Assessing the Legitimacy of U.S. Elections

The vast majority of Americans, both Republican and Democrat, are in favor of commonsense electoral reforms, yet on the evening of July 16, the President gave a speech on challenges to election integrity in US elections, and ABC, NBC and CNN refused to carry it live. Politicians from both political parties, and their allies in the media and judiciary, are waging an all-out war against any reform aimed at increasing the transparency and credibility of elections. Plenty of Americans wonder why, and think (along with the President), “the only reason you wouldn’t do it (election reform) is because you want to cheat.”

If elections are not free and fair, or are conducted in ways intentionally designed to prevent effective monitoring and verification, should candidates and voters who lose elections in November accept those loses as legitimate? To try to answer this question, we should compare our elections to the norms and standards international election observers use to assess elections overseas. Since I spent almost 30 years supporting, monitoring, and assessing foreign elections, beginning in 1992 as a U.N. District Electoral Supervisor in Cambodia’s transitional election, and ending in 2021 as Director of the Center for Democracy Rights and Governance in the first Trump Administration, I have relevant background to consider this issue.

Voter Registration

The foundation of fair elections are clean voter rolls, as they insure only eligible citizens can vote. Unqualified voters on voter rolls (people who are non-citizens, dead, moved, or never existed) enable many types of election fraud, as their names can be used to cast illegal ballots. Typical questions used to assess voter registration are:

• Are voter rolls accurate and complete, including qualified voters and excluding unqualified people.
• Are voter rolls public and auditable?

Assessment: Voter rolls are grossly inaccurate, and actually auditing voters rolls is often illegal, so U.S. voter rolls are ineffective at ensuring only qualified citizens can vote, and in preventing election fraud. Internationally, error rates in rolls, revealed by voter roll audits, are typically 3-6%. In the U.S., no one really knows our actual error rates, as Democrat (and some Republican) politicians and officials have fought in the courts and in the streets any attempts to conduct voter roll audits or to clean voter rolls, but we do know that some localities have more than twice the number people on their rolls as eligible citizens that live in the constituency (i.e. at least 100% error).

Voter ID

Voter ID is considered an essential element in election security, and the provision of photo or biometric voter ID is a major part of many U.S.-funded election assistance programs overseas. A question we might ask on this issue is:

• Can every qualified voter easily obtain voter ID, and are unqualified voters prevented from obtaining voter ID?

Assessment: The situation is mixed, with Republican-led states more likely to meet this security standard, and Democrat-led states less likely. Although more than 80% of Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) support voter ID, and despite the fact that voter ID and proof of citizenship is required in every other democracy in the world, Democrat leaders continue to strenuously object to the universal introduction of photo voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote.

Early Voting

Many states now have early and extended voting periods, creating election seasons rather than a single election day. Extensive experience in developing democracies indicates that any time there is a break between voting and counting the votes caused by moving ballots or storing them overnight, transparency is interrupted, and public and candidate confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome decreases. A question relevant for this issue might be:

• Is polling conducted so that it can be effectively monitored by non-partisan observers and pollwatchers?

Assessment: Due to a lack of transparency introduced by overnight and weekend breaks in the chain of observation, and a lack of resources required to deploy observers for extended periods, it is not possible for non-partisan observers or pollwatchers to effectively monitor and verify extended voting periods. Extended voting periods decrease transparency and facilitate fraud (or the suspicion of fraud), and undermine confidence in the legitimacy of election outcomes, which may decrease voter engagement and turnout. Extended voting enables corrupt administrators to determine likely results by counting Republican and Democrat voters, and because it is impossible to monitor effectively, allows the easy addition or subtraction of votes and manipulation of outcomes. Both politicians and voters support extended voting periods, not understanding how they facilitate fraud and ultimately undermine confidence in election outcomes.

Postal Voting

Originally limited largely to absentee voting for soldiers, by the late 90s and early 2000s postal voting was becoming increasingly popular for ordinary voting, even though the 2005 Bipartisan Commission on Election Reform (led by former President Carter) identified postal voting as the least secure election practice. Questions relevant for this issue include:

• Does the polling process effectively prevent vote buying or selling?
• Are ballots securely stored and monitored to prevent theft and ballot box stuffing?
• Can voters cast their ballot in secret, free from influence or intimidation by family, employers or other powerful people in the community?

Assessment: Widespread or universal postal voting undermines the security and secrecy of the vote because it does not occur in a controlled environment, enabling vote theft, ballot box stuffing, vote buying and voter intimidation.

Voting and Counting Machines

Voting and counting machines have become ubiquitous in American elections, with proponents arguing they are cheaper, faster, and more secure than traditional voting and counting processes, while opponents argue the opposite, that they are more expensive, slower, and less secure. Questions relevant to assessing this issue include:

• Can observers and pollwatchers effectively monitor and verify polling and counting processes?
• Do polling and counting processes used in the election enhance or detract from voter confidence in the integrity of the process and legitimacy of elected representatives?

