaint (Washington Post; NationofChange, July 23, 2025). Bove nomination: multiple outlets, 2025. Judge AliKhan opinion: NationofChange, July 23, 2025. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt statement, January 2025.

V. Due Process — and What the Law Requires

The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Not "no citizen" — it is "no person." Every human being within U.S. jurisdiction.

And here we're not talking only about the law. We're talking about the Constitution of the United States.

But where would this be important?

When a government agent takes a life, federal law requires an independent investigation, findings, and accountability that it needs to determine if that use of force was justified.

Since September 2025, federal agents shot and killed four people during enforcement operations: Renée Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens in Minneapolis; Silverio Villegas González, a long-term resident in a Chicago suburb; and Isaias Sanchez Barboza, a Mexican national at the Texas border.

In the Minneapolis cases, the FBI refused to share evidence with state investigators, and an FBI supervisor resigned after being pressured to abandon a civil rights inquiry. The Deputy Attorney General publicly closed the federal investigation before it was complete. In Chicago, the Illinois Accountability Commission issued a 204-page report finding federal agents had engaged in patterns of illegal and violent conduct;. In Texas, the agent who fired the shots has never been publicly identified.

Four people dead. No completed independent investigation in any of the four cases.

If the required process is blocked, delayed, or controlled by the same agency that employed the agent — is that due process? Or is it the opposite?

Sources: Renée Good: NYT (FBI supervisor Mergen resignation, January 23, 2026); Blanche DOJ statement, 2026. Alex Pretti: BCA statement (FBI withholding evidence, February 16, 2026); Hennepin County M.E. (homicide, February 2, 2026). Silverio Villegas González: Illinois Accountability Commission 204-page report; ISP investigation opened May 6, 2026. Isaias Sanchez Barboza: CBP incident summary, December 17, 2025; PBS NewsHour (agent never identified). Full case details in companion speech.

VI. Official Acts - Anything Goes?

On July 1, 2024, in President Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts — and broad presumptive immunity for a wide range of actions in office. Three dissenters took issue. Justice Sotomayor wrote: "Under the majority's rule, a President's use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution." And: "Never in the history of our Republic has a President [thought] that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used . . . his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity."

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell stated he did not believe presidents should be immune from prosecution for actions in office.

This ruling does not apply only to this president. It applies to every president who comes after. Whatever you think of the current administration — consider what this framework means in the hands of any future president, of either party, whose judgment you do not trust.

Sources: Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (July 1, 2024), 6-3. Sotomayor dissent (Kagan and Jackson joining). McConnell: Meet the Press, 2024. Nixon: David Frost interview, 1977.

VII. What This Asks of Us

The sharpest criticques of what I've described today have come from a senior Republican senator, a Republican president's ethics lawyer, a Republican Senate leader. Must court orders be followed? Will Congress assert its spending authority? Will federal agents face independent review? You deserve to know the answers.

The path forward runs through every House and Senate seat. The people who can tighten the laws, strengthen the roles of Congress and the Courts, and curb unchecked presidential power — they sit in Congress.

Ask how members of Congress will assure that Constitutional principles and the laws of the land apply to everyone, regardless of position or privilege.

One of the most effective tools you have as a citizen is your vote. Plan now to vote in every election.

Know the rules. Check your Secretary of State’s website, or ncsl.org.

Check your registration. Find your polling place (redistricting may have moved it.)

Plan your vote. If you vote by mail, request your ballot early, follow the envelope instructions exactly, and track it. Mail or cast your vote early.

Encourage others. Just ask: Are you registered? Do you know where your polling place is? Do you need a ride?

Let your state and local officials know you expect them to defend the Constitution and protect your vote.

Find nonpartisan voting information at Vote.org.

Vote for the principle that the law applies to everyone, in every office, at every level of power. Because when it stops restraining the powerful, it stops protecting the rest of us.

Vote like each vote is the most important vote you'll ever cast. Because for the safety and stability of this country, it may be.

Thank you for thinking about this carefully today.

