An alphabet soup of U.S. agencies is tracking down immigrant children who arrived in this country without a parent or guardian and were eventually released from government custody.

The Trump administration says it wants to fight fraudulent sponsors, protect vulnerable minors from abuse, and deport those who have committed crimes. Meanwhile, immigrant advocates say the government is complicating children’s access to lawyers as it steps up efforts to send many of them home.

The government has detained unaccompanied minors and sent them back to their countries at about three times the rate of the first Trump term, according to a recent ProPublica analysis.

Why We Wrote This

As the White House strips away lawful status from millions of immigrants, it’s preserved some humanitarian concern for kids it claims the last president lost. Still, the government has sought to deport many children, and to discourage others from arriving.

Since last year, multiple federal agencies have collaborated through a Washington “war room” to locate the children, according to documents and statements by officials. The government has also enlisted state and local agencies in the search.

Knocking on doors at last known addresses has evolved into extensive data sharing and collaboration, modeling President Donald Trump’s broader whole-of-government crackdown on illegal immigration.

The administration has promoted its efforts as safeguarding vulnerable, “lost” children – and tackling claims of widespread immigration fraud. Immigrant advocates worry the goals are to intimidate children from participating in their immigration cases and to ramp up deportations.

Defining “lost”

Just how many of the minors are actually missing, and what that means, is disputed.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors crossed the southern border each month during the Biden presidency; hundreds still cross monthly.

Once border authorities stop an unaccompanied minor, the government has 72 hours to hand them over to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Numbers of those unaccounted for cited by the Trump administration appear to refer to children released from government care between 2019 and 2023, but who had not yet received immigration court dates – about 291,000, according to a 2024 Department of Homeland Security inspector general report. Poor communication between the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) – the agency charged with caring for minors while they are in custody – and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was a factor.

But federal agencies’ lack of awareness about a particular child’s whereabouts to notify them of a court date does not necessarily mean the child is missing.

ORR says it has “located” more than 150,000 unaccompanied children. At a June news conference, Angie Salazar, the ORR’s acting director, said some were “sexually assaulted, others deceased, and some committing heinous crimes” after their release to unvetted sponsors.

“When the government lacks reliable contact information or an effective means of tracking children, that is a child welfare failure,” she said.

Jen Smyers, a former deputy director of ORR under President Joe Biden, says the Biden administration inherited a messy database of sponsor information that resulted in mistaken releases, but her team cleaned up the records system.

“The claim that children were released to unvetted sponsors is factually inaccurate,” says Ms. Smyers.

ORR is pursuing more coordination with law enforcement than it traditionally has, former federal officials say.

The space devoted to locating unaccompanied children at the ORR office in Washington is a “massive room with computers all around,” says John Fabbricatore, a longtime Immigration and Customs Enforcement official, like Ms. Salazar. He joined the Trump administration’s unaccompanied children effort as an HHS senior adviser last year.

ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the FBI, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the Pentagon have all been involved, says Mr. Fabriccatore, whom the Monitor interviewed in June while he was temporarily not employed by the federal government.

“It was mostly fraud analysts that we were looking for,” in terms of help from collaborating agencies, he says.

None of the agencies confirmed its participation. An ORR official said in an email, “Law enforcement and intelligence agencies worked across departments to locate these children and ensure they were safe,” and that the effort continues. The official also said ORR had requested forensic auditors from the Pentagon to review invoices from a legal-services contract.

Beyond unaccompanied children who’ve become adults and are committing crimes, deportation isn’t the goal for everyone, says Mr. Fabbricatore. Still, information sharing between ICE and ORR has resulted in thousands of arrests, Reuters reports.

An undated ICE document says the agency collected data on unaccompanied children “from various sources” beginning a week after Mr. Trump’s inauguration last year. The document also says certain ICE officials have access to the HHS records system for unaccompanied children.

ORR says it has long shared data with DHS, which oversees ICE, on unaccompanied children and their sponsors.

An Oklahoma model

Last November, Homeland Security announced that ICE’s local and state law enforcement partners were involved in welfare checks of unaccompanied children.

In Oklahoma, state troopers accompanied ICE agents on a door-knocking campaign at first. But that approach didn’t succeed, says Tim Tipton, commissioner of the state’s Department of Public Safety.

“People just don’t answer the door,” he says.

Mr. Tipton says he pitched an alternative to ICE. Why not put personnel from the highway patrol’s Child Abduction Response Team on the case? After all, he says, those CART officers are trained to handle kids in sensitive situations.

ICE eventually shared the target list with the state, according to Mr. Tipton. Now, he says, CART officers locate sponsors on their own, generally avoiding door knocks. After calling or texting, troopers set up an appointment to interview the sponsor and to check on the child and their living conditions. Information is ultimately reported back to ICE, says Mr. Tipton.

Oklahoma has located a couple hundred children this way – or at least verified they’re no longer in the state, says the commissioner. His team isn’t pursuing immigration enforcement, he says, but ensuring that kids are all right.

“If we’re doing a welfare check on a kid and there’s signs and indicators of human trafficking, of sex trafficking, of child abuse, then we’re going to take immediate law enforcement action,” Mr. Tipton said in June.

So far, his team hasn’t removed any unaccompanied children from Oklahoma homes over signs of abuse, he says.

ICE did not respond to several questions, including about state and local involvement in welfare checks. The president’s pick to be the next ICE director, Lance Schroyer, is a retired major of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

According to Lt. Mark Southall, a highway patrol spokesperson, Mr. Schroyer was “instrumental” in developing the CART plan to locate immigrant children.

Children in limbo

As Health and Human Services works to locate more children, U.S. law requires the agency to secure legal aid for unaccompanied children “to the greatest extent practicable.”

Yet, amid a data-sharing dispute between children’s lawyers and the government, HHS withheld funding from a national network of legal groups. A federal judge in California this month made the government pay.

At the end of July, HHS had let a legal services contract lapse for the Acacia Center for Justice, affecting around 100 subcontractors. Acacia says the network has served more than 20,000 unaccompanied children since late last year.

Whiplash has followed. A Federal Register notice this month said that HHS intended to award up to $150 million to a Texas firm with ties to the Trump administration to provide legal services for children in government custody. On Tuesday, the firm said it “withdrew from consideration.”

Meanwhile, HHS awarded a $244 million no-bid contract to Our Rescue, an anti-trafficking nonprofit whose chief executive, Derek Benner, is a former ICE official. ORR says it tried unsuccessfully to competitively bid the contract. Though it’s unclear whether the nonprofit typically represents children in immigration proceedings, “We welcome this responsibility and are working on their behalf,” Mr. Benner said in an emailed statement.

