Hakeem Jeffries Backs Impeachment of Pete Hegseth as Democrats Prepare Major Congressional Challenge Against Trump Administration
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has announced his support for impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, signaling that the Pentagon chief could face an intense congressional battle as Democrats prepare to take control of the House of Representatives and Senate in January 2027. The announcement comes as Republican Representative Thomas Massie prepares to revive an impeachment resolution containing eight articles against Hegseth, potentially forcing lawmakers to vote on the controversial measure before the current Congress ends.
The developing situation could create a significant confrontation between congressional Democrats and President Donald Trump’s administration, particularly over the administration’s military operations in Iran, executive authority, national security policy, and the constitutional responsibilities of Congress.
Jeffries, who is expected to become the next speaker of the House following the Democratic Party’s victories in the November 2026 midterm elections, made his position clear during an appearance on ABC’s political program This Week.
When asked whether he supported the proposed impeachment resolution against Hegseth, the New York Democrat delivered an unequivocal answer.
“I’m a hard yes on the Hegseth resolution,” Jeffries said.
He accused the defense secretary of abusing his authority, undermining national security, and overseeing what he described as an unnecessary and costly military conflict with Iran.
Jeffries also argued that the conflict had contributed to rising costs for American households and made the United States less secure.
His comments represent an important development in the effort to hold Hegseth politically accountable, particularly because Democrats will soon possess greater control over congressional committees and legislative proceedings.
However, the immediate impeachment effort is being advanced by outgoing Republican Representative Thomas Massie, whose resolution could receive consideration before the current Republican-controlled Congress concludes its work.
Hakeem Jeffries Announces Support for Pete Hegseth Impeachment Resolution
Jeffries’ announcement establishes his personal support for the impeachment resolution and signals that Democratic leadership intends to discuss the proposal with members of the party when lawmakers return to Washington.
The Democratic leader said members would have an opportunity to discuss the measure on Tuesday, November 10, following their return to the capital after the November midterm elections.
Although Jeffries expressed confidence that the resolution would receive substantial support among Democrats, he stopped short of claiming that every member of the caucus would vote in favor.
He predicted that the proposal would receive “incredibly strong support” within the Democratic conference.
That distinction is important because impeachment proceedings require actual votes in the House rather than simply endorsements from party leaders.
Democratic lawmakers will have to consider the allegations, the constitutional responsibilities of Congress, the administration’s military policies, and the potential consequences of impeaching a sitting cabinet secretary.
Jeffries’ position also indicates that the issue could become part of the Democratic Party’s broader congressional oversight agenda when the new Congress begins in January.
The incoming Democratic majority will have several mechanisms available to investigate the Pentagon’s actions, examine military decision-making, request government records, and conduct public hearings.
Whether those efforts ultimately produce additional impeachment proceedings will depend on decisions made by congressional leadership and individual lawmakers.
Thomas Massie Plans to Reintroduce Eight Articles of Impeachment Against Hegseth
The immediate effort to impeach Hegseth is being led by Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky who has frequently disagreed with President Trump’s administration on military intervention and executive authority.
Massie previously introduced eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth in September 2026.
The resolution accused the defense secretary of committing serious abuses of his official responsibilities, including alleged violations of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in connection with American military operations in Iran.
The articles also addressed other controversial military and government actions, including questions involving congressional oversight and the use of executive authority.
Massie’s earlier effort did not receive a final floor vote after the House adjourned earlier than expected.
However, the Kentucky Republican has indicated that he intends to reintroduce the privileged impeachment resolution as early as Monday, November 9, or during the first week of the upcoming lame-duck session.
His stated intention is to proceed as long as Hegseth remains in office.
The timing could be important because Massie is leaving Congress following his election defeat, giving him a limited period to pursue the resolution while he remains a member of the House.
The impeachment proposal has therefore become an unusual political development: a Republican lawmaker is attempting to remove a Republican president’s defense secretary with support from the incoming Democratic congressional leadership.
How House Rule IX Could Force a Vote on the Impeachment Resolution
One of the most important procedural aspects of Massie’s effort involves House Rule IX.
The rule provides a mechanism through which lawmakers can raise questions of privilege concerning matters affecting the rights and responsibilities of the House.
A properly presented privileged resolution can require congressional leadership to schedule consideration within a specified period.
Massie intends to use this procedure to bring his impeachment proposal before the House.
Under the applicable procedure, a privileged resolution can require the Speaker to schedule consideration within two legislative days.
This means Republican House leadership could face pressure to address the impeachment resolution even if party leaders would prefer to avoid a politically difficult vote.
The procedure is particularly significant because the Republican Party still controls the House during the lame-duck period.
Republicans will retain their current congressional majority until the 120th Congress begins on January 3, 2027.
Consequently, the immediate vote, if scheduled, would take place before Democrats formally assume control of the chamber.
Massie has suggested that the measure has better than even odds of passing, pointing to expected Democratic support and the possibility that some Republicans may be more willing to support impeachment after losing their own elections.
Nevertheless, his assessment represents a political judgment rather than a confirmed vote count.
The actual outcome will depend on the positions taken by individual representatives when the resolution reaches the House floor.
Why the Iran War Is Central to the Impeachment Effort
The military conflict involving Iran is a central component of the allegations against Hegseth.
Massie’s impeachment resolution argues that the defense secretary violated legal restrictions governing the use of American military forces without appropriate congressional authorization.
At the center of the dispute is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to establish procedures and limitations concerning the deployment of American forces into hostilities.
The legislation emerged from concerns about the expansion of presidential military authority during the Vietnam War.
It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours after introducing American armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, subject to statutory provisions.
The law also establishes a general 60-day period for unauthorized military engagements, with a limited additional period for withdrawal under specified circumstances.
The purpose is to preserve Congress’s constitutional role in decisions involving war and military operations.
Massie argues that Hegseth’s handling of the conflict with Iran violated these requirements and undermined congressional authority.
The resolution also raises questions about military decision-making, the legal justification for American operations, and the responsibilities of senior Pentagon officials.
These allegations have not been established through an impeachment trial or judicial determination.
Hegseth and the Trump administration have rejected the impeachment effort, describing it as politically motivated.
The dispute therefore involves competing interpretations of executive authority, military responsibility, and the constitutional limits on the use of American military power.
Democrats Prepare to Take Control of Congress in January 2027
The impeachment controversy is developing at a particularly important moment for American politics.
Democrats secured majorities in both chambers of Congress during the November 2026 midterm elections.
Their victories mean the party will assume control of the House and Senate when the 120th Congress convenes on January 3, 2027.
The change in congressional leadership could significantly affect how the Trump administration is investigated and how federal oversight is conducted.
House committees controlled by Democrats will have greater authority to establish investigative priorities, organize hearings, request documents, and examine the conduct of administration officials.
Jeffries is expected to become speaker of the House, placing him in a powerful position to influence the chamber’s legislative schedule and committee operations.
The incoming Democratic majority could pursue additional investigations into the Pentagon’s leadership, military operations, defense spending, and the administration’s interpretation of congressional war powers.
These activities would not automatically result in impeachment.
However, committee investigations could provide additional information and create opportunities for lawmakers to evaluate whether formal impeachment proceedings are warranted.
The distinction between immediate impeachment action and future congressional oversight is important.
Massie’s proposal seeks a possible vote during the current Congress, while Democrats will have additional procedural opportunities once they assume control in January.
Could Democrats Pursue Additional Impeachment Proceedings After January?
The incoming Democratic majority will have greater control over the House’s investigative and legislative agenda.
That authority could allow party leaders to pursue a more extensive examination of Hegseth’s actions if he remains defense secretary.
Unlike the immediate privileged resolution being advanced by Massie, future impeachment proceedings could involve a more conventional investigative process.
