Carol Anderson has been sounding the alarm for years.

As a historian at Emory University, she is intimately acquainted with America’s legacy when it comes to voting access. Her book, “One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying our Democracy,” was longlisted for the National Book Award in 2018.

She brought her deep knowledge of history and concern about what’s happening to voting access now to Red Wing on Sept. 23.

During a conversation at the Sheldon Theatre with MPR News host Kerri Miller, Anderson said she’s worried the Jim Crow-era is beginning anew, thanks to persistent attempts to deny communities of color their right to vote.

“I see it as the result of a long-term campaign to undermine the strength of our electoral systems,” she told Miller. “How many times can you hear ‘stolen election, stolen election, voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud?’ If you say a lie enough times, it becomes the truth, and there's a nasty long history of hollering ‘voter fraud.’”

But while Anderson acknowledged the country’s track record on voting access is grim, she also applauded the only thing that has ever held it at bay: voters who are active and civically engaged. She pointed to the Red Wing audience as evidence.

BOOKSHOP.oRG

One Person, No Vote

Go to MPR's bookshop page to purchase this title and support indie bookstores.

“This is, what, a Wednesday evening? And you’re here listening to a talk about voter suppression and voting rights?” she laughed. “This is where our strength is. It is people getting educated about what’s happening and knowing not to listen to the lies about election integrity and voter fraud.”

Subscribe to Big Books and Bold Ideas with Kerri Miller on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS or anywhere you get your podcasts.

Subscribe to the Thread newsletter for the latest book and author news and must-read recommendations.

President Donald Trump on Monday announced plans for a new $15 billion steel plant in eastern Iowa that would be one of the largest in the United States — and use iron ore mined in Minnesota.

The new mill in eastern Iowa will be built by Mesabi Metallics, a Minnesota-based company owned by India’s Essar Group, an industrial conglomerate. The White House said the plant will begin producing steel in 2030 and create more than 2,000 jobs in the United States. When it’s fully built out, it’s expected to produce 10 million tons of steel a year, more than any other in the U.S.

The steel plant will be supplied by the new $2.5 billion iron ore mine that Mesabi developed on Minnesota’s Iron Range and officially opened earlier this month. It’s the first new iron ore mine in the state in a half-century.

The resulting steel will be produced from start to finish in the United States, the White House said.

The president touted the 50 percent tariffs on steel imports that he imposed last year as the impetus for the steel plant.

“Our steel industry is roaring back to life. Everyone is building their plants here because they don’t want to pay tariffs,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “It’s really not that complicated.”

The Mesabi Metallics mine’s opening comes at a critical time in northeastern Minnesota, after closures last year at two of the region’s six taconite facilities.

Mesabi has hired more than 200 workers so far, out of a planned 350 full-time employees at the mine near Nashwauk.

But news that Mesabi plans to build a steel plant in Iowa — and not in Minnesota — was called a “gut punch” by Republican state Rep. Spencer Igo, who represents the portion of the Iron Range where the new mine is located.

Igo said the mine is a “big win” for the Range — but he said Mesabi’s next investment going to Iowa “should frustrate everyone who cares about the future of northern Minnesota.”

“We cannot keep watching billions of dollars in investment and thousands of good-paying jobs go elsewhere and pretend there is nothing we can do about it,” Igo wrote. “The people of the Iron Range want this opportunity, and we have the workers, the resources, and the communities ready to support these projects. State leaders need to start making Minnesota a place where companies want to build and create jobs, not a place they look to leave behind. The most important part of public policy is partnership, and the state of Minnesota is missing that.”

Mesabi Metallics said the new Iowa steel plant will “reshape American steelmaking with a supply chain that is 100 percent American: mined, melted and poured.”

Mesabi CEO Joe Broking said in a statement Monday that the steel plant announcement “bolsters the long-term economic strength of Mesabi Metallics’ mine and pellet plant in Nashwauk, Minnesota, by tying it to a low-cost steel facility.”

“Mesabi Metallics is looking forward to further investment in Minnesota, and we look forward to continuing our work with the state to expand the mine capacity and build an additional hot briquetted iron facility in Minnesota,” Broking said.

Hot briquetted iron is a purer form of iron is used to feed smaller steel mills known as electric arc furnaces.

Broking added: “We have greatly appreciated the support of Governor Walz and the work of the DNR and MPCA to successfully permit the first new iron mine in Minnesota in 50 years.”

Broking told Itasca County officials earlier this month that Mesabi Metallics plans to submit permits to the state of Minnesota for a new iron plant in Nashwauk by the end of the year.

But he also told commissioners that before making the investment, the company needs to see more efficient state permitting and more competitive incentives. He also said Mesabi would need to regain control of state mineral leases that were awarded to rival mining company Cleveland-Cliffs in 2023.

The White House is framing Monday’s steel plant announcement as part of Trump’s push to revitalize American steel.

It comes as Trump is trying to energize Republican voters as his party faces challenging midterm elections. Iowa has found itself with competitive races for the Senate and the governor’s mansion this year.

On your ballot in November, you will be asked to vote on a constitutional amendment, which would make changes to what’s called the Permanent School Fund.

This fund is a trust, that supports every single public and charter school student in the state. Lawmakers are now asking taxpayers to vote to change the calculation of how much money is distributed to schools. This would allow schools to get access to more funding without raising taxes.

Denise Dittrich is the director of government relations for the Minnesota School Board Association and a former Democratic state representative. She joined Minnesota Now host Nina Moini to talk about the ballot measure.

Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation.

Subscribe to the Minnesota Now podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

We attempt to make transcripts for Minnesota Now available the next business day after a broadcast. When ready they will appear here.

Minnesota’s attorney general race is honing in on two of the most consequential issues this election cycle — fraud and President Donald Trump.

Both candidates have a considerable punching bag when it comes to attacking their opponent. Ron Schutz has blasted DFL Attorney General Keith Ellison for not doing more to stop fraud in the state’s social service programs. Meanwhile, Ellison argues that Schutz would be a rubber stamp for the Trump administration.

“The battle here is, what is the referendum in this race?” said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “Is it a referendum on fraud, in which case Keith Ellison is vulnerable, or is it a referendum on Donald Trump?”

A recent KSTP/Survey USA poll shows Schutz with a slight lead for the first time this election cycle. Ellison is polling higher with 18-34 year olds, women and moderates, but 21 percent of moderates say they’re still undecided. It’s common for the sitting president’s party to lose power in midterm elections, but Ellison has struggled to reach voters outside the urban core of the Twin Cities. As Gov. Tim Walz sailed to reelection in 2022, Ellison beat his Republican opponent by less than one percentage point.

“The 20 percent [of undecided moderates] is the key,” Jacobs said. “They’re not locked in on the challenger, but there’s something about the incumbent that’s keeping them from supporting the incumbent. What they’re really saying is: ‘I’m undecided if I’m going to support the incumbent.’”

Both candidates are sitting on large stockpiles of money, according to campaign finance reports released last week. Ellison is currently trailing Schutz in cash on hand, $675,000 to $1 million respectively, but Schutz loaned his campaign $450,000 days before the reports were due. More than $5.1 million has been spent on the race by outside groups.

Attorney general’s role in suing and prosecuting

Fraud and the Trump administration’s actions, like Operation Metro Surge this winter, are issues candidates are grappling with up and down the ballot, and the attorney general’s office has legal sway on both issues.

On behalf of the state of Minnesota, the attorney general can sue a presidential administration, something Ellison has done 75 times during the second Trump administration, according to a spokesperson.

The attorney general’s office could also play a role in prosecuting the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the two Minnesotans killed by immigration enforcement officials last January. The attorney general’s office could help the Hennepin County attorney’s office if they bring state charges against federal agents involved. The governor of Minnesota can also designate the attorney general to handle high-profile prosecutions. After a legal fight, Ellison’s office received evidence from the federal government related to both shootings and state officials are currently weighing a charging decision.

“I am 100 percent committed to getting to the truth and getting to accountability regarding these two homicides,” Ellison said. “I’m the guy who led the prosecution regarding the murder of George Floyd, so I don’t think there’s any real doubt that I’m committed to finding justice, no matter where and no matter who it involves. I cannot say that for my opponent.”

But Schutz, a trial lawyer and Army veteran, has an advantage when it comes to fraud, an issue Minnesota Democrats have repeatedly fumbled over the past several years. Ellison has become one of the faces of Minnesota’s fraud scandal, which prompted Walz to suspend his reelection campaign. In March, Ellison and Walz testified about Minnesota’s fraud scandal at a Republican-led congressional hearing in Washington, D.C.

Ellison met with a group of business owners that included now-convicted members of the Feeding Our Future fraud scandal a month before the first search warrant was issued, according to leaked audio of the meeting. Ellison said he frequently meets with constituents and wasn’t aware of specific allegations involving fraud.

The Attorney General’s office also oversees Minnesota’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, a 50-person division that prosecutes businesses and individuals stealing Medicaid dollars or neglecting vulnerable victims. Since 2019, the office has convicted more than 350 people of Medicaid fraud, but Schutz argues Ellison isn’t doing enough to prevent fraud as attorney general.

“Every single case that’s prosecuted in that office related to Medicaid fraud is reactive,” Schutz said last Tuesday during an interview at the Minnesota Star Tribune’s North Star Summit. “There is zero evidence I’ve seen where the attorney general is taking any proactive measures.”

The bulk of the attorney general office’s work deals with civil matters, like consumer protection, and is limited in its criminal authority. The office has specific authority to prosecute Medicaid fraud. Schutz declined an interview for this story, but both he and Ellison have agreed to participate in a debate hosted by MPR News on Friday.

“We have a serious issue, which fraud is, and I see Republicans in Minnesota opportunistically trying to use it as a political weapon,” Ellison said. “We’ve been working hard to solve the problem, they’ve been working hard to pin the problem on us.”

Minnesota hasn’t had a Republican attorney general since 1971, and hasn’t had a Republican governor since Tim Pawlenty left office in 2011. Based on the outcome of Minnesota’s gubernatorial race, it’s possible that for the first time in 15 years, the governor and attorney general’s office could be held by different parties.

For the past eight years, Walz and Ellison have been in lockstep, a partnership most evident during times Minnesota has been thrust into the national spotlight — the death of George Floyd and the subsequent murder trial of police officer Derek Chauvin in which Ellison was the lead prosecutor, the assassination of Melissa and Mark Hortman and Operation Metro Surge.

The two began their freshman terms in Congress together in 2007. A win for a Republican in either race could impact that intra-party alliance.

As Election Day draws closer, new polling data suggests the president's approval numbers could affect Republicans in the midterms in Minnesota.

MPR News host Clay Masters and the MPR News politics team explore what a fresh set of polling numbers means for candidates on the November ballot.

Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation and subscribe to the Politics Friday podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or RSS, for a deeper dive into state politics.

Guests:

• Brian Bakst is politics editor for MPR News and host of Politics Friday.

• Ellie Roth is a politics reporter for MPR News.

• Peter Cox is a senior politics reporter for MPR News.

Have Americans given up a sense of virtue in their political leaders? What does character mean when so-called “authenticity” is prized over moral goodness?

As publisher of The Bulwark and host of The Focus Group podcast, Sarah Longwell has thought long and hard about these questions. When she was a young conservative growing up in the ‘90s, she applauded Republicans who held then-President Bill Clinton to task for his moral failings.

“I was very attracted to the idea that character counted,” she tells Kerri Miller on this week’s Big Books and Bold Ideas. “In the years post-Clinton, that idea of virtue or character really was animating for the right — at least in their rhetoric. So it was deeply shocking to me, when Donald Trump came on the scene, to see every Republican I knew, both personally and who I had admired from afar, fall in line.”

BOOKSHOP.oRG

How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time

Go to MPR's bookshop page to purchase this title and support indie bookstores.

Longwell’s new book, “How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time,” is a call for pro-democracy groups to unite and push back against authoritarianism. Her thesis is built upon hundreds of focus groups she’s conducted since President Trump was elected — with Republicans, Democrats, Independents and the politically homeless — where she’s heard voters say that character just isn’t the deal breaker that it used to be.

“But I do think for America to have a better moral line of what we’ll tolerate,” she says. “It will require a [candidate] to come in and — not pretend to be perfect — but they should lean hard into the idea that we can be better than this.”

Guest:

• Sarah Longwell is publisher of The Bulwark and host of The Focus Group podcast. Her new book, “How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time,” is already a New York Times bestseller.

Subscribe to Big Books and Bold Ideas with Kerri Miller on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS or anywhere you get your podcasts.

Subscribe to the Thread newsletter for the latest book and author news and must-read recommendations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has for now revived a federal data system the Department of Homeland Security revamped into a tool to check the citizenship of millions of Americans on voter rolls. The tool has mistakenly flagged some eligible voters as potential noncitizens.

The news comes as the Trump administration has been pouring resources into searching for noncitizens on state voter rolls ahead of the upcoming election.

Many states uploaded their voter lists to the expanded version of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements data system – known as SAVE – sharing that voter information with the federal government. Tens of millions of voter records were run through SAVE before it was blocked by a federal judge in June.