Assessment: Dur to their lack of transparency, it is not possible to effectively monitor and verify machine-based voting and counting, and this drives public doubt in the legitimacy of election outcomes. According to assessments by the intelligence community and essentially all cyber-security experts, voting and counting machines are extremely vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by foreign and domestic bad actors. Prominent Democrat and Republican leaders have publicly blamed election losses on hacking of machines for decades, and a large portion of the voting population believe results are routinely manipulated.

 Overall Assessment of U.S. Elections

Based on the identification of severe shortcomings in election procedures, our hypothetical international observation mission would find it impossible to verify and certify electoral outcomes as accurate expressions of the will of the people.

In such cases, observers would deny the legitimacy of elected representatives, and urge the people to continue their struggle for free and fair elections and real democracy. The mission would also make a series of recommendations for reforms required to ensure transparent and credible elections, like those below.

An Agenda for Transparent and Credible Elections

A democracy depends on public confidence that the process is fair, and that its representatives and leaders in government were legitimately elected by a majority of voters. Currently, that confidence in the U.S. is at its lowest level ever, and experience overseas demonstrates that a loss of confidence in the legitimacy of government can lead to a loss of social cohesion, autocracy, revolution, and blood in the streets.

This slide into instability and conflict is preventable through election reforms that increase the transparency and public credibility of election processes. Even those who think there is nothing wrong with our elections should recognize that growing public doubt in current election practices will ultimately result in instability, and that replacing those processes with transparent and verifiable procedures will enhance public confidence in the legitimacy of government.

With that in mind, I would make the following recommendations, all of which align with international standards and norms for free and fair elections, and all of which could be implemented for federal elections before the midterms through legislation or a presidential declaration of a national security emergency. States would not have to follow these reforms for state or local elections, but would be encouraged to do so.

1. Allow and conduct voter list audits in every state (voter list audits are a standard tool used by both monitoring organizations and election administrations throughout the world to assess the accuracy of voter rolls). Decertify current election rolls for federal elections and conduct a new registration in every state, building off the Real ID process used for driver’s licenses to ensure voters are qualified. With proper organization, this re-registration could be conducted in as little as four weeks, making it possible to implement before the mid-term elections.
2. Limit postal voting for federal elections to actual need. Postal voting is inherently insecure, so the volume of postal voting is inversely proportional to confidence in the legitimacy of the process. Postal votes undermine the secrecy of the ballot, are easy to manipulate, and facilitate vote buying and voter intimidation (particularly affected are less powerful minorities and women). This reform could be part of a presidential order, and states could implement the policy by simply going back to their absentee ballot rules of several decades ago.
3. Limit voting in federal elections to one day. Voting seasons are impossible to monitor effectively, creating doubt in the legitimacy of election outcomes. This reform could be part of a presidential order, and could be accompanied by a decree making Election Day a national holiday.
4. Require voter ID and proof of citizenship to register and vote in federal elections, as is normal and expected in every other country in the world. This reform could be part of a presidential order.
5. Eliminate non-transparent and non-monitorable election processes. In practice, this means eliminating voting and counting machines, which are non-transparent and cannot be effectively monitored and verified, thus contributing to public doubt in the legitimacy of election outcomes. Manual voting and counting processes are simple by design, and can be developed and introduced within a few weeks by drawing on international best practices for free and fair elections.
6. Count the votes in public at the precinct and post the results for all to see. Moving ballots before counting, or counting in secret or in a non-verifiable way, creates doubt in the legitimacy of the election process.

Conclusion:

All of these reforms are necessary to enhance public confidence in election outcomes and ensure we remain a government of the people. All are possible to implement before the November elections. Without significant reforms, the number of election deniers will continue to grow, leading ultimately, I fear, to tyranny or revolution.

BY – https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/08/should-americans-deny-elections-this-november/

The so-called “fake electors” narrative has finally collapsed under the weight of its own fabrication.

The so-called “fake electors” narrative has finally collapsed under the weight of its own fabrication. One by one, the cases built by Democratic attorneys general against Republican alternate electors from the 2020 election have crumbled. The most recent example came in Nevada, where Clark County District Judge Mary Kay Holthus dismissed forgery and false-document charges against the six Republican electors, including state GOP Chair Michael McDonald. The judge found no evidence they intended to deceive officials. They had openly announced their purpose, and the certificates they signed could not be legally accepted under Nevada or federal law. Prosecutors’ claims of secret fraud evaporated the moment a court examined them.