Source Summary

U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §9 (Appropriations Clause); Fifth Amendment (Due Process).

Impoundment Control Act of 1974. GAO: 39 investigations, 6 rulings (May-September 2025). Comptroller General Dodaro, Senate Appropriations Committee, April 2025.

Judge McConnell, No. 1:25-cv-39 (D.R.I.), TRO January 31, violation finding February 10, preliminary injunction March 6, 2025.

NIH (1,800 grants, GAO August 2025). Head Start (PBS NewsHour, February 2025; FFYF March 2026, 65,000 children). USAID ($2B suspended, U.S. District Court, March 2025). Sen. Collins, Government Executive, August 29, 2025.

Washington Post analysis (57 of 165 rulings defied/delayed), July 21, 2025. Abrego Garcia v. Noem, unanimous, April 10, 2025. Boasberg, NPR/NBC News, April 16-17, 2025. ABC News flight records, April 3, 2025. Judge Schiltz, PBS NewsHour, January 29, 2026.

Renée Good: NYT (Mergen resignation, January 23, 2026); Blanche DOJ statement. Alex Pretti: BCA (FBI withholding evidence, February 16, 2026); Hennepin County M.E. (homicide, February 2, 2026). Silverio Villegas González: Illinois Accountability Commission (May 2026); ISP investigation May 6, 2026. Isaias Sanchez Barboza: CBP incident summary, December 17, 2025; PBS NewsHour (agent unidentified). Full case details in companion speech.

Reuveni whistleblower complaint (Washington Post; NationofChange, July 23, 2025). Bove nomination: multiple outlets, 2025. Judge AliKhan: NationofChange, July 23, 2025. Press Secretary Leavitt, January 2025.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (July 1, 2024). Sotomayor dissent (Kagan, Jackson). McConnell: Meet the Press, 2024. Nixon/Frost, 1977.

NBC News poll (81% support court compliance), June 16, 2025. Reuters/Ipsos (majority: president must obey courts), March 25, 2025.

PBS News Feb 12, 2026 1:27 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The IRS erroneously shared the taxpayer information of thousands of people with the Department of Homeland Security, as part of the agencies' controversial agreement to share information on immigrants for the purpose of identifying and deporting people illegally in the U.S, according to a new court filing.

The revelation stems from a data-sharing agreement signed last April by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, which allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to submit names and addresses of immigrants inside the U.S. illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.

A declaration filed Wednesday by IRS Chief Risk and Control Officer Dottie Romo stated that the IRS was only able to verify roughly 47,000 of the 1.28 million names ICE requested.

For less than 5% of those individuals, the IRS gave ICE additional address information, potentially violating privacy rules created to protect taxpayer data.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/data-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-wrongly-shared-with-dhs-court-filing-says

The courts have determined that when the IRS shared roughly 47,000 names, along with last known addresses, with ICE on August 7, 2025, that was against the law.

Your Vote, Your Community

A 9-Minute spoken address on Voting, Local Control, and the Importance of Showing Up

Speaker's Note: Are you affiliated with a non-profit? Deliver this personally, not as an official function — 
if you lead a 501(c) (3) (clergy, board chair, director), share it in conversation or a community 
forum, not from the pulpit. That keeps it separate from your organization's tax status. 

Preface: Preface: Leader, advisor, influencer, role model, mentor. If part of what you do for your community is among these, you have a gift. And a kind of magic. There are many things that arise from those roles. One of the most powerful is that you give both courage and encouragement to the people in your community. Whenever you give voice to the worries and concerns of your community, you give them the courage, too, to speak out, to take action. With that thought, here are some some ideas for addressing some of the most critical concerns that we all might have. I invite you to use this as a spark or support for your conversations, as a template where you can include your experiences, or as a ready-to-use address for the community that you care about.

Thank you for being here. You belong in this conversation.

Across the country, people are asking the same quiet question: Will I be able to vote? Will it be stolen? Will it be counted? These are serious questions. So let’s look at what is actually happening.