In a Thursday court filing, the ORR says it awarded a separate agreement this month worth up to $20 million to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. That’s for legal services for children in government custody through at least December. The nonprofit did not respond to interview requests.

Kids stuck in custody

Meanwhile, kids are staying longer in federal custody before release to sponsors.

During the Biden administration, in fiscal year 2024, unaccompanied children stayed in ORR care an average of 30 days. This past spring, the monthly average crested at more than 200 days. Some children’s lawyers say those in custody are increasingly choosing to leave the United States rather than continue waiting for release.

“We are prioritizing child safety over placement speed,” Ms. Salazar, the ORR official, said at the June news conference.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Still, prolonged custody of kids isn’t good, Mr. Fabbricatore said at a Heritage Foundation event the same day.

“The longer that they are in care, there’s more mental health issues that we’re dealing with,” he said. “We don’t want that. ... They should be home.”

An alphabet soup of U.S. agencies is tracking down immigrant children who arrived in this country without a parent or guardian and were eventually released from government custody.

The Trump administration says it wants to fight fraudulent sponsors, protect vulnerable minors from abuse, and deport those who have committed crimes. Meanwhile, immigrant advocates say the government is complicating children’s access to lawyers as it steps up efforts to send many of them home.

The government has detained unaccompanied minors and sent them back to their countries at about three times the rate of the first Trump term, according to a recent ProPublica analysis.

Why We Wrote This

As the White House strips away lawful status from millions of immigrants, it’s preserved some humanitarian concern for kids it claims the last president lost. Still, the government has sought to deport many children, and to discourage others from arriving.

Since last year, multiple federal agencies have collaborated through a Washington “war room” to locate the children, according to documents and statements by officials. The government has also enlisted state and local agencies in the search.

Knocking on doors at last known addresses has evolved into extensive data sharing and collaboration, modeling President Donald Trump’s broader whole-of-government crackdown on illegal immigration.

The administration has promoted its efforts as safeguarding vulnerable, “lost” children – and tackling claims of widespread immigration fraud. Immigrant advocates worry the goals are to intimidate children from participating in their immigration cases and to ramp up deportations.

Defining “lost”

Just how many of the minors are actually missing, and what that means, is disputed.

Thousands of unaccompanied minors crossed the southern border each month during the Biden presidency; hundreds still cross monthly.

Once border authorities stop an unaccompanied minor, the government has 72 hours to hand them over to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Numbers of those unaccounted for cited by the Trump administration appear to refer to children released from government care between 2019 and 2023, but who had not yet received immigration court dates – about 291,000, according to a 2024 Department of Homeland Security inspector general report. Poor communication between the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) – the agency charged with caring for minors while they are in custody – and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was a factor.

But federal agencies’ lack of awareness about a particular child’s whereabouts to notify them of a court date does not necessarily mean the child is missing.

ORR says it has “located” more than 150,000 unaccompanied children. At a June news conference, Angie Salazar, the ORR’s acting director, said some were “sexually assaulted, others deceased, and some committing heinous crimes” after their release to unvetted sponsors.

“When the government lacks reliable contact information or an effective means of tracking children, that is a child welfare failure,” she said.

Jen Smyers, a former deputy director of ORR under President Joe Biden, says the Biden administration inherited a messy database of sponsor information that resulted in mistaken releases, but her team cleaned up the records system.

“The claim that children were released to unvetted sponsors is factually inaccurate,” says Ms. Smyers.

ORR is pursuing more coordination with law enforcement than it traditionally has, former federal officials say.

The space devoted to locating unaccompanied children at the ORR office in Washington is a “massive room with computers all around,” says John Fabbricatore, a longtime Immigration and Customs Enforcement official, like Ms. Salazar. He joined the Trump administration’s unaccompanied children effort as an HHS senior adviser last year.

ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the FBI, the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and the Pentagon have all been involved, says Mr. Fabriccatore, whom the Monitor interviewed in June while he was temporarily not employed by the federal government.

“It was mostly fraud analysts that we were looking for,” in terms of help from collaborating agencies, he says.

None of the agencies confirmed its participation. An ORR official said in an email, “Law enforcement and intelligence agencies worked across departments to locate these children and ensure they were safe,” and that the effort continues. The official also said ORR had requested forensic auditors from the Pentagon to review invoices from a legal-services contract.

Beyond unaccompanied children who’ve become adults and are committing crimes, deportation isn’t the goal for everyone, says Mr. Fabbricatore. Still, information sharing between ICE and ORR has resulted in thousands of arrests, Reuters reports.

An undated ICE document says the agency collected data on unaccompanied children “from various sources” beginning a week after Mr. Trump’s inauguration last year. The document also says certain ICE officials have access to the HHS records system for unaccompanied children.

ORR says it has long shared data with DHS, which oversees ICE, on unaccompanied children and their sponsors.

An Oklahoma model

Last November, Homeland Security announced that ICE’s local and state law enforcement partners were involved in welfare checks of unaccompanied children.

In Oklahoma, state troopers accompanied ICE agents on a door-knocking campaign at first. But that approach didn’t succeed, says Tim Tipton, commissioner of the state’s Department of Public Safety.

“People just don’t answer the door,” he says.

Mr. Tipton says he pitched an alternative to ICE. Why not put personnel from the highway patrol’s Child Abduction Response Team on the case? After all, he says, those CART officers are trained to handle kids in sensitive situations.

ICE eventually shared the target list with the state, according to Mr. Tipton. Now, he says, CART officers locate sponsors on their own, generally avoiding door knocks. After calling or texting, troopers set up an appointment to interview the sponsor and to check on the child and their living conditions. Information is ultimately reported back to ICE, says Mr. Tipton.

Oklahoma has located a couple hundred children this way – or at least verified they’re no longer in the state, says the commissioner. His team isn’t pursuing immigration enforcement, he says, but ensuring that kids are all right.

“If we’re doing a welfare check on a kid and there’s signs and indicators of human trafficking, of sex trafficking, of child abuse, then we’re going to take immediate law enforcement action,” Mr. Tipton said in June.

So far, his team hasn’t removed any unaccompanied children from Oklahoma homes over signs of abuse, he says.

ICE did not respond to several questions, including about state and local involvement in welfare checks. The president’s pick to be the next ICE director, Lance Schroyer, is a retired major of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

According to Lt. Mark Southall, a highway patrol spokesperson, Mr. Schroyer was “instrumental” in developing the CART plan to locate immigrant children.

Children in limbo

As Health and Human Services works to locate more children, U.S. law requires the agency to secure legal aid for unaccompanied children “to the greatest extent practicable.”