House committees could organize hearings, request Pentagon documents, interview government officials, and examine allegations concerning military operations.
Members could also investigate whether the department followed congressional reporting requirements and whether military decisions complied with applicable federal laws.
If lawmakers believe the available evidence supports impeachment, they could consider articles through the relevant congressional procedures.
However, Jeffries’ public endorsement of Massie’s resolution should not be confused with a formal announcement that Democrats have already scheduled a second impeachment proceeding for January.
The incoming majority will decide how to use its investigative authority after the new Congress convenes.
Its broader oversight agenda could also include other areas of the Trump administration beyond the Pentagon.
What Happens If the House Votes to Impeach Pete Hegseth?
The United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach federal civil officers, including cabinet secretaries.
Impeachment is the formal process through which the House approves articles accusing an official of conduct amounting to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
A simple majority vote in the House is sufficient to approve an article of impeachment.
If at least one article receives the required majority, the official is formally impeached.
However, impeachment does not automatically remove someone from office.
The matter then moves to the Senate, where lawmakers conduct an impeachment trial.
Senators consider the charges and determine whether the official should be convicted and removed from office.
For a cabinet secretary, the Vice President or the president pro tempore of the Senate presides over the trial rather than the Chief Justice of the United States.
Conviction requires the support of at least two-thirds of senators present.
This is a considerably higher threshold than the simple majority required in the House.
Consequently, even if Democrats and some Republicans successfully impeach Hegseth in the House, his removal would require a separate and substantially larger level of support in the Senate.
What Happens If the Impeachment Resolution Passes Before January?
If Massie’s resolution receives House approval during the lame-duck session, Hegseth would become formally impeached before Democrats assume control of Congress.
The case would then proceed to the Senate for consideration.
This would create a politically complicated situation because Republicans continue to control the Senate until the new Congress begins in January.
The Senate would therefore initially have to decide how to handle an impeachment case involving a cabinet secretary during the final weeks of the current Congress.
If the trial is not completed before the congressional transition, procedural questions could arise concerning the continuation of the proceedings and the responsibilities of the incoming Senate.
If Democrats take control of the Senate in January, they would possess greater influence over the chamber’s leadership, scheduling, and consideration of impeachment matters.
Nevertheless, a two-thirds vote of senators present would still be required for conviction and removal.
A Democratic Senate majority alone would not be sufficient to remove Hegseth through an impeachment trial.
The constitutional supermajority requirement makes bipartisan support necessary for conviction.
Donald Trump Has Defended Pete Hegseth Amid Impeachment Pressure
President Donald Trump has publicly defended Hegseth despite the growing impeachment controversy.
According to reporting surrounding the ABC interview, Trump said he believed Hegseth had done a fantastic job and indicated that he intended to keep him in the administration.
The president’s support represents an important political factor because cabinet secretaries generally serve at the president’s discretion.
Trump’s position suggests that the administration is not preparing to voluntarily remove Hegseth in response to the current impeachment effort.
Hegseth has also rejected Massie’s resolution, describing the effort as politically motivated.
In public remarks, he criticized the Kentucky Republican and characterized the impeachment articles as a political attack.
The administration’s position contrasts sharply with the accusations being advanced by Massie and supported by Jeffries.
The disagreement is therefore developing into a broader confrontation involving congressional oversight, presidential authority, defense policy, and the role of Congress in supervising military operations.
Thomas Massie’s Departure From Congress Adds Urgency to the Proposal
Massie’s own political circumstances add another unusual element to the impeachment effort.
The Kentucky Republican is leaving Congress after losing his primary election to a Trump-backed challenger.
His departure means that the lame-duck period represents a limited opportunity for him to pursue the resolution while still serving in the House.
Massie has indicated that he wants to reintroduce the privileged resolution before the current Congress ends.
He has also suggested that some Republicans who have already lost their seats may be more comfortable supporting the measure because they no longer face an immediate reelection campaign.
That possibility remains speculative until representatives publicly announce their positions or cast their votes.
Nevertheless, the political dynamics of a lame-duck session can differ from those of a regular congressional session.
Lawmakers who are retiring or leaving office may approach certain votes differently because they will not face the same immediate electoral consequences.
Whether that changes the outcome of the Hegseth impeachment proposal remains uncertain.
Historical Background: Cabinet Secretaries Have Rarely Faced Impeachment
Impeachment proceedings involving cabinet officials are relatively uncommon in American history.
One of the most prominent historical examples involves William Belknap, who served as secretary of war during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant.
Belknap resigned from office in 1876 after allegations involving financial misconduct connected to the sale of military trading post appointments.
The House subsequently impeached him despite his resignation.
The Senate conducted a trial but ultimately acquitted him because the required two-thirds vote for conviction was not reached.
The case became an important historical example of the constitutional debate over whether Congress can try an official who has already left office.
Another modern example involves Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
In 2024, House Republicans approved articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, accusing him of failing to enforce immigration laws and breaching public trust.
The Senate did not proceed with a full impeachment trial, instead dismissing the charges on constitutional grounds.
These examples demonstrate that impeachment of cabinet officials can generate significant political and constitutional disputes.
They also illustrate that House impeachment and Senate conviction are separate stages with different voting requirements.
No cabinet secretary has been convicted and removed from office by the Senate following impeachment.
What a Hegseth Impeachment Could Mean for the Pentagon and National Security Policy
The possibility of impeachment could create additional uncertainty surrounding the leadership of the Department of Defense.
The Pentagon is responsible for overseeing the United States military, managing defense resources, coordinating military operations, and implementing national security policy.
Its leadership plays an important role in military planning, relationships with allied governments, defense procurement, and communication with Congress.
A prolonged congressional investigation involving the defense secretary could bring additional attention to these responsibilities.
Lawmakers may seek explanations about the administration’s military strategy in Iran, the legal basis for operations, the use of defense resources, and the department’s compliance with congressional oversight requirements.
Congressional hearings could also examine the relationship between the White House and Pentagon leadership when military decisions involve significant national security consequences.
For military personnel, defense contractors, international partners, and government agencies, the controversy could create additional political attention surrounding the department’s leadership.
However, an impeachment resolution does not automatically suspend the defense secretary’s responsibilities or halt military operations.
Hegseth would remain in office unless he resigns, is removed through the constitutional process, or is otherwise replaced by the president.
Final Analysis: Hegseth Faces Congressional Impeachment Challenge as Democrats Prepare to Take Power
The growing impeachment effort against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth represents an important development in the relationship between Congress and the Trump administration.
Hakeem Jeffries has publicly endorsed the proposal, describing himself as a firm supporter of the impeachment resolution introduced by outgoing Republican Representative Thomas Massie.
The immediate effort could produce a House vote during the lame-duck session, before Democrats formally take control of Congress in January 2027.
Massie’s eight articles of impeachment raise allegations involving the Iran conflict, the War Powers Resolution, military decision-making, and other issues involving the defense secretary’s official responsibilities.
The allegations remain contested and have not been established through an impeachment trial.
If the House approves the resolution, the matter would proceed to the Senate, where conviction would require a two-thirds vote of senators present.
The incoming Democratic majority will also have additional opportunities to investigate Pentagon leadership and examine the administration’s military policies through congressional oversight.
Whether those investigations produce additional impeachment proceedings remains an open question.
The coming weeks could therefore become an important period for the Department of Defense, congressional leadership, and the broader debate over presidential military authority.
The central issue is whether Congress will use its constitutional impeachment authority against Hegseth and how the incoming Democratic majority will exercise its investigative powers. With Jeffries signaling strong support and Massie preparing to revive the resolution, the defense secretary faces a significant congressional challenge as Washington approaches the beginning of a new Congress.