The pattern is now unmistakable. In Michigan, a judge appointed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer dismissed all charges against 15 alternate electors in September 2025, ruling that prosecutors failed to prove specific intent to defraud. The electors were exercising their constitutional right to seek redress—posing for a photograph and testifying under oath that they genuinely believed the election was stolen—actions inconsistent with perpetrating a criminal conspiracy. In Arizona, Attorney General Kris Mayes’s sprawling indictment against 18 defendants, including Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, and John Eastman, has been repeatedly rebuked. A trial judge found that prosecutors misled the grand jury by withholding the Electoral Count Act; an appeals court refused to revive the case; and the Arizona Supreme Court shut the door. AG Mayes now scrambles for a new grand jury, a desperate admission that the original case was improper. Similarly, the case against alternative electors in Georgia was dismissed last year as well in a blow to the disgraced low IQ Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

These cases were never about enforcing the rule of law. They were poorly constructed political theatre, assembled years after the fact by Democratic AGs who coordinated their efforts with far-left nonprofits. Norm Eisen’s States United Democracy Center supplied the blueprints, Marc Elias’s lawfare operation provided legal cover, and the Democratic Attorneys General Association funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to boost the prosecution strategy as it was being crafted. What looked like independent state actions was actually a national scheme designed to criminalize political opposition. Yet the most damning part of the story is not the collapse of the cases. It is how ordinary the alternate-elector strategy was portrayed before Democrats decided to retcon it as a crime.

In the fall of 2020, major news outlets treated the possibility of “dueling electors” as a serious contingency, not a conspiracy. Reuters published an explainer on how competing slates in battleground states with split partisan control of governors and legislatures could deadlock the Electoral College, citing the historical precedent of 1876. An election guide posted by Politico casually walked through Republican operatives discussing alternate electors if Trump lost and claimed fraud, and Democratic governors responding with their own slates. No one called it sedition. It was framed as a constitutional stress test.

Even more striking was the war game played by the so-called Transition Integrity Project. Former White House Chief of Staff and pizza party aficionado John Podesta, playing the role of Joe Biden, refused to concede a narrow electoral defeat. He alleged voter suppression and persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. The New York Times reported the exercise without even an inkling of moral panic. It was treated as a genuine possibility that could come from either side of the political aisle in the case of a close or disputed election, not as some nefarious plot to overthrow the government.

Then after a disputed election marked by late-night ballot dumps, statistical anomalies, rule violations, and widespread distrust, Republican electors in several states signed contingent certificates to preserve their legal options if courts or legislatures later found the results invalid. They did not hide. They did not claim the certificates were the official ones. They acted in the open—doing everything in their power to draw attention to their efforts in the midst of a media blackout shuttering all fraud claims—consistent with historical precedent. For years, almost no one cared. The narrative only hardened into “fake electors” and “attempted coup” after the call came down from the permanent bureaucracy and progressive legal networks that President Trump and his supporters had to be destroyed.

What followed was lawfare at its worst. Democratic attorneys general in Michigan, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere dusted off obscure statutes and stretched them into felony charges that carried the threat of decades in prison. Ordinary citizens—many of them senior citizens, small-business owners, and longtime party activists—were indicted for the “crime” of believing the 2020 election was stolen and trying to keep legal options open. The goal was never primarily conviction. It was destruction: bankrupting defendants with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, terrifying them with federal scrutiny, isolating them from family and friends who bought into the media narrative, and sending a chilling message to every election-integrity activist in the Republican Party. The message was clear: challenge the official story and we will ruin your life.

These patriots endured more than most Americans will ever face from their own government. They lost homes. They watched savings evaporate. They were treated as domestic terrorists for the same contingency planning that elite Democrats had discussed openly months earlier. The most powerful institutions in the country—Democratic state AGs, progressive dark-money groups, the national media, and deep state operators—trained their fire on private citizens whose only offense was loyalty to a candidate despised by the establishment. Miscarriage of justice does not begin to describe it. This was an abuse seemingly right out of the People’s Court of the Soviet Union.

The alternate electors have been effectively vindicated. The charges have been dismissed or are collapsing. President Trump issued federal pardons to 77 alternate electors and associated figures. Now the victims are going on offense. In Michigan, former defendants have filed notice of their intent to sue Attorney General Dana Nessel for malicious prosecution, seeking millions in damages and personal accountability. They are right to do so. Officials who weaponize criminal law against their political opponents must pay a steep price, or the practice will continue unabated.

This is why President Trump must revive the Anti-Weaponization Fund, a brilliant idea that has unfortunately been shuttered due to political calculations. RINO Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis received assurances from Attorney General Todd Blanche that the Anti-Weaponization Fund was dead to secure votes for his confirmation. The senators extracted a formal order terminating the fund and narrowing the related IRS settlement. Perhaps after Blanche is settled into his role, he can issue another formal letter changing his mind. Tillis and Cornyn will be out of the U.S. Senate soon anyway, and their voices are not needed to sustain MAGA’s governing coalition. In other words: Screw ‘em.