Yet, amid a data-sharing dispute between children’s lawyers and the government, HHS withheld funding from a national network of legal groups. A federal judge in California this month made the government pay.

At the end of July, HHS had let a legal services contract lapse for the Acacia Center for Justice, affecting around 100 subcontractors. Acacia says the network has served more than 20,000 unaccompanied children since late last year.

Whiplash has followed. A Federal Register notice this month said that HHS intended to award up to $150 million to a Texas firm with ties to the Trump administration to provide legal services for children in government custody. On Tuesday, the firm said it “withdrew from consideration.”

Meanwhile, HHS awarded a $244 million no-bid contract to Our Rescue, an anti-trafficking nonprofit whose chief executive, Derek Benner, is a former ICE official. ORR says it tried unsuccessfully to competitively bid the contract. Though it’s unclear whether the nonprofit typically represents children in immigration proceedings, “We welcome this responsibility and are working on their behalf,” Mr. Benner said in an emailed statement.

In a Thursday court filing, the ORR says it awarded a separate agreement this month worth up to $20 million to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. That’s for legal services for children in government custody through at least December. The nonprofit did not respond to interview requests.

Kids stuck in custody

Meanwhile, kids are staying longer in federal custody before release to sponsors.

During the Biden administration, in fiscal year 2024, unaccompanied children stayed in ORR care an average of 30 days. This past spring, the monthly average crested at more than 200 days. Some children’s lawyers say those in custody are increasingly choosing to leave the United States rather than continue waiting for release.

“We are prioritizing child safety over placement speed,” Ms. Salazar, the ORR official, said at the June news conference.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Still, prolonged custody of kids isn’t good, Mr. Fabbricatore said at a Heritage Foundation event the same day.

“The longer that they are in care, there’s more mental health issues that we’re dealing with,” he said. “We don’t want that. ... They should be home.”

A missing blue bunny. Scalding hot water. A toddler watching it all. 

​An array of disturbing details has emerged from the allegations surrounding Rep. Max Miller, the Ohio Republican accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno. 

Congressman Miller strongly denies the claims, which have come out amid a bitter custody dispute. But he’s facing growing pressure to suspend his reelection campaign, including from members of his own party. Mr. Miller’s former father-in-law, U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, has called for Mr. Miller’s resignation. Ohio’s other Republican senator, Jon Husted, did the same on Thursday.

Why We Wrote This

Lawmakers or candidates in both parties have faced allegations of sexual misconduct or domestic abuse. Some peers of Ohio’s Max Miller have called for him to resign his House seat.

The controversy fits a wider pattern this year in which members of Congress, in both parties, have faced allegations of personal misconduct. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzalez of Texas both resigned in April while facing House Ethics Committee investigations. Last month, Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner suspended his campaign after he was accused of previous sexual misconduct.

On Aug. 5, following a recommendation by the Ethics Committee that Rep. Chuck Edwards be censured for inappropriate behavior toward two young female staffers, the North Carolina Republican announced he would retire at the end of his term.

Allegations of impropriety aren’t automatic career-enders, but each instance raises questions about where lines of accountability get drawn. The #MeToo era has faded from the forefront of public discussion, and patterns of sexual misconduct persist, but the campaign left in its wake efforts to boost accountability in some realms of politics.

“These moments are fueling a movement,” says Emma Davidson Tribbs, founding director of the National Women’s Defense League. “It’s a newer movement, but we have been making progress since #MeToo.”

The Republican response to the Miller scandal comes within a stark political context: The party is defending a slim House majority amid high voter disapproval of President Donald Trump, the Iran war, and the cost of living. Not only could the turmoil add a new pickup target for Democrats in what should be a relatively safe Republican district, but the allegations threaten to undermine the GOP’s self-professed pro-family image.

“Republicans are the party of faith, family, and life,” writes Mehek Cooke, an Ohio Republican analyst, in an email to the Monitor. “We cannot campaign on those values and abandon them when accountability becomes uncomfortable.”

Mr. Miller is almost certainly facing greater pressure to step down behind the scenes. Axios reported on Aug. 3 that President Trump had called him and said things “weren’t looking good.” 

Publicly, however, Mr. Trump has maintained a more supportive tone. “I hope he’s able to work it out. I feel badly for him,” the president told reporters on Aug. 5. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that, while the allegations were “serious,” he believed it was important to let the process play out.

Mr. Trump has also faced allegations of sexual misconduct – and recently made a $5 million payment to E. Jean Carroll over sexual abuse and defamation. He has denied wrongdoing but was unable to overturn a civil verdict against him.

A Trump staffer and ally

Mr. Miller was a staffer in Mr. Trump’s first administration before he entered Congress, where he has been a Trump ally. He and Ms. Moreno married in 2022 at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Ms. Moreno’s father, Senator Moreno, is also a close ally of the president. Senator Moreno had refrained from talking publicly about the allegations against his former son-in-law, but recently broke his silence, saying Mr. Miller’s behavior made him unfit for public office.

“If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them,” Mr. Moreno wrote on X on Aug. 2.

“Not one of these allegations has ever been substantiated by any court or any agency,” said Mr. Miller in a video he posted to X on the same day. “If these accusations were true, I would be in jail.”

Mr. Trump handily won the presidential vote in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, which stretches from the southeastern edge of Cleveland down toward Columbus. But Mr. Miller’s Democratic opponent, union ironworker Brian Poindexter, has been gaining traction in recent weeks. Polling conducted by a Republican firm and shared with the outlet NOTUS found Mr. Poindexter leading Mr. Miller by 5 points, just outside the margin of error. 

“Miller should have already dropped out,” Republican strategist Doug Heye told the Monitor by text. “The longer he stays in the race, the more damage he does to his family and the more he makes it harder for Republicans to campaign on issues they want to push.”

In court filings, Ms. Moreno accused Mr. Miller of scalding her with hot water and pointing a gun at her head. She said that, given Mr. Miller’s alleged violent behavior, she could not rule out that he caused their toddler’s fractured collarbone. Ms. Moreno recently filed for a restraining order against Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller also faces accusations of physical violence from Mr. Trump’s former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. The two dated while both worked in the first Trump administration. After Mr. Miller sued for defamation, they reached a confidential settlement, though Ms. Grisham has since sued him for breaking the terms of the settlement. On Aug. 3, Ms. Grisham’s attorney said she had filed a temporary restraining order against the congressman. A third woman has accused Mr. Miller of pushing her down the stairs while they were in high school.

Most recently, a flurry erupted over a stuffed blue bunny belonging to Ms. Moreno and Mr. Miller’s 2-year-old daughter, which Senator Moreno said Mr. Miller had refused to return. Reporting from Mother Jones includes text messages involving at least five people, including the Morenos and Mr. Miller, negotiating the return of the toy.

