8 Things You Should Know About Trump’s Effort to “Take Over” the Midterm Elections

How Trump plans to win by cheating

By ProPublica

When Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election, the institutional guardrails of American democracy held — but just barely.

If faced with the same tests today, those guardrails and the people who held the line would largely be missing, a ProPublica examination found.

At least 75 career officials who once held roles at federal agencies related to election integrity and safety are gone. Two dozen appointees — including many who either actively worked to reverse the 2020 vote or are associates of such people — have been hired to replace them. And once-fringe actors now have access to vast powers.

As the midterms approach, current and former government officials and election security experts expressed concerns that Trump appointees who’ve espoused debunked conspiracy theories about balloting are now in positions to control the narrative around the vote’s soundness.

It’s hard to debunk false claims “coming with the seal of the federal government,” said Derek Tisler, counsel and manager with the Brennan Center for Justice’s elections and government program. “I certainly worry what damage that could do to voters’ confidence.”

Here are some of the key things you should know about the Trump administration’s efforts to, as the president said, “take over” the midterms. Read the full investigation here.

1. In 2020, institutional guardrails helped to prevent Trump from overturning the election.

Following his defeat in the 2020 election, Trump pushed for federal officials to uncover proof that he had, in fact, beaten Joe Biden at the polls. Election cybersecurity experts with the Department of Homeland Security relayed to Attorney General William Barr that the election fraud claims that they looked into were false. Barr then told the president what he didn’t want to hear: The election had not been hacked.

Barr was one of many federal officials — most of them Trump appointees — who refused to bend to the president’s demands, which only intensified in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, 2021. Despite the violent uprising at the Capitol on that day, the election results held firm.

2. Less than 18 months into his second term, Trump has dismantled many of those same guardrails.

Since the start of his second term, Trump and his appointees have made significant changes at federal agencies tasked with helping to safeguard elections. In all, at least 75 career officials who’d played important roles in elections work at DHS, the Department of Justice and other agencies have left, been fired or been reassigned, ProPublica found.

In their place are roughly two dozen people Trump has installed in positions that could affect elections. Ten of them actively worked to reverse the 2020 vote, and the rest are associates of those people. In some cases, ProPublica found, officials have been hired from activist groups that are pillars of the election-denial movement.

Bless him

Jeffrey Epstein was right about this

Major hurricanes in the Northeast are rare.

Could climate change make them common?

By Jeff Masters, Yale Climate Connections

Figure 1. The storm surge of the 1938 Long Island Express hurricane washes away a home in Westport, Massachusetts. (Image credit: Westport Historical Society, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Landfalling major hurricanes in the northeast U.S. are a rare breed, with only five having been observed since settlers arrived in the early 1600s — an average of just over one such storm per century. And despite warmer sea surface temperatures in the past 30 years, the northeast U.S. has avoided a major hurricane landfall since Carol in 1954. Yet research suggests these storms may become more likely as the climate continues to change.

Since accurate records began in 1851, only two other major hurricanes made landfall in the Northeast U.S.: the 1938 Long Island Express Hurricane and an unnamed 1869 storm that hit Rhode Island (though there’s reason to be skeptical of the second one; in an email, historical hurricane expert Cary Mock said, “I doubt it would intensify that far north as a Cat 3.”) 

What about before accurate record-keeping began? Severe hurricanes that hit Long Island and then Connecticut in 1635 and 1815 were likely major hurricanes. A 2014 paper, Estimation of Hurricane Wind Speed Probabilities: Application to New York City and Other Coastal Locations, estimated that major hurricane wind speeds should occur about once every 300 years on Long Island and once every 700 years in New York City. 

Note that by” major hurricane," we mean one with sustained winds of at least 111 mph, making it a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. 

A large, west-angling hurricane like 2012's Sandy – discussed below – can deliver a catastrophic storm surge to the Northeast even if its winds decrease below the major-hurricane threshold just before landfall.