The Supreme Court's decision opens the way for the administration to again use the revamped SAVE in its hunt for noncitizens on voter rolls, as well as in its unprecedented project of compiling lists of adult citizens in each state.

Any impact on the midterm elections is unclear. Federal law bans states from "systematically" removing voters from rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

The Trump administration and Republican state officials have argued that statute should not apply to removing noncitizens who were improperly registered. And the federal government argued to the Supreme Court that at a minimum, the updated SAVE should be able to be used for individual removal decisions ahead of an election.

In siding with the Trump administration, the court's majority wrote that a lower court order that halted the expanded SAVE prevents the federal government "from using the modified SAVE program to conduct individualized inquiries, which are permitted under federal law during this [90-day] period. The District Court's order thus inhibits the Federal Government's efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections."

The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented from the order, and would have denied the Trump administration's stay application.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, writing about the "majority's omission of any consideration of the harms that might occur if the modified SAVE system is allowed to continue operating. The District Court highlighted such harms, noting the risk that States might cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or force such persons to provide proof of citizenship before voting."

How the Trump administration overhauled SAVE

SAVE is a 40-year-old federal data system that was created to check the immigration status of noncitizens to determine their eligibility for public benefits.

Then, DHS overhauled SAVE last year by linking it for the first time with Social Security Administration records, which include most Americans. The overhaul also allowed bulk queries to SAVE, and DHS encouraged states to upload their entire voter rolls to SAVE to verify those registered are U.S. citizens and not listed as deceased in federal records.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, blocked use of the modified version of SAVE, finding that its aggregation and disclosure of sensitive data violated the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

"The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote," she wrote.

After an appeals court panel refused to stay the lower court's decision in a 2-1 vote, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this month.

In his appeal, Sauer wrote that since May 2025, the updated version of SAVE has verified more than 65 million voters across 26 states, and has flagged 28,635 as potential noncitizens.

"The district court's order, however, makes it harder to detect ineligible voters, undermining the integrity of federal elections and public confidence in the results of those elections," he wrote.

The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which first challenged the legality of the SAVE overhaul a year ago, argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that Congress has not authorized the federal government to create a "master database of U.S. Citizens," nor does it have data that could do that accurately. The brief added that multiple statutes restrict repurposing and sharing Americans' sensitive data.

"Disregarding these laws, the government has recklessly created an error-laden master citizenship database that endangers millions of Americans' privacy and voting rights," the groups wrote.

They wrote that even though 65 million voters had been verified by the revamped SAVE, the government had not yet released the system's error rate, or how many Americans' citizenship was misrepresented "and who consequently have been forced to reverify their citizenship to retain their voter registration or obtain government benefits."

SAVE has mistakenly flagged eligible citizens

Even though Election Day is just over a month away and voting is underway, the Trump administration could try to make use of the expanded version of SAVE right away in its quest to check registered voters' citizenship.

An executive order President Trump signed in March calls for federal agencies to consult SAVE data, along with other federal records, to create state-by-state lists of adult U.S. citizens. The same order directs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigating and prosecuting election officials who provide ballots to ineligible voters. Even though the executive order says such state lists are to be completed 60 days before an election and that deadline has already passed, federal officials have indicated the project is still underway – although it is facing a legal challenge.

Eligible voters have been erroneously flagged by SAVE, which has been unable to confirm the citizenship of certain categories of foreign-born people who become U.S. citizens.

After Texas ran its entire voter list of 18 million voters through SAVE, the system flagged 2,724 voters as potential noncitizens. County election officials then gave those individuals 30 days to prove their citizenship and, following state law, removed anyone who did not respond in time.

As NPR first reported in December, that effort resulted in citizens being removed from the rolls. Anthony Nel, whose story NPR highlighted in that reporting, gave a declaration in this lawsuit.

A recent press release from the Texas secretary of state revealed that of the 2,724 voters that were initially flagged by SAVE as potential noncitizens, some 20% were later found to be citizens who were reinstated. The same release said the office referred 117 cases identified by SAVE, or 4.2% of those flagged, for investigation for possible noncitizen voting.

Copyright 2026, NPR

Stay up to date with our Politics newsletter, sent weekly.

Congress passed $101 million in funding for teen pregnancy prevention, and President Trump signed that into law as part of his budget bill. But with less than a week to go in the 2026 fiscal year, about $100 million of that funding remains unspent.

What gives?

According to a letter from members of Congress shared exclusively with NPR, the Department of Health and Human Services has spent about $500,000 of the $101 million it is obligated to give out in grants to organizations that work with teens.

"Withholding these funds deprives teens across the U.S. of vital resources and threatens to unwind decades of progress made in reducing teen pregnancy," reads the letter from the Democratic Women's Caucus to HHS. Ninety-two lawmakers in the House and Senate signed the letter, which was sent to HHS on Friday morning.

Grants to dozens of nonprofits, universities and health departments were cut off abruptly in June. Most were in the third year of a five-year funding cycle, according to the lawmakers' letter.

Stephanie McDowell is the executive director of Bridgercare, a nonprofit in Bozeman, Mont. It's one of about 50 organizations that had their grants terminated. "We truly had no indication that our funding would be cut," she says.

This recent loss of federal funding has been challenging, McDowell says. She's been trying to find other grants to apply to, but it's not easy. "Ultimately, we can't sustain an education program at the scale that we were at, serving 21 counties across the state of Montana without funding," she says. "And so we will have to lay off staff, and there will be youth that go without sex ed."

But it is possible that the federal grant funding will come back. HHS could decide to reinstate the grants by itself, or a lawsuit in federal court challenging the terminations might force the agency to do so.

The power of the purse

Congress established the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program in 2010. It's long been a target of the Trump administration and some conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation. President Trump's 2027 budget request calls for eliminating it, labeling it leftist and ineffective, and he tried to cut all these grants in his first term.

But Trump also signed a budget bill into law in February that specifically allocated $101 million to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

"HHS is obligated to spend this money as directed by Congress," says Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., who is the lead author on the letter sent to HHS on Friday. "This is a bipartisan program created by Congress with the clear intent of supporting evidence-based education models that help reduce teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other health risks for young people."

She says that the Trump administration appeared to be trying to put those funds toward promoting abstinence. Soon after the agency canceled the grants in June, it issued a new funding opportunity for teen pregnancy prevention, which promoted abstinence-only sex ed. "This does not fulfill what Congress had appropriated and what its guidelines were," she says.

In August, Judge Christopher Cooper of the D.C. federal District Court ruled that HHS can't use those new requirements. "The TPP Program now mandates an abstinence-only approach to pregnancy prevention, promotes the nebulous concept of 'body literacy,' and prohibits the 'normalization' of sexual activity among minors. That new policy is likely arbitrary and capricious," he wrote.

The judge also flagged that the funding notice HHS sent out included citations for research papers that do not exist. The law allocating the funds specifically says programs must be evidence-based. Cooper's decision on whether to reinstate the terminated grants is expected soon.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to NPR's request for comment about the grants by publication time.

Broken trust

In Des Moines, Iowa, Kristin Fairholm is the executive director of EyesOpenIowa, another nonprofit that received the grant money. She says because of the sudden cuts, her organization had to cancel programs, "which then created some ripples in the community, reputation-wise and trust-wise."

"You work hard to recruit these families to come with their teens to do your programming, and then you're canceling them," Fairholm says. "It's been disheartening for us to have to tear everything down."

She says even if the funding is eventually restored, this sudden cancellation and the uncertainty for the organizations doing this work will lead to more teen pregnancies and more sexually transmitted infections. "I worry for our young people," she says. "I think we're doing them a huge disservice."

The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. has been trending steadily downward in recent decades, hitting a record low in 2025.

Evidence-based sex education programs have been successful in Republican as well as Democratic-led states.

McDowell, in Montana, says she's heard from many parents who are wary of comprehensive sex ed programs.

"I always like to drive home the point that education and values are not the same thing," she says. "When we teach sex ed, we teach facts, we teach communication skills, healthy decision-making; parents and caregivers teach the values that guide those decisions.

"So we teach facts; families teach values," she says. "And those are truly complementary, not competing roles."

Copyright 2026, NPR

James Copenhaver, one of three campaign rally attendees shot in 2024 during an assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump, has died in Pittsburgh, his lawyer said Thursday. He was 76.

Copenhaver was in the bleachers during the event in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a 20-year-old gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop, grazing Trump's right ear with one bullet. Copenhaver was struck in the arm and in the abdomen, wounds that left him with lingering injuries and walking with a cane.

Two other attendees were also shot — David Dutch, who survived, and Corey Comperatore, who shielded his family from gunfire and was killed.

Copenhaver died Wednesday at Allegheny Health Network's West Penn Hospital in Pittsburgh, according to a statement from the Allegheny County medical examiner cited in local media accounts.

Copenhaver's lawyer, Joseph Feldman, said in a statement issued on behalf of the family that he died surrounded by loved ones. The statement did not specify if his death was directly related to the injuries he suffered at the rally.

Copenhaver and his wife, Marianne Copenhaver, sued the federal government in June, alleging that the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security had "utterly failed" to provide appropriate security at the rally. Copenhaver's injuries required multiple surgeries, including a transection of his colon, and he had lingering kidney and other damage, including a loss of feeling in his leg. The lawsuit described the wounds as "debilitating, grievous, permanent and life altering."

The family's statement Thursday called Copenhaver above all else a devoted husband, father and grandfather who instilled the values of hard work, integrity and the service to others in his children.

"James's dedication to this great country was a defining part of his life," it said. "As a veteran, he proudly served our nation in the armed forces, and his love of country never wavered. James was a true American patriot who believed deeply in the freedoms and ideals upon which this nation was founded, and he embodied the very best traits of our great nation."

In a statement posted to social media, Trump on Thursday called Copenhaver "a true American Patriot."

"Jim showed tremendous bravery, courageously continuing to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, and maintaining a positive spirit despite unimaginable hardships," Trump wrote.

Copyright 2026, NPR

Lisa Demuth, the Minnesota Republican nominee for governor, joined a growing parade of GOP candidates to call for a swift end to the war in Iran in a break Thursday from the president as his approval rating slips.

Asked about the war and its effect on gas, diesel and fertilizer prices, Demuth said it’s time for President Donald Trump’s administration to wrap it up.

“When it comes to the war and the increased prices that are a result of that, it is hurting Minnesotans, and I absolutely acknowledge that,” she said. “President Trump and I are different people. I was not his pick to endorse for governor here in the state of Minnesota, but I think as we’ve watched things go forward, it is time to put an end to that war.”

She added, “I really believe that we know that it is causing more expenses, as I’ve mentioned, groceries and fertilizer in our ag community.”

A campaign spokesperson for DFL U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Demuth’s opponent, responded to Demuth’s break with Trump.

“For seven months, Lisa Demuth has refused to oppose Donald Trump’s war in Iran, staying silent as Minnesotans face crushing gas prices and rising costs thanks to the President’s war,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Today, while Lisa Demuth for the first time uttered any concern about this war, Amy Klobuchar was in the Senate taking another vote to actually end this war, which she opposed from the start.”

Demuth has made other subtle shifts away from Trump as the midterm election nears, noting that he sided with another candidate in the primary race she won in August.

During that primary run, Demuth declined to criticize Trump or his policies.

Speaking in June to MPR News All Things Considered host Clay Masters asked if there are things Trump has done that she’s disagreed with.

“Everybody can look at something a little bit different, but I don’t have anything,” she said, before shifting her answer back to Minnesota. That comment has since appeared in ads run by Democratic nominee Amy Klobuchar and the DFL Party.

Last December, she sidestepped multiple questions on whether she agreed with Trump’s comments that Somali immigrants were “garbage,”

“We have a wonderful state with people that are actively a part of making Minnesota even better than what we know,” she said. “What I will say, though, is there is not an entire community that is bad and there’s not an entire community that is good.”

Demuth said she’d work with the federal administration if elected, adding, “where I agree, you will hear that. Where I see it different, you're going to hear that too.”

During an interview with WCCO TV At the Minnesota State Fair, Demuth called Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods “damaging.”

Demuth isn’t the only Republican looking to create a little distance from the president.

In Florida, a Republican congressional incumbent, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, is airing a direct-to-the-camera campaign ad of her criticizing the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. A Colorado Rep. Jeff Hurd is touting his disagreements with Trump on the campaign trail. GOP U.S. Senate nominee Mike Rogers, in Michigan, put up a TV ad pushing for the war with Iran to end. The Iowa Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Ashley Hinson, has made a similar call this week.

We’re delving into the practical effects of Minnesota electing its first woman as governor and what issues might get new attention at the state Capitol.

Barring something unforeseen, Minnesota will join the current list of 32 states that have elected a female chief executive.

MPR News politics editor Brian Bakst talks with correspondent Dana Ferguson about the campaigns of Democratic nominee Amy Klobuchar and Republican nominee Lisa Demuth. Both have personal experience with breast cancer and both are talking about women’s health in a more-prominent way.