Who do you think should be in charge of running elections? If your answer is "my state and local officials" — people accountable to the communities where you vote — you are in line with the Constitution. States register voters, set up polling places, count votes, and certify results. That has been true since the nation’s founding.

The Framers had seen what centralized power could do, and they distributed election authority across the states precisely to protect it from corruption. Yes, that means some variation from state to state — not always the most efficient. But would you rather have a system that runs like clockwork, controlled by one hand, or one that is a little uneven but far harder for any one person to manipulate?

What Changed in 2024

In August 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Donald Trump for his sustained campaign to overturn the 2020 election: spreading knowingly false claims of voter fraud; organizing false slates of electors in seven states; directing Justice Department officials to falsely claim election wrongdoing; pressuring Vice President Pence to reject certified results; and directing supporters to the Capitol on January 6, then refusing to call them off while the violent attacks of that day were underway.

That 2023 case was dismissed in November 2024 — not for lack of evidence, but because Justice Department policy has prohibited prosecuting a sitting president.

In July 2024, while Trump’s case was still before the courts, the Supreme Court ruled that a president may be shielded from prosecution for official acts — even harmful ones that might otherwise be unlawful. Courts must first ask whether an act was, in a formal sense, officially presidential. If so, that could be the end of it. They could not ask whether it was right or wrong, what the intent was, or what harms may follow.

The same kinds of conduct that in 2020 brought criminal charges may now qualify as protected official acts. Accountability just got significantly harder — and that will be just as true in 2028 as it is now in 2026. So, are there more recent concerns?

Since 2025 we have seen:

Justice Department demands for voter registration files from all 50 states, followed by lawsuits against 30 states and the District of Columbia. The DOJ has lost all 21 lawsuits that have been decided so far, but is appealing many of those decisions.

An executive order directing the Postal Service to block mail ballots from voters who are not on a new federal list — with entire states’ voters at risk of being blocked if the state does not comply. The Postal Service is rushing to build an allegedly flawed system to implement it.

Ten states redrawing voting districts mid-cycle, in some cases discarding votes already cast.

Experienced federal election security officials widely replaced by political appointees who back the unsupported belief that Trump won the 2020 election.

The Justice Department quietly dismantling its election crime offices — training canceled, guidebooks removed, the Election Day command center not staffed, and Election Assistance Commission leadership dismantled.

FBI taking possession of hundreds of boxes of ballots in Georgia and Arizona, and demanding ballots from Michigan.

A March 2026 executive order directing DHS and SSA to compile a hastily assembled “citizenship list” to send to states. In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned that election officials who did not participate in this SAVE program could face “fines, penalties, and even … prison time.”

Federal agents, including ICE, reported at or near polling places and election offices in Arizona, Texas, California, and New York. The Brennan Center’s Senior Counsel Jasleen Singh noted that deploying ICE agents to police polling places is illegal.

But What About Voter Fraud?

After the 2020 election, Republican attorneys general, Republican-appointed judges, Republican state officials, and the president’s own Justice Department all investigated. More than 60 court cases were filed. Audits ran in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They found nothing that changed any result.

When the machinery designed to catch fraud runs at full throttle and comes back nearly empty — that is not a mystery. That is the answer. Even when the knights have ridden out to secure the countryside, it is worth asking whether anyone has actually seen a dragon.

You may have heard that ballots counted after Election Day are suspect. In fact, after the polls close, workers continue verifying signatures and confirming eligibility, one by one. In many states the law prohibits starting that process until Election Day itself. The delay is not something going wrong. The delay is our assurance of a fair and reliable outcome.

Why This Matters — Even If You Trust the People Doing It

The powers being asserted do not go away when this administration ends. They pass to the next administration, and the one after that. Even if you generally agree with this administration on how it's going about its business — the Constitutional design still matters. A President who controls election rules, voter data, mail ballot access, and district lines controls the very tools that citizens use to hold that President accountable. Do the voters choose the President, or does the President choose his voters?