Request for Ethics Committee role

Following a 20-minute livestream in which he maintained his innocence and said he was releasing a trove of documents as proof, Mr. Miller wrote on X on Aug. 4 that he was requesting an ethics investigation into himself “to clear my name.” The House Ethics Committee said it was reviewing allegations that Mr. Miller engaged in domestic violence and illegal drug use.

The documentation Mr. Miller released included a transcript of Mr. Miller telling Ms. Moreno he was injecting himself with testosterone, something he repeated during a CNN interview. Separately, Ms. Moreno told Mr. Miller she had found needles by his bed and believed he had a drug problem, which he refuted. 

During the same interview, Mr. Miller said he had last taken illegal drugs “several years” ago.

After Senator Moreno publicly denounced Mr. Miller’s actions, a handful of Republican colleagues joined him in calling for Mr. Miller to resign, including Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Roger Marshall of Kansas, and Tim Sheehy of Montana.

Real pressure would come if Mr. Trump were to withdraw his endorsement, says Paul Beck, professor emeritus of political science at Ohio State University. In his view, that becomes more likely if Mr. Miller’s polling numbers continue to drop. “If it looks like Miller is going to lose, Trump is usually pretty quick to bail on people that he’s endorsed,” he says.

If Mr. Miller drops out of the race by Aug. 10, local Republican leaders can choose a replacement candidate.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Whether or not the allegations against Mr. Miller are found to be true, he has demonstrated a disqualifying lack of judgment in his public conduct, says Ms. Mehek, the Ohio Republican analyst. 

“When a candidate becomes the story for the wrong reasons, it suppresses enthusiasm and shifts attention away from the issues that drive turnout,” she says.

A missing blue bunny. Scalding hot water. A toddler watching it all. 

​An array of disturbing details has emerged from the allegations surrounding Rep. Max Miller, the Ohio Republican accused of domestic abuse by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno. 

Congressman Miller strongly denies the claims, which have come out amid a bitter custody dispute. But he’s facing growing pressure to suspend his reelection campaign, including from members of his own party. Mr. Miller’s former father-in-law, U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, has called for Mr. Miller’s resignation. Ohio’s other Republican senator, Jon Husted, did the same on Thursday.

Why We Wrote This

Lawmakers or candidates in both parties have faced allegations of sexual misconduct or domestic abuse. Some peers of Ohio’s Max Miller have called for him to resign his House seat.

The controversy fits a wider pattern this year in which members of Congress, in both parties, have faced allegations of personal misconduct. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzalez of Texas both resigned in April while facing House Ethics Committee investigations. Last month, Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner suspended his campaign after he was accused of previous sexual misconduct.

On Aug. 5, following a recommendation by the Ethics Committee that Rep. Chuck Edwards be censured for inappropriate behavior toward two young female staffers, the North Carolina Republican announced he would retire at the end of his term.

Allegations of impropriety aren’t automatic career-enders, but each instance raises questions about where lines of accountability get drawn. The #MeToo era has faded from the forefront of public discussion, and patterns of sexual misconduct persist, but the campaign left in its wake efforts to boost accountability in some realms of politics.

“These moments are fueling a movement,” says Emma Davidson Tribbs, founding director of the National Women’s Defense League. “It’s a newer movement, but we have been making progress since #MeToo.”

The Republican response to the Miller scandal comes within a stark political context: The party is defending a slim House majority amid high voter disapproval of President Donald Trump, the Iran war, and the cost of living. Not only could the turmoil add a new pickup target for Democrats in what should be a relatively safe Republican district, but the allegations threaten to undermine the GOP’s self-professed pro-family image.

“Republicans are the party of faith, family, and life,” writes Mehek Cooke, an Ohio Republican analyst, in an email to the Monitor. “We cannot campaign on those values and abandon them when accountability becomes uncomfortable.”

Mr. Miller is almost certainly facing greater pressure to step down behind the scenes. Axios reported on Aug. 3 that President Trump had called him and said things “weren’t looking good.” 

Publicly, however, Mr. Trump has maintained a more supportive tone. “I hope he’s able to work it out. I feel badly for him,” the president told reporters on Aug. 5. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that, while the allegations were “serious,” he believed it was important to let the process play out.

Mr. Trump has also faced allegations of sexual misconduct – and recently made a $5 million payment to E. Jean Carroll over sexual abuse and defamation. He has denied wrongdoing but was unable to overturn a civil verdict against him.

A Trump staffer and ally

Mr. Miller was a staffer in Mr. Trump’s first administration before he entered Congress, where he has been a Trump ally. He and Ms. Moreno married in 2022 at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Ms. Moreno’s father, Senator Moreno, is also a close ally of the president. Senator Moreno had refrained from talking publicly about the allegations against his former son-in-law, but recently broke his silence, saying Mr. Miller’s behavior made him unfit for public office.

“If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them,” Mr. Moreno wrote on X on Aug. 2.

“Not one of these allegations has ever been substantiated by any court or any agency,” said Mr. Miller in a video he posted to X on the same day. “If these accusations were true, I would be in jail.”

Mr. Trump handily won the presidential vote in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, which stretches from the southeastern edge of Cleveland down toward Columbus. But Mr. Miller’s Democratic opponent, union ironworker Brian Poindexter, has been gaining traction in recent weeks. Polling conducted by a Republican firm and shared with the outlet NOTUS found Mr. Poindexter leading Mr. Miller by 5 points, just outside the margin of error. 

“Miller should have already dropped out,” Republican strategist Doug Heye told the Monitor by text. “The longer he stays in the race, the more damage he does to his family and the more he makes it harder for Republicans to campaign on issues they want to push.”

In court filings, Ms. Moreno accused Mr. Miller of scalding her with hot water and pointing a gun at her head. She said that, given Mr. Miller’s alleged violent behavior, she could not rule out that he caused their toddler’s fractured collarbone. Ms. Moreno recently filed for a restraining order against Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller also faces accusations of physical violence from Mr. Trump’s former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. The two dated while both worked in the first Trump administration. After Mr. Miller sued for defamation, they reached a confidential settlement, though Ms. Grisham has since sued him for breaking the terms of the settlement. On Aug. 3, Ms. Grisham’s attorney said she had filed a temporary restraining order against the congressman. A third woman has accused Mr. Miller of pushing her down the stairs while they were in high school.