Then, a discussion of election polls. They’re everywhere this time of year. But the weight they carry is a source of debate.

Guests:

• Dana Ferguson is a correspondent for MPR News.

• Todd Rapp is the president and CEO at Rapp Strategies and an MPR News politics analyst.

• Peter Leatherman is chief executive officer of Morris Leatherman Company and has served in various research roles at the Minneapolis market and research firm.

• Ellie Roth is a politics reporter for MPR News.

• Peter Cox is a senior politics reporter for MPR News.

Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation or subscribe to the Politics Friday podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or RSS.

Reporters from three news outlets banned from the White House by President Donald Trump were back on the grounds Thursday afternoon, hours after a federal judge ordered the administration to reinstate their access.

On a chaotic day at the White House gates and in court, CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists were allowed back in by midday, after earlier issues gaining access.

It was the latest development in an extraordinary showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. And it played out during a heavy news cycle with Chinese leader Xi Jinping visiting with Trump and world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly.

On Thursday morning, a Secret Service agent had confiscated the journalists’ credentials, the news outlets said in a court filing asking for an immediate hearing to address what seemed to be the White House ignoring the court’s order. The administration said in its own filing shortly after the reporters were allowed back in that it took the White House time to begin the process of reinstating badges.

Trump first announced he was banning the outlets Friday, assailing what he called “fake news.” He later said their reporting was a risk to national security. The outlets argued in a joint lawsuit that the ban was a blatant violation of the First Amendment because it singled them out for the content of their coverage.

In his late-night ruling to temporarily strike down the ban, Kelly said the news outlets had met the legal thresholds to obtain a temporary restraining order, in effect for 14 days. Kelly said they were likely to succeed in showing their access had been revoked without due process.

“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” he wrote.

Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — said the government must have clear standards for conduct that would lead to revoking a press pass. He called the standard of objectionable reporting outlined in letters that the White House sent the outlets “so vague it hardly does the trick.”

The judge also made clear he did not buy the administration’s argument that the news outlets’ reporting endangered national security — and noted that Trump himself had not used that argument in the beginning, focusing solely on what he called negative coverage.

“Nothing in the record ... suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns,” he wrote.

The ruling came after Kelly heard arguments in an emergency hearing Wednesday. Temporary restraining orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.

“This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law," Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, said in an emailed statement. "We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”

The White House did not respond to emails from The Associated Press asking for comment on the order.

Attorneys debated access to the White House and any risk to national security

Boutrous argued in the hearing that there was an urgent need for renewed access, saying that the ban caused irreparable harm to the outlets at a time of momentous news events. “We’re at war. We have world leaders coming to Washington.”

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik, in his argument, reiterated the administration’s point that the president has the right to choose who gets into the White House.

“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.

In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination — the government singling out specific media outlets for the content of what they say or publish — Velchik said the president had criticized other news organizations, but not banned them. He noted, for example, that Trump had called ABC “the worst."

He added: “The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security."

In response, Boutrous said, “Suddenly it’s a national security case,” arguing that the president brought up that point only after the lawsuit was filed.

Trump “keeps proving our point,” Boutrous said, describing how the president has consistently used negative coverage of him as justification for the ban.

Kelly seemed to agree, writing of the national security claim: “Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”

The Trump administration outlined ‘reporting incidents’ of each news outlet

In a filing Tuesday, administration lawyers detailed letters sent to each of the three news outlets that identified “a non-exhaustive list of reporting incidents, including those that have threatened national security and spread falsehoods.”

Among the incidents cited were: CNN reporting on “‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker”; MS NOW reporting “on an alleged leak investigation”; and Politico publishing “a document detailing funding for the White House ballroom containing intricate descriptions of how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements.”

Politico’s letter also included an incident in June of a report in which a “senior administration official … granted anonymity” predicted whether a preliminary deal would end the conflict with Iran.

That item appeared to reference a background briefing set up by the White House, where an official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the administration itself. Several other outlets also reported the official’s remarks.

Major networks refrained from covering Trump for the media pool

The ban prompted other media outlets to take action in solidarity. The U.S. network press pool — consisting of the five major networks, including CNN — has suspended coverage of Trump pool events pending further notice.

The ruling did not address that rotating pool. After the hearing Wednesday, the networks continued to refuse to air footage of Trump without assurances that CNN would be permitted into the White House pool.

At Joint Base Andrews, where the president formally welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping, journalists from Fox News, CBS and NBC were present but not shooting video.

Other television outlets whose crews were present, according to signs on their tripods and cameras, were NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV.

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, an amicus brief was filed by other news groups, including The AP, urging the court to immediately restore the three outlets’ White House access.

Trump administration officials are facing new demands from Congress to explain why the Census Bureau's parent agency removed language banning political interference from its scientific integrity policy.

In letters sent Wednesday to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and other officials, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, cites NPR's reporting on the change and raises concerns about how it could hurt the reliability of statistics about the country's demographics and economy.

"Amid the Trump Administration's broader assault on the integrity of the nation's statistical system, in which you and the Department have played a key role, you owe the public a clear explanation of why the Department removed this language and how it arrived at this decision," Warren wrote to Lutnick, who oversees the Census Bureau as the head of the Commerce Department.

The updated policy no longer says that "protection from inappropriate influence" is among the "hallmarks of scientific integrity." That and other unannounced revisions, dated Aug. 19, came a day after the bureau released a highly unusual document by a team with ties to the America First Policy Institute, a think tank started by officials from President Trump's first administration. NPR first reported on the team's ties to AFPI. Data and election experts have criticized the document's claims about non-U.S. citizen voting as questionable and below the standards for research by the bureau.

The Trump administration has made other controversial moves in recent months with major implications for official statistics.

In June, the administration banned a data privacy protection technique that the Census Bureau had used for decades, forcing the agency to delay the release of some survey results and potentially cut future public data about rural communities and other small populations.

And this month, it proposed that the census, for the first time in U.S. history, exclude certain non-U.S. citizen residents from a count that determines each state's share of congressional districts and Electoral College votes. The 14th Amendment says that count must include the "whole number of persons in each state." The administration is also calling for another unprecedented change: to stop using the census to produce data about people's race and ethnicity.

"That [census proposal] and other proposed changes would have sweeping implications for the quality of our economic data, the redistricting process that determines congressional representation, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions that rely upon key employment statistics and [Bureau of Economic Analysis] inflation data, and our ability to enforce civil rights and other laws," Warren wrote.

Warren is probing whether the Commerce Department's decision to remove the political-interference ban involved the Office of Management and Budget, a White House agency that coordinates federal statistical agencies. The senator is also asking how the Federal Reserve is making sure that the data it relies on from the Census Bureau is accurate.

In a statement, spokesperson Eric Kollig says the Fed plans to respond to Warren's letter, which asks for detailed answers by Oct. 7.

Spokespeople for the Commerce Department and OMB did not immediately respond to NPR's requests for comment.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey

Copyright 2026, NPR

A Florida company that charges military veterans as much as $20,000 for help with disability claims is being accused by authorities in New York and Illinois of defrauding those veterans.

Attorneys general in both states say they have ongoing investigations and "intend to commence legal action" against the company, Trajector Medical, "for fraudulent, illegal and deceptive business practices."

The move comes after an NPR investigation uncovered how Trajector makes millions off of veterans despite warnings from the Department of Veterans Affairs that its business may be illegal. Federal law requires that veterans be given assistance with initial disability claims free of charge.

After NPR's report, attorneys filed civil lawsuits seeking class action status on behalf of veterans. Trajector then filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which effectively put those lawsuits on hold. Now, the attorneys general are telling the bankruptcy court that they believe Trajector has been making its money illegally.

Their ongoing investigations were revealed in a Sept. 8 letter from state officials to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Florida.

"It is expected that the investigations will reveal that money being held by [the company in the bankruptcy process] was collected through illegality and fraud," they told the court.

The company has denied those allegations in court.

"We stand behind how we operate, and we're focused on the veterans we serve," Trajector spokesman Steve Zenofsky told NPR.

In particular, NPR's investigation showed how Trajector uses a robo-dialer system it calls "CallBot" to dial into a VA benefits phone hotline, effectively posing as the veteran by entering the vet's social security number to monitor increases in VA benefits payments.

The company then uses the financial information it obtains to send bills to thousands of vets who once signed up as clients. If CallBot finds an increase in a veteran's benefits, it sends them a bill — even if Trajector didn't help them get an increase in benefits.

That practice is one focus of the investigations in New York and Illinois, according to the letter.

"The Attorneys General are also investigating whether Trajector misuses the personal information that it gathers from veterans through its use of 'callbots,'" they wrote.

Trajector is not the only claims company to use this technology, according to collaborative reporting between NPR and The War Horse.

Trajector files for bankruptcy

Bankruptcy court records provide insight into Trajector's finances and operations. Trajector Medical and 21 affiliated companies are included in the filings. Together they employ more than 450 staff and hold approximately $405 million in assets. In 2025, their combined income was nearly $280 million. Most primarily support Trajector's VA claims work but also include a business that prepares Social Security claims.

The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy five days before it was poised to default on a loan balance of almost $63 million owed to Deutsche Bank, according to court filings.

Chapter 11 protection allows Trajector to continue business while reorganizing its finances, freezing lawsuits and consolidating claims from creditors.

"This restructuring is a strategic step to strengthen our financial position so we can continue carrying out our mission: helping Americans with disabilities pursue the benefits for which they qualify for," CEO Jim Hill said in a statement on the company's website.

CEO buys property before bankruptcy

Hill and his wife purchased a $5.75 million oceanfront home in September 2025, according to local property records.

In bankruptcy court filings, Trajector lists that 6 bedroom, 7.5-bathroom home in the beachside community of Saint Augustine, Fla., as its "principal offices." Trajector's corporate headquarters is located 80 miles inland in Gainesville.

Trajector does not list the home as a company asset in the filings.

Asked why the CEO bought a $5.75 million home less than a year before the company filed for bankruptcy, Zenofsky said "the two are not related in any way."

Bankruptcy stalls lawsuits, but not state investigators

The two lawsuits, filed separately in Florida earlier this year, allege the company engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices by charging veterans for the preparation of initial VA disability claims. Federal law requires such assistance be offered for free by accredited providers. Trajector acknowledges it lacks that accreditation in the contracts it has veterans sign.

But while the bankruptcy puts those lawsuits on hold, it does not stop law enforcement from bringing charges.

"It's a huge development for these attorneys general to step in like this," said Jennifer Byrd, an attorney bringing one of the lawsuits against Trajector on behalf of veterans. "The bankruptcy court can't stop them, they can move forward and keep investigating," she said.

In their letter, the attorneys general say the fees the company charged veterans "are illegal under state and federal law." The state investigators therefore expect to show that money Trajector says it has on hand to pay back creditors was made through "illegality and fraud" and that it "should not be considered property of the estate." In other words, it's not Trajector's money.

In a bankruptcy hearing the day after the states sent their letter, a lawyer for Trajector, Edward Peterson, refused to answer questions about the investigations.

"The letter speaks for itself. We deny the allegations in the letter. [This hearing] is not a fishing expedition for these investigations," he said.

Still, it's unclear what the investigations will mean for the veterans trying to get their money back.

Even with the attorneys general alleging that veterans were victims of fraud, that does not put veterans at the front of the line of creditors to be repaid through the bankruptcy process.

"In a corporate bankruptcy, there is no exception for fraud," said Bruce Markell, a former bankruptcy judge and a professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

Markell said that means veterans and their attorneys who believe they are owed money will likely end up being treated like any other creditor.

Regulation and lawsuits threaten Trajector

Trajector blames its cash-flow woes on an increasingly adversarial regulatory landscape, bankruptcy court filings show.

Since 2024, Trajector Medical has suspended services in 23 states where local laws "prevent, severely limit, or impose undue risks on continued operations," the company said. Trajector Medical's revenue in the first half of 2026 declined approximately 60 percent compared to the year prior "primarily as a result of these legal and regulatory changes," the company said.

Those state laws have been passed in part because of a contradiction created by Congress 20 years ago. In 2006, the U.S. was at war in Iraq and there was a feeling vets needed more options to navigate an increasingly complex claims system. In a half measure, Congress voted to eliminate the federal criminal penalties for breaking the law against charging veterans money for help with initial disability claims but left intact the law itself, which also requires that anyone providing help must be accredited by the VA. So the ban remains on the books, but it became more difficult to enforce it.

Congress has been deadlocked for years over whether to reinstate civil penalties on unaccredited claims companies or legitimize the industry while setting caps on fees for vets. Claims companies and accredited veteran service organizations like Veterans of Foreign Wars lobby fiercely on opposing sides, and new bills on the issue have been introduced as recently as June.

In the absence of more federal oversight, a patchwork of state laws has filled in the gaps. In February, California passed a bill that will impose penalties on unaccredited claims companies starting next year. The same month, a federal judge struck down Louisiana's 2024 law that allowed such companies to operate in the state with fees capped at $12,500.