The patriots who stood in the breach after 2020 and absorbed the full force of unprecedented lawfare deserve more than symbolic vindication. They deserve substantial compensation that makes clear the government will not escape consequences for political persecution. Elections have consequences. Restoring the lives of those who were bankrupted, isolated, and terrorized for defending election integrity should be chief among those consequences. The Anti-Weaponization Fund must be revived, and dramatic payouts must be made. Anything less continues the injustice, and as the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Let’s remedy this injustice, and make the Anti-Weaponization Fund great again.

As we start the new school year, the White House, together with President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, are making a decisive shift in American education: away from the political indoctrination of the Biden-Harris administration and toward academic fundamentals, parental authority, and local control.

That same family-first approach has already produced the first-ever savings and investment accounts for American children, with dedicated Fostering the Future Accounts that give foster youth the same long-term financial footing as their peers.

On Monday, the Commander in Chief welcomed students, parents, and education advocates to the Rose Garden to celebrate the beginning of a new academic year and to showcase an administration that has moved quickly to expand educational freedom, restore parental rights, return power to the states, and put American students first.

“We’re putting the parents back in charge,” Trump said at the Rose Garden event. “They’re the ones that love our children. They’re the ones that should be in charge.”

Beyond the core K-12 reforms, the administration has aggressively advanced parallel efforts in higher education. It reached settlements and agreements with several major universities, including Columbia, Brown, Penn, and Northwestern.

These agreements require an end to certain DEI practices, the restoration of merit-based admissions and hiring, and stronger Title IX compliance on sports and facilities. At the same time, executive actions reestablished the 1776 Commission and promoted the restoration of patriotic education.

Beyond the university settlements and the revival of the 1776 Commission, the administration has also moved aggressively to expand educational freedom for families. At the center of these efforts is the Working Families Tax Cuts, which created the first-ever nationwide school choice program.

The Education Freedom Tax Credit offers taxpayers a credit of up to $1,700 for donations that fund scholarships covering tuition, books, and other educational costs at private and public schools. Nearly 52 million students are eligible, and more than 30 states have already opted in or signaled their intent to participate.

Some Republican states already offer their own scholarship programs, and this federal credit is designed to build on and expand those existing efforts.

The administration has also delivered the largest investment in charter schools in history, $500 million through the Charter Schools Program, to expand high-quality options.

President Trump further directed federal agencies to maximize school choice by enabling states to use Title I funds and other flexibilities in support of parental decision-making.

Supporting Every Child
First Lady Melania Trump’s Fostering the Future initiative expands support and educational opportunities for children leaving foster care. It does so through scholarships at a growing network of 26 universities, recently expanded by a $2 million donation supporting Indiana University and Purdue University.

The initiative also includes Fostering the Future Accounts, the first dedicated savings and investment accounts for foster youth, which are powered by the broader Trump Accounts program.

Eligible children born between 2025 and 2028 receive a one-time $1,000 contribution from the federal government, invested in low-cost U.S. stock index funds that grow tax-deferred. Families, employers, and others can contribute up to $5,000 more each year. State agencies can open these accounts for youth in their care, with access granted at age 18.

Additional elements include housing assistance via HUD’s Melania Trump Foster Youth to Independence program, bolstered by $30 million in appropriations, and a global coalition of first spouses focused on education and technology. These efforts offer pathways to independence, skills, higher education, financial security, and the American Dream.

Separately, the administration launched a Title IX investigation into the Los Angeles Unified School District in May 2026. The probe targets policies that allegedly reassign rather than remove teachers accused of sexual misconduct with students.

In February 2026, the administration also issued updated guidance strengthening protections for constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public schools. These steps reinforce every student’s constitutional rights.

Returning Education to the States
President Trump has directed the Secretary of Education to dismantle the bloated federal bureaucracy and return authority to states and local communities after decades of centralized control that failed to deliver results.

At the Rose Garden event, McMahon emphasizedthe stakes, saying: “What a travesty it is that Americans have invested $3 trillion in a federal Department of Education meant to improve student outcomes, and yet only 30% of our students can read or do math proficiently.”

The administration approved the nation’s first “Returning Education to the States” waivers. Iowa received the first waiver in early 2026, consolidating funding streams and freeing nearly $8 million from compliance costs for classroom use over four years. Louisiana followed, consolidating more than $18 million through 2029.

By summer 2026, six states held the waivers, redirecting over $100 million away from federal requirements. A record number of states also gained Ed-Flex authority, allowing local districts to bypass certain rules without prior federal approval.

The Department of Education has also awarded a record number of grants focused on advancing literacy, expanding access to credentialed school psychologists, emphasizing science-of-reading approaches, integrating AI in education, and demanding measurable academic results over ideology.

Ending Radical Gender Ideology and Restoring Parental Rights
President Trump signed Executive Order 14201 barring biological boys from girls’ sports and private spaces, prompting school systems and athletic associations nationwide to end the practice.

The Department of Education launched dozens of Title IX investigations into schools that allowed males in female sports and intimate facilities, enforcing biological reality and holding institutions accountable.