Gina Hinojosa Faces Key Decision on Texas Border Security After Defeating Greg Abbott
Texas Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa faces an early test of her leadership as she prepares to take office: deciding what to do with Operation Lone Star, the multibillion-dollar border-security initiative established by outgoing Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
Hinojosa’s victory over Abbott makes her the first Democratic governor of Texas since Ann Richards left office in January 1995. Her position on immigration enforcement could bring significant changes to the state’s approach to border security.
Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in 2021 as illegal border crossings increased during former President Joe Biden’s administration. The initiative expanded into a major state operation involving National Guard deployments, law-enforcement personnel and construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Texas has spent more than $11 billion on the program, with more than 10,000 National Guard members participating in its operations.
Hinojosa Criticizes Operation Lone Star Spending
During her campaign, Hinojosa repeatedly criticized Operation Lone Star and voted against its original funding while serving in the Texas Legislature.
However, she has not explicitly promised to eliminate the entire initiative after becoming governor.
“As governor, I’ll put in the work to secure the border, not waste working Texans’ money on political theater,” Hinojosa said.
She has argued that some of the program’s expenditures have delivered questionable value to taxpayers. One area of criticism involves spending on prosecutions of migrants accused of trespassing, while public funds also support legal representation for defendants.
“Public safety shouldn’t be a political stunt,” Hinojosa said.
“I will spend the money it takes to keep our community safe, not for political theater,” she added.
Her comments suggest that she intends to maintain a border-security role for the state while reviewing how Texas spends money on enforcement.
Border Barriers and Federal Immigration Enforcement
Hinojosa has also opposed additional border-wall construction in the Big Bend region, questioning whether barriers in that area would meaningfully improve security.
She has criticized some Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations and aspects of Texas cooperation with federal immigration authorities. She previously accused Abbott of allowing the state to become a “staging ground” for federal enforcement activities she opposed.
At the same time, Hinojosa has acknowledged the significant decline in illegal border crossings since President Donald Trump returned to office. She has credited Trump administration policies with helping reduce illegal immigration.
That position adds complexity to the debate over Operation Lone Star. Hinojosa could argue that lower crossing numbers reduce the need for an extensive state deployment, while Republicans could contend that the existing operation helped establish deterrence and enforcement capacity.
Abbott launched the initiative under different border conditions, when encounters reached elevated levels during the Biden administration. Trump subsequently reversed several Biden-era immigration policies and expanded federal enforcement.
The federal government retains primary responsibility for immigration enforcement, although states can undertake certain border-related law-enforcement and infrastructure activities.
Republican Legislature Could Limit Changes
Hinojosa’s ability to overhaul Operation Lone Star will depend partly on negotiations with the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature.
Republicans retained control of the Texas Senate, creating a potential obstacle to major changes involving state spending, border policy and the program’s legal framework.
Border funding could therefore become an early point of disagreement between the incoming Democratic governor and Republican lawmakers.
Abbott’s approach placed Texas at the center of national immigration disputes. The state deployed troops and law-enforcement officers, installed razor wire, constructed barriers and transported migrants to Democratic-led cities elsewhere in the country.
Hinojosa’s election could mark a shift away from that confrontational state strategy, although the extent of any changes remains uncertain.
Affordability and Other Campaign Priorities
Beyond immigration, Hinojosa campaigned on affordability, education and reducing what she described as excessive corporate influence in state government.
She has proposed using Texas budget reserves to provide eligible households with one-time payments of $1,500 and supports expanding Medicaid.
Those proposals could also face negotiations with Republican lawmakers, particularly over state spending and health policy.
For now, Operation Lone Star remains one of the most consequential questions facing the governor-elect. Hinojosa has promised to secure the border while eliminating expenditures she considers ineffective or politically motivated.
Whether that approach results in targeted reforms or the dismantling of major parts of Abbott’s signature initiative will become clearer as her administration develops its budget and policy plans.
After five years and more than $11 billion in reported spending, the future of Texas’ state-led border operation is set to become a major test of the state’s political transition.
EXPLORE MORE:
Republicans Take Early Lead in Guam Governor’s Race as Vote Count Continues
Republicans pulled ahead in Guam’s closely watched gubernatorial race early Wednesday, reversing a narrow Democratic lead as election officials reported additional precinct results.
The Republican ticket of Ada-Calvo led Democratic candidates Therese Terlaje and Sabina Perez by 497 votes as of approximately 1 a.m. Wednesday, according to the Guam Election Commission’s unofficial results.
Ada-Calvo had received 10,179 votes, or 51.08%, compared with 9,682 votes, or 48.58%, for Terlaje-Perez. The results covered 38 of Guam’s 59 precincts, leaving 21 precincts still to report.
The Republican lead marked a reversal from the earlier count, when Democrats held a narrow advantage.
At 11:54 p.m., Terlaje-Perez led Ada-Calvo by just 80 votes, receiving 5,243 votes compared with the Republican ticket’s 5,163. At that point, results from only 21 precincts had been reported, giving Democrats a lead of less than one percentage point.
Republicans Move Ahead in Guam Legislative Race
The Republican gains extended beyond the governor’s contest. The party also moved ahead in the race for Guam’s 15-member Legislature, with Republicans occupying eight of the top 15 positions in the unofficial standings.
Democrats had initially held eight of those positions before the overnight count shifted the balance.
Democratic Sen. Chris Barnett remained the leading legislative candidate with 12,790 votes, followed by fellow Democrat Amanda Shelton with 10,203.
Republican Sen. Sabrina Salas Matanane was in third place with 9,095 votes. Republican Sens. Jesse Lujan and Chris Duenas followed with 8,879 and 8,806 votes, respectively.
Other Republicans among the top 15 included Hoa Nguyen, Telo Taitague, Vince Borja, Shelly Calvo and Shawn Gumataotao.
Although the standings indicated potential Republican gains in the Legislature, the remaining precinct results could still change the rankings.
Democrat Leads Guam’s Congressional Delegate Race
Democrats maintained a narrow advantage in the contest for Guam’s delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Democratic challenger Aliia Limtiaco led Republican incumbent Del. James Moylan with 10,016 votes, or 50.75%, compared with Moylan’s 9,692 votes, or 49.11%.
Limtiaco’s lead had narrowed as additional ballots were counted. Earlier results showed her receiving 51.8% of the vote, compared with 48.06% for Moylan.
The race remained competitive, with further results still outstanding.
Attorney General and Utilities Commission Races
The territory’s attorney general race also remained closely watched, with attorney Phillip Tydingco leading incumbent Attorney General Douglas Moylan.
Tydingco received 7,412 votes, or 38.06%, while Moylan had 6,481 votes, or 33.28%.
Thomas Fisher was in third place with 2,482 votes, followed by Peter Santos with 2,171 and Jordan Pauluhn with 913.
In the Consolidated Commission on Utilities contest, incumbent commissioners Simon Sanchez, Michael Limtiaco and Francis Santos occupied the three leading positions in the reported standings.
Guam Election Officials Continue Ballot Count
Election officials began transporting ballot boxes to the University of Guam Calvo Field House shortly after polls closed Tuesday evening.
Guam Election Commission workers started processing ballots at approximately 9:30 p.m., about an hour earlier than during the territory’s primary election.
Commission Executive Director Maria Pangelinan said officials were focused on maintaining an orderly counting process but declined to estimate when final results would be available.
With 21 of Guam’s 59 precincts still outstanding as of approximately 1 a.m., the gubernatorial contest remained undecided.
The latest figures showed Ada-Calvo ahead by 497 votes, while Republicans held eight of the top 15 legislative positions. Democrats, meanwhile, continued to lead the congressional delegate race.
The results were unofficial, and the final outcome of the races depended on the remaining ballots and the completion of the election count.
EXPLORE MORE:
Republicans Take Early Lead in Guam Governor’s Race as Vote Count Continues
Republicans pulled ahead in Guam’s closely watched gubernatorial race early Wednesday, reversing a narrow Democratic lead as election officials reported additional precinct results.