This is a concern about the future of elections as guaranteed by the Constitution. That is why officials from both parties have pushed back. Colorado’s Democratic Secretary of State as well as Kentucky’s Republican Secretary of State have refused to hand over voter data, saying no to “voluntarily commit a data breach.” Courts in 21 states have dismissed the Justice Department’s voter data lawsuits, though the DOJ is appealing most of those decisions.

One last question. In July 2024, Donald Trump told a crowd: “You won’t have to vote anymore. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” His supporters said he meant things would be so good, voting wouldn’t feel urgent.

Further, on February 2, 2026 Trump called for Republicans to “take over” voting, saying, “We should take over the voting." ... The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” Ask yourself this. How do these remarks fit with everything else we’ve been talking about today?

What You Can Do

The courts are doing their job. Officials from both parties are speaking out. And yes, many of us — including your neighbors — are concerned. So talk with your family, friends, faith community, and neighbors. Conversation raises awareness. Awareness turns to action.

This is not a moment to sit out. Speak with your local officials. Support your state Attorney General and your local law enforcement officials in protecting elections.

Remember that Congress can address election security, voting rights, federal election law, oversight, and funding. Ask how members of Congress will protect our state-run elections and prevent improper manipulation. Will they ensure that elections are secure, accessible, lawful, and impartial?

• One of the most effective tools you have as a citizen is your vote. Plan now to vote in every election.
• Know the rules. Check your Secretary of State’s website, or ncsl.org.
• Check your registration. Find your polling place — redistricting may have moved it.
• Plan your vote, vote early, and bring someone with you.
• If you vote by mail, request your ballot early, follow the envelope instructions exactly, and track it.
• Encourage others. Just ask: Are you registered? Do you know where your polling place is? Do you need a ride?
• Let your state and local officials know you expect them to defend the Constitution and protect your vote.
• Find nonpartisan voting information at Vote.org.
• Vote like it matters — because none of us wants to see a day when “you won’t have to vote anymore.”

Thank you for coming today.

Sources: All factual claims verified against primary sources.

U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Sues Five Additional States for Failure to Produce Voter Rolls.” February 26, 2026.justice.gov

White House. Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” March 31, 2026.whitehouse.gov

U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Announces Monitoring of Polling Sites in Three Arizona Counties.” July 21, 2026.justice.gov

Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress. “ArtI.S4.C1.2 States and Elections Clause.”constitution.congress.gov

U.S. Election Assistance Commission. “Overview of Federal Election Laws.”eac.gov

National Archives. “What Is the Electoral College?”archives.gov

U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “Federal Executive Branch Agencies and Roles and Responsibilities” (election-security fact sheet). February 2024.dni.gov (PDF)

Government and nonpartisan analysis

Congressional Research Service. “Federal Investigations and Seizures of Voting Records.” May 26, 2026.Congress.gov

Congressional Research Service. “Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: Highlights.”EveryCRSReportNote: This is a third-party mirror. Prefer the official CRS/Congress.gov version if available.

National Conference of State Legislatures. “Changing the Maps: Tracking Mid-Decade Redistricting.” Updated August 11, 2026.ncsl.org

National Conference of State Legislatures. “The States Decide How Elections Are Run.”ncsl.org

U.S. House Committee on Administration. “The Elections Clause: States’ Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections.”house.gov

National Association of Counties. “Enhanced Election Security & Protection Act.”naco.org

Court and litigation materials

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. “Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Justice.”clearinghouse.net

Bloomberg Law. “Trump Administration Ordered to Fulfill DNC’s Records Inquiry.” May 27, 2026.news.bloomberglaw.com

Reporting

Reuters. “Judge Blocks U.S. Postal Service From Restricting Mail-In Voting.” August 11, 2026.reuters.com

NPR. “A Judge Expands a Block on U.S. Postal Service Work on Trump’s Mail-In Voting Order.” August 11, 2026.npr.org

NOTUS. “The Justice Department Hasn’t Taken Its Usual Steps to Protect the 2026 Election.” June 8, 2026.notus.org