Separately, the administration cracked down on schools that socially transitioned students behind parents’ backs, rescinded unlawful Title IX guidance that punished districts for failing to use preferred pronouns, and reinforced parental rights under federal law, restoring fairness for female athletes, privacy for young women, and parents’ fundamental authority over their children’s education and upbringing.

Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Divisive Indoctrination

The Trump administration terminated more than $2 billion in wasteful diversity, equity, and inclusion spending, shifting focus from dividing students by race and identity to uniting them around merit and excellence.

It ended $67 million in grants that funded sexually explicit material for minors, rejecting inappropriate and inaccurate ideological curricula with no place in classrooms. By enforcing immigration laws, the administration reduced the strain of non-English-speaking students on American public schools, allowing resources to prioritize American citizens.

Civil Rights Enforcement for Actual Discrimination
The Department of Education rescinded disparate-impact provisions from its Title VI regulations in 2026, requiring evidence of intentional discrimination rather than statistical disparities alone. New guidance directs schools to apply discipline even-handedly without considering race to achieve racial balancing.

The department’s Office for Civil Rights subsequently opened investigations into districts, including one in Fayetteville, Arkansas, that allegedly instructed staff to factor race into disciplinary decisions. Officials said the changes restore equal treatment and free teachers to maintain order without federal pressure based solely on demographic outcomes.

President Trump’s education agenda is clear and uncompromising. Educational freedom belongs to parents. Excellence belongs in the classroom. And America’s children deserve schools stripped of ideology, waste, and federal overreach.

The defeat that made Ronald Reagan president.

Anyone who has spent significant time in and around political campaigns would have their own special understanding of the famous Wide-World-of-Sports descriptive: “The thrill of victory … and the agony of defeat.” And when it comes to “defeat,” that understanding often extends to the wisdom that within defeat can often come the seeds of future “victory.” Nowhere is that better illustrated than through the remarkable story of “Reagan ’76,” ripe to be remembered once again on its 50th anniversary this month.

August 1976 — precisely 50 years ago — marked a seminal turning point in the political career of Ronald Reagan, the man who would later serve two terms as America’s 40th president (1981-1989). During that year of America’s (1776-1976) Bicentennial, Reagan — a former California governor at 65 years old — spent eight months crisscrossing the country in a doomed pursuit of the 1976 Republican presidential nomination as challenger to the incumbent Republican president Gerald Ford.

In what was considered at the time to be his last best chance to win the presidency, Reagan suffered a painful defeat. But against many odds, he came back four years later to achieve an historic landslide victory. Political historians now agree that had it not been for the indispensable groundwork laid in his unsuccessful 1976 campaign, Reagan would not have had a chance of experiencing the “thrill of victory” to be elected president in 1980.

In 1976, it was a very close intra-party primary battle between Ford and Reagan, pitting the East Coast Republican establishment wing of the Party, led by Ford, against an upstart grassroots conservative insurgency led by Reagan. Throughout, there were many tumultuous twists and turns, and ups and downs. As the challenger, Reagan was the clear underdog. Ford had most of the VIP Party regulars and elected officials locked up on his side from coast to coast. At the national level, Reagan had the public endorsements of only one sitting governor, six senators, and just 10 congressmen.

The goal was to capture the majority of national convention delegates needed to win the nomination. The campaign played out through a combination of state primaries, state conventions or caucuses, and carefully targeted persuasion campaigns aimed at a smaller critical group of late-breaking uncommitted delegates. In some states, delegates were allocated proportionally in line with the primary vote percentages received by each candidate. In other states, it was winner-take-all.

In the battle for delegates, Reagan won 10 primaries (AR, CA, GA, ID, IN, NE, NC, NV, SD, and TX) and prevailed in 15 state conventions or caucuses (AL, AK, AZ, CO, HI, KS, LA, MO, MT, NM, OK, SC, UT, WA, and WY).

Meanwhile, Ford won 16 primaries (CT, FL, IL, KY, MD, MA, MI, NH, NJ, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, VT, and WI) and prevailed in 9 state conventions or caucuses (DE, IA, ME, MN, MS, NY, ND, VA, and WV).

The magic number of delegates needed to win was 1130. It was all geared to culminate in mid-August at the Republican National Convention held in Kansas City.

By early July, six weeks before the convention and with the primaries over, both candidates were coming up short, with Ford slightly ahead.  Unofficial approximate delegate whip counts reported in the media at that time showed Ford had about 1070 delegates (60 short) and Reagan had about 1020 (110 short), with roughly 170 uncommitted.

It was at this point that Reagan’s campaign manager, John Sears, confronted the harsh reality that if something drastic was not done to shake up the campaign’s inertial dynamic, any chance for a Reagan victory at the convention was about to completely evaporate. Thus was hatched one of the most remarkable “Hail Mary” passes ever thrown in the history of American politics.