Trajector's filings also state that internal discord contributed to its decision to file for bankruptcy protection.

Trajector took out a 5-year, $75 million loan from Deutsche Bank in 2021, and court filings show disagreements over how to manage the debt drove a wedge between the company's owners – Hill, a Navy veteran, and co-founder Gina Uribe, a nurse practitioner. With the repayment deadline looming, the company took Uribe to court in May 2026 over their impasse.

Trajector's financial disclosures show Hill has been making a base salary of $600,000 annually with the possibility for performance-based bonuses of $600,000 each quarter. Uribe earns $197,000 annually and does not receive bonuses.

Trajector's made a ‘mind-blowing’ amount of money

Through the bankruptcy, veterans can see how much money the company has been making — hundreds of millions of dollars.

"It's a mind-blowing amount of money," said Dustin Ingram, a former Army Ranger. In NPR's 2025 investigation, he said the company didn't do much to help him and sent him a big bill.

"I think that they took advantage of me and… accessed the VA database to find out if I had a claim so they could make $4,500 from a guy who spent five and a half years in the Army and two tours in Afghanistan," he told NPR last year. He refused to pay.

NPR also spoke to veterans who said they were pleased with the help from Trajector in increasing their benefits. Trajector said in a statement to NPR at the time, "We encourage any client who feels their experience was less than satisfactory to contact us immediately."

Ingram called the civil lawsuits filed against Trajector and the state investigations "vindicating."

He said the scale of the profits that companies like Trajector have made should be a wake up call to the VA and policymakers.

"If we create a vacuum, they will fill it," he said. He says the military needs to do a better job of connecting vets with benefits as they transition out of active service. "It should be very simple and very easy to receive benefits," he said.

Copyright 2026, NPR

Huge sums of money are flooding races for top Minnesota statewide and legislative offices as the battle for state Capitol dominance rushes toward a crucial final month.

Minnesota’s race for the open governor’s seat is attracting many millions of outside group activity, led by a Republican-aligned group that has already spent $7 million and has the same amount ready to deploy. Democratic spending has also picked up in that race and others down the ballot.

The governor candidates themselves, DFL nominee Amy Klobuchar and Republican nominee Lisa Demuth, have a wide disparity in fundraising activity.

Klobuchar, a U.S. senator in her fifth statewide race, has raised more than $13 million this year and had $3.5 million on hand as of Sept. 15. Demuth, the Minnesota House speaker, has raised about $2.6 million this year; that includes $1.3 million from a public campaign subsidy. She had $618,000 available to spend.

Candidates have limits on contribution amounts that don’t apply to the outside groups, known as political funds, that aren’t allowed to directly coordinate with the campaigns.

Restore Sanity, a GOP group that sprang up early this year to support Demuth’s candidacy, is the biggest spending group in the race. Its report shows the group has scooped up $14 million, almost all of it from a national group that is largely funded by Wisconsin manufacturing magnate Richard Uihlein, according to the Minnesota Reformer and other outlets that have examined the group’s finances.

Restore Sanity had already devoted more than $4.3 million toward boosting Demuth and $2.7 million against Klobuchar, primarily through digital and television advertising.

Several DFL-aligned groups are also active in the governor’s race. The Alliance for a Better Minnesota had spent $1.3 million in digital ads critical of Demuth that appeared on online and streaming service platforms. The DFL Party spent about $757,000 through mid-September on ads and materials to prop up Klobuchar.

Other groups are in the fray as well.

Data crunched by MPR News found that $8.1 million in combined outside spending has come into the race already. More of the money was classified as in support of a candidate than in opposition to one.

Not just governor’s race

DFL Attorney General Keith Ellison’s bid for a third term in a race against Republican lawyer Ron Schutz is also attracting millions.

Ellison has raised about $1.3 million this year and had $634,000 in reserve for the stretch run. Schutz took in about $1.1 million and had most of it available to use for the final six weeks.

But the outside activity is a significant factor.

A GOP-funded group called Minnesotans for Justice has spent more than $2 million on ads and text messages critical of Ellison. Other Republican groups are spending in the race as well.

Democrats aren’t letting it go unanswered, with the Alliance for a Better Minnesota unloading $1.8 million against Schutz through television and digital ads.

An analysis of campaign data by MPR News shows that $5.1 million has already been spent by parties and groups in the attorney general’s race. More than half of that was against Ellison.

Control of the Legislature is also a big prize on November’s ballot. Candidates for House and Senate have several more weeks before their next campaign finance report deadline.

But party caucus and outside group spending highlights the seats seen as up for grabs.

Democrats enter the election with a 34-33 Senate edge and the election could break a 67-67 House tie between the parties.

Among DFL incumbents, Sen. Grant Hauschild of Hermantown appears to be the top target. One group, Advance Minnesota, has already spent $480,000 against the first-term senator who won by a slim margin in 2022. Another $300,000 in attacks have been lodged by Renew Minnesota, which has gotten a substantial amount of money from a national Republican group focused on state legislative campaigns.

The DFL Senate Caucus has deployed $78,000 on behalf of Hauschild.

Republicans and their allies are also spending in support of Hauschild’s opponent, Andrea Zupancich. She’s the current mayor of Babbitt and narrowly lost her bid for the seat last time.

The pricetag so far: Almost $1.1 million in that race alone.

Other DFLers feeling the barrage include Sens. Judy Seeberger of Afton, Aric Putnam of St. Cloud and Rob Kupec of Moorhead.

For Republicans, several suburban seats are at risk with hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent for or against incumbent Sens. Julia Coleman of Waconia, Jim Abeler of Anoka and Michael Kreun of Blaine.

Open seats in Maple Grove and Rochester also loom large.

A larger group of Minnesota House seats are seen as competitive, with retirements adding more uncertainty to the dynamic.

All told there has been $8 million spent by parties and political funds in legislative races as of mid-September.

Deb Robertson counted the days, hoping she’d live long enough for a new Illinois law to go into effect that allows terminally ill people like her to use a lethal prescription to end their lives.

A diagnosis of a rare, aggressive form of cancer had forced her into retirement after three decades of working with homeless youth. As the disease quickly spread through her body, she felt “like a walking time bomb.” But she found a new purpose, becoming a public face of a movement in favor of life-ending options.

She shared her story publicly and traveled from her home near Chicago to Springfield, the state capital, to convince lawmakers it was vital to legalize medically assisted death.

The day came on Sept. 12. She celebrated at home with friends and family as “Deb’s law,” named after her, took effect. Illinois became the first Midwestern state and the 13th state overall (plus the District of Columbia) to authorize the option.

“I believe that God gave me this extra time so that I could see this law through,” said Robertson, 68. “I believe that people have the right to leave this Earth with dignity and on their own terms.”

In recent years, the practice of allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives with medication has been legalized in several countries, with many more considering it. In the U.S., New York and Illinois recently became the latest states to join an accelerating pace of such legislation.

The issue remains bitterly contested

Opponents, including many religious groups, lawmakers and disability advocates, have moral objections to someone ending their life. Even with safeguards in place, some argue, the decision could be made for the wrong reasons.

“It puts people like myself — people with developmental and mental disabilities, as well as physical disabilities — in danger,” said Ebony Payne, a Chicago-based disability advocate who is quadriplegic. She was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against “Deb’s law,″ contending it discriminates against people with disabilities.

Even Pope Leo XIV weighed in, urging Gov. JB Pritzker not to sign the bill. Leo later said he was “very disappointed” that his home state of Illinois approved a law condemned by the Catholic Church. Polls show that most Americans think medical aid in dying is either morally acceptable or not a moral issue, although opinions vary across different faiths and political lines.

Dr. Jessica Kaan, medical director for End of Life Washington, an advocacy group, has helped hundreds of patients in Washington and Oregon with assisted dying.

Her mother, a practicing Christian, opposes it on religious grounds: “She’s horrified that I’m involved in any way.”

Kaan says she’s an advocate for choices. Her perspective is shaped by the types of deaths she has witnessed.

Among them are patients with ALS, a progressive disease that attacks nerve cells controlling muscles throughout the body. “It’s a particularly gruesome and awful way for most people to even anticipate their dying,” she said about a disease that takes away the body’s ability to move and speak.

For many terminally ill patients, she said, having the option gives them a sense of comfort, even if they eventually might not use it.

“I respect that people don’t want to choose that as an option for themselves. What I don’t love is for people trying to police that for other people.”

How a California man prepared to die

Peter Redgrove of San Diego, a late-stage bone marrow cancer and leukemia patient, used California’s assisted-dying law on Sunday. After 19 rounds of chemotherapy, he decided to set the terms of his death following a long, pain-wracked hospital stay.

“I see no point in enduring pain and suffering emotionally, psychologically and physically, when there are means to end it,” said Redgrove, 85, days before he took the lethal prescription cocktail in a cup emblazoned with Sylvester, his favorite character from the Looney Tunes. “I don’t think you get extra points for hanging in to the bitter end.”

Redgrove grew up in Catholic orphanages in England before moving to the U.S. Although he was no longer a practicing Catholic, he remained close to his faith, often wearing a crucifix he only gave away right before his death.

“An all-loving God is not going to punish me and throw me into a fire pit because I’m doing this,” Redgrove said in his room at a residential facility, where he spent his last days listening to classical music and reminding people to be kind.

With a death doula’s help, he invited loved ones to a celebration of his life that included Champagne, a shroud to wrap his body in his favorite royal purple and a final song: “Time” by The Alan Parsons Project.

Before he took his last breath, he read a Buddhist prayer.

State by state, the movement has spread

Oregon was the first U.S. state to pass a medical aid-in-dying law; it took effect in 1997.

As other states followed suit, what remains generally consistent is that to use the laws, one must have an incurable illness and less than six months to live, said Thaddeus Pope, a bioethicist at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. To qualify, one must also be able to understand and make a voluntary decision and be able to take the prescribed medications without assistance.

The latest states to legalize medical aid in dying are among the most populous: New York, where it took effect in August, and Illinois earlier this month. Today, nearly 1/3 of Americans live in a state where that end-of-life option is legal — though the practice remains uncommon in the U.S., accounting for roughly 15,000 deaths since the Oregon law went into effect in 1997.

“We actually have a pretty significant track record now: 30 years in Oregon, 18 years in Washington, 10 years in California. … That’s a lot of experience,” Pope said.

Peg Sandeen, chief executive officer of the Death with Dignity National Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, said there’s clear evidence that the safeguards work. “Police are not chasing after cases where there’s been coercion. We don’t have physicians losing their license to practice. That’s not happening.”

Some faith traditions continue to condemn assisted dying — sometimes called assisted suicide. Illinois pastor Andy Huette, who leads a nondenominational church in Gridley, urged Christians to reject Deb’s law, calling it “legislating darkness.” He has supported congregants with ALS, cancer and other chronic illnesses, and understands the desire to reduce suffering, but he also believes in its “redemptive purposes.”

Others have changed positions. Rabbi Dvora E. Weisberg served on a Reform committee that spent more than two years interpreting Jewish texts and talking to doctors and families to draft a paper on medically assisted dying that reverses earlier guidance. The paper argued that Jewish law must respond to modern medicine’s ability to prolong dying and to new knowledge about pain.

“We take this very, very seriously even though we know that any Reform Jew can disagree with us. We’re not the Vatican, we don’t have that kind of power,” said Weisberg, a professor of Rabbinics at Hebrew Union College.

“But the response that we’ve gotten from people who have read it has been very positive in the sense that they feel that now they have something to think about that can help them.”

Opposition from religious and disability groups remains firm

Before Deb’s law went into effect, a judge denied a request for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit by Ebony Payne and disability groups that aimed to block the law, saying that they had not proved standing or imminent harm.

In her Chicago home, Payne used a mouth-operated stylus to look at the ruling on her phone while lying in a reclining medical care chair. “I’m very disappointed,” she said. “My hope is that the law will be taken off the books.”

The six Catholic dioceses in Illinois criticized the law, saying it puts the state “on a dangerous and heartbreaking path.” The pope, who grew up in Chicago, has cited Catholic teaching, which calls for the protection of life from conception until natural death, forbidding abortion and euthanasia.

Chicago’s archbishop, Cardinal Blase Cupich, and Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki challenged “Deb’s law” in separate lawsuits and won limited protections without blocking the law from being enacted.

“We live in a state now where suicide is now normalized, and yet we still have a suicide hotline. There seems to be a bit of schizophrenia here,” Cupich told The Associated Press.

In the days before the law took effect, a judge temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law on Catholic groups that challenged it in a lawsuit. They had argued the law could compel Catholic healthcare providers to refer or provide help against their faith in what they believe is assisted suicide.

“They always give it a euphemistic name: This is the End of Life Options Act. But it’s really just physician-assisted suicide, which is very problematic,” Paprocki said. “We believe that God is the author of life. … We shouldn’t be the ones deciding when to end our lives.”

Assisted dying vs. assisted suicide

Advocates, doctors and academics involved with the procedure say none of the medically assisted dying laws in the U.S. define the practice as assisted suicide. They note the American Association of Suicidology has declared that “suicide and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) are conceptually, medically, and legally different phenomena.”

