Judge Orders Trump to End Election Probe Given How Bad His Data Is

A judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to end its investigations into noncitizen voting in nine states.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled Wednesday that DHS’s data contains multiple inaccuracies and could be used to target U.S. citizens, The Washington Postreports. She barred the department from using the records in “elections-related field operations and field interviews” but delayed the order, allowing the Trump administration until 5 p.m. Friday to appeal.

DHS agents have recently been spotted going door to door to look for noncitizen voters. Under the order, DHS would be barred from using the program to continue these operations in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

According to the Post,the department built target lists from commercial voter files, official state voter rolls, and other lists comprising 48.2 million voters that Martínez-Olguín, appointed by President Biden, said came from “questionable provenance.”

Because of pressure from administration officials, DHS employees were only given up to 12 minutes to clear someone from the list, Martínez-Olguín said. She ruled that this had a high likelihood of error because the government doesn’t keep a true master list of people living in the U.S. that includes their citizenship status.

Groups including the California Nurses Association sued the government, claiming that the White House was violating the Voting Rights Act by intimidating people who try to increase voter turnout or help with voting. Martínez-Olguín ruled that these groups had valid claims.

“The fear is objectively reasonable, and compounded by [DHS’s] use of data that is widely known to inadvertently include U.S. citizens, leaves citizens afraid that their name will be wrongly included in the hundreds of thousands identified for investigation,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice admitted that its list of noncitizens who illegally voted in California may not be accurate, and officials in the state as well as Los Angeles County attested the same in court. That hasn’t stopped the federal government from arresting people based on that faulty information, though.

Editor’s Pick:

Major American banks have reported unauthorized artificial intelligence bots inside consumer accounts, sources told Axios Thursday.

The infiltration is happening faster than the financial institutions can respond to it. Even more concerning, some of the agents appear to be acting independently, performing actions that users did not request or automate.

Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and Wells Fargo are just some of the banks racing to contain the AI-related risk. Part of the containment strategy involves rapidly rewriting and redeploying terms of service to their clients in order to firmly restrict the use of AI from their platforms.

Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citi are in the process of restricting third-party agents from accessing their platforms entirely, according to Axios.

Bank executives described the situation to Axios as “horrifying.” One official told the digital newsroom that the industry has “grave concerns” about whether the rampant threat could impact user finances.

Executives reportedly recognize that a growing demographic of banking clients are interested in using their own AI agents to perform financial tasks and transactions. However, the risk is currently too high to allow individual clients that kind of access, particularly at the rate at which the revolutionary technology is adapting and changing.

Another banking executive told Axios that it is difficult to distinguish between authorized AI agents and agents that have “gone rogue” and inappropriately accessed a customer account.

“Banks are investing in preventing worst-case scenarios, but they are also preparing in case they do happen, including with ‘day after’ scenario planning that would allow them to quickly secure or restore customer access,” Axios reported.

Read more about AI:

The Department of State has asked civil servants up for promotions who they voted for in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections.

Top State Department officials have indicated that the only candidates eligible for mid- to upper-level foreign service roles were people who had supported President Donald Trump, and that political donations to any Democrat would be disqualifying, The Washington Sun reported Thursday.

The publication spoke to six current and former State Department officials with knowledge of these conversations, including three sources who spoke directly to employees who were asked about their politics.

Federal law prohibits federal officials from making personnel decisions based on political affiliation, but it has seemingly become a regular practice during the second Trump administration. This latest move comes as the State Department has attempted to push out its most senior career officials, in order to ensure the top ranks are all politically loyal to the current president.

In a statement to the Sun, a spokesperson for the State Department declined to comment on the outlet’s reporting about voting history questions, but expounded on the importance of employees’ “fidelity.”

“Fidelity means upholding the Constitution and the law and executing policy with loyalty to the American people and their interests,” the spokesperson said. “It emphasizes the critical importance of service, integrity, and policy alignment across the Foreign Service. It is not about partisan behavior but rather about executing the president’s vision for foreign policy.”

In July 2025, the State Department added a “fidelity” section to the foreign service’s performance-evaluation process, requiring managers to assess whether their employees had succeeded at “completely aligning oneself and one’s team to the most current [U.S. government] goals.”