The Republican ticket of Ada-Calvo led Democratic candidates Therese Terlaje and Sabina Perez by 497 votes as of approximately 1 a.m. Wednesday, according to the Guam Election Commission’s unofficial results.
Ada-Calvo had received 10,179 votes, or 51.08%, compared with 9,682 votes, or 48.58%, for Terlaje-Perez. The results covered 38 of Guam’s 59 precincts, leaving 21 precincts still to report.
The Republican lead marked a reversal from the earlier count, when Democrats held a narrow advantage.
At 11:54 p.m., Terlaje-Perez led Ada-Calvo by just 80 votes, receiving 5,243 votes compared with the Republican ticket’s 5,163. At that point, results from only 21 precincts had been reported, giving Democrats a lead of less than one percentage point.
Republicans Move Ahead in Guam Legislative Race
The Republican gains extended beyond the governor’s contest. The party also moved ahead in the race for Guam’s 15-member Legislature, with Republicans occupying eight of the top 15 positions in the unofficial standings.
Democrats had initially held eight of those positions before the overnight count shifted the balance.
Democratic Sen. Chris Barnett remained the leading legislative candidate with 12,790 votes, followed by fellow Democrat Amanda Shelton with 10,203.
Republican Sen. Sabrina Salas Matanane was in third place with 9,095 votes. Republican Sens. Jesse Lujan and Chris Duenas followed with 8,879 and 8,806 votes, respectively.
Other Republicans among the top 15 included Hoa Nguyen, Telo Taitague, Vince Borja, Shelly Calvo and Shawn Gumataotao.
Although the standings indicated potential Republican gains in the Legislature, the remaining precinct results could still change the rankings.
Democrat Leads Guam’s Congressional Delegate Race
Democrats maintained a narrow advantage in the contest for Guam’s delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Democratic challenger Aliia Limtiaco led Republican incumbent Del. James Moylan with 10,016 votes, or 50.75%, compared with Moylan’s 9,692 votes, or 49.11%.
Limtiaco’s lead had narrowed as additional ballots were counted. Earlier results showed her receiving 51.8% of the vote, compared with 48.06% for Moylan.
The race remained competitive, with further results still outstanding.
Attorney General and Utilities Commission Races
The territory’s attorney general race also remained closely watched, with attorney Phillip Tydingco leading incumbent Attorney General Douglas Moylan.
Tydingco received 7,412 votes, or 38.06%, while Moylan had 6,481 votes, or 33.28%.
Thomas Fisher was in third place with 2,482 votes, followed by Peter Santos with 2,171 and Jordan Pauluhn with 913.
In the Consolidated Commission on Utilities contest, incumbent commissioners Simon Sanchez, Michael Limtiaco and Francis Santos occupied the three leading positions in the reported standings.
Guam Election Officials Continue Ballot Count
Election officials began transporting ballot boxes to the University of Guam Calvo Field House shortly after polls closed Tuesday evening.
Guam Election Commission workers started processing ballots at approximately 9:30 p.m., about an hour earlier than during the territory’s primary election.
Commission Executive Director Maria Pangelinan said officials were focused on maintaining an orderly counting process but declined to estimate when final results would be available.
With 21 of Guam’s 59 precincts still outstanding as of approximately 1 a.m., the gubernatorial contest remained undecided.
The latest figures showed Ada-Calvo ahead by 497 votes, while Republicans held eight of the top 15 legislative positions. Democrats, meanwhile, continued to lead the congressional delegate race.
The results were unofficial, and the final outcome of the races depended on the remaining ballots and the completion of the election count.
EXPLORE MORE:
Michigan Senate Race Remains Close as El-Sayed Trails Democratic Party Preference
A new poll of Michigan likely voters shows Democrat Abdul El-Sayed holding a narrow lead over Republican Mike Rogers in the state’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, while also finding that a larger share of voters would prefer Democrats to control the Senate.
The Washington Post-Schar School survey, conducted Sept. 10-14, found 48% of likely voters supporting El-Sayed and 45% supporting Rogers. The three-point difference falls within the poll’s 3.9-percentage-point margin of error, underscoring how closely divided the contest is at this stage of the campaign.
The poll also found that 53% of likely Michigan voters would prefer Democratic control of the Senate, five percentage points higher than El-Sayed’s share of support in the Senate contest.
El-Sayed’s Lead Is Within the Margin of Error
The Washington Post-Schar School poll surveyed 803 likely voters drawn from Michigan’s statewide voter database. Interviews were conducted by phone and text-to-online methods, with the overall margin of error listed at plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
That means the poll does not establish a statistically clear separation between the two candidates.
Another survey released Sept. 17 by Emerson College Polling/Nexstar Media likewise showed a close race, with El-Sayed at 48% and Rogers at 46% among 1,000 likely voters. Four percent were undecided, and the poll reported a margin of error of approximately three percentage points.
Taken together, the recent surveys show a competitive race rather than a large polling advantage for either candidate.
Democrats Have an Edge in the Senate Preference Question
One of the more notable findings in the Post-Schar School survey is the difference between the Senate race and the broader party-control question.
While 53% of likely voters said they preferred Democrats to control the Senate, 48% backed El-Sayed in the Michigan contest. That gap suggests that some voters who prefer Democratic control of the chamber are not currently expressing the same level of support for the Democratic nominee.
The poll also found that Democratic nominee Jocelyn Benson held a larger advantage over Republican John James in the Michigan governor’s race. Benson led James by 12 percentage points in the survey.
The comparison does not determine how voters will ultimately vote, but it provides additional context for understanding El-Sayed’s position on the statewide ballot.
Voters’ Views of the Candidates
Neither Senate candidate received a net-positive overall assessment from Michigan voters in the Washington Post survey, although El-Sayed had the stronger favorable rating.
About 44% of likely voters viewed El-Sayed favorably, compared with 39% who viewed Rogers favorably.
The survey also found that 48% of likely voters considered El-Sayed too liberal, while 43% viewed Rogers as too conservative.
Those perceptions reflect the contrasting campaigns the candidates have run.
El-Sayed has emphasized issues including health care, economic policy and changes to the political system. His campaign has also promoted positions such as Medicare-for-all and eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Rogers, a former congressman who narrowly lost the 2024 Michigan Senate election, has emphasized his Republican credentials and relationship with President Donald Trump.
Demographic Differences Could Shape the Contest
The Post-Schar School survey identified several differences among major voter groups.
Among Black likely voters, 83% said they wanted Democrats to control the Senate, while 67% said they supported El-Sayed. The Washington Post reported that this difference is notable because Black voters have historically been an important part of the Democratic coalition in Michigan.
The poll also found a relationship between attitudes toward Muslim candidates and support for El-Sayed, who would become the first Muslim U.S. senator if elected.
More than four in 10 likely voters said they would be unwilling to support a Muslim candidate for president. El-Sayed received lower support than Benson among voters expressing that view.
These findings describe differences within the electorate; they do not establish why individual voters hold particular positions.
Education Is Another Major Divide
The latest Emerson College/Nexstar survey found a significant education gap in the Senate race.
Among voters without a four-year college degree, Rogers led El-Sayed 48% to 45%. Among college graduates, El-Sayed led 53% to 42%.
That division adds another layer to an already closely contested statewide race.
Earlier polling also showed the contest within a narrow range. A Washington Post report on an August Fox News survey found Rogers ahead among registered voters but El-Sayed ahead among voters who said they would definitely vote.
Because different polls use different samples, methodologies and field dates, individual surveys should not be treated as interchangeable measurements.
Economic Concerns Are Prominent
The Post-Schar School poll found that the cost of living was the most frequently cited top issue, with 48% of likely voters identifying it as their most important concern.