Equating assisted dying with suicide is not only antiquated or misleading, but harmful, said Anita Hannig, a cultural anthropologist and author of “The Day I Die: The Untold Story of Assisted Dying in America.”

“In no way would I describe any of the deaths I attended as suicide,” said Hannig, who spent five years following patients, families and doctors while researching her book.

Terminally ill patients who have sought this type of legislation insist they’re not suicidal.

“It really bothers me because I want to live, I don’t want to die. But I’m going to. I have to accept that, my wife has to accept that, my family has to accept that,” Robertson said in Lombard, Illinois, where she lives with her wife, Kate. They’ve known each other for 45 years; framed images of their wedding and other milestones decorate their home.

They recently walked hand in hand to a park where they plan to plant a tree that will grow next to Deb’s ashes.

Enactment of the new law “really makes me feel safe and peaceful,″ Robertson said. “Each day that I go out there, I know that I’m going to have the choice at the end of my life to go out the way I want.”

“I didn’t choose to have this disease, but give me the choice — and other people who are terminally ill, the choice to have some control over their life.”

Vice President JD Vance and other Trump administration officials said Tuesday they plan to remove 760,000 Affordable Care Act enrollees from public healthcare exchanges, alleging that the individuals were fraudulently enrolled in the program, or simply do not exist.

Vance said the discovery and canceled subsidy payments for hundreds of thousands of people from the exchanges, part of an administration-wide crackdown on fraud, would result in $2.2 billion in cost savings.

“We’re actually making sure that the people receiving Obamacare subsidies are actually entitled to receive them,” said Vance, who leads a government task force to eliminate fraud. He was flanked by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, and other administration officials.

Vance said the cancellation of approximately 315,000 enrollments covering 760,000 people was done in part because the government was not checking whether people enrolled were eligible. Vance said another 419,000 enrollments will get additional verification to make sure they are eligible for the benefit.

The Trump administration also announced a six-month suspension on new agents or brokers who sign up enrollees for healthcare coverage, who officials say commit a disproportionate amount of the fraud they uncovered.

Roughly 19.2 million Americans are actively enrolled in ACA marketplace health plans as of early 2026, according to the Department of Health and Human Services website. The number of enrollees grew during the COVID-19 pandemic when enhanced subsidies became available through the American Rescue Plan Act and Inflation Reduction Act, both signed into law by former President Joe Biden.

Tuesday's announcement is the latest in an initiative by the Trump administration to address fraud around the country, including in federal healthcare programs, which officials say is needed to rein in runaway spending and protect taxpayers.

Some healthcare policy experts are calling for more transparency on how the Trump administration decided to cut hundreds of thousands of enrollees — and question how many people may have been wrongly cut from the program.

Cynthia Cox, a vice president and director of the ACA program at the healthcare research nonprofit KFF, said “I think there’s no question that somebody who was fraudulently enrolled should have their coverage canceled,” however, “I think the question is whether this was the appropriate process by which to identify fraudulent enrollees, and also whether all of them were indeed fraudulently enrolled.”

Cox said the elimination of the people from ACA programs was done outside of the normal regulatory process.

Ellen Montz, a former deputy administrator and director at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at CMS during the Biden administration said during her time in government, there was an ongoing effort to eliminate fraud from ACA programs.

“There’s a lot of work to be done, and the Trump administration has done some good things that are targeting the actual fraudsters,” she said. Adding that Tuesday's announcement lacked details on how the administration determined who to cut. “ I would imagine we’ll hear from some subset of consumers that ask: why did my enrollment get cancelled?" Montz said.

At the press conference, Tuesday, Vance referred to some enrollments lacking social security numbers or immigration documentation.

The announcement comes as stubbornly high inflation and rising healthcare costs pressure the Trump administration to come up with a plan to bring down costs for Americans as affordability remains a central issue in the fall midterm elections.

The price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during Trump’s second term, after Republicans opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.

Premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely after the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year.

The Government Accountability Office suggests fraud risks in the advance premium tax credit do exist - however it's unclear at what scale. The GAO conducted covert testing using fictitious ACA applicants enrolled in 2024 and 2025. A report released in December showed that the federal marketplace approved subsidized coverage for almost all of the GAO’s 24 fake enrollees.

The White House referred The Associated Press to the Vice President’s team for additional comment on bigger plans to address healthcare affordability. The Vice President's office and CMS did not respond to Associated Press requests for comment.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the Trump administration’s plan to remove ACA enrollees from public exchanges.

Democratic lawmakers criticized the move to remove enrollees from ACA coverage.

Richard E. Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, said “Republicans have already created the worst healthcare crisis ever, but every decision by the Trump Administration is designed to keep making it worse."

“As if making coverage harder to access through skyrocketing premiums and more red tape wasn’t painful enough, they’re doubling down to take it away entirely,” Neal said.

Lisa Demuth was shopping for some final Christmas gifts for her daughters in 2009 when she got a call that changed her life. As she prepared for a Senate vote in 2021, Amy Klobuchar fielded a similar call.

Both women said they were stunned by the news of a breast cancer diagnosis.

“At that moment, a vote was called in the Senate. I had time to call my husband, and then I went onto the Senate floor, where they were just calling the names,” Klobuchar said, her voice trailing into the droning rollcall of her colleagues during votes. “It felt like, in my head, my whole life had changed, but nothing around me had changed.”

Demuth said she had to put down the items she was holding in the department store to process what the doctor was telling her. Then she asked what would come next.

“What do I need to know right now to make the best decision for me?” she remembers asking. “I didn’t want all the information because it was really overwhelming. But what do I need to know right now in this moment?”

Barring an unforeseen twist, Minnesota will have its first female governor next year. That woman — whether it’s Klobuchar, the Democratic nominee, or Demuth, the Republican nominee — will be a breast cancer survivor. In separate interviews this month, they spoke with MPR News about confronting the diagnosis. Both said the experience fighting the disease would inform their healthcare policy platforms.

Britta Babel, senior grassroots manager with American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network in Minnesota, said it’s significant that a breast cancer survivor will soon hold the state’s highest office.

“I think they both really do recognize the lived experience that so many cancer patients in Minnesota deal with on a daily basis,” Babel said. “We’re excited to work with whoever it may be to just make sure that we’re tackling cancer and making it a policy priority.”

Difficult treatment choices

Within days of getting her diagnosis, Demuth got another bit of news: That her daughter was having a baby, Demuth’s first grandchild.

“I remember thinking, ‘Am I going to be alive to even meet this grandchild?’ And that mattered very much, but I never said it to anyone,” Demuth said.

After extensive consultation with her medical team, Demuth decided surgery was her best option. Doctors were able to remove the cancer just weeks after her diagnosis.

“I couldn’t get it off my body fast enough. Like I just needed it to be done,” Demuth said. “I chose a very extreme surgery so that there was no chance of recurrence, and that mattered to me.”

Klobuchar said she underwent surgery as well, in her case a lumpectomy followed by radiation treatment. She said it was a unique experience, not just due to the procedures.

“As I’m waiting there with kind of a drawn target on my breast, someone came up to me because they knew who I was, and spent about 15 minutes talking about Burma,” Klobuchar said.

Klobuchar said after her sedation wore off, her first question to her husband was about how the procedure went. “Successful,” he told her. She then asked him for her phone so she could have her office look into the concern about Burma.

The senator shared her diagnosis and experience publicly at the time. She said it was important to be forthright with Minnesotans.

“I think that’s part of your job as a leader,” Klobuchar said, citing the model of former first lady Betty Ford and her public fight with addiction and the normalization of treatment that her airing her problems helped drive. “She did a lot more for it than I could ever dream.”

Klobuchar said sharing the experience mattered and was, in an unexpected way, rewarding. She heard from several people who’d put off mammograms or check-ups but were encouraged to go in after hearing about her experience.

‘A sisterhood’

Demuth was a school board member when she was diagnosed. Her health struggle was kept to a tighter circle. Years later, she was among those who wrote to Klobuchar to pass along well wishes.

“I reached out after that and just sent a note, probably electronically,” Demuth said. “I remember the thought of at least when I was diagnosed, it was private, unless I chose to make it, you know, to tell anyone about it, and how different that is.”

Asked about the contact, Klobuchar said the note meant something to her.

“I appreciated that. And she was very kind about it, and I am again really, really happy that she is doing well as well,” Klobuchar said. “And it's kind of a sisterhood, right? No matter what differences you might have, that is a sisterhood.”

Both candidates said their experiences with cancer have reshaped who they are, physically and mentally.

“I have scars, but they’re just part of who I am. But I don’t think about it every day,” said Demuth, currently Minnesota’s House speaker. “I think more about the things, the opportunities that I have, the family that I have, the life that I’ve been gifted.”

Klobuchar said it gave her a sense of gratitude, too.

“It makes you appreciate the incredible doctors and nurses that I had,” she said. “Or just my husband getting up at four in the morning to take me to radiation, and it gives you a whole appreciation of that.”

As important to Klobuchar, she said, is “to keep looking for a cure.”

Healthcare access

Both candidates said their experiences with cancer will inform how they would govern.

Demuth has yet to unveil a health policy platform, but she said one that’s in the works will prioritize healthcare access, especially in rural parts of Minnesota, along with a pipeline for training medical professionals.

“Having the opportunity that I’ve had to experience breast cancer and need medical care, I want to make sure that's available for all Minnesotans,” Demuth said. “Our health plan is going to look at the issues of access and affordability.”

Klobuchar points to bills she’s advanced in Washington to guarantee coverage for mammograms, fund early cancer detection programs and boost research aid for cancer treatments. She said similar programs are needed on the state level. She also wants medical training pipelines and to offset the cost of insurance by replacing tax credits that Congress let expire last year.

“When you look at getting coverage for treatment and getting coverage for mammograms and all of that, I understand how important it is,” Klobuchar said.

Regardless of the race outcome, the next governor will bring a new perspective to the governor’s office, said Christina Ewig, the director of the Center on Women, Gender and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota.

“There’s pretty thorough research on women politicians and the fact that they do bring different issues to legislative agendas,” Ewig said, citing proposals addressing poverty, care for the elderly, healthcare, children and family issues among them.

“All politicians bring their personal experiences with them, and those do influence their actions while in office. But I would temper that by saying that other things also matter. Party affiliation matters a lot,” she continued. “Personal experience is brought to the table, but it's tempered by these other political constraints.”

As for Demuth and Klobuchar, being a survivor means remaining vigilant about their own health. Both routinely go in for aftercare check-ins.

Klobuchar, 66, said her most recent follow-up visit was over the summer.

“You still have that feeling of waiting and waiting and seeing if you have it again,” Klobuchar said.

Demuth, 59, said she feels the anxiety, too.

“The mental battle can be really hard. Just that worry you feel, especially as you age, you feel one little thing, and it can make you think, ‘Oh no, is that something?’” Demuth said. “Those thoughts don’t come as often as they did in that first year or two years for me. Eventually, it’s fine. I’m just getting older.”

They are both cancer-free.

The two lawyers vying to replace Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty say she is misusing a new law that allows prosecutors to request sentence reductions in special cases.

The candidates, Anders Folk, former acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, and DFL state Rep. Cedrick Frazier of New Hope, both condemned the use of the new law in this case. Frazier’s objection comes despite the fact that he co-sponsored the law while serving in the Minnesota House.

Earlier this year, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office requested to reduce Kemen Taylor II’s life sentence for his role in the murder of a 13-year-old boy and attempted murder of two other teenagers in 2011.

In its petition, the county argued Taylor was punished at trial for not accepting a plea deal and that his sentence did not accurately represent his culpability in the crime. The county also said he is no longer a danger to the public.

After the boy’s father strongly objected to the county’s move, both candidates to be the next Hennepin County attorney said the request should be denied by a judge.

New law opens door to sentence reductions

For the last two years, Hennepin County has had new tools to review convictions and decide whether justice was served.

In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature approved a new law that allows prosecutors to request sentence reductions if there are “substantial and compelling reasons” to do so.

The law does not allow prosecutors to reduce restitution to victims. Hennepin County began accepting prosecutor-initiated sentence adjustment, or PISA, applications in early 2024.

In the fall of 2024, the county’s conviction integrity unit also began accepting applications from incarcerated people to have their cases reviewed. That unit’s mission is to investigate plausible claims “that an innocent person was convicted or some other serious miscarriage of justice occurred.”

Hundreds of incarcerated people have requested Hennepin County take a second look at their case through these new systems, but only a handful have won relief.

According to the county, around 250 people have applied for the conviction integrity unit to review their case and more than 400 people have applied for sentence adjustments. The county has recommended relief in fewer than ten cases overall — two of which were exonerations.

Taylor applied to have his case reviewed by the conviction integrity unit. After his case was reevaluated, the county determined he was eligible for a sentence reduction and said under current Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty the case would have been prosecuted differently. Taylor was prosecuted during the tenure of Moriarty’s predecessor, Mike Freeman.