NPR. “Trump Cleans House at the Election Assistance Commission.” July 9, 2026.npr.org

ProPublica. “Trump Pushes Out Last Federal Election Assistance Commission Members.” July 10, 2026.propublica.org

Votebeat. “Election Experts Weigh What Could Disrupt the 2026 Midterms.” April 17, 2026.votebeat.org

Votebeat. “Why Trump Can’t Cancel the 2026 Midterm Elections.” January 26, 2026.votebeat.org

Votebeat. “What Votebeat Reporters Are Watching in the 2026 Elections.” January 5, 2026.votebeat.org

Votebeat. “Polls: Americans Are Worried About 2026 Midterm Elections.” May 18, 2026.votebeat.org

Reuters. “Trump Says Republicans Should ‘Nationalize’ Voting in at Least 15 Places.” February 2, 2026.reuters.com

Reuters. “Trump’s Call to ‘Nationalize’ Elections Draws Furious Pushback From Democrats.” February 3, 2026.reuters.com

Washington Post. “Trump, Seeking Executive Power Over Elections, Is Urged to Declare …” February 26, 2026.washingtonpost.com

Advocacy and legal analysis

Brennan Center for Justice. “Trump Administration Has Sued More than 20 States for Refusing to Turn Over Voter [Files].” January 16, 2026.brennancenter.org

Brennan Center for Justice. “The President’s March 2025 Executive Order on Elections Explained.”brennancenter.org

Brennan Center for Justice. “The SAVE Act and the Election Power Grab.” February 9, 2026.brennancenter.org

State United Democracy Center. “States Run Elections — The Federal Government Has a Limited Role.”statesunited.org

State Court Report. “States, Not the President, Run Elections in America.”statecourtreport.org

Protect Democracy. “Executive Override.” July 2026.protectdemocracy.org

Protect Democracy. “Executive Override: Protect Democracy Briefing.” March 2026.protectdemocracy.org

American Progress. “The Trump Administration Has No Legal Authority To Invoke National Security and Take Over Elections.” March 2, 2026.americanprogress.org

Campaign Legal Center. “Defending Vote by Mail From the Trump Administration’s Unconstitutional Executive Overreach.” April 2, 2026.campaignlegal.org

District maps changed in Alabama and Louisiana while voting was underway.

Louisiana v. Callais, Nos. 24-109 & 24-110, 608 U.S. ___ (U.S. Apr. 29, 2026).

U.S. Supreme Court opinion

Callais v. Louisiana, No. 25A1197, 608 U.S. ___ (U.S. May 4, 2026) (Jackson, J., dissenting from order granting application to issue judgment forthwith).

U.S. Supreme Court docket and May 4 order

Office of Governor Jeff Landry, Governor Jeff Landry Suspends Only U.S. House Primary Elections Following Supreme Court Ruling (Apr. 30, 2026).

Louisiana Governor's Office announcement

John Kruzel, US Supreme Court's Uneven Approach to Election-Map Rulings Boosts Republicans, Reuters (May 20, 2026).

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-uneven-approach-election-map-rulings-boosts-republicans-2026-05-20/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Videos published by the Los Angeles Times suggested roughly 100 ICE and CBP agents were stationed near Lot 13 outside the [Dodger] stadium, though their specific mission has not been disclosed publicly. . . . In New Jersey, rumors of ICE patrols near polling sites in Ocean and Monmouth counties prompted voter concerns, https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/175818/20251105/newsom-condemns-federal-agent-presence-near-la-polling-sites-as-election-tensions-rise.htm.