Most recently, a flurry erupted over a stuffed blue bunny belonging to Ms. Moreno and Mr. Miller’s 2-year-old daughter, which Senator Moreno said Mr. Miller had refused to return. Reporting from Mother Jones includes text messages involving at least five people, including the Morenos and Mr. Miller, negotiating the return of the toy.

Request for Ethics Committee role

Following a 20-minute livestream in which he maintained his innocence and said he was releasing a trove of documents as proof, Mr. Miller wrote on X on Aug. 4 that he was requesting an ethics investigation into himself “to clear my name.” The House Ethics Committee said it was reviewing allegations that Mr. Miller engaged in domestic violence and illegal drug use.

The documentation Mr. Miller released included a transcript of Mr. Miller telling Ms. Moreno he was injecting himself with testosterone, something he repeated during a CNN interview. Separately, Ms. Moreno told Mr. Miller she had found needles by his bed and believed he had a drug problem, which he refuted. 

During the same interview, Mr. Miller said he had last taken illegal drugs “several years” ago.

After Senator Moreno publicly denounced Mr. Miller’s actions, a handful of Republican colleagues joined him in calling for Mr. Miller to resign, including Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Roger Marshall of Kansas, and Tim Sheehy of Montana.

Real pressure would come if Mr. Trump were to withdraw his endorsement, says Paul Beck, professor emeritus of political science at Ohio State University. In his view, that becomes more likely if Mr. Miller’s polling numbers continue to drop. “If it looks like Miller is going to lose, Trump is usually pretty quick to bail on people that he’s endorsed,” he says.

If Mr. Miller drops out of the race by Aug. 10, local Republican leaders can choose a replacement candidate.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Whether or not the allegations against Mr. Miller are found to be true, he has demonstrated a disqualifying lack of judgment in his public conduct, says Ms. Mehek, the Ohio Republican analyst. 

“When a candidate becomes the story for the wrong reasons, it suppresses enthusiasm and shifts attention away from the issues that drive turnout,” she says.

As President Donald Trump addressed Americans on July 16 about elections, Jason Shepherd was “prepared for anything.”

The Georgia Republican and his team thought the president, who in 2021 pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to declare Mr. Trump the winner of the 2020 election, might claim their state’s elections were illegitimate. They had drafted public statements to release as fact checks.

They never sent those statements. Mr. Trump focused instead on misleading claims about China interfering in U.S. elections and unproven assertions that the electoral system is insecure.

Why We Wrote This

Examples of America's political polarization are easy to find. Instances of cooperation across party lines might be more elusive, but they are happening – including, across the country, networks of Republicans and Democrats working together on the vital issue of elections.

But as a co-lead of the Georgia Democracy Resilience Network, Mr. Shepherd is part of a network of Republicans and Democrats working together in six states to counter just the kind of rhetoric the president laid out that night. The work is funded by the nonprofit Carter Center, which has started bringing lessons learned from supporting democracy abroad back to the United States, like having a bipartisan group of trusted messengers ready to publicly stand up for facts. The center, founded by former President Jimmy Carter and former first lady Rosalynn Carter, declined to say how much money it’s giving these networks, but said it’s “helping to establish” them and hopes they become “locally owned and operated.”

Groups are active in almost every battleground state: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. They’re doing things such as offering tours of vote processing centers and hosting cross-partisan conversations. Several in this network say they’re motivated in part by their firsthand experience with political violence.

The U.S. has seen a recent rise in threats against election workers and in political violence among both parties, though it is more concentrated on the right. Notably, Trump supporters – believing the president’s false claims about a stolen election – attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, beat police officers and for a time disrupted the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in modern U.S. history.

The American voting system isn’t perfect; election administration is often underfunded, and fraud, while rare, does happen. These networks say they recognize those issues, but work to separate problem-solving from rhetoric that can lead to violence.

Mr. Shepherd, a Republican, has received violent threats for backing the 2020 election result.

Ron Barber, a Democrat who co-leads Arizona’s resilience network, was shot while working for then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

And Don Henninger, an Arizona Republican who works alongside Barber, testified in support of the 2020 election result in front of contentious crowds. But he’s encouraged by what his work has shown him.

“Far more people agree on things, including the values that make our communities special, than disagree,” says Mr. Henninger. “And that is a solid ground of hope for us.”

Political violence

When Mr. Shepherd worked for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, he joked that staffers would take turns opening unknown packages sent to the office. In 2021, while he was chair of the Cobb County Republican Party, someone threatened to “shoot up” the group’s headquarters.

After refusing to say the 2020 election was stolen, Mr. Shepherd faced threats from people he agreed with politically. It’s part of what drives him to model how people can disagree while emphasizing their humanity.

“If you dehumanize someone enough, then acting on violence is not an issue because you’re not going up against another human being,” he says. “You’re going against the label.”

Mr. Shepherd speaks on political panels with members of other parties and encourages civil disagreement on college campuses. He also uses his platform to challenge election misinformation – for example, defending election results to his nearly 3,700 followers on X and on a conservative political blog forum.

“Democracy’s hard part”

Mr. Barber was Ms. Giffords’ district director in 2011 when a gunman opened fire at a public event in Tucson, wounding them both and leaving six others dead.

A year later, as she was preparing to step down, Ms. Giffords gathered staff to discuss her replacement. Mr. Barber, who saw himself in a behind-the-scenes role, had a list of potential candidates.

Ms. Giffords, whose injuries from the shooting had impacted her speech, looked at him and said, “You, me.”

He wasn’t sure whether he had understood. But she was asking him to run. And, he says, “When Gabby asks you to do something, it’s kind of hard to say no.”

Mr. Barber won the seat and served until 2015. Since 2022, as co-leader of Arizona’s resilience network, he has fought voter intimidation at local polls – once successfully taking legal action against armed men standing near ballot boxes – and works to line up public interviews between people who disagree politically.

He collaborates with his Republican co-lead, Mr. Henninger, who describes the two as “united at the core” in the democratic values they agree on.

During the 2022 midterms, Mr. Henninger testified in support of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors certifying the election. Allies of Mr. Trump had criticized the board for voting-equipment failures they said disenfranchised Republicans. An independent investigation found the issues were not intentional. He spoke in an “unruly” room and was grateful no violence broke out.

“My brief taste of that certainly gave me cause for concern about everyday election workers, who oftentimes are facing the same kinds of intimidation,” he says.

As they prepare for this year’s midterm elections, Mr. Henninger and others in these networks are unsure what to expect.

But they believe their efforts can bolster public confidence in elections.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Rashad Richey, a Democrat who works with Mr. Shepherd in Georgia, was encouraged by a recent discussion with a tea party Republican. They agreed about the professionalism of county-level election administrators.

“Democracy’s hard part isn’t winning – it’s losing and staying in the room for the discussion,” he says. “This is the part that makes it work.”