On July 26, just three weeks before the start of the convention, Reagan announced the name of the vice-presidential running mate he would choose if he were to win the nomination. This was something that had never been done before. VP running-mates are always announced at the convention by the successful candidate only after the presidential nomination has been voted on and secured.

But in this case, Reagan’s premature announcement amounted to a largely transparent and somewhat desperate campaign tactic designed to shake up the race and win more delegates for Reagan while at the same time pulling a significant number away from Ford.

Reagan’s surprise choice for VP was Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker, a moderate-liberal East Coast Republican considered to be much more in line with the Ford wing of the party than with the growing conservative movement led by Reagan.

At the outset, while controversial and derided by some Reagan supporters, the ploy seemed to make tactical sense by having a possible chance of seriously breaking up the large Pennsylvania delegation that was solidly in the Ford camp. Schweiker had a close relationship with the delegation’s chairman, Drew Lewis. If Lewis also flipped to Reagan, he could easily take a dozen or more delegates with him and even encourage other states to move in the same direction.

Well, it was a nice try… but no cigar. Lewis remained solidly loyal to Ford. Only four delegates switched to Reagan, but later even most of them switched back to Ford.

Meantime, in the realm of unintended consequences, the ploy seriously alienated many southern conservatives, including Mississippi’s venerable state Republican Chairman Clarke Reed. Reed had the power and the expectation to move Mississippi’s entire 30-member delegation (one of the last uncommitted blocs going into the convention) into the Reagan column.

Reed was considered a strong Reagan supporter, but he called Reagan’s selection of Schweiker “wrong and dumb” and showing “bad judgment.” That set off fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts leading up to the convention by both Ford and Reagan — and their campaigns — trying to pull Reed in opposite directions.

If Reed could put his reservations aside and bring his state’s full delegation to Reagan, it would not by itself have been enough to put Reagan over the top in delegate votes. But the Reagan team knew it would mark a huge shift of momentum in the campaign that could have helped move many more delegates in other states as well. That was the key, and why Reed’s decision would be so critical for Reagan.

As the convention opened on August 16, the drama continued; tensions were high, and the outcome was still very much uncertain. While both candidates held delegation meetings and rallies in Kansas City during convention week, no one knew for sure what secret last-minute deals or pressures might be brought to bear to sway the remaining uncommitted delegates.

On August 17, in a final attempt to move the numbers, the Reagan team forced a floor vote on a proposed procedural change in party rules. The proposed Rule 16-C would require that all party presidential candidates name their V.P. choice before the final roll call on the presidential nomination. If passed, this would have forced Ford to name his vice-presidential choice and, by so doing, possibly alienating delegates on either side of the party, and giving Reagan a chance to win more delegates to his side.

But Rule 16-C was decisively defeated by a vote of 1069-1180. That, coupled with Clarke Reed leading the Mississippi delegation to cast its 30 votes against the measure, clearly demonstrated that Reagan did not have enough votes to win the nomination.

On Aug. 18, late in the evening, the final roll call vote on the presidential nomination sealed it: 1187 delegate votes for Ford, 1070 delegate votes for Reagan. It was a hard-fought victory for Ford. It was the proverbial “agony of defeat” for the Reagan side.

For those who were part of the Reagan team at that early time — many who had worked hard for months and had held out the hope of victory right up to the last minute — it was the kind of defeat that had a decisive finality to it. At the time, it was seen by many as the absolute political end for Reagan — indeed the climactic and cinematic “The End” for the ex-movie star — not as a stepping stone for a future comeback, not as a rallying cry to “go get’em” next time.

This was because all the smart sober logic pointed to the near certainty that there would be no “next time” for Reagan… and everyone knew it, everyone felt it.  In four years, Reagan would be 69, and by any previous standard, too old to run. And if Ford won and served two terms, it would be eight years, making it totally out of the question.

The next day, Aug. 19, 1976, the final day of the convention, proved to be one of the most emotional, heart-wrenching, and — at the same time — inspirational days in the history of Reagan lore. But it was one of those things where maybe you had to actually be there to fully understand it.

Early that morning, the Reagan team of dedicated staff, volunteers, close friends and supporters — there from all corners of the country — gathered in a ballroom at the Reagan hotel to say their goodbyes and to hear a final personal word of appreciation and thanks from the Reagans before everyone scattered their separate ways home, likely, it seemed, never to see each other again in any similar setting. 

Looking around the room that morning, it appeared that everyone there was caught up in the somber emotions of the moment. As Reagan and his wife stepped up on a small stage, Nancy took one look around and, seeing so many grown men and women crying (friends all), she had to turn her back for a moment to regain her own composure. Reagan himself, with his voice cracking slightly, managed a few words of condolence:

The cause goes on. It’s just one battle in a long war and it will go on as long as we all live… Stay in there with the same beliefs and same faith that made you do what you’re doing here. The individuals on the stage may change, [but] the cause is there. And the cause will prevail because it’s right. Don’t give up your ideals, don’t compromise, don’t turn to expediency, and don’t for heaven’s sake… get cynical. Because look at yourselves and what you were willing to do and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a “shining city on a hill.”