Andrew Markquart wrote in a petition on behalf of the county that since the time of Taylor’s trial, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has “taken a more cautious approach to indictments on first-degree premeditated murder charges because such charges carry a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release.”

Markquart was hired by Moriarty to lead the county’s conviction integrity unit.

“The facts in this case do not satisfy the current standard,” Markquart added.

Taylor’s crime

In August 2011, Taylor, who was 25 at the time, was driving two teens around in rival gang territory in north Minneapolis after Taylor’s brother had been recently shot in the arm.

After seeing someone they thought was a rival, Derrick Catchings, 15, and Donquarius Copeland, 16, got out of Taylor’s van and shot at three boys on bikes. Ray’Jon Gomez was killed in the gunfire and another boy was injured.

After the shooting, Taylor drove the two shooters away from the scene.

Catchings and Copeland eventually pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and each received 34 years in prison with a chance of probation. However, Catchings died in prison.

Meanwhile, Taylor rejected a plea deal that could have resulted in him gaining supervised release after 13 years. Instead, he went to court where he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The petition requests a modified sentence for Taylor of 312 months, higher than the original plea deal but significantly shorter than life.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Moriarty’s office said that if a 13-year sentence, which was offered in the deal, was appropriate to protect the public and hold Taylor accountable, then “life without parole is by definition a disparity requiring correction. Our petition seeks a 26-year sentence.”

Gomez’s father, Kevin Funchie, told the Star Tribune he felt the county’s petition was “sickening” and said his son’s murder being brought up again in court has been devastating for him and others in his family.

After the Star Tribune published Funchie’s comments, both candidates running to replace Moriarty as Hennepin County attorney condemned the county’s move. However both said they support the existence of the conviction integrity unit.

"As a former member of the Public Safety Committee in the Legislature that passed the Prosecutor-Initiated Sentence Adjustment (PISA) legislation, this is not the way this statute was intended to be used,” Frazier, the DFL-endorsee, said in a statement.

“As a survivor of gun violence myself, I believe presenting cases like this can retraumatize victims and does not serve the best interest of public safety,” Frazier said.

Anders Folk, former acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota and Frazier’s opponent, said in a statement that the county’s petition was an example of “when ideology runs roughshod over justice.”

Folk added that many factors, including Taylor’s age and Taylor’s attempts to deny his guilt, contributed to his long sentence.

“Accountability matters,” Folk said.

Judge Shereen Askalani took the case under advisement earlier this month and will make the final decision to approve or deny the county’s petition.

The White House press pool, a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, is now a battleground over free speech rights between President Donald Trump and the media.

On Monday, the issue headed for the courts as CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued the administration over being barred from the White House and, they contend, denied their First Amendment rights. CNN was banned from its scheduled pool duty for the day — and the pool announced that it was canceling its coverage of Trump.

“Effective today, there would be no network pool coverage of the president's events,” the television pool of five broadcasters wrote in an email to its subscribers. "This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties. There will be no replacement pool put in place.”

But the pool is a proxy for the wider fight over whether the president, or anyone, can control the content of news reports — a type of free speech, pillar of American democracy. The developments marked an extraordinary escalation in Trump's ongoing efforts — from the courts to the Pentagon to the White House — to restrict news reporters and outlets that he finds insufficiently supportive.

Again and again during Trump’s second presidential term, his irritation has focused on the rotating group of reporters who cover the president as representatives of the larger press corps. The practice ensures coverage can be disseminated broadly since not all journalists can be with the president at any given time due to space constraints.

But the pool also is an institution steeped in tradition and anchored in the Constitution's guarantee of a free press. The relationship between elected American leaders and the journalists who hold them accountable is designed to be adversarial. That's essential for knowing what the president and his administration are — or are not — doing in the United States' name, with taxpayer money.

Here's a look at various aspects of the White House pool.

There may be constitutional issues at play

CNN is one of the major news networks, including ABC, CBS, Fox News and NBC, that are part of a TV pool managed by the networks' editorial leaders. The networks rotate coverage of presidential events. On Friday, Trump said he was barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House due to what he called unfavorable coverage and “fake news,” and threatened that more such media bans could be coming.

Reporters from all three were denied entrance to the White House grounds the next day. On Monday, the three outlets said they've notified the administration that they will file a lawsuit saying their First Amendment rights had been violated. The complaint also contends that the abrupt confiscation of access violated the networks' Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Also Monday, CNN was scheduled to travel with the president to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but a scheduling email from the White House did not name the network. A responding email from the pool said there would be no replacement for CNN — pushback to any notion that the White House can decide who is in the pool and who is out.

The pool follows the president

The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights states that the government “shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Trump administration has long insisted that nobody has the right to ask the president questions, especially in the White House — and that goes for members of the pool, whom the president routinely insults in personal terms.

The White House press pool is group of news outlets that ideally are almost everywhere the president goes: in the Oval Office, at state dinners, on Air Force One, in the motorcade, and when the president goes golfing or biking. It is also always on standby in case something happens in the world about which the president needs to speak to the nation.

Last year, the Trump White House upended a decades-long tradition of an independent association of journalists selecting members of the pool. The White House now picks and chooses which members of the media make up the pool, and they almost always select journalists who are outwardly favorable to Trump as part of the mix.

The pool distributes in-person reports and imagery to the broader corps covering the president. When a “pooled” event is over, the print, television and radio poolers share written notes, video and audio with everyone else who is interested.

Traditionally, the White House press pool represents every media format and daily includes The Associated Press and other wire-service writers, the AP and other outlets' photographers, a television crew, a radio correspondent and writers for print and online publications.

The pool was in President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade in Dallas when he was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. That allowed for firsthand accounts of the event as conspiracy theories spread, an example of why independent reporting is critical to understanding what is happening around the president.

Presidents and reporters have an inherently adversarial relationship

Trump is famous for courting reporters even as he publicly criticizes them. And he’s not the first to try to go around traditional outlets.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had his fireside chats over the radio as some of the nation’s biggest newspapers took issue with government expansion under the New Deal. More recently, television and social media have provided similar workarounds.

In 1798, John Adams signed the Sedition Act, which made it a crime for citizens to “print, utter, or publish ... any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government and used it to jail journalists, according to the National Archives. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson threatened to end presidential briefings with reporters, resulting in the creation of what became the White House Correspondents’ Association that exists today.

Driverless taxi companies are preparing for a rollout in Minneapolis — but they might be required to keep a person in the driver’s seat.

At a public hearing this week, the Minneapolis City Council will hear feedback on a proposed ordinance that would require a “human monitor” behind the wheel of autonomous vehicles. Council members who authored the ordinance say it’s a way to ensure safety — and keep the city’s rideshare drivers from losing their jobs.

Drivers for Uber and Lyft say they’re worried about competition from autonomous vehicles. Said Mohamed drives for both companies, and works on a local drivers’ organizing committee.

“So many drivers have invested their entire life in this industry to save, to provide for their family,” Mohamed said. “A company just to come into our city, and just take our jobs … that is not something normal.”

It’s a growing concern as the company Waymo test-drives its vehicles in Minneapolis. The cars, mounted with cameras and sensors, are currently cruising the streets to map the city and test out driving in winter weather conditions.

During test drives, the company has people sitting behind the wheel. But Waymo plans to eventually start offering taxi services to the public, without a person in the car.

Several City Council members proposed the new regulations. Under the ordinance, the person in the car would need to be paid minimum wage. Autonomous vehicle companies would also have to get a license to operate in the city.

Council member Jamal Osman said helping drivers keep their jobs is good for the Minneapolis community.

“The drivers live here, they work here, they spend their money, they go to grocery, they pay their rent, they support their families,” Osman said.

But money spent on Waymo rides, he said, “is not staying in our community. It’s going back to Silicon Valley.”

The proposed ordinance is the latest attempt to regulate autonomous vehicles in the state. As of now, Minnesota does not have any specific rules regulating driverless cars.

That leaves Waymo in a legal gray area. Current rules of the road generally assume there’s a driver in the car who can take responsibility if they’re pulled over or if they get in a crash. For autonomous vehicles, that accountability is up in the air.

Gov. Tim Walz convened a task force in 2019 to start drafting potential rules. Last year, the task force recommended policies that would allow autonomous vehicles to operate without drivers, with new regulations in place.

State legislators then drafted regulations for autonomous vehicles, but did not pass any.

City Council member Robin Wonsley said the proposed ordinance would help fill that gap in the rules.

“At the bare minimum, we need something in place,” Wonsley said. “This gives us that very basic protection while we’re further developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for commercial AVs.”

A spokesperson for Waymo disagreed, and said the proposed ordinance goes beyond basic protection.

“The proposed framework is a de facto ban on autonomous vehicles,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

And they pointed to some of the potential benefits of autonomous taxi services — like additional transportation options for people who can’t drive themselves. Some studies also suggest that autonomous vehicles are safer than typical cars, though some cities have reported safety incidents — such as Waymos passing stopped school buses.

If the ordinance passes, it would take effect in October 2027, which Wonsley said gives the City Council time to adjust the rules as they get more information. She said they're awaiting a report from city staff on autonomous vehicles and road safety.

“Should that — as well as any additional research done at the state level — come forward and share findings that would be relevant around enhancing and strengthening safety of our residents in our city, we have a pretty extensive timeline to make amendments and adjustments to the ordinance before it goes into effect,” Wonsley said.

The council will convene Tuesday afternoon for a public hearing on the issue.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stopped publicly revealing where it is holding thousands of detainees who are subject to final deportation orders, an unannounced move that has made it far more difficult for lawyers and relatives to find them, according to current and former officials familiar with the practice.

ICE removed those detainees from its online detainee locator system on Sept. 15, according to three current and former ICE officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the change. Several lawyers contacted by The Associated Press confirmed their clients vanished from the system this week, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association warned its members about the situation Friday.

The move represents a stark departure from previous practice and highlights the hardline nature of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, leaving thousands of detainees exceedingly hard to trace and potentially unable to exercise all of their legal options.

The practice, which applies to detainees who have received final orders of removal from an immigration court, could speed deportations by making last-minute legal challenges harder to pursue, immigration lawyers said. Nearly 16,000 people who were arrested and booked into ICE detention in July were subject to final removal orders, more than a third of the overall bookings, according to ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project based at U.C. Berkeley and UCLA.

The practice does not apply to detainees held at a detention facility in Adelanto, California or at temporary holding facilities in Minneapolis, New York City or suburban Chicago, the sources said. Judges have ordered ICE to list detainees in those facilities in the online locator promptly upon their arrival, as part of litigation over their detention practices.

Lawyers and relatives distressed by lack of information on detainees

The effort to hide their locations adds to the ways in which the Trump administration has made life harder for detainees and their families as it has increased pressure on them to waive appeals and agree to deportation.

ICE did not publicize the move and in a statement issued to the AP, the agency did not confirm or deny it. The statement said detainees with final removal orders were being prioritized for deportation, even as ICE faces a “historic number of injunctions” from courts stopping individual removals.

As a result of the change, lawyers and relatives lost track of their clients and loved ones without explanation, which is especially concerning because detainees are frequently moved to new facilities before deportation, said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“Families are freaking out because they think the person has been deported and they don’t know where the person might be,” he said. “On the attorney side, this has serious implications for the ability to contact their client. It certainly has implications about how it will interfere with the attorney-client relationship.”

The Department of Homeland Security, ICE's parent agency, has argued that people who are subject to final removal orders have received due process. That usually means an immigration judge has ordered their removal after a hearing, including cases when immigrants fail to show up, and the decision was affirmed on appeal or not appealed.

Detainees with final removal orders still have options to appeal

Still, those detainees have options to challenge their detention and removal, including seeking to reopen the case or by bringing what’s known as a habeas petition asking a judge to release them on constitutional grounds. Federal judges have granted thousands of rulings ordering that detainees be released or granted bond hearings.

ICE detention facilities held more than 65,000 people as of early July, the most recent available data. Around 30% of them likely have final removal orders, said Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project.

More people have been issued final removal orders after failing to show up for hearings in recent months because the administration's immigration courts have taken steps to make it harder to participate and to reopen such cases, she said.

“To me, it’s just another iteration of disappearing people,” she said. “Why would we do that in the United States of America? It’s something we’d hear about in another country and be concerned about individual rights and due process.”

Some with final removal orders also have legal protections against deportation to their countries of origin based on the likelihood they would be tortured or persecuted. Many of them are facing removal to third-party countries where they have no ties and their disappearance in ICE's system will make legal challenges harder, lawyers said.

Lawyers say clients have vanished from ICE locator system

ICE initiated the online detainee locator system in 2010 to allow relatives, lawyers and the public to search for people in custody. Previously they had to call ICE regional offices or individual facilities to try to track them down.

Many advocates and lawmakers have complained that the system updates too slowly and contains too much inaccurate or missing information, allowing ICE to shield the locations of detainees for days or weeks. Minors, people who have been held by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for less than 48 hours, and detainees who are being transported are not in the system, among others.