Federal agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) entered a polling place in Onondaga County during New York's primary elections on Tuesday. [June 25, 2026] https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2026/06/25/ice-agents-at-syracuse-poll

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents swarmed a vehicle in the parking lot of a [San Antonio] West Side voting location Wednesday morning, according to eyewitnesses. https://www.sacurrent.com/news/san-antonio-news/ice-conducts-enforcement-action-at-san-antonio-voting-location-witnesses-say/

Email from Richard Blumenthal (Ranking Member,Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations) to David Steiner (Postmaster, General and Chief Executive Officer, United States Postal Service) re: President Trump’s Executive Order seeking to restrict mail-in voting. https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2026-08-31_final_letter-disclosure.pdf

Donald Trump, interview with Dan Bongino, The Dan Bongino Show, February 2, 2026

May 19, 2026 declaration filed in Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

Additional notes:

Beto O’Rourke, “How Long Do We Have to Fight?,” The Good Fight, Substack, September 6, 2026. regarding consequences of the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. “Without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, politicians were free to not only pick their voters, but they could now choose who could vote in the first place.”

Greg Palast estimate: “Trump Lost. Vote Suppression Won,” The Hartmann Report, January 24, 2025.

“Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.

“And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass ‘vigilante’ challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.”

Is the Public's Trust Broken?

1500 words | ~10 minutes spoken

Speaker's Note: Are you affiliated with a non-profit? Deliver this personally, not as an official function — 
if you lead a 501(c) (3) (clergy, board chair, director), share it in conversation or a community 
forum, not from the pulpit. That keeps it separate from your organization's tax status. 
Preface:   It is mutual trust . . . 
                 that holds human associations together.
                 (H.L. Mencken (American journalist) 

                Trust is the easiest thing in the world to lose, 
               and the hardest thing in the world to get back. 
               (R.M. William, Australian bush entrepreneur) 

Let's see if we can help restore a bit of trust. I'd like to think we can get the facts right, say it together, and repeat it persistently. And form a lasting network of trust going forward. Here are some ideas for addressing one of the most critical concerns that we all might have. 
I invite you to use this as a spark or support for your conversations, as a template where you can include your experiences, or as a ready-to-use address for the community that you care about. Speak it, share it in conversation, share it in your social media.

A Simple Standard

Most of us learned a basic rule early in life: when someone puts their trust in you, you don’t betray that trust to enrich yourself, your family, and your friends.

The Founders pointedly crafted the Constitution to make sure that no President could abuse that public trust to benefit themselves, their family, or their friends. Because the power of office comes from the people it serves, to be used on their behalf. Not to enrich the person who holds the office.

Are those rules holding? Let's review four situations that you can check for yourself. As we examine them, ask yourself: "does this look right?"

One: Pardons in Exchange for Donations

The president has the power to pardon people convicted of federal crimes.

Trevor Milton founded Nikola, an electric vehicle company. A federal jury convicted him of lying to investors. The court was about to order him to repay roughly $680 million to the victims. But Milton and his wife had donated at least $3 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign. Before the court could act, Trump pardoned him.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, referred to this as "public corruption.” A bipartisan Congressional group has sent letters to 17 pardon recipients, asking about their financial connections to the president.

Two: The Crypto Coin

Three days before his inauguration, Trump launched his own cryptocurrency, $TRUMP. He personally profits by charging a fee for every trade of $TRUMP.

In April of 2025, he announced that the top 220 investors in the coin by May 12 would be invited to dinner with the president. The top 25 would receive a private reception and White House tour. Some buyers said outright they purchased it hoping for political favors in return.

The price jumped more than 50 percent. The coin generated more than $320 million in trading fees for Trump's family and partners — acquired in mere months from a coin that he promoted as occupant of the Oval Office.

Republican former chair of the House Ethics Committee, Charles Dent, described the arrangement as “completely out of bounds” on ethical, legal, and constitutional grounds.

Let's turn next to family ties.

Three: The Trump Sons, Federal Money, and a Father’s Influence

Four separate business deals, one recurring pattern:

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump invest in a company;

Their father’s administration shapes that industry through executive orders, diplomatic negotiations, or Federal purchasing decisions;

Significant Federal financial commitment and generous profits follow;

Requests for congressional oversight go unanswered.