Nearly six in 10 likely voters also disapproved of Trump’s job performance, according to the survey. The political environment has therefore created both opportunities and challenges for the two campaigns, depending on which issues and voter groups ultimately drive turnout.
The Michigan race is also taking place against the backdrop of concerns over inflation, energy prices, tariffs and the broader economy.
A Key Race for Senate Control
Michigan is one of the Democratic-held Senate seats being closely watched nationally.
Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, is retiring rather than seeking another term, leaving an open seat for the 2026 election. El-Sayed won the Democratic primary in August after a closely contested campaign against Rep. Haley Stevens. Rogers won the Republican nomination and is seeking another opportunity after narrowly losing Michigan’s 2024 Senate election.
Democrats are seeking to retain Michigan as part of their broader effort to gain control of the Senate, while Republicans are targeting the seat as an opportunity to expand their majority.
What the Poll Shows — and What It Does Not
The latest surveys show a Michigan Senate contest that is currently close.
The Post-Schar School poll gives El-Sayed a 48%-45% edge, while the Emerson/Nexstar survey has the Democrat ahead 48%-46%. Both margins fall within the respective polls’ stated error ranges.
The broader party-control question produces a different result, with 53% of Post-Schar School respondents preferring Democratic control of the Senate. The governor’s race also shows a larger Democratic margin in the same survey.
Those figures provide context for the Senate race, but polling cannot determine the eventual result. Surveys measure voter preferences at the time they are conducted, and their estimates are subject to sampling and other sources of uncertainty.
With the general election still ahead, the Michigan Senate contest remains closely divided, with the candidates competing for support among independents, suburban voters, Black voters, working-class voters and other groups that could affect the final vote.
READ MORE:
Georgia Sets First-Day Early Voting Record as Closely Watched Midterm Races Approach
Georgia voters cast a record number of in-person ballots on the first day of early voting for the 2026 midterm elections, signaling a strong start to the state’s three-week voting period as competitive races for the U.S. Senate and governor draw national attention.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reported that 188,667 voters cast in-person ballots on Tuesday, October 13. That was 53,705 more than the 134,962 in-person votes recorded on the first day of early voting in 2022, an increase of approximately 40%. In 2018, the comparable first-day total was 70,849.
The figures establish a new first-day early-voting record for a Georgia midterm election, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Raffensperger Highlights Election Administration
Raffensperger, a Republican, attributed the record turnout to voters’ confidence in the state’s election system and the work of local election officials.
“This record-breaking turnout proves that voters have confidence in the integrity of our elections,” Raffensperger said in a statement. He also praised the 159 county election officials responsible for administering elections across Georgia.
The state reported an additional 10,267 accepted absentee ballots, showing that voting activity extended beyond in-person polling locations.
The early figures measure ballots cast, however, and do not establish which candidates or political parties will benefit from the increased participation. The political preferences of voters are not determined by turnout totals alone.
Senate Race Puts Georgia in the National Spotlight
Georgia’s U.S. Senate contest is among the closely watched races that could help determine control of the chamber.
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff is seeking another term and faces Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Collins. Republicans are seeking to expand their Senate position, while Democrats are working to retain seats and compete for control of the chamber.
Recent polling has shown Ossoff ahead in some surveys, although polling is a snapshot of voter preferences at a particular time and does not determine the final result. The November 3 election will decide the contest.
Georgia’s political importance was also underscored by the 2024 presidential election, when Donald Trump carried the state by roughly two percentage points. That result illustrates how closely contested statewide elections in Georgia can be, but presidential results do not necessarily predict the outcome of a midterm race.
Governor’s Contest Adds to the Stakes
The governor’s race is another major contest on Georgia’s November ballot.
Republican businessman Rick Jackson is facing Democratic former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms in the race to succeed Gov. Brian Kemp, who is not seeking another term.
The candidates are competing for a statewide electorate that will also choose other state officials and decide proposed constitutional amendments. The campaign has drawn national attention as both parties seek to make their case to Georgia voters.
Early Voting Continues Through October 30
Georgia’s early-voting period runs from October 13 through October 30, ahead of Election Day on Tuesday, November 3. Voters can use an early-voting location within their county, with specific locations and hours varying by jurisdiction.
The record opening day marks a notable start to the voting period, but turnout totals will continue to change as more ballots are cast. The eventual political impact will depend on the choices voters make and the final results across the state’s races.
For now, the clearest conclusion from the first-day figures is that Georgia’s 2026 midterm election has begun with substantially more in-person early voting than at the start of either of the previous two midterm cycles.
MIDTERM UPDATES:
Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) has formally resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives, with her resignation taking effect Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Her departure comes amid an ongoing federal case and a congressional ethics review that has placed renewed attention on campaign finance rules, the use of federal relief funds, and accountability among elected officials. The resignation also adds to a series of recent departures from Congress involving lawmakers facing legal proceedings or ethics-related scrutiny.
As my colleague Frank Bruno reported late last month, an eight-member bipartisan subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee worked late into the night reviewing Cherfilus-McCormick’s conduct. The congresswoman faced allegations involving more than $5 million in federal disaster relief funds connected to a family business, with prosecutors alleging that a significant portion of the money was directed toward her 2022 congressional campaign. The case has drawn attention to the legal requirements governing federal assistance programs, campaign contributions, and financial disclosures by candidates seeking public office.
On Friday, the House Ethics Committee announced that, following approximately seven hours of deliberations, the subcommittee found “clear and convincing” evidence supporting 25 of the 27 allegations under review. Those findings could have moved the matter closer to a potential expulsion vote in the House of Representatives. Although the ethics proceedings represent a significant development, the committee’s conclusions should be distinguished from the separate federal criminal case, and allegations must be described in accordance with the relevant legal proceedings.
Throughout the controversy, Cherfilus-McCormick challenged the allegations and raised concerns about the treatment of her case, including claims of racial and gender bias. The dispute has highlighted broader questions about how congressional ethics investigations are conducted, how lawmakers respond to allegations of misconduct, and what standards should apply when elected officials face serious legal challenges. Her resignation now shifts attention toward the next steps in the federal case and the possible consequences for her political future.
Following the ethics subcommittee’s findings, Cherfilus-McCormick may also have faced the prospect of a difficult vote among House members if proceedings toward expulsion continued. Under House rules, expelling a member requires a two-thirds vote, making bipartisan support essential to such a decision. Rather than wait for the process to advance further, she submitted her formal resignation letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ahead of a possible expulsion vote. Her departure leaves questions about the broader political implications of the case and how Congress will address other pending ethics matters.
READ MORE:
Her resignation comes amid a series of departures involving three lawmakers: Cherfilus-McCormick, former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Their exits have intensified discussion about congressional oversight, political accountability, and the standards expected of elected representatives. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Corey Mills of Florida is also facing calls for disciplinary action, potentially extending the recent period of uncertainty surrounding the House’s membership and internal proceedings.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution seeking Mills’ expulsion following allegations involving domestic violence, sexual misconduct, claims concerning his military service, and the handling of federal contracts. Mills’ situation remains a separate matter, and the allegations should not be treated as established facts without appropriate findings or legal determinations. Whether the resolution receives sufficient Republican support remains uncertain. The developments nevertheless underscore the importance of transparent investigations, due process, and consistent ethical standards for public officials, regardless of party affiliation.
READ ALSO : Michigan Senate Race Tightens: New Poll Reveals Neck-and-Neck Contest
Ilhan Omar Accuses Trump Administration of Political Intimidation After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, accusing the government of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents.
The Minnesota Democrat responded on X after agents from Homeland Security Investigations arrived at her residence early Monday morning. The Justice Department confirmed that investigators had executed a court-authorized search warrant but did not disclose details about the investigation.
“I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” Omar wrote. She also accused Trump of directing years of attacks against her and declared, “I will not be silenced.”
The search, conducted weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, has intensified political tensions in Washington as Omar seeks reelection to the House. Federal authorities have not publicly outlined the specific allegations under investigation. (Associated Press; CBS News)
Justice Department Confirms Court-Authorized Search
Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Omar’s Washington-area residence at approximately 6 a.m., according to reports from Fox News and other outlets.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that investigators carried out a search warrant obtained through the department, describing the operation as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.
Authorities have not publicly specified what evidence they sought, what materials were seized or whether any charges are being considered. The execution of a search warrant does not, by itself, establish that a crime occurred.
Reports Link Investigation to Immigration Paperwork
Fox News Digital reported that the investigation concerns alleged fraud involving immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed those details or provided a full account of the allegations.
The search follows public comments by administration officials about an investigation involving Omar. In September, border czar Tom Homan acknowledged that a criminal investigation was underway.
Omar has denied wrongdoing and previously said she had not been contacted by federal authorities about an investigation. The precise scope of the inquiry remains unclear based on the information publicly released by the Justice Department. (CBS News; The Washington Post)
Omar Says Search Is Part of a Political Campaign Against Her
In her social media statement, Omar framed the search as the latest escalation in what she described as a prolonged effort by Trump to intimidate her.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” she wrote, adding that she would continue speaking out despite the search.
Omar, a prominent progressive Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, has frequently clashed with Trump and other Republican leaders. Her immigration background and political positions have repeatedly made her a target of criticism from the president and his allies.
Her allegation that the search was politically motivated has not been established as fact. Federal officials have described the operation as part of an ongoing criminal investigation but have not publicly explained its timing or provided detailed evidence supporting the reported focus of the probe.
Search Draws Scrutiny Ahead of Midterm Elections
The timing of the search has raised questions among Democrats because it occurred shortly before the midterm elections, when Omar is campaigning for another term in Congress.
Senior Democrats criticized the action and questioned whether the timing was consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices intended to avoid investigative steps that could improperly influence elections. Such concerns do not, on their own, establish that the search was politically directed.
Republicans and administration officials have previously called for scrutiny of Omar’s background, while Omar has consistently rejected allegations of immigration fraud.
The investigation’s next steps remain uncertain. The Justice Department has not publicly released further details about the evidence sought during Monday’s search or announced criminal charges in connection with the reported allegations.
For now, the search has placed Omar at the center of a new political and legal dispute just weeks before voters head to the polls, with key questions about the investigation still unanswered.
READ MORE: New Poll Shows Close Race in Florida Senate Contest
Ashley Moody and Angie Nixon Deadlocked at 45% in New Florida Senate Poll
Republican Sen. Ashley Moody and Democratic challenger Angie Nixon are virtually tied in a new Florida Senate poll, with each receiving 45% support among likely voters.
The St. Pete Polls survey, conducted September 15-17 for Florida Politics, found Moody at 45.2% and Nixon at 44.8% before rounding. Another 3% selected someone else, while 7% remained undecided.
The survey included 913 likely voters and has a margin of error of ±3.2 percentage points. The four-tenths-of-a-point difference between the candidates is therefore well within the poll’s margin of error.
A Dramatic Difference From the Previous Poll
The St. Pete Polls numbers differ significantly from another survey conducted only days earlier.
A Quantus Insights poll conducted September 8-10 found Moody at 50.1% and Nixon at 42.7% among 733 likely voters.
A Change Research survey conducted September 7-9, meanwhile, put the candidates at 47% each. Earlier University of North Florida and Emerson College surveys had also shown Moody ahead.
Those differences demonstrate why individual polls should be interpreted cautiously. Pollsters use different sampling, weighting and likely-voter methodologies, and a single survey does not establish a trend or determine the eventual result.
Nixon’s Support Among Independent Voters
One of the most striking findings in the new St. Pete Polls survey is Nixon’s advantage among voters who are not affiliated with either major party.
Nixon leads Moody 50% to 37% among independent and minor-party voters, according to the survey.
Nixon also receives 12% support from Republican voters, while Moody receives 8% among Democrats. The poll found Nixon retaining 85% of Democratic voters, compared with Moody retaining 77% of Republicans.
The survey was weighted to reflect Florida’s active voter population, with the final sample consisting of approximately 42% Republicans, 31% Democrats and 27% voters without a major-party affiliation or registered with minor parties. Republicans have a substantial voter-registration advantage statewide.
Age Differences Stand Out
The candidates’ support also varies sharply by age.
Nixon leads among voters younger than 30 by 64% to 25%, according to the poll.
Among voters ages 30 to 49, Nixon leads 54% to 35%.
Moody leads among voters ages 50 to 69, 47% to 42%, and has a larger advantage among voters 70 and older, 61% to 32%.
Subgroup findings generally have greater uncertainty than the overall result because they are based on smaller numbers of respondents.
Race and Ethnicity Show Different Patterns
The survey also found substantial differences by race and ethnicity.
Nixon leads among Black voters 74% to 14%, while Moody leads among White voters 53% to 37%.
Nixon also leads among Hispanic voters, 51% to 39%, according to the survey.
The Hispanic result is particularly notable because Hispanic voters have been an important part of Florida’s changing electoral coalition in recent presidential elections. But the Senate poll is a statewide survey of likely voters and should not be treated as evidence that any particular demographic group will vote a certain way in November.
Both Candidates Have Different Political Backgrounds
Moody currently holds Florida’s Senate seat after Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed her to replace Marco Rubio, who left the Senate after being selected to serve as secretary of state.
Before joining the Senate, Moody served as Florida attorney general and won statewide elections in 2018 and 2022.
Nixon is a Democratic member of the Florida House representing Jacksonville. She won the Democratic Senate nomination over Alex Vindman, receiving 56% of the vote.
The Democratic primary was closely watched because Vindman had substantially greater campaign spending, according to reporting on the contest.
Fundraising Remains a Major Difference
The two campaigns also entered the general election with substantially different financial resources.
Moody reported raising approximately $11.3 million through the end of July and having about $8.4 million cash on hand after the primary.
Nixon had raised less than $1 million by that point, although her campaign reported a subsequent increase in fundraising following her primary victory.
Nixon has also criticized Moody over her handling of campaign debates. Moody declined the first of three debate invitations issued earlier this month, according to Florida Politics.
Florida’s Governor’s Race Is Also Close
The same St. Pete Polls survey found a similarly narrow contest in the Florida governor’s race.
Republican Rep. Byron Donalds received 44%, compared with 43% for Democrat David Jolly.
The one-point difference also falls well inside the poll’s margin of error.
The simultaneous closeness of the two statewide contests provides a snapshot of the political environment in Florida, but the Senate and governor’s races involve different candidates, campaigns and issues.
The Survey Comes After Conflicting Polling
The latest survey stands out partly because of how sharply it differs from several previous polls.
Quantus Insights’ September 8-10 survey gave Moody a roughly seven-point advantage after rounding. The University of North Florida’s July poll showed Moody ahead by eight points, while an Emerson College survey conducted in March showed a larger Moody advantage. A Change Research survey conducted earlier this month had the Senate race tied at 47% each.
Consequently, the 45%-45% result should not be interpreted in isolation.
It is one new measurement taken during a campaign in which the candidates’ support has varied considerably across surveys.
What the Poll Actually Shows
The clearest finding from the St. Pete Polls survey is that the two candidates are currently separated by less than one percentage point among the voters surveyed.
It does not establish that either candidate has a statistically significant statewide advantage. The 3.2-point margin of error is substantially larger than the four-tenths-of-a-point difference between Moody and Nixon.
The survey also leaves 7% undecided, while another 3% selected a candidate other than Moody or Nixon.