But the exclusion of detainees with final removal orders has no apparent parallel, several immigration lawyers said. Atenas Burrola Estrada, a deputy program director with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said that “every single one of our clients who has a final order has disappeared from the locator,” including 17 in all as of Monday.

Among those disappeared from the locator system are eight Somali men being detained at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to one of their attorneys, My Khanh Ngo, of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said the change could make it “nearly impossible” for people to challenge their removals in some cases.

“If you can't find your client, don't know what's happening to your client, you can't get that information to the court to stop their removal,” she said.

President Trump is still talking about the 2020 election — even as early voting is underway in this midterm cycle and the Republican majorities in Congress are at risk.

And while many Republican candidates, even in some critical tossup races, still back the president's baseless claims about election integrity, some GOP voters say they are ready to move on.

In Georgia, Rep. Mike Collins, the Republican nominee for Senate, launched his first congressional campaign a few months after Trump pressed Georgia's secretary of state to find enough votes to reverse his 2020 loss.

In one campaign ad from that race, Collins falsely claimed that Trump won Georgia and said, "Georgians are tired of weak-kneed, spineless politicians who won't fight for Trump, get to the bottom of 2020 and fix our elections." The spot ended with Collins firing a long gun into a bin with a "voting machine" label.

Now as Collins runs for Senate, he has reiterated his position that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. He has also expressed support for compensating some people prosecuted for storming the Capitol on Jan. 6 to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election.

"It bothers me a lot," said Lynn, a lifelong Republican voter in Georgia, who asked NPR to publish only her first name for fear of being ostracized by friends and family for her views. "It worries me for him to get elected. It concerns me any time someone gets pulled into those ridiculous looking-back discussions."

At a farmers market in Alpharetta, a tony suburb outside of Atlanta, Lynn said she could have easily voted for the other two Republicans who ran in the primary. Now she has not ruled out voting for Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, in part because of Collins' positions on the 2020 election.

The Collins campaign did not respond to NPR's request for comment.

Finishing a plate of grits at the farmers market, voter Austin Sapp said he regularly votes for Republican candidates, believes election fraud does happen, and supports Trump's push to pass a strict voter ID law through Congress. He also wishes the president would move on from relitigating 2020.

"It is what it is," Sapp said. "He lost, then he won [in 2024]. Beating a dead horse serves no purpose. What is your platform? What are you going to do for me?"

‘Regular humans have given this up’

Just 1 percent of voters in a September New York Times-Siena College poll said election integrity is the top issue deciding their vote this November.

"It's really big with the media and the far edges of both parties," said Gabe Sterling, a veteran official with the Georgia secretary of state's office. "Regular humans have given this up a long time ago."

After the 2020 election, Sterling was one of the most visible officials disputing Trump's false claims. Weeks before Jan. 6, he presciently warned people could get hurt. He says that feels far from the climate now.

Sterling says while resurfacing claims about fraud can still be an effective fundraising tool, the 2020 obsession is mostly alive among die-hard activists only.

That is not insignificant though. Some of those activists now hold influential positions on state and local election boards. They also vote reliably in Republican primaries.

Sterling spoke with hundreds of GOP primary voters as he ran for secretary of state this year. He stood firm in his defense of Georgia's elections and felt like he did sway people. It was not enough to win a primary.

"I would say things like, 'Georgia has the cleanest voter list in America,'" Sterling said. "We would get some boos and hisses, but I would just keep pounding away, explaining the data and explaining what happened."

Why some candidates still back Trump's claims

In primaries elsewhere, some onetime critics of Trump's claims have come to embrace them.

In Michigan, GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers, a former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, once called Trump's Georgia pressure campaign "more gangster than presidential," and said Trump deserved blame for the violence on Jan. 6.

But while making an unsuccessful 2024 Senate bid, in an interview with the Detroit Free Press editorial board, Rogers refused to answer who won the presidential contest in 2020. Then at a local Republican meeting last fall, Rogers claimed the Senate seat was stolen from him, according to a video of the meeting obtained by NPR.

"Now there were some ballots that showed up at 5:30, I wish I were kidding, in a van, and that swung the election on us, and it happened to be here in Detroit," Rogers said at the time.

And after Trump gave a primetime Oval Office address this summer resurrecting debunked claims about election vulnerabilities, Rogers thanked him on social media.

Rogers' 2026 Senate campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Michigan Republican strategist Jason Roe, a former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party, says many candidates still see echoing Trump's claims as a condition for his support.

"Frankly, I think most of the elected officials that still talk about it, it's not necessarily a sincerely held belief," Roe said. "It's usually at a Republican central committee meeting, throwing red meat to the base."

Throwing red meat is likely not a strategy to win a tossup state in November, however.

"I can't imagine any Republican in a general election spending any money talking about election integrity or what happened in 2020," Roe said.

How the 2020 fixation could still shape the midterms

And yet Trump is still talking about it, potentially to the detriment of his own party's bid to keep their majorities.

In Georgia, Trump declined to endorse a Republican alternative to Collins preferred by popular GOP Gov. Brian Kemp. One reason Trump cited was that candidate correctly saying Trump lost Georgia in 2020.

A similar scenario played out in the Texas primary, where Trump endorsed the controversial state attorney general, who backed his 2020 claims. That candidate ousted Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who was seen as more formidable in the general election.

"I think we should talk about 2026 and not 2020," Cornyn told reporters this summer.

The president said this year he will do "anything necessary" to ensure the U.S. has "honest" elections.

He nearly brought legislating in Congress to a standstill earlier this year over his demands for more voting restrictions through the SAVE America Act, as Republicans tried to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. Trump has also attempted to take unprecedented control of the voting process.

Georgia's Sterling sees one motivation behind Trump's continued focus on elections.

"It distracts from the Iran war, it distracts from the Epstein files," he said. "And this is the ground on which they want to fight."

A September poll by the University of California San Diego found that only 49 percent of Americans expect that the upcoming midterm elections will be free and fair — lower than before the 2024 election.

Sterling says Trump seems to be laying groundwork to deflect blame if Republicans lose. If that happens, claims about rigged elections could find an audience once again.

Copyright 2026, NPR

A new set of changes to federal food assistance will take effect next week.

County staff have implemented the work requirements and eligibility changes to SNAP that Congress passed in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” last year. On Oct. 1, they’ll also take on more of the administrative costs of food aid.

The federal government will provide a quarter of that funding, instead of half, a change the Minnesota Department of Children, Youth and Families says will result in $32 million in cuts to counties.

Counties are also preparing their budgets for October 2027, when they're expected to take on additional costs: a portion of the benefits people receive. Minnesota’s Democratic U.S. Senators have pushed to delay the changes in the Farm Bill, a massive package of agricultural and food policy that passed out of committee last week.

Barb Dahl, the social services director for Scott County, is watching that debate and preparing for the cuts to federal SNAP funding. She joined MPR News host Nina Moini on Minnesota Now to talk about what the changes will mean for her county.

Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation.

Subscribe to the Minnesota Now podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

We attempt to make transcripts for Minnesota Now available the next business day after a broadcast. When ready they will appear here.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and wounded a man Sunday afternoon in Austin, Texas, local authorities said, and anti-ICE protesters quickly gathered at the scene.

The man was in serious but stable condition at a hospital after being shot once in the torso on the capital city's north side, Austin officials said at a news conference.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, confirmed the man was in stable condition and “in federal custody pending removal.”

Homeland Security Investigations, with FBI assistance, is investigating “the officer involved shooting of an illegal alien from Venezuela, who illegally entered our country under the Biden administration and had a final order of removal,” the department said in a statement.

City police officers were not involved in the operation or the shooting, which occurred after a traffic stop, Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis said while briefing reporters along with the city's mayor and other officials.

Mayor says he wants city’s police involved in investigation

Mayor Kirk Watson, a Democrat, said he wants the city's police department to have a role in the investigation so it can provide “clear, third-party eyes” in the process. Watson said he does not think it would be appropriate for ICE to conduct an investigation on its own.

Austin residents have “a right to feel safe in their city,” Watson said. A proper investigation will only enhance credibility, he added.

The chief said there were not many facts she could provide so soon after the incident but added that her department’s special investigation unit was at the scene.

The Texas Department of Public Safety said it received a request from ICE for assistance in a vehicle pursuit around 12:50 p.m. By the time DPS troopers arrived, the shooting had already taken place, the department said in a statement Sunday evening.

Attorney says man shot is from Venezuela

An immigration attorney representing the man’s family identified him as Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, a 28-year-old Venezuelan man.

Attorney Kate Lincoln Goldfinch said in a video posted to her Instagram account that she believed he had no criminal history and no final order of removal from the U.S., but she later told The Associated Press that she did not know his current immigration status.

The man’s family has struggled to get any information from the hospital about his status or location, Lincoln-Goldfinch said.

Just before 7 p.m., the man’s wife was informed by the hospital’s attorney that the man had been released into ICE custody a few hours earlier, Lincoln-Goldfinch wrote in a text to AP.

“No one bothered to update her,” she wrote.

It wasn’t immediately clear if the man remained hospitalized while in ICE custody or if he had been transferred elsewhere.

Protesters turn out at the scene

A dark blue Toyota Corolla was parked under an overpass with damage to its passenger-side door and what appeared to be bullet holes. The car was towed away in the early evening and traffic began moving again.

A large law enforcement presence was present along with a crowd of about a hundred protesters. Some demonstrators cursed at police officers holding riot shields, while others yelled out as passing cars honked in support of the protest. One man held a sign saying, “Nobody is safe” and, on the other side, “ICE Nazi.”

Asked if Austin authorities knew where the involved federal agent is, given that agents have left states after previous shootings nationwide, the mayor said: “We do not know that. But my hope would be that, an agent that’s involved in an officer-involved shooting would not leave the city. Certainly not leave the state.”

The office of Travis County District Attorney José Pompa Garza asked that local police and prosecutors be included in the investigation.

“We further request cooperation from the federal government in giving us access to the evidence,” the DA's office said in a statement Sunday evening.

U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, a Democrat representing parts of Austin, called for transparency as the shooting is investigated.

“It is awful that this horror has come to our doorstep,” Casar told reporters. “For Austin to be safe, ICE should end its surge here.”

ICE enforcement surged around the nation over the summer

The shooting comes as ICE surges enforcement across the country this summer, producing more than 50,000 arrests a month for the first time in its history in July and August.

In July, an ICE officer fatally shot 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, of Houston, after federal agents driving unmarked vehicles pursued him while he was taking his construction crew to a job site.

Also in July, 25-year-old Johan Sebastián, a Colombian man, was shot by an ICE officer in Maine. The officer is an Army veteran who has struggled with serious mental health issues since early childhood and never should have been given a badge and gun to patrol American streets, several of his close relatives told AP.

The administration’s enforcement efforts were widely condemned last winter after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minnesota.

It’s 43 days to the election, do you know where your U.S. Senate candidates are?

The race for Minnesota’s open Senate seat is oddly quiet with a little more than six weeks to go.

It’s a contrast to the blistering pace of rallies and parades, publicized campaign stops and barrage of ads seen before the August primary set up the race between Democratic nominee Peggy Flanagan and Republican nominee Michele Tafoya.

Beyond the days both spent at the Minnesota State Fair, the campaigns have had a low-key, almost underground feel.

Press conferences have been virtually nonexistent, as is the case with policy rollouts. Debates are seen as iffy even as both campaigns profess to want them. Events where the candidates do appear are not advertised in advance and mainly show up as social media clips later.

Flanagan, the sitting lieutenant governor, appeared at some union-organized Labor Day events and other community gatherings. Tafoya, a former sports broadcaster making her initial run for office, has popped up in greater Minnesota and in interviews with conservative outlets.

Even as both camps have started to air TV ads, it’s nowhere near the amount seen in the governor’s race. Outside groups haven’t really stepped in either.

“I always sort of say in politics is define or be defined, and what I find interesting is that the Republicans aren't yet aren't defining Flanagan, and Tafoya is not defining herself,” said Hamline University political science professor David Schultz.

MPR News contacted both campaigns and reviewed social media updates from the candidates to see what they’ve been up to lately.

Go now, post later

For each, it’s been a mix of metro-area and greater Minnesota events. Flanagan has attended several events with organized labor in Duluth, open streets in Minneapolis, a Mexican independence day celebration in Minneapolis, among other appearances.

Tafoya visited businesses in northern Minnesota, including a safety glass company in Pine River, a parade in Jordan and the opening of a Minnesota military museum at Camp Ripley.

Schultz said both campaigns appear to have a lot of money at their disposal.

“You would be thinking at this point that right on the edge of early voting, or going into the early voting period, is when I would start to see all that money being unloaded,” he said.

Both campaigns purchased commercial time for the coming weeks, targeting morning and evening news shows along with widely viewed college and professional football games.

Fraud is a focus

In those ads and social media posts, Tafoya has focused on social services fraud that occurred during Gov. Tim Walz’s tenure when Flanagan was his second-in-command.