As President Donald Trump addressed Americans on July 16 about elections, Jason Shepherd was “prepared for anything.”

The Georgia Republican and his team thought the president, who in 2021 pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to declare Mr. Trump the winner of the 2020 election, might claim their state’s elections were illegitimate. They had drafted public statements to release as fact checks.

They never sent those statements. Mr. Trump focused instead on misleading claims about China interfering in U.S. elections and unproven assertions that the electoral system is insecure.

Why We Wrote This

Examples of America's political polarization are easy to find. Instances of cooperation across party lines might be more elusive, but they are happening – including, across the country, networks of Republicans and Democrats working together on the vital issue of elections.

But as a co-lead of the Georgia Democracy Resilience Network, Mr. Shepherd is part of a network of Republicans and Democrats working together in six states to counter just the kind of rhetoric the president laid out that night. The work is funded by the nonprofit Carter Center, which has started bringing lessons learned from supporting democracy abroad back to the United States, like having a bipartisan group of trusted messengers ready to publicly stand up for facts. The center, founded by former President Jimmy Carter and former first lady Rosalynn Carter, declined to say how much money it’s giving these networks, but said it’s “helping to establish” them and hopes they become “locally owned and operated.”

Groups are active in almost every battleground state: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. They’re doing things such as offering tours of vote processing centers and hosting cross-partisan conversations. Several in this network say they’re motivated in part by their firsthand experience with political violence.

The U.S. has seen a recent rise in threats against election workers and in political violence among both parties, though it is more concentrated on the right. Notably, Trump supporters – believing the president’s false claims about a stolen election – attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, beat police officers and for a time disrupted the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in modern U.S. history.

The American voting system isn’t perfect; election administration is often underfunded, and fraud, while rare, does happen. These networks say they recognize those issues, but work to separate problem-solving from rhetoric that can lead to violence.

Mr. Shepherd, a Republican, has received violent threats for backing the 2020 election result.

Ron Barber, a Democrat who co-leads Arizona’s resilience network, was shot while working for then-Rep. Gabby Giffords.

And Don Henninger, an Arizona Republican who works alongside Barber, testified in support of the 2020 election result in front of contentious crowds. But he’s encouraged by what his work has shown him.

“Far more people agree on things, including the values that make our communities special, than disagree,” says Mr. Henninger. “And that is a solid ground of hope for us.”

Political violence

When Mr. Shepherd worked for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, he joked that staffers would take turns opening unknown packages sent to the office. In 2021, while he was chair of the Cobb County Republican Party, someone threatened to “shoot up” the group’s headquarters.

After refusing to say the 2020 election was stolen, Mr. Shepherd faced threats from people he agreed with politically. It’s part of what drives him to model how people can disagree while emphasizing their humanity.

“If you dehumanize someone enough, then acting on violence is not an issue because you’re not going up against another human being,” he says. “You’re going against the label.”

Mr. Shepherd speaks on political panels with members of other parties and encourages civil disagreement on college campuses. He also uses his platform to challenge election misinformation – for example, defending election results to his nearly 3,700 followers on X and on a conservative political blog forum.

“Democracy’s hard part”

Mr. Barber was Ms. Giffords’ district director in 2011 when a gunman opened fire at a public event in Tucson, wounding them both and leaving six others dead.

A year later, as she was preparing to step down, Ms. Giffords gathered staff to discuss her replacement. Mr. Barber, who saw himself in a behind-the-scenes role, had a list of potential candidates.

Ms. Giffords, whose injuries from the shooting had impacted her speech, looked at him and said, “You, me.”

He wasn’t sure whether he had understood. But she was asking him to run. And, he says, “When Gabby asks you to do something, it’s kind of hard to say no.”

Mr. Barber won the seat and served until 2015. Since 2022, as co-leader of Arizona’s resilience network, he has fought voter intimidation at local polls – once successfully taking legal action against armed men standing near ballot boxes – and works to line up public interviews between people who disagree politically.

He collaborates with his Republican co-lead, Mr. Henninger, who describes the two as “united at the core” in the democratic values they agree on.

During the 2022 midterms, Mr. Henninger testified in support of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors certifying the election. Allies of Mr. Trump had criticized the board for voting-equipment failures they said disenfranchised Republicans. An independent investigation found the issues were not intentional. He spoke in an “unruly” room and was grateful no violence broke out.

“My brief taste of that certainly gave me cause for concern about everyday election workers, who oftentimes are facing the same kinds of intimidation,” he says.

As they prepare for this year’s midterm elections, Mr. Henninger and others in these networks are unsure what to expect.

But they believe their efforts can bolster public confidence in elections.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Rashad Richey, a Democrat who works with Mr. Shepherd in Georgia, was encouraged by a recent discussion with a tea party Republican. They agreed about the professionalism of county-level election administrators.

“Democracy’s hard part isn’t winning – it’s losing and staying in the room for the discussion,” he says. “This is the part that makes it work.”

Politics watchers have a nickname for a group of lame-duck senators in Congress: the “YOLO caucus,” using the acronym “You Only Live Once” to imply that these senators are more emboldened now that they have little to lose.

Their pushback stands out in a Republican Party whose members rarely oppose President Donald Trump’s administration. In recent weeks, Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina bottled up Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general while demanding an end to the administration’s planned $1.8 billion fund to pay people who claim the Justice Department has been “weaponized” against them.

Hours after voting yes in committee to help send acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate, Mr. Cornyn rejected the “YOLO” label.

Why We Wrote This

Two GOP senators who are leaving office temporarily withheld their approval of President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general over concerns with an administration policy. It might be a sign that Republicans without an election to worry about feel more free to disagree with this president.

“I don’t think you can explain everything up here based on personalities,” Mr. Cornyn, who lost his primary in May, said during an interview. “This was strictly based on concern about the merits of the arrangement. So, it’s not about payback, it’s not about YOLO.”

During a public meeting before the Judiciary Committee vote, Mr. Tillis, who is retiring, also spoke about principle as opposed to feeling freer to express his views without having to align with the administration or the Republican caucus.

“Instead of criticizing people on the other side of the aisle, why don’t you go back and hold your own conference to a higher standard?” said Mr. Tillis at Tuesday’s hearing. “That is what I’m doing, that is what Senator Cornyn is doing, and that is what I think the American people want more of.”

Mr. Trump has said Mr. Cornyn never had a problem with the fund until he was primaried. The president has continued to praise the fund, including as recently as Monday.