(1) In August 2025, Trump Jr.’s venture firm took a stake in Vulcan Elements, a rare earth magnet startup. Three months later, at the personal direction of White House adviser Peter Navarro — a close personal friend of Trump Jr.’s — the Pentagon issued the largest loan in its strategic capital office’s history: $670 million, approved in weeks rather than the months normally required. Missing was the independent technical review that a Trump executive order had waived. Vulcan’s valuation jumped tenfold.

(2) In late 2024, both Don Jr. and Eric started advising and buying shares in companies that would position them to profit from government related drone projects. Don Jr. in Unusual Machines, and both brothers in Dominari and American Ventures.

In June and December, 2025, President Trump issued executive orders prioritizing domestic production and banning imports of foreign made drones.

In October, 2025, Unusual Machines received orders from the U.S. Army for drone motors and other components.

Through other acquisitions and mergers, by March 9, 2026, the American Ventures investment won the brothers an interest in Powerus Corp, a military drone company. Unusual Machines also invested in Powerus, and became a supplier of their drone parts.

On April 30, 2026, the Air Force awarded Powerus a contract — the value undisclosed — through a limited procurement order rather than competitive bids.

(3) In August 2025, the brothers invested in Skyline Builders, which through mergers formed Kaz Resources. In September 2025, President Trump joined a call with Kazakhstan’s president and personally helped secure for Kaz Resources the rights to the world’s largest undeveloped tungsten deposit. The U.S. government committed up to $1.6 billion to back the project.

(4) The Trump administration has proposed several rollbacks on gun safety regulation, from narrowing background checks to loosening restrictions tied to mental illness.

Now the Trump ATF wants to allow dealers to mail guns to homes, abandoning in-person pickup and background checks. Gun dealers will use online processes instead. Who would profit? Donald Trump Jr., who has sat on the board of GrabAGun (called the “Amazon of guns”) since March, 2025 and holds a stake in it.

Kathleen Clark, government ethics expert and Professor of Law at Washington University described what she sees across all of these situations: “It’s bribery. It’s graft. It’s exploitation of public power for private financial gain.”

Four investments. Taxpayer dollars directed to companies where family members held stakes. Congressional subpoenas blocked. No disclosure. No accountability. A clear pattern. Does this look right?

Four: The DOJ Agreement

On January 29, 2026, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against his own government — the IRS and Treasury Department —over a contractor’s leak of his tax returns six years prior. He withdrew the lawsuit on May 18. That same day, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump’s former personal criminal defense lawyer — announced an agreement in Trump’s favor.

So, first Donald Trump personally sued the government he controls. Then he dropped the case, before any judge could look closely. And immediately afterward, his own appointee signed an agreement in his favor. It was called a “settlement.”

Andrew Weissmann, Law Professor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney remarked, “It was entirely collusive. . . . one party making an agreement with the same party.” In plain terms: Trump dictating terms on both sides — escaping tax investigations, and creating a fund to reward those on whose loyalty he depends.

The agreement did two things. First, it created a $1.776 billion fund, using your tax dollars to pay people who believe they were targeted by the government. That might include those convicted of attacking the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. The President appoints, and can remove, five people to manage the fund.

Second — and this stopped legal experts cold — the IRS was permanently barred from conducting any examinations of taxes to date for Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization.

Thirty-five former federal judges petitioned the court to reopen the case. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams asked Trump’s legal team: was this ever a real lawsuit at all, or was it done just to create the appearance that a court had blessed the agreement? Were the court and the public, in the judges’ own words, “the victim of a fraud”?

A second federal judge, Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, has now ruled the fund unconstitutional and has blocked it. And yet Attorney General Todd Blanche, though he has tried to say the deal is dead, may still move forward with this or a similar scheme to pay out $1.776 billion.

Who is Paying the Price?

Corruption diverts resources from their intended purpose — and toward family, friends, or those willing to pay for favors or access. When a government contract goes to a connected company rather than the most qualified one, the costs ripple outward: the qualified company loses revenue, its employees lose income, and talented workers lose the incentive to excel. Meanwhile, the contract likely delivers less value for the taxpayer's dollar. Worse, when corrupt behavior goes unpunished, others adopt that same behavior to compete. Merit is no longer rewarded; connections are. The quality of goods, services, and governance declines. The public suffers from lost services, higher costs, and erosion of trust in both business and government, which they are counting on to improve their lives.