As the climate warms, at least four factors might increase the risk of a major hurricane in the northeast U.S.:

1. Ocean warming is causing the strongest hurricanes to get stronger.
2. A poleward shift in which hurricanes reach their peak intensity farther north (primarily because of warming sea surface temperatures)
3. More hurricanes are forming close to the U.S. coast as a result of ocean warming.
4. More Greenland blocking (a “stuck” jet stream pattern that increases the risk of a Northeast U.S. landfall)

One factor that might decrease risk: a tendency toward slower-moving storms, which would result in more weakening as they cross the cold waters offshore of the Northeast.

My hunch: these competing factors may act to modestly increase the major hurricane risk to the Northeast, so that a one-in-100-year storm of the 20th century would be roughly a one-in-75-year storm during the 2026-2050 period.

Reducing use of personal care products quickly lowers toxic chemicals in the body

Study shows even small reductions lower levels of health-harming substances

Pamela Ferdinand, US Right to Know

Lindsey Deng steers a red shopping cart into the travel aisle of her local Target, filled with miniature bottles of shampoos, lotions, and cosmetics. Packing for a trip to Texas, the 24-year-old Northwestern University student scans shelves for TSA-friendly versions of products recommended by social media influencers.

“I only look at the ingredients for my own skin type. As long as a product is on the market and from a big corporation or reliable brand, I feel like it shouldn’t contain too much [to be worried about],” Deng said. “I trust the manufacturers.”

But a small study shows that assumption may not hold. Routine decisions about everything from mascara to moisturizer matter when it comes to shaping your chemical exposure and health risks, the researchers suggest.

On average, women use 13 personal care products a day, containing more than 100 unique ingredients, and men use about 11. Roughly 1 in 10 adults uses more than 25 products daily. Late last year, the FDA reported that more than 1,700 cosmetic products contain PFAS — so-called “forever chemicals” tied to serious health risks including cancer, birth defects and liver disease.

The findings, published in the May issue of Environment International, indicate that switching from conventional personal care products to nontoxic alternatives can rapidly and significantly reduce exposure to harmful chemicals. Even a few changes in only a few days can lower body levels of substances linked to hormone disruption, cancer, developmental problems, and reproductive toxicity, the study shows.

The real cost of the Iran War: $72 billion for the first 60 days

Hegseth lied: Trump's Iran War costs almost triple

Stephen Semler

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Acting Comptroller Jules Hurst told Congress last week that the Iran War had cost $25 billion through the first 60 days. The next day, CBS reported that officials familiar with the Pentagon’s internal assessments estimated the cost was actually closer to $50 billion — double the amount department leadership had just stated publicly. However, even the figure reported as the war’s “true cost” is at least $22 billion too low.

Popular Information conducted a cost estimate of the Iran War based on officials’ statements, military procurement and operations data, and reporting on deployments and armament use. Through 60 days, the US spent an estimated $71.8 billion on the Iran War, or $1.2 billion per day on average. This includes the cost of operations, munitions, combat losses, and arming co-belligerents. Like the estimates from Pentagon leadership and unnamed officials, this figure refers only to direct war costs — near-term expenses for military operations, munitions, and the like — and not indirect costs, which include broader economic impacts, interest on the national debt and longer-term expenses like veterans’ care.

Trump administration stifles data showing COVID vaccine works

Don't like the numbers? Bury the report.

Chris Dall, MA

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has canceled publication of a scientific report showing the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to media reports.

The Washington Post, which first reported the news, says the report, initially scheduled to be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on March 19, showed the COVID-19 vaccine cut the likelihood of emergency department visits and hospitalizations in half this past winter. 

The report had cleared the agency’s scientific review process before being delayed by acting CDC Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, over concerns about the methodology. But the same methodology has long been used by the CDC to evaluate vaccine effectiveness for respiratory viruses and was used in a study on the flu vaccine published last month in MMWR.

In response to a query from CIDRAP News, a CDC official did not address the blocked report specifically but said the agency has to apply the “highest standards of scientific rigor” to the information it publishes.

“Responsible science requires careful review. Taking time to ensure analyses are methodologically sound and clearly communicated is always preferable to risking error,” the official said.

To be absolutely clear...

Legacy of lying

May 12 presentation on wind power development

Results of wind development discussions at New London presentation

Dawn Bergantino

URI Photo / D. Bidwell

David Bidwell, professor of marine affairs at the University of Rhode Island, will share research results on offshore wind community discussions at a free public presentation on Tuesday, May 12, at 6 p.m., at the New London Community Recreation Center, 1 Recreation Way, New London.