“Peggy Flanagan ignored warning signs while fraudsters stole our tax dollars,” Tafoya writes in one post on X. “She has spent eight years as lieutenant governor in the Walz administration, yet now wants Minnesotans to believe she had nothing to do with its failures.”

For Flanagan, the fraud issue has been an albatross. Tafoya and other opponents said she can’t easily escape the millions of dollars in fraud and should have done more to stop it.

Flanagan has responded by saying she’s “appalled by the fraud,” adding she was not the point person on the issue.

“The governor has taken the lead here. And the administration has been aggressive internally in working to stop fraud, prevent it from happening in the first place,” Flanagan said in a primary debate on MPR in July. “And I think the measures that have been passed through the legislature, in particular, this office, this independent Office of Inspector General, I think, is powerful.”

Debates coming?

Flanagan’s campaign has agreed to two debates so far, including one MPR News would host and another hosted by KBJR in Duluth. Tafoya’s campaign has not confirmed if she’ll participate in either or others she’s contemplating.

Schultz said that might be by design.

“I think she’s benefiting right now from being an unknown quantity politically,” he said. “Obviously people know her from her sports announcing and so forth like that.”

Flanagan’s campaign has also been active on social media, opening attacks on Tafoya by tying her to President Donald Trump and the winter immigration enforcement surge.

When a political candidate doesn’t have a political record, it can be tougher on their opponents to sift through their record.

But like former U.S. Sen. Al Franken, Tafoya came into politics after previously hosting local radio and podcast programs where she’s interviewed guests and staked out positions.

When concerns over Franken’s past writing and comedy bits were brought up in his 2008 run, Franken first said it was his job as a comedian. But he later apologized for jokes that were offensive.

Podcast scrutinized

Tafoya's long-running podcast has begun to get some scrutiny.

Last week, Punchbowl News highlighted several episodes in which Tafoya showcased guests who participated in the Jan, 6, 2021 Capitol riot and faced charges for their actions.

Tafoya defended them and argued that the U.S. Justice Department under President Joe Biden was used politically.

In one interview reviewed by MPR News, Tafoya interviewed actor Jay Johnston, who was convicted of charges that included handing a stolen U.S. Capitol police shield to other rioters. He was sentenced to a year and a day in prison, but was pardoned by Trump on his first day back in the White House. On her podcast, Johnston said he was caught up in the moment but did nothing wrong.

“I am so sorry you went through this,” Tafoya said. “It’s so agonizing to hear these stories from people who really did nothing wrong and for political reasons, in the United freaking States of America, went through what you went through is sort of impossible to believe.”

She hosted other Jan. 6 participants, saying it appears they were unfairly prosecuted and punished.

Flanagan’s team has also linked to episodes of Tafoya’s podcast.

In one post, Flanagan writes, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them,” linking to a video of Tafoya’s podcast in which she says many “good people” were “caught up in the shuffle” and arrested during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Tafoya’s campaign didn’t respond to an MPR News inquiry but issued a statement on behalf of the candidate to Punchbowl News: “I’m a journalist who’s recorded hundreds of interviews. It’s easy to take things out of context.”

Tafoya didn’t specify what was taken out of context, but she added: “All violent criminals must be prosecuted — from the criminals who assaulted cops on January 6th to the rioters, looters and carjackers here in Minnesota who got off easy under Peggy Flanagan,” the statement said.

So far, Minnesota’s race hasn’t risen on the national radar in the same way as competitive contests in Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Texas and other states.

“What we're seeing is that when the Republicans are assessing the seats that they need to hold and the ones that they have the best shot at picking up,” Schultz said. “Minnesota might still come down a little bit further on the list.”

Without a GOP infusion, national Democratic groups don’t appear to be investing either.

Flanagan navigated an expensive and bruising primary to win the nomination over Democratic U.S. Rep. Angie Craig. Right away, Craig threw her support behind Flanagan and the two clasped hands at a party unity event.

Tafoya, who is regarded as a more-moderate GOP candidate than past nominees, did not get the immediate backing of her main primary opponent, Adam Schwarze. He had the party’s convention endorsement but couldn’t convert that into the nomination.

Schwarze, who had the backing of hardline Republicans, said that since the primary he reached out to Tafoya’s campaign five times to see how he can help. He said Friday that he has not heard back.

“I’m just trying to be a team player and help,” he said. “I’m just disappointed that there wasn’t an opportunity to mend the fences and show a unified front.”

President Trump has revealed plans to make his proposed 250-foot arch in Washington, D.C. serve as a "military complex", including areas for military snipers and large amounts of weaponry. Trump said military operations at the triumphal arch are needed to protect national security, in a post on Truth Social.

"At the strong request of the United States Military, and for National Security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch... into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch," Trump wrote on the social media platform.

Trump added that the arch near the National Mall will "house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage."

The administration's plans to build the arch between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial have been met with opposition. It would be twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial. More than 100,000 people submitted comments to the National Park Service as part of its review of the arch proposal.

The arch has also faced legal opposition. Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin ordered the government to provide the court with 48 hours' notice before moving forward with any activity on Memorial Circle.

The order warned any construction or demolition before the NPS issues final authorization would be a violation of the court. A group of Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian filed the lawsuit alleging the arch would desecrate the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. The plaintiffs also claim the president doesn't have the authority to build the arch without approval from Congress.

Chutkin's order came the day after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum wrote on X the administration planned to break ground on an arch within two weeks, despite still awaiting final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission and other federal reviews. In his post, Burgum called the proposed arch the "Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck."

Trump has also framed his plans for a White House ballroom as a matter of national security. Speaking to reporters in March, he said: "the military is building a big complex under the ballroom." Despite opposition from heritage groups, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed construction of the ballroom to continue in a ruling in August.

Trump's Truth Social post on Sunday added: "There will be no facility like this anywhere in the World. Out of the 59 top cities and Capitals, Washington, D.C., IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TRIUMPHAL ARCH, but it will now and, by far, the greatest of them all!"

Copyright 2026, NPR

Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico on Saturday said they were denied access to White House grounds after President Trump announced a ban on the three media outlets.

Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday he was banning these outlets from the White House, citing negative coverage of his administration and saying media outlets shouldn't be able to constantly report "FICTION and LIES" when they cover the president of the United States. He warned other news outlets would follow. It's Trump's latest move in an ongoing battle against the media.

On Friday afternoon, a Bloomberg News reporter asked Trump about the ban at a press conference and whether he was trying to intimidate the press. "No, no, no, no. I dislike dishonest press, like you. I think you're terrible," Trump responded.

He also said: "They purposely write negative news, and they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration." Trump said there was no specific news story that led to his decision, instead it was a frustration that had built up over the last two years.

On Saturday morning, MS NOW, formerly MSNBC, said in a statement on X that their journalists were unable to access the White House grounds. MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner said on air that she was denied access to the White House, and an officer asked her to "hand over" her badge because it was "disabled."

"I asked why I was not able to get inside," Gardner said. "He said it was above him."

However, Gardner said an MS NOW producer was able to access the grounds. MS NOW said they will continue to report on the president.

"The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars," MS NOW said in their statement. "MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy."

CNN reporter Betsy Klein said she was also denied access Saturday morning. Klein said she has been covering the White House in some capacity since the Obama administration, but on Saturday morning a Secret Service agent took her badge.

"I asked him if he could provide an explanation as to why it had been deactivated. He said he had no further information," Klein said. She said she was referred to the White House press office.

CNN said in a statement on X Saturday that they have "a right under the U.S. Constitution" to report without interference from the government.

"We will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account, and we will continue to report on the actions and processes of this administration without fear our favor."

Politico Global Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Greenberger told the newsroom on Saturday that Cheyenne Haslett, a White House reporter, was denied entry to the White House.

"We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights," Greenberger said in a statement shared with NPR.

Trump's announcement comes amid a midterm election season where Democrats have an edge — Trump has faced pushback over his unpopular war in the Middle East, a looming affordability crisis, and threats to demolish the John F. Kennedy Performing Arts Center.

White House Correspondents' Association President Jacqui Heinrich said Saturday that denying access to journalists violates the First Amendment and called on the Trump administration to "immediately restore our colleagues' access."

"The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably," she said in a statement. "That's why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting."

Theodore Boutrous, a leading First Amendment lawyer in the U.S., told NPR that the ban is, on its face, unconstitutional.

Last year, Trump barred an Associated Press reporter from covering two official events because the news service did not refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. During his first term, Trump also barred a CNN reporter. Courts have backed the media both times, but the AP ruling is still being appealed.

Copyright 2026, NPR

President Donald Trump announced Friday he has a deal with Denmark to bolster the U.S. military presence in Greenland after months of threatening to take the island by force from the NATO ally — an agreement that also keeps the Arctic territory in Denmark's hands.

Trump in a social media post announcing the deal said the emerging agreement "gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns."

He added that with the agreement his administration would "immediately" begin the process of developing a larger military presence on the mineral-rich Danish territory.

The deal came after officials from U.S., Greenland and Denmark quietly negotiated for months behind the scenes, searching for solutions to address some of Trump's security concerns about a territory of roughly 56,000 residents.

For Trump, the Greenland issue had largely been put on the back burner as he launched a military operation to oust former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power and joined with Israel to start a war against Iran.

With the announcement of the pact, Trump is able to tout a foreign policy achievement ahead of the midterm elections. The six-month-old Iran conflict has reshaped the race, undermining Trump's campaign pledge to steer clear of foreign conflicts and challenging Republicans as they cling to narrow majorities in Congress.

The office of Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, said the deal will be signed by all three governments next week during the United Nations General Assembly, but parliamentary action is still needed by the Danish and Greenland governments before it can be enforced.

In a statement she said "the agreement recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Greenland and Denmark and upholds both people's right "to self-determination."

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the emerging deal benefits all three governments and "recognizes Greenland's interests."

Allies pushed back on Trump's call for the U.S. to acquire Greenland

With his return to the White House last year, Trump called on Denmark to sell the island to the United States, while insisting Greenland is crucial for U.S. security. He pointedly wouldn't rule out taking the island by military force, even though Denmark is a NATO ally of the U.S.

Denmark and Greenland repeatedly said the island is not for sale and condemned reports of the U.S. gathering intelligence there. The U.S. push for Greenland was also fiercely opposed by Russia and much of Europe.

But Trump with the announcement Friday suggested an understanding may have been reached that could bring an end to what was viewed as an existential crisis by Denmark.

"We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land," Trump said in his post. "We will be very protective of it!"

Trump had claimed the U.S. needs Greenland to deter threats from Russia and China, and has repeatedly made false claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off the island's coastline.

The agreement bans any non-NATO base in Greenland, limits adversaries from being able to make investments in Greenland and guarantees that China and Russia cannot have a base in Greenland, according to a State Department official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio cheered the statement as a "historic deal" and "huge win" for the United States.

"Greenland will forever be part of the strategic defense area of North America and exclude any adversary from it and the surrounding area," Rubio said. "This deal permanently and completely addresses our national security concerns in Greenland."

The island is crucial to North America's defense

But the U.S. has long had a military presence in Greenland, holding several bases and installations through the Cold War before dialing back its presence.

The U.S. still operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, which was built after the U.S. and Denmark signed the Defense of Greenland Treaty in 1951. It supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.

Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. That has made it crucial to the defense of North America since World War II, when the U.S. occupied Greenland to ensure it didn't fall into the hands of Nazi Germany and to protect vital North Atlantic shipping lanes.

Despite Trump's repeated aggressive comments toward Denmark about Greenland, Danish officials had repeatedly made clear that they stood ready to work with the U.S. to expand the American military presence and strengthen U.S. commercial interests in Greenland.

Still, Trump's repeated demands for Greenland and threats to take it by force rattled the NATO alliance and discomfited European allies, said Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

"I think Americans really underestimate how damaging it was for the image of the United States in Europe," he said. "I think Greenlanders, Danes, Europeans saw this as a real attack on their sovereignty, and it's going to take a lot of work to repair."

Copyright 2026, NPR

Mark Dayton held a career in public service in Minnesota that spanned five decades.

He is well known for serving two terms the state’s governor, leaving office in 2019. Before that, Dayton’s career included stints as a state agency official, state auditor and U.S. senator.

Dayton talked with MPR News politics editor Brian Bakst to reflect on his career and discuss his new memoir, titled "Perseverance." In this conversation, Dayton recounts his personal challenges and his time as governor. He also revisits his call to increase taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans — a campaign promise he fulfilled— and his role in legalizing gay marriage in the state.

Also on this episode: election season is underway in Minnesota. On the ticket is an open governor’s race, an open U.S. Senate seat and the full state legislature. Both of the state's major party chairs join the conversation to share their political lay of the land as voting begins.

Guests:

• Mark Dayton served as the 40th governor of Minnesota. He also served as U.S. senator and Minnesota state auditor.

• Alex Plechash is chair of the Minnesota Republican Party.

• Richard Carlbom is chair of the Minnesota DFL Party.

• Dana Ferguson is a politics correspondent for MPR News.

• Peter Cox is a senior politics reporter for MPR News.

Subscribe to the Politics Friday podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or RSS.