My Son Rented Out Our House Without Permission—What I Discovered Changed Our Family Forever
“Gordon, there’s a man living in your basement.”
I was standing outside our winter rental in Mesa, Arizona, holding a cup of lukewarm coffee when my neighbor, Vern Dahl, delivered the news.
The afternoon was warm, the lemon tree beside our porch was thriving, and a familiar country song drifted through the neighborhood. Yet suddenly, our home in Iowa felt a thousand miles farther away than it actually was.
Vern explained that my thirty-six-year-old son, Brett, had allowed his girlfriend to move into our house. Worse, her younger brother was living downstairs and paying Brett $600 a month for the privilege.
I stared at the ground, trying to make sense of what I was hearing.
Brett had one simple responsibility while my wife, Ardis, and I spent the winter in Arizona: look after our house. He was supposed to check the furnace, protect the plumbing during freezing weather, replace the furnace filter when necessary, and keep the front sidewalk clear.
We had never given him permission to move into the house, invite other people to live there, or collect rent.
When Ardis returned from the swimming pool, I told her everything. Within days, we had packed our belongings and started the long drive back to Iowa, two months earlier than planned.
Neither of us knew what we would find when we arrived.
The Arrangement We Had Made With Our Son
Ardis and I had been married for forty-two years. We had spent most of our lives in a small Iowa town where everyone seemed to know everyone else’s business.
I worked at the local grain elevator for four decades before retiring. After one particularly miserable winter, when my knees ached and the snow seemed endless, Ardis suggested we spend the coldest months somewhere warmer.
For six years, we rented the same modest park model in Mesa from November through May. We enjoyed the sunshine, played shuffleboard with other retirees, and returned home each spring.
Our arrangement worked because we trusted the people who helped us maintain our house.
Then Brett’s marriage ended, and he moved into a small apartment above the old bakery on Main Street.
Ardis wondered whether we could help him by allowing him to use our home while we were away. I worried that an informal arrangement could create confusion, so we settled on something specific.
Brett would keep his apartment and visit our house every few days. He would check the heating system, protect the pipes from freezing, replace the furnace filter if needed, and clear the sidewalk after snowstorms.
In exchange, he could park his truck in our garage during severe weather.
I wrote the instructions on an index card and attached it to the refrigerator.
That was the entire agreement.
When Vern called, he explained that he had met a young man named Austin at a convenience store. Austin had introduced himself as the brother of Brett’s girlfriend, Jade.
According to Austin, he was living in our basement and paying Brett $600 every month. Brett had told him the house belonged to him because his parents had permanently relocated to Arizona.
Vern hesitated before calling us. He didn’t want to interfere in a family disagreement, but he believed we deserved to know what was happening.
I thanked him and ended the call.
For several minutes, I sat beside Ardis without saying anything.
She suggested calling Brett immediately.
I refused. Our son had always been good at explaining difficult situations over the telephone. I wanted to look him in the eye when he told us what had happened.
We also knew we couldn’t simply arrive and throw someone’s belongings outside. Austin had apparently paid rent in good faith, and his situation could involve legal rights we needed to respect.
We agreed to return home, hear everyone’s account, and find a fair solution.
An Unexpected Welcome at Our Own Front Door
We spent three days closing up the Arizona rental, said goodbye to our friends, and began the drive north.
At night, I lay awake in motel rooms thinking about the money.
Six hundred dollars in January. Another six hundred in February. Then another payment in March.
That was $1,800, apparently collected for a room Brett had no authority to rent.
I was angry, but Ardis reminded me of something important. Since becoming an adult, Brett had rarely asked us for financial help. Even after his divorce, he insisted he could manage his own expenses.
As we crossed the plains, I began to wonder whether the situation was more complicated than simple greed.
On Tuesday afternoon, we turned onto our familiar street.
Old snow lined the curbs, and the maple tree in our front yard stood bare against the gray sky. A black pickup truck was parked outside our house.