Those voters represent an important portion of the electorate that was not committed to either major-party candidate when the survey was conducted.
Election Day Is Still Ahead
The 2026 general election is scheduled for November 3. Polling conducted in September provides information about voter preferences at that particular point in the campaign, but it does not determine the eventual result.
For now, the Florida Senate race presents a sharp contrast between recent surveys: one showed Moody with a sizable numerical advantage, another showed the candidates tied, and the newest St. Pete Polls survey again places them essentially level.
The coming weeks of campaigning, additional polling, debates and voter decision-making will provide further information about how the race develops.
READ MORE:
Tom Cotton Leads Hallie Shoffner by 11 Points in New Arkansas Senate Poll
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton leads Democratic challenger Hallie Shoffner by 11 percentage points in a new poll of likely voters in Arkansas, according to survey results released ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.
The GrayHouse survey, conducted from September 30 through October 4 among 550 likely voters, found Cotton with 50% support and Shoffner with 39%. The remaining respondents were undecided or supported other candidates, according to the reported results.
The findings offer a snapshot of the Arkansas Senate contest as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of the chamber. However, a single poll measures voter preferences during a specific period and does not determine the election outcome.
What the Arkansas Senate Poll Found
The survey reported the following levels of support:
- Tom Cotton, Republican: 50%
- Hallie Shoffner, Democrat: 39%
- Reported margin: 11 percentage points
Some polling databases list both candidates one percentage point higher, at 51% for Cotton and 40% for Shoffner, while showing the same 11-point gap. Readers should consult the original survey release for the precise figures and full methodology.
The available polling records do not consistently provide a margin of error or detailed information about how respondents were contacted. As a result, the results should be interpreted with those limitations in mind.
Cotton Seeks a Third Senate Term
Cotton, a Republican and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is seeking a third six-year term in the Senate. He won his first Senate election in 2014 and secured reelection in 2020.
His political career has included a focus on national security, military policy and a tougher approach toward countries viewed by Washington as adversaries.
Arkansas has generally favored Republican candidates in recent federal elections, providing important context for the contest. Still, statewide political trends alone cannot establish how individual voters will decide the Senate race in November.
Shoffner Challenges the Incumbent
Shoffner, a farmer and the Democratic nominee, is seeking to unseat Cotton and offer voters an alternative to the state’s established Republican leadership.
The poll’s reported 39% support for Shoffner indicates a substantial share of surveyed likely voters backed the Democratic challenger during the fieldwork period. The survey alone does not explain why respondents preferred either candidate or how their views might change before Election Day.
The candidates’ campaign messages, policy positions, public appearances and outreach to voters will continue to shape the contest as the election approaches.
Why the Race Matters Nationally
The Arkansas contest is part of the wider 2026 Senate elections, in which both parties are seeking to gain or retain seats that will influence the chamber’s balance of power.
Republicans are defending seats in states across the country, while Democrats are pursuing opportunities to gain ground. The result in Arkansas will be one part of the broader national picture, alongside contests in more competitive states.
Because Cotton is the incumbent in a state that has leaned Republican in recent federal elections, the Arkansas race has a different political context from contests in closely divided states. Nevertheless, the outcome will be determined by votes cast in November, not by polling figures released beforehand.
What the Poll Can—and Cannot—Tell Voters
The GrayHouse survey provides a measure of support among 550 likely Arkansas voters interviewed between September 30 and October 4. It is not an official election result, and the reported margin should not be treated as a prediction.
The survey’s sponsorship and methodology are also relevant when evaluating its findings. A polling archive identifies America One Policies as the sponsor of a separate earlier GrayHouse survey in the Arkansas race, but the sponsorship of the September–October poll should be confirmed from its original release before being stated definitively.
With Election Day approaching, additional surveys, their methodologies and the broader campaign context will help provide a fuller picture of the contest. For now, the latest reported figures show Cotton at 50% and Shoffner at 39% among the likely voters surveyed.
READ MORE: Democratic Lawmaker Resigns Amid Ongoing Federal Legal Proceedings
Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) has formally resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives, with her resignation taking effect Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Her departure comes amid an ongoing federal case and a congressional ethics review that has placed renewed attention on campaign finance rules, the use of federal relief funds, and accountability among elected officials. The resignation also adds to a series of recent departures from Congress involving lawmakers facing legal proceedings or ethics-related scrutiny.
As my colleague Frank Bruno reported late last month, an eight-member bipartisan subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee worked late into the night reviewing Cherfilus-McCormick’s conduct. The congresswoman faced allegations involving more than $5 million in federal disaster relief funds connected to a family business, with prosecutors alleging that a significant portion of the money was directed toward her 2022 congressional campaign. The case has drawn attention to the legal requirements governing federal assistance programs, campaign contributions, and financial disclosures by candidates seeking public office.
On Friday, the House Ethics Committee announced that, following approximately seven hours of deliberations, the subcommittee found “clear and convincing” evidence supporting 25 of the 27 allegations under review. Those findings could have moved the matter closer to a potential expulsion vote in the House of Representatives. Although the ethics proceedings represent a significant development, the committee’s conclusions should be distinguished from the separate federal criminal case, and allegations must be described in accordance with the relevant legal proceedings.
Throughout the controversy, Cherfilus-McCormick challenged the allegations and raised concerns about the treatment of her case, including claims of racial and gender bias. The dispute has highlighted broader questions about how congressional ethics investigations are conducted, how lawmakers respond to allegations of misconduct, and what standards should apply when elected officials face serious legal challenges. Her resignation now shifts attention toward the next steps in the federal case and the possible consequences for her political future.
Following the ethics subcommittee’s findings, Cherfilus-McCormick may also have faced the prospect of a difficult vote among House members if proceedings toward expulsion continued. Under House rules, expelling a member requires a two-thirds vote, making bipartisan support essential to such a decision. Rather than wait for the process to advance further, she submitted her formal resignation letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ahead of a possible expulsion vote. Her departure leaves questions about the broader political implications of the case and how Congress will address other pending ethics matters.
READ MORE:
Her resignation comes amid a series of departures involving three lawmakers: Cherfilus-McCormick, former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Their exits have intensified discussion about congressional oversight, political accountability, and the standards expected of elected representatives. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Corey Mills of Florida is also facing calls for disciplinary action, potentially extending the recent period of uncertainty surrounding the House’s membership and internal proceedings.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution seeking Mills’ expulsion following allegations involving domestic violence, sexual misconduct, claims concerning his military service, and the handling of federal contracts. Mills’ situation remains a separate matter, and the allegations should not be treated as established facts without appropriate findings or legal determinations. Whether the resolution receives sufficient Republican support remains uncertain. The developments nevertheless underscore the importance of transparent investigations, due process, and consistent ethical standards for public officials, regardless of party affiliation.
READ ALSO : Michigan Senate Race Tightens: New Poll Reveals Neck-and-Neck Contest
Ilhan Omar Accuses Trump Administration of Political Intimidation After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, accusing the government of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents.
The Minnesota Democrat responded on X after agents from Homeland Security Investigations arrived at her residence early Monday morning. The Justice Department confirmed that investigators had executed a court-authorized search warrant but did not disclose details about the investigation.
“I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” Omar wrote. She also accused Trump of directing years of attacks against her and declared, “I will not be silenced.”
The search, conducted weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, has intensified political tensions in Washington as Omar seeks reelection to the House. Federal authorities have not publicly outlined the specific allegations under investigation. (Associated Press; CBS News)
Justice Department Confirms Court-Authorized Search
Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Omar’s Washington-area residence at approximately 6 a.m., according to reports from Fox News and other outlets.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that investigators carried out a search warrant obtained through the department, describing the operation as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.
Authorities have not publicly specified what evidence they sought, what materials were seized or whether any charges are being considered. The execution of a search warrant does not, by itself, establish that a crime occurred.
Reports Link Investigation to Immigration Paperwork
Fox News Digital reported that the investigation concerns alleged fraud involving immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed those details or provided a full account of the allegations.
The search follows public comments by administration officials about an investigation involving Omar. In September, border czar Tom Homan acknowledged that a criminal investigation was underway.
Omar has denied wrongdoing and previously said she had not been contacted by federal authorities about an investigation. The precise scope of the inquiry remains unclear based on the information publicly released by the Justice Department. (CBS News; The Washington Post)
Omar Says Search Is Part of a Political Campaign Against Her
In her social media statement, Omar framed the search as the latest escalation in what she described as a prolonged effort by Trump to intimidate her.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” she wrote, adding that she would continue speaking out despite the search.
Omar, a prominent progressive Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, has frequently clashed with Trump and other Republican leaders. Her immigration background and political positions have repeatedly made her a target of criticism from the president and his allies.
Her allegation that the search was politically motivated has not been established as fact. Federal officials have described the operation as part of an ongoing criminal investigation but have not publicly explained its timing or provided detailed evidence supporting the reported focus of the probe.
Search Draws Scrutiny Ahead of Midterm Elections
The timing of the search has raised questions among Democrats because it occurred shortly before the midterm elections, when Omar is campaigning for another term in Congress.
Senior Democrats criticized the action and questioned whether the timing was consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices intended to avoid investigative steps that could improperly influence elections. Such concerns do not, on their own, establish that the search was politically directed.
Republicans and administration officials have previously called for scrutiny of Omar’s background, while Omar has consistently rejected allegations of immigration fraud.
The investigation’s next steps remain uncertain. The Justice Department has not publicly released further details about the evidence sought during Monday’s search or announced criminal charges in connection with the reported allegations.
For now, the search has placed Omar at the center of a new political and legal dispute just weeks before voters head to the polls, with key questions about the investigation still unanswered.
READ MORE: New Poll Shows Close Race in Florida Senate Contest
Ashley Moody and Angie Nixon Deadlocked at 45% in New Florida Senate Poll
Republican Sen. Ashley Moody and Democratic challenger Angie Nixon are virtually tied in a new Florida Senate poll, with each receiving 45% support among likely voters.
The St. Pete Polls survey, conducted September 15-17 for Florida Politics, found Moody at 45.2% and Nixon at 44.8% before rounding. Another 3% selected someone else, while 7% remained undecided.
The survey included 913 likely voters and has a margin of error of ±3.2 percentage points. The four-tenths-of-a-point difference between the candidates is therefore well within the poll’s margin of error.
A Dramatic Difference From the Previous Poll
The St. Pete Polls numbers differ significantly from another survey conducted only days earlier.
A Quantus Insights poll conducted September 8-10 found Moody at 50.1% and Nixon at 42.7% among 733 likely voters.
A Change Research survey conducted September 7-9, meanwhile, put the candidates at 47% each. Earlier University of North Florida and Emerson College surveys had also shown Moody ahead.
Those differences demonstrate why individual polls should be interpreted cautiously. Pollsters use different sampling, weighting and likely-voter methodologies, and a single survey does not establish a trend or determine the eventual result.
Nixon’s Support Among Independent Voters
One of the most striking findings in the new St. Pete Polls survey is Nixon’s advantage among voters who are not affiliated with either major party.
Nixon leads Moody 50% to 37% among independent and minor-party voters, according to the survey.
Nixon also receives 12% support from Republican voters, while Moody receives 8% among Democrats. The poll found Nixon retaining 85% of Democratic voters, compared with Moody retaining 77% of Republicans.
The survey was weighted to reflect Florida’s active voter population, with the final sample consisting of approximately 42% Republicans, 31% Democrats and 27% voters without a major-party affiliation or registered with minor parties. Republicans have a substantial voter-registration advantage statewide.
Age Differences Stand Out
The candidates’ support also varies sharply by age.
Nixon leads among voters younger than 30 by 64% to 25%, according to the poll.
Among voters ages 30 to 49, Nixon leads 54% to 35%.
Moody leads among voters ages 50 to 69, 47% to 42%, and has a larger advantage among voters 70 and older, 61% to 32%.
Subgroup findings generally have greater uncertainty than the overall result because they are based on smaller numbers of respondents.
Race and Ethnicity Show Different Patterns
The survey also found substantial differences by race and ethnicity.
Nixon leads among Black voters 74% to 14%, while Moody leads among White voters 53% to 37%.
Nixon also leads among Hispanic voters, 51% to 39%, according to the survey.
The Hispanic result is particularly notable because Hispanic voters have been an important part of Florida’s changing electoral coalition in recent presidential elections. But the Senate poll is a statewide survey of likely voters and should not be treated as evidence that any particular demographic group will vote a certain way in November.
Both Candidates Have Different Political Backgrounds
Moody currently holds Florida’s Senate seat after Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed her to replace Marco Rubio, who left the Senate after being selected to serve as secretary of state.
Before joining the Senate, Moody served as Florida attorney general and won statewide elections in 2018 and 2022.
Nixon is a Democratic member of the Florida House representing Jacksonville. She won the Democratic Senate nomination over Alex Vindman, receiving 56% of the vote.
The Democratic primary was closely watched because Vindman had substantially greater campaign spending, according to reporting on the contest.
Fundraising Remains a Major Difference
The two campaigns also entered the general election with substantially different financial resources.
Moody reported raising approximately $11.3 million through the end of July and having about $8.4 million cash on hand after the primary.
Nixon had raised less than $1 million by that point, although her campaign reported a subsequent increase in fundraising following her primary victory.
Nixon has also criticized Moody over her handling of campaign debates. Moody declined the first of three debate invitations issued earlier this month, according to Florida Politics.
Florida’s Governor’s Race Is Also Close
The same St. Pete Polls survey found a similarly narrow contest in the Florida governor’s race.
Republican Rep. Byron Donalds received 44%, compared with 43% for Democrat David Jolly.
The one-point difference also falls well inside the poll’s margin of error.
The simultaneous closeness of the two statewide contests provides a snapshot of the political environment in Florida, but the Senate and governor’s races involve different candidates, campaigns and issues.
The Survey Comes After Conflicting Polling
The latest survey stands out partly because of how sharply it differs from several previous polls.
Quantus Insights’ September 8-10 survey gave Moody a roughly seven-point advantage after rounding. The University of North Florida’s July poll showed Moody ahead by eight points, while an Emerson College survey conducted in March showed a larger Moody advantage. A Change Research survey conducted earlier this month had the Senate race tied at 47% each.
Consequently, the 45%-45% result should not be interpreted in isolation.
It is one new measurement taken during a campaign in which the candidates’ support has varied considerably across surveys.
What the Poll Actually Shows
The clearest finding from the St. Pete Polls survey is that the two candidates are currently separated by less than one percentage point among the voters surveyed.
It does not establish that either candidate has a statistically significant statewide advantage. The 3.2-point margin of error is substantially larger than the four-tenths-of-a-point difference between Moody and Nixon.
The survey also leaves 7% undecided, while another 3% selected a candidate other than Moody or Nixon.
Those voters represent an important portion of the electorate that was not committed to either major-party candidate when the survey was conducted.
Election Day Is Still Ahead
The 2026 general election is scheduled for November 3. Polling conducted in September provides information about voter preferences at that particular point in the campaign, but it does not determine the eventual result.
For now, the Florida Senate race presents a sharp contrast between recent surveys: one showed Moody with a sizable numerical advantage, another showed the candidates tied, and the newest St. Pete Polls survey again places them essentially level.
The coming weeks of campaigning, additional polling, debates and voter decision-making will provide further information about how the race develops.
Benjamin Harris is a RapidReports front page contributor and editor,proud father of four.