Those brief remarks were lastingly memorable to the bleary-eyed Reagan supporters who were there or watching on television. But mostly in that moment, all they did was evoke more tears.

(Side note: According to a contemporary account in The New Yorker, Clarke Reed, who many Reagan supporters felt had betrayed Reagan, showed up at the gathering looking “almost distraught.” He approached Reagan and said, “I now feel I made the worst mistake I ever made in my life.” Reagan responded only with “That’s all right, Clarke.” Years later, by the time Reagan had served as president, Reed clarified that he still thought Reagan had made a mistake by naming Schweiker, but that he had come to believe Reagan was “the best president of my lifetime.”)

Later that evening, it was the convention finale. With Reagan watching from the audience gallery of Kansas City’s packed Kemper Arena, President Ford delivered his rousing convention-closing acceptance speech.

Then unexpectedly — in a magnanimous gesture of party unity as he was basking in the applause of a tremendous standing ovation — he looked up into the stands and waved for Reagan to come down to the stage and “say a few words.”

Without notes or a teleprompter, Reagan delivered a few short but powerful remarks that — as people would say — brought down the house:

…And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge.  Whether they will have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here. Will they look back with appreciation and say, Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom? Who kept us now a hundred years later free? Who kept our world from nuclear destruction? And if we fail, they probably won’t get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom and they won’t be allowed to talk of that or read of it.  This is our challenge, and this is why, here in this hall tonight, better than we’ve ever done before, we’ve got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we’ve ever been but we carry the message they’re waiting for. We must go forth from here united, determined, and what a great general said a few years ago is true, “There is no substitute for victory.”

Observers said that as Reagan was speaking, the hall went completely silent; you could hear a pin drop, and by the time it was over there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. News reporters at the time described a stunned reaction on the convention floor as if many delegates were asking themselves whether they had just nominated the wrong man.

(Side note: It was later reported that Reagan’s daughter Maureen, having come home from the emotional turmoil of the convention, said she had basically cried for two days straight. Consoling his grown daughter, the then-future president is reported to have said to her what he could have said to so many others all over the country: “Have you stopped crying yet?” It was time to turn the page and look to the future.)

But overall, at that moment in time 50 years ago this month, Reagan’s 1976 defeat was seen as the end for his political career. That was the conventional wisdom shared by most people, including most Republicans and especially most of the local and national media. Newspapers across the country actually printed the transcript of his Kansas City remarks under the headline “Ronald Reagan’s Farewell.”

Yet that five-minute speech — broadcast live on national television — reintroduced Reagan in a new light to millions of Americans. Far from being an end, it was a launching pad for what was to come.

By Spectator – https://spectator.org/reagan-76-a-campaign-to-remember/

The Trump administration is preparing for what would amount to the largest single mass visa revocation in U.S. history, targeting the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum in the United States.

These are nonimmigrant visas. B-1 and especially B-2 tourist visas are the nonimmigrant visas most frequently used and most often taken advantage of by people who later file for asylum after entering the United States legally. They are intended for short-term visitors who are expected to return home after their stay.

According to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials who were not authorized to discuss the plans publicly because the plan is not yet final, the action focuses on B-1 business and B-2 tourism visas issued between 2016 and 2026.

DHS data from the past decade show that roughly 38% of affirmative asylum applicants who reported their entry status arrived on B-1 or B-2 visas, with 32% entering specifically on B-2 tourist visas.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said the department is working with DHS to identify and revoke visas of foreigners who entered as short-term visitors and then filed for asylum. He declined to confirm the 200,000 figure, saying the number remains dynamic and will proceed on a rolling basis.

Under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)), obtaining a temporary visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact provides grounds for revocation. The administration is targeting those misusing the system by treating asylum as a pathway to permanent residency rather than the narrow protection it was designed to provide for people facing genuine persecution.

If implemented as planned, the revocations would not necessarily result in their immediate deportation. Most individuals with pending asylum cases would instead see their status recategorized; they would lose their status as business or tourism travelers but could continue pursuing their asylum claims through the appropriate channels. The precise number of affected visas remains dynamic and is expected to proceed on a rolling basis, with an official announcement anticipated in the coming weeks unless the plan is revised or blocked.

This initiative builds on an already aggressive pace of visa enforcement under President Donald J. Trump’s second term, which began in January 2025.

Earlier this month, the State Department announced it has revoked more than 175,000 visas since January 2025, many linked to criminal convictions or other violations. The proposed action would roughly double that total and marks a significant escalation in efforts to tighten controls on temporary visitors who later seek to remain indefinitely.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau has described asylum as a loophole used to circumvent immigration law. The number of cases in which people enter on tourist or business visas and then file asylum claims undermines the nonimmigrant visa system, officials have pointed out. Current applicants must already affirm they will not seek asylum and show intent to return home.