Bidwell will lead a presentation hosted by the New London NAACP to provide area residents with information related to prior research and community discussions in the area, as well as discuss community priorities and concerns over offshore wind energy development activities. 

At URI, Bidwell’s work focuses on how people interact with renewable energy technologies, including offshore wind in southern New England. He began conducting research in New London in 2024. 

Right-wing media linked to vaccine refusal

Media habits tied to MMR vaccine hesitancy in US adults

Laine Bergeson

Where Americans get their news may play a significant role in shaping their attitudes toward the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, according to a national study published in Vaccine. 

In the cross-sectional survey of nearly 3,000 US adults led by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, 17% of respondents said they believe the risks of the MMR vaccine outweigh its benefits, indicating vaccine hesitancy. 

The survey, conducted in August 2025, comes as measles cases have resurged across the country, with more than 2,000 infections reported by the end of 2025. 

That’s the highest number of annual cases since measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000.

Unfounded Health Concerns Are Powering a Solar Backlash

Does Trump think they cause cancer too?
by Anna Clark for ProPublica

Kevin Heath had hoped there would be solar panels by now on his family farm in southeastern Michigan, roughly 50 miles outside Detroit.

About six years ago, he agreed to lease part of his land for a solar project. It would help him pay off debt and keep the farm in the family, he said. But the opportunity was thwarted when, in 2023, following pushback from some local residents, his township passed an ordinance that banned large solar projects from land zoned for agriculture.

In the fight over solar development, Heath said he was bombarded by just about every argument from critics — including claims that solar fields are a health hazard. “I’ve heard them say that, but I’ve never heard anybody prove that,” Heath said.

“The health and safety issue,” he added, “that is just a joke.”

Michigan has big prospects in solar farming — measured by the expected growth in the capacity of its farms to add electricity directly to the grid. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of the nation’s new capacity from this type of solar farm is planned this year for four states, including Michigan. The others, with their hot deserts and big-sky plains, seem more obvious: Texas, Arizona and California.

To some, in Michigan and beyond, this growth feels dangerous. They pressure public officials to stop, stall or otherwise complicate new solar projects with an array of arguments that now go beyond just land use to include public health.

There is little reputable evidence to back their claims. But health concerns have helped power a solar backlash that undercuts efforts to broaden energy sources even as customer costs are rising.

Restrictions on solar development are proliferating nationwide, “often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears,” including ones that involve “potential environmental and human safety risks,” according to an article published late last year in the Brigham Young University Law Review.

To generate electricity, solar projects harvest energy from the sun. “And that’s really not that different from what a field of corn or alfalfa does,” said Troy Rule, the Arizona State University law professor who authored the article. “In fact, arguably, it’s even more environmentally friendly.”

Thanks to Trump and Bobby Jr., US is about to lose its status as a country that has eliminated measles

US may lose measles elimination status after outbreaks spread to 45 states

By Vanessa McMains, Children's Hospital Boston

The Onion

After public health experts declared measles eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established seven indicators of measles elimination status to ensure that the country remained on track. 

Now, analyzing these same indicators, Boston Children's Hospital researchers find that the U.S. has missed four of the seven criteria, with the others at risk. These findings are published in The Lancet.

The researchers who performed the analysis included Maimuna Majumder, Ph.D., MPH, the Inaugural Peter Szolovits Distinguished Scholar in the Computational Health Informatics Program at Boston Children's, and their postdoctoral research fellow Anne Bischops, MD, a pediatrician and German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina Fellow. The team evaluated the number of U.S. measles cases, outbreaks, their origination, and the levels of transmission. Their results suggest that measles is making a comeback in the U.S., spreading continuously for more than a year.

The latest string of U.S. outbreaks began in Texas in January 2025. Since then, outbreaks have spread to 45 states. When the U.S. was last recertified for measles elimination status in 2011, the country achieved all the measles elimination indicators established by the CDC's National Immunization Program. But this year, according to this new research, most of the indicators are in the red.

Who's responsible?

Why is this not surprising?

Making this even more stupid, the CDC health inspectors were funded by the cruise ship lines, not taxpayers.