Sens. Cornyn and Tillis forced the administration to state in writing that the fund is permanently dead, making it politically challenging if they were to try to resurrect it at a later date. The statement also narrows Mr. Trump’s immunity from IRS audits, clarifying that his immunity only applies retroactively.

The Monitor asked a dozen other Republican senators, including two other members of the Judiciary Committee, what they thought about the deal. All declined to comment except Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who said, “It’s all about getting reelected up here,” and that he supported the anti-weaponization fund.

The deal has come under criticism by Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who say it’s not legally binding. They say Mr. Blanche did not rescind Mr. Trump’s original settlement, and the administration could still create a separate fund to accomplish virtually the same goals.

Mr. Cornyn told reporters, “It was the best we could do in these circumstances.”

The fund was part of a settlement Mr. Trump reached with the IRS after an agency contractor leaked his and his elder sons’ confidential tax returns.

The idea received strong bipartisan backlash, particularly because of the possibility it could be used to pay those convicted of crimes committed during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. In June, less than a month after it was announced, Mr. Blanche said during congressional testimony that the fund was dead.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

That didn’t satisfy Sens. Cornyn and Tillis, whose votes Mr. Blanche needed for his nomination to advance. They wanted confirmation in writing, and received it just days before the vote.

The date of the full Senate vote was not set as of Tuesday.

Politics watchers have a nickname for a group of lame-duck senators in Congress: the “YOLO caucus,” using the acronym “You Only Live Once” to imply that these senators are more emboldened now that they have little to lose.

Their pushback stands out in a Republican Party whose members rarely oppose President Donald Trump’s administration. In recent weeks, Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina bottled up Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general while demanding an end to the administration’s planned $1.8 billion fund to pay people who claim the Justice Department has been “weaponized” against them.

Hours after voting yes in committee to help send acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate, Mr. Cornyn rejected the “YOLO” label.

Why We Wrote This

Two GOP senators who are leaving office temporarily withheld their approval of President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general over concerns with an administration policy. It might be a sign that Republicans without an election to worry about feel more free to disagree with this president.

“I don’t think you can explain everything up here based on personalities,” Mr. Cornyn, who lost his primary in May, said during an interview. “This was strictly based on concern about the merits of the arrangement. So, it’s not about payback, it’s not about YOLO.”

During a public meeting before the Judiciary Committee vote, Mr. Tillis, who is retiring, also spoke about principle as opposed to feeling freer to express his views without having to align with the administration or the Republican caucus.

“Instead of criticizing people on the other side of the aisle, why don’t you go back and hold your own conference to a higher standard?” said Mr. Tillis at Tuesday’s hearing. “That is what I’m doing, that is what Senator Cornyn is doing, and that is what I think the American people want more of.”

Mr. Trump has said Mr. Cornyn never had a problem with the fund until he was primaried. The president has continued to praise the fund, including as recently as Monday.

Sens. Cornyn and Tillis forced the administration to state in writing that the fund is permanently dead, making it politically challenging if they were to try to resurrect it at a later date. The statement also narrows Mr. Trump’s immunity from IRS audits, clarifying that his immunity only applies retroactively.

The Monitor asked a dozen other Republican senators, including two other members of the Judiciary Committee, what they thought about the deal. All declined to comment except Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who said, “It’s all about getting reelected up here,” and that he supported the anti-weaponization fund.

The deal has come under criticism by Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who say it’s not legally binding. They say Mr. Blanche did not rescind Mr. Trump’s original settlement, and the administration could still create a separate fund to accomplish virtually the same goals.

Mr. Cornyn told reporters, “It was the best we could do in these circumstances.”

The fund was part of a settlement Mr. Trump reached with the IRS after an agency contractor leaked his and his elder sons’ confidential tax returns.

The idea received strong bipartisan backlash, particularly because of the possibility it could be used to pay those convicted of crimes committed during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. In June, less than a month after it was announced, Mr. Blanche said during congressional testimony that the fund was dead.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

That didn’t satisfy Sens. Cornyn and Tillis, whose votes Mr. Blanche needed for his nomination to advance. They wanted confirmation in writing, and received it just days before the vote.

The date of the full Senate vote was not set as of Tuesday.

A credit card company returns $114 million to consumers to settle allegations that it violated federal law. A few months later, a large retailer is banned from making unsubstantiated claims about a product it is selling. Most Americans never think about who makes these outcomes possible. But behind both results is the Federal Trade Commission, one of several independent regulatory agencies designed to make decisions without political considerations.

William Kovacic, the FTC’s chairman at the time of both these actions in 2008 and 2009, says the president’s longtime inability to fire commissioners allowed board members to choose what they believed to be “the best policies for the nation.”

Over time, Congress has created dozens of independent or quasi-independent agencies, meant to stay insulated from day-to-day presidential influence. The contours of how that autonomy works in practice have now become less clear after a Supreme Court ruling in June striking down a nearly century-old precedent that had protected leaders of independent agencies from at-will firing.

Why We Wrote This

The Supreme Court’s June ruling in Trump v. Slaughter could shift the balance between presidential control and agency autonomy, legal scholars say.

Ten days after the ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, President Donald Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan federal commission that advises states on best practices for helping Americans to participate in voting.

To many legal scholars, the court’s ruling and Mr. Trump’s dismissals are about more than removal protections. They are about who should wield power in a democracy – and how accountability, transparency, and expertise factor into decisions affecting Americans’ everyday lives. As a result of the court’s decision, scholars are predicting a shift in balance between presidential control and agency independence.

“The debate about independent agencies is really a debate about whether or not we can remove certain kinds of decisions from politics and have it be based on expertise,” says David Lewis, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University.

What are independent regulatory agencies, and why did Congress create them?

Independent agencies refer to executive branch organizations insulated in some ways from direct presidential control. They include the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees Wall Street, and the Federal Communications Commission, which ensures accessible radio, TV, and satellite communications.

Congress created agencies outside the president’s Cabinet-level departments because it believed some decisions should be guided by specialized, apolitical knowledge and continuity, rather than the priorities of a single administration.

Certain protocols isolate these government functions from presidents’ hands-on control. Fixed and staggered terms created continuity. Multimember bipartisan boards allowed for diverse perspectives. And, until recently, for-cause removal protections restricted outside political pressures.

Presidents have long used their power in some way to achieve political ends in these parts of the federal government, says Mr. Kovacic, the former FTC chairman. The debate has never been about complete independence versus complete presidential control, but rather about where to draw the line.

What is the constitutional debate over independent agencies?

For generations, Americans have debated where the balance lies between presidential control and independent expertise within the executive branch. Each side of the debate argues they are bettering democracy.

In Trump v. Slaughter, a majority of justices agreed with the logic that democracy is strongest when agencies are accountable to the president, as the nation’s elected representative.