Since taking office, President Trump, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has steadily tightened visa rules, including demands for social media histories, costly bonds, bans on certain countries, and crackdowns on birth tourism. These steps form part of a broader effort to curb both illegal entries and the improper use of legal pathways.

The revocation of these visas would terminate the individuals’ prior nonimmigrant status but permit their asylum claims to proceed. Officials indicate the process will be implemented gradually rather than all at once.

On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned emergency order allowing the Trump administration to advance key parts of an executive order restricting mail-in voting.

The ruling stayed in a lower-court injunction blocking implementation in 23 mostly Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, clearing a path ahead of the November midterms.

This is a procedural win for the administration that lets preparatory work proceed while preserving future judicial review once concrete actions are taken.

The stay applied only to the injunction in the states’ lawsuit; a separate nationwide injunction against certain USPS rulemaking, issued by the same judge in a different case, remains in force and was not lifted.

President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31, 2026.

The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-specific lists of adult U.S. citizens drawn from federal databases. It also ordered the Justice Department to prioritize the prosecution of officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters, and directed the Postal Service to play a role in verifying mail-ballot eligibility by requiring states to submit voter lists and follow new mailing rules. Non-compliant states may face the loss of federal funding.

At the signing, President Trump called the measure “foolproof,” saying it was “about voter integrity; we want to have honest voting in our country.”

Administration lawyers have described the state-specific citizenship lists as imperfect and intended only as supportive data, not binding mandates. Critics and the lower court, however, viewed the overall scheme, especially the U.S. Postal Service’s gatekeeping role, as an improper federalization of elections.

Federal district judge Indira Talwani of Boston, an Obama appointee, earlier blocked the order, finding it overreached federal authority and infringed on states’ traditional election role. The states argued it threatened chaos and improperly federalized elections so close to the midterms.

Public-opinion data cited by the administration shows consistent majority support across party lines for proof-of-citizenship requirements and measures that reduce the risk of noncitizen voting.

The administration said the suit was premature, pointing out that concrete actions had not yet harmed the states and that the order mainly directed federal agencies internally.

In its per curiam opinion the Court’s 6-3 majority agreed the challenge was brought too early. The order itself required or forbade nothing of the states, any injury remained speculative, and the government faced irreparable harm if blocked from preparing for the 2026 elections.

The Court stressed it was not deciding the ultimate legality of any implementing steps, stating the ruling “does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell.”

The three liberal justices dissented. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, joined in part by Jackson, argued the states had standing based on the “credible threat” of investigations and prosecutions. Jackson warned the ruling “injects additional unknowns into the already fraught pre-election period.”

Approximately 30% of 2024 presidential ballots were cast by mail.

Most Americans support stronger measures and accountability to ensure only eligible citizens vote, and many view requirements like those in the order as a necessary step to strengthen confidence in election integrity. They argue federal databases can help identify potential ineligible voters while states keep primary authority and federal agencies supply supporting data and enforcement priority.

The order rests on the long-standing principle that only U.S. citizens may vote in federal elections, a restriction already in statute and the Constitution. Americans contend the citizenship lists simply put existing law into practice rather than create new restrictions.

Administration lawyers have, understanbly, called this judicial restraint.

Several states have already tightened their own mail-ballot and voter-roll rules; the federal order is seen as reinforcing those efforts. Practical safeguards remain: the lists must draw from Privacy Act-protected federal records, and USPS rulemaking stays subject to a separate nationwide injunction.

Implementation still faces hurdles.

The Postal Service published its final rule around August 21, 2026 (with an immediate effective date once injunctions are cleared, noted in some accounts as around August 26), requiring states to supply lists of mail-ballot recipients at least 60 days before the election; non-compliant states would not have ballots mailed.

Even as legal challenges proceeded, the Department of Homeland Security has continued developing the technical infrastructure for the citizenship lists, and the administration has pressed Congress to enact the SAVE America Act to lock similar requirements into federal law.

Practical feasibility questions persist, including the completeness and accuracy of federal citizenship lists which are limited by Privacy Act constraints and data gaps, state capacity to comply on short notice, and the risk that eligible voters could be affected.

With early voting nearing and Election Day less than three months away, practical timelines may limit the order’s full effect on the 2026 midterms. In a related June 2026 ruling the Court held that states may count mail ballots arriving after Election Day if postmarked on time.

Legal hurdles remain. With the midterms approaching and a separate nationwide injunction still in place against key Postal Service rules, further litigation is expected in the weeks and months ahead.

Trump has repeatedly vowed to end widespread mail-in voting before the midterms and has consistently done everything within his power to ensure free and fair elections.