Apparently, the agency has taken that to mean high-ranking diplomats are required to have personally supported all of Trump’s bids for presidency over the last decade.

Editor’s Pick:

Three male escorts have claimed that they had sex with the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham—with one engaging in relations with him when he was just 17.

The men are featured in a documentary from The Young Turks, which they worked on for a year. Graham, who was one of the most conservative, anti-LGBTQ senators during his long tenure, had also been plagued by rumors about his alleged homosexuality until the day he died.

“His last words to me were ‘I needed that,’” said Cory, who started as a sex worker after he was kicked out of his parents’ house for coming out in 2005. He detailed his first meeting with Graham at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

“He was very professional looking.… He looked like a different class than I’m used to.… But the thing that stood out to me was his accent. He had this big, grandiose Southern accent that I hadn’t heard in years,” Cory said. He then claimed that Graham liked being “degraded,” spanked, and called “faggot.” Cory said Graham paid him $1,500, and The Young Turks shared various travel logs that place both him and Graham in D.C. at the same time.

🚨 BREAKING: Male escort reveals why he came forward with his story about Lindsey Graham. https://t.co/DrUgukJOin
— GOP Ls (@GOP__Ls) October 22, 2026

Two other men, Jesse and Kelvin, had similar stories with Graham.

“It’s not exactly a secret that he was a homosexual,” Jesse said.

Kelvin alleges he met Graham in Arizona in 2001 when he was 17 years old. “He contacted me, said that he had heard about me from someone, that I came recommended,” he said. “I asked Lindsey what was bringing him into town. He said that a buddy of his was having some major event that he was gonna be there for.” That buddy was Senator John McCain, whom Graham was visiting for a Fourth of July party.

“As he was adjusting his pants, he got a good look at me. And then that was when he was a bit startled, and almost terrified. He looked at me then with a very stern, angry scowl on his face, and he was like, ‘You’re under the age of 18, you’re 17 aren’t you?’” Graham panicked, but then gave in after Kelvin lied and told him he had just turned 18. He was paid $120.

Lindsey Graham was routinely hiring male sex workers while handling extremely sensitive national security material. Including a minor, whose story is detailed here for the first time. Meanwhile, his sister Darline runs on his name while campaigning on anti-LGBT rhetoric. https://t.co/1GZ65mlQeJ
— Kareem Rifai 🌐 (@KareemRifai) October 22, 2026

“So after spending his whole life being homophobic, Lindsey was having sex with underage male prostitutes???” liberal commentator Harry Sisson wrote online.

This is one of the longest-running rumors in Washington. It matches what others said in the days after Graham’s death, and makes every one of Graham’s homophobic votes, policies, and comments—including voting against gay marriage multiple times—all the more despicable.

Watch the full documentary here.

Editor’s Pick:

A federal judge has ordered President Trump to sit for a deposition by December 11 with attorneys for the British Broadcasting Corporation, which he is suing for $10 billion for defamation.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett ruled Thursday that Trump can’t delay answering questions from the BBC’s lawyers, the Associated Press reports. The president had canceled a planned October 16 deposition based on a “matter of national importance.” According to the BBC’s attorneys, Trump was in fact campaigning in Georgia for the midterms that day.

“He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” BBC attorney Charles Tobin told the AP, adding that “we still haven’t been able to depose the plaintiff” with only two months left in the discovery period of the case.

If Trump does not attend a deposition before the deadline, he could face sanctions including the dismissal of his case. The only reprieve he can get is if the lawsuit’s discovery period is extended beyond December 18.

Trump is accusing the BBC of defaming him in a 2024 documentary about the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, claiming the media company used deceptive editing to make it appear that he was urging his supporters to use violence to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The network denies Trump’s accusations.

But the president was almost certainly trying to shake down the network, which appears to have backfired. BBC attorneys are trying to get his nemesis, former special counsel Jack Smith, to testify, and Trump has also fought attempts to subpoena his children and dig into his finances. He should have known better than to go after the BBC, which, being backed by licensing fees from the U.K.’s TV-owning public, wasn’t likely to settle with him. Now, he either has to win his case on its nonexistent merits, or drop it altogether.

This story has been updated.

Editor’s Pick:

Source link