People get this. In a survey of voters in states where political leanings are somewhat evenly split, people see the problem this way: between 67-70% agreed that

Government is not working for ordinary people;

Politicians are rigging the system to benefit themselves at our expense;

Political corruption is costing taxpayers money.

We can take action

Congress can tighten the laws and penalties for graft, monitor and enforce ethics rules, and assure ethical appointments to Federal offices — while curbing unchecked presidential power. Ask how members of Congress, and prospective members, will use their powers to protect and restore the public's trust. Ask if they will use their powers to hold officials accountable.

Conversations raise awareness. Awareness turns to action. This is not a moment to sit out. Your voice belongs here.

Talk about these issues with your family, friends, faith community, and neighbors. Share reliable information.

One of the most effective tools you have as a citizen is your vote. Plan now to vote in every election: check your registration, make your voting plan, and encourage the people in your life to do the same. Find registration and nonpartisan voting information at vote.org and vote411.org.

Thank you for being here and for being involved.

Sources (in order of appearance)

1. Milton conviction / FEC contributions: U.S. v. Milton, S.D.N.Y.; FEC.gov; CBS News 5/7/26.

2. Bipartisan Congressional probe (17 recipients): CBS News 5/7/26.

3. Cato Institute quote: NPR 5/13/26.

4. $TRUMP coin / dinner announcement / price jump: CNBC 1/17/25; CNBC 4/23/25.

5. Buyers seeking political favors: New York Times, April 2025.

6. Bloomberg 19/25 foreign nationals: Bloomberg analysis, April 2025.

7. Charles Dent quote: NPR / CBS News, April 2025.

8. Chainalysis $320M+ trading fees: Chainalysis, cited CNBC 5/6/25.

9. Vulcan / Navarro / $670M loan: ProPublica, DoD records, 5/28/26.

10. Brothers’ drone investments (Unusual Machines, Dominari, American Ventures, Powerus): SEC filings; CNBC; Bloomberg 4/30/26.

11. U.S. Army orders to Unusual Machines, Oct. 2025: Unusual Machines press release / SEC filing.

12. Drone executive orders (Jun. & Dec. 2025): Federal Register.

13. Powerus Air Force contract, Apr. 30, 2026: Bloomberg 4/30/26; Air Force announcement.

14. Kaz Resources / Kazakhstan tungsten / $1.6B: Financial Times 4/30/26; SEC investor filings; bne IntelliNews.

15. ATF proposed gun rule (not finalized): ATF proposed rulemaking; Reuters; NPR.

16. Trump Jr. GrabAGun board (Dec. 2024); 1.1% stake: Washington Post 7/2/26; company filings.

17. GrabAGun CEO quote: earnings call May 2026; IBTimes 7/3/26.

18. Kathleen Clark quote: Los Angeles Times, citing Clark, professor of law, Washington University in St. Louis; June/July 2026.

19. DOJ lawsuit filing (1/29/26) and dismissal (5/18/26): Senate Finance Committee letter; CBS News 5/18/26.

20. Weissmann NPR quote: NPR 5/20/26.

21. $1.776B fund / Blanche non-denial on Jan. 6 defendants: CBS News 5/20/26; NPR 5/20/26.

22. IRS audit bar: Settlement addendum; CBS News 5/20/26.

23. 35 judges / Judge Williams order: CourtListener.com, Case No. 26-20609-CV-WILLIAMS, DE 65, 5/29/26.

24. Judge Brinkema ruling: E.D. Virginia, Democracy Forward v. Treasury, 6/12/26.

25. Voter registration: vote.org (nonpartisan).

Survey Source: Letter, From: Lake Research Partners, Re: Public Opinion on Affordability, Accountability, and Corruption. August 2026.