The sidewalk had been cleared, and through the living-room window I could see Ardis’s African violets blooming on their usual stand.
I reached for my key, then decided to knock.
A young man opened the door.
“Can I help you?” he asked.
I introduced myself as Gordon Brekke, the homeowner.
His expression changed immediately.
“But Brett said this was his house,” he whispered. “He told me you gave it to him when you moved to Arizona.”
The young man was Austin Kessler, Jade’s younger brother. He looked genuinely shocked to see us.
He explained that he had lost his apartment when the building’s owner sold the property shortly before Christmas. Brett had offered him the finished portion of our basement for $600 a month.
Austin believed he was renting a room from the rightful owner.
When I explained the truth, he offered to pack his things and leave that evening.
I looked outside at the snow and reminded him that the temperature was expected to fall sharply overnight.
“Nobody is going anywhere tonight,” I said. “We’ll work out what happens next.”
He stepped aside and let us enter our own home.
The Clues That Changed My Understanding
The house was clean, although it smelled of unfamiliar cooking. A larger television stood where our old one had been.
Ardis went straight to her plants.
Her African violets looked healthier than when we had left, and her old Christmas cactus was covered in pink blossoms. It hadn’t flowered in years.
Austin explained that Brett watered the plants every Sunday and made sure nobody else disturbed them.
For a moment, my anger softened.
Whatever else our son had done, he had remembered the little things that mattered to his mother.
Downstairs, Austin had arranged a simple living space with a cot, a dresser, and a folding table for his laptop. His work boots stood neatly beside the stairs, and a photograph of his late mother hung above the bed.
He showed me a notebook in which he had recorded every rent payment.
I told him he wasn’t responsible for Brett’s decision to misrepresent the situation.
Later that afternoon, Jade arrived home from her job as a nursing assistant. She stopped in the doorway when she saw us.
Brett had told her that we had agreed to let her stay while we wintered in Arizona. She had begun to feel uneasy because he wouldn’t let her answer the house telephone, but she had trusted his explanation.
When I asked where Brett was, she said he was making deliveries for a feed mill near Garner.
Then she told us something else.
Brett had lost his job at a cabinet manufacturing plant shortly before Christmas.
He had worked there for nine years, eventually becoming a finishing-line supervisor. The company had laid off much of its second shift, and Brett had been among those affected.
He hadn’t told us.
He had picked up part-time delivery work, but the income was unreliable. He still had a truck payment and monthly child-support obligations for his daughter, Emma.
Suddenly, the rent, the secrecy, and the hurried explanations began to make more sense.
They didn’t excuse what he had done. But they suggested that our son might have been hiding financial trouble rather than simply looking for easy money.
At 5:25 that evening, Brett’s blue pickup appeared outside.
When he saw our car, he stopped in the street. Through the window, I watched him rest his forehead against the steering wheel.
Several minutes passed before he got out.
He walked to the front door and knocked.
I hadn’t seen him knock on that door since he was a child.
After greeting his mother, he stood at the kitchen table, holding his cap in both hands.
“Dad, I can explain,” he said.
“I hope so,” I replied. “But first, you and I need to talk.”
The Conversation at the Grain Elevator
I asked Brett to come for a drive.
We went to the grain elevator where I had spent most of my working life. We parked beside the scale house, with the concrete bins rising against the fading evening sky.
For a while, neither of us spoke.
Then I told him something I had kept private for decades.
In 1985, the elevator had nearly closed. Farmers across the county were struggling, and I went six weeks without receiving a paycheck.
Ardis and I had a mortgage, a baby on the way, and almost no savings. My father lent us $400 to keep our house payment current.
I eventually repaid him, but I never properly thanked him. I had been too ashamed to admit that I needed help.
Brett listened quietly.
Then he told me about losing his job, struggling to keep up with his bills, and trying to make sure he never missed a child-support payment.
When Jade’s lease ended and Austin lost his apartment, Brett saw our empty house as a temporary solution. He planned to collect rent, find steady employment, and put everything back in order before we returned in May.
But when Austin asked whether the house belonged to him, Brett lied.
After that, each lie made the next one harder to avoid.
“Why didn’t you call us?” I asked.
He looked toward the elevator bins.
“Dad, you never missed a day of work. How was I supposed to tell you I’d lost my job and couldn’t make my payments?”
I wanted to tell him that he should have trusted us. Instead, I remembered the forty years I had spent hiding my own embarrassment about borrowing money from my father.
Brett reminded me that I had kept that story secret for decades.
I had no answer.
For the first time, I understood that the silence I had always called independence might have taught my son to treat ordinary hardship as a personal failure.
That didn’t make his actions acceptable. He had misrepresented ownership of our property and collected money without our permission.
But it helped me understand why he had been so determined to conceal his troubles.
I told him we would address the money, the unauthorized arrangement, and the living situation. We would not pretend nothing had happened.
However, I also told him that admitting a mistake should be the beginning of solving it, not the end of his relationship with us.
He nodded, staring down at his cap.
“I should have told you,” he said.
“Yes,” I replied. “You should have.”
A Chance to Start Again
Before leaving the elevator, I asked Brett whether he would be willing to speak with the manager, Jeff Ostrander.
Jeff had worked with me years earlier and was preparing for the busy spring season. The elevator needed help with loading, deliveries, and other seasonal work.
I asked whether he still had an opening.
He did.
Jeff explained the duties and offered a starting wage of $18 an hour, with overtime available during the busiest weeks.
Then I stepped back and let Brett speak for himself.
He described his experience at the cabinet plant, acknowledged that he had been laid off, and explained that he had been doing delivery work while looking for something more stable.
Jeff asked whether he could start the following Monday.
Brett accepted.
On the drive home, he thanked me.
Then he said something I hadn’t expected.
“I appreciate the help. I’ve spent too long pretending I don’t need any.”
I reached over and squeezed the back of his neck, the way I used to when he was little.
That evening, Ardis prepared pork chops and scalloped potatoes. We sat around the kitchen table while Brett explained the situation to Jade and Austin.
He admitted that he had falsely claimed ownership of the house and had used the rent payments to cover his truck expenses and child-support obligations.
He apologized to Austin and agreed to account for the money he had received.
Austin listened carefully.
He didn’t want to turn the situation into a larger confrontation, but he also understood that the arrangement had been based on a false claim.
We discussed the next steps calmly. Brett would work out a repayment plan with us, and we would establish a reasonable, documented arrangement for Austin’s departure. We would also respect any legal requirements that applied to his occupancy.
Nobody would be forced out overnight.
Rebuilding Trust Through Actions
Austin soon found temporary accommodation through a coworker at the ethanol plant. He moved out the following week after making arrangements for his belongings and future housing.
Before leaving, he offered Ardis a modest contribution toward the household utilities.
She initially refused, but Austin explained that he wanted to leave knowing he had contributed fairly to the time he had spent in the house.
After discussing it, we accepted his offer and made sure he had what he needed for the move.
Brett and Jade stayed with us temporarily while they arranged housing of their own. We put the agreement in writing, including the expected length of their stay, household responsibilities, and the need to make independent arrangements once their finances stabilized.
There were difficult conversations.
Sometimes Brett became discouraged when we discussed the rent or the trust he had damaged. I had to learn that holding him accountable did not mean reminding him of his mistake every time we disagreed.
Ardis was better at finding that balance. She listened, asked practical questions, and reminded us that trust is rebuilt through consistent behavior.
Brett began working at the elevator the following Monday. The work was demanding, but he arrived on time and accepted whatever responsibilities Jeff assigned him.
For the first time in months, he had a dependable schedule and a reliable paycheck.
By early May, he and Jade had rented a modest two-bedroom house near the Lutheran church. They began paying their own bills and building a more stable life.
Brett also visited Vern across the street. I never asked what they discussed, but the visit lasted nearly an hour. Afterward, Vern greeted him as warmly as before.
A few days after we returned to Iowa, Ardis discovered something tucked beneath the old index card on our refrigerator.
It was another card, written in Brett’s handwriting, explaining how to care for her African violets and Christmas cactus.
He had watered the violets every Sunday, turned their pots toward the light, and followed Ardis’s instructions for encouraging the cactus to bloom.
Ardis sat at the kitchen table holding the card and began to cry.
I understood why.
Our son had lied about our home, hidden his unemployment, and collected rent he had no right to charge. Those were serious failures of judgment.
Yet he had also remembered the small things that mattered to his mother and cared for her plants through an Iowa winter.
Both things were true.
Recognizing the good in him did not require us to ignore the harm he had caused.
The Christmas That Felt Different
Brett stayed at the elevator through the spring planting season and the autumn harvest. Eventually, Jeff offered him a permanent position with benefits.
When Brett called to tell me, he sounded relieved rather than boastful.
He thanked me for helping him find work and for allowing him to ask for the position himself.
I told him that stepping aside had been the hardest part.
He laughed.
“I guess we’re both learning,” he said.
By November, the maple in our yard had dropped its leaves, and Ardis was already talking about returning to Arizona.
We still wanted our winter sunshine, but this time our plans felt different.
One cold morning, Brett arrived at our house carrying a duffel bag and a large green thermos.
He announced that he was driving us south himself and had arranged time away from work.
Ardis immediately began worrying about whether he had packed enough warm clothes for the return trip. I reminded her that our son was thirty-six, not sixteen.
We loaded the car and set off along the same roads we had traveled months earlier in silence.
This time, the journey felt easier.
Ardis knitted in the back seat while Brett drove. I pointed out grain elevators, old farms, and towns whose names I had known since childhood.
Somewhere in Kansas, Ardis reminded Brett of the stray dog he had hidden in our garage when he was eight.
He had named the dog Biscuit and fed it pieces of his school lunch, convinced that I would make him return it if I discovered the secret.
Brett laughed and admitted he had spent four days trying to keep the dog quiet.
“I knew about Biscuit the first night,” I told him. “I could hear it barking through the kitchen wall.”
He looked at me in disbelief.
“You knew the whole time?”
“I was waiting for you to tell me.”
He was quiet for a moment, then smiled.
“That sounds exactly like you, Dad.”
When we reached Mesa, Brett helped unload our things, arranged the folding chairs on the porch, and hung Ardis’s cardinal flag beside the door.
The next morning, he flew home.
Throughout the winter, he continued checking our Iowa house each week. He sent photographs of the plants, made sure the heating system was working properly, and kept the walkways clear whenever snow arrived.
He no longer needed the old index card, but he left it on the refrigerator anyway.
That Christmas, Ardis’s cactus bloomed again. Brett sent us a photograph of its pink flowers beside the window.
I studied the picture longer than I expected to.
The year had begun with a telephone call, an unexpected drive home, and the discovery that our son had turned our house into something we had never agreed to.
It had also forced me to examine the way I had treated work, money, pride, and failure.
Brett had responsibilities to meet and mistakes to repair. He had to earn back our confidence through honesty and consistent action.
But Ardis and I had lessons to learn, too.
We had always told our son to be independent. We had not always made it easy for him to admit when independence wasn’t enough.
That winter, I decided to change that.
When I called Brett, I no longer began by asking whether the house was in order or whether he had finished every task on his list.
Instead, I asked how he was doing.
And I gave him time to answer.
Because family trust is not restored by pretending nothing happened. It grows when people tell the truth, take responsibility, offer forgiveness without abandoning their boundaries, and make room for one another to begin again.
EXPLORE MORE:
MIDTERM UPDATES
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.
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.
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.