This argument is backed by the unitary executive theory, developed by conservative lawyers in the 1980s. The theory posits that the president holds exclusive authority, including unrestricted removal power, over the entire executive branch.

Supporters point to Article 2 of the Constitution, in which “the executive power” is “vested in a President,” and criticize the growth of what they call unaccountable career bureaucrats, who oversee sizable agencies with considerable regulatory power.

With the elected president in control of the entire executive branch, “the people have a greater say now in the way the laws are carried out,” says John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a proponent of the unitary executive theory.

Peter Shane, a constitutional law professor at New York University, disagrees with the Supreme Court’s Slaughter ruling equating presidential accountability with democratic accountability.

“No president can personally embody all of the positions of the majority of voters on every single issue facing the executive branch,” says Professor Shane.

What does the future hold for independent agencies?

Scholars predict the impact of Trump v. Slaughter will likely spread far beyond the Trump administration. Presidents who support agency independence might use their expanded removal powers to keep pace with their predecessors or to satisfy demands from their political base.

Perpetual removal and replacement of agency heads of the opposing party would significantly increase policy fluctuation, says Vanderbilt’s Dr. Lewis, author of the 2003 book “Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design.” He predicts that today’s polarized political climate will only augment this cycle. Businesses are some of the most vulnerable to this “policy flip-flopping,” he says.

Many critics believe the elimination of removal protections will decrease agency expertise. This might be a result of insufficient time to develop technical skills, commissioners nominated for their loyalty to the president, or a decrease in specialists joining the agency in fear of being fired. These analysts fear agencies will become more ideologically homogeneous and their decisions more politically driven.

Terry Moe, a professor emeritus of political science at Stanford University, predicts that Mr. Trump will continue to appoint officials who prioritize loyalty to him over legal requirements and professional standards.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“Really what this amounts to is that there won’t be any independent agencies anymore,” Dr. Moe says.

Mr. Yoo sees the positive outcomes of the case. Citizens will not only have greater influence over the president’s execution of laws, Professor Yoo says, but the government will also become “more transparent and more accountable.”

A credit card company returns $114 million to consumers to settle allegations that it violated federal law. A few months later, a large retailer is banned from making unsubstantiated claims about a product it is selling. Most Americans never think about who makes these outcomes possible. But behind both results is the Federal Trade Commission, one of several independent regulatory agencies designed to make decisions without political considerations.

William Kovacic, the FTC’s chairman at the time of both these actions in 2008 and 2009, says the president’s longtime inability to fire commissioners allowed board members to choose what they believed to be “the best policies for the nation.”

Over time, Congress has created dozens of independent or quasi-independent agencies, meant to stay insulated from day-to-day presidential influence. The contours of how that autonomy works in practice have now become less clear after a Supreme Court ruling in June striking down a nearly century-old precedent that had protected leaders of independent agencies from at-will firing.

Why We Wrote This

The Supreme Court’s June ruling in Trump v. Slaughter could shift the balance between presidential control and agency autonomy, legal scholars say.

Ten days after the ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, President Donald Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan federal commission that advises states on best practices for helping Americans to participate in voting.

To many legal scholars, the court’s ruling and Mr. Trump’s dismissals are about more than removal protections. They are about who should wield power in a democracy – and how accountability, transparency, and expertise factor into decisions affecting Americans’ everyday lives. As a result of the court’s decision, scholars are predicting a shift in balance between presidential control and agency independence.

“The debate about independent agencies is really a debate about whether or not we can remove certain kinds of decisions from politics and have it be based on expertise,” says David Lewis, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University.

What are independent regulatory agencies, and why did Congress create them?

Independent agencies refer to executive branch organizations insulated in some ways from direct presidential control. They include the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees Wall Street, and the Federal Communications Commission, which ensures accessible radio, TV, and satellite communications.

Congress created agencies outside the president’s Cabinet-level departments because it believed some decisions should be guided by specialized, apolitical knowledge and continuity, rather than the priorities of a single administration.

Certain protocols isolate these government functions from presidents’ hands-on control. Fixed and staggered terms created continuity. Multimember bipartisan boards allowed for diverse perspectives. And, until recently, for-cause removal protections restricted outside political pressures.

Presidents have long used their power in some way to achieve political ends in these parts of the federal government, says Mr. Kovacic, the former FTC chairman. The debate has never been about complete independence versus complete presidential control, but rather about where to draw the line.

What is the constitutional debate over independent agencies?

For generations, Americans have debated where the balance lies between presidential control and independent expertise within the executive branch. Each side of the debate argues they are bettering democracy.

In Trump v. Slaughter, a majority of justices agreed with the logic that democracy is strongest when agencies are accountable to the president, as the nation’s elected representative.

This argument is backed by the unitary executive theory, developed by conservative lawyers in the 1980s. The theory posits that the president holds exclusive authority, including unrestricted removal power, over the entire executive branch.

Supporters point to Article 2 of the Constitution, in which “the executive power” is “vested in a President,” and criticize the growth of what they call unaccountable career bureaucrats, who oversee sizable agencies with considerable regulatory power.

With the elected president in control of the entire executive branch, “the people have a greater say now in the way the laws are carried out,” says John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a proponent of the unitary executive theory.

Peter Shane, a constitutional law professor at New York University, disagrees with the Supreme Court’s Slaughter ruling equating presidential accountability with democratic accountability.

“No president can personally embody all of the positions of the majority of voters on every single issue facing the executive branch,” says Professor Shane.

What does the future hold for independent agencies?

Scholars predict the impact of Trump v. Slaughter will likely spread far beyond the Trump administration. Presidents who support agency independence might use their expanded removal powers to keep pace with their predecessors or to satisfy demands from their political base.

Perpetual removal and replacement of agency heads of the opposing party would significantly increase policy fluctuation, says Vanderbilt’s Dr. Lewis, author of the 2003 book “Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design.” He predicts that today’s polarized political climate will only augment this cycle. Businesses are some of the most vulnerable to this “policy flip-flopping,” he says.

Many critics believe the elimination of removal protections will decrease agency expertise. This might be a result of insufficient time to develop technical skills, commissioners nominated for their loyalty to the president, or a decrease in specialists joining the agency in fear of being fired. These analysts fear agencies will become more ideologically homogeneous and their decisions more politically driven.

Terry Moe, a professor emeritus of political science at Stanford University, predicts that Mr. Trump will continue to appoint officials who prioritize loyalty to him over legal requirements and professional standards.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“Really what this amounts to is that there won’t be any independent agencies anymore,” Dr. Moe says.

Mr. Yoo sees the positive outcomes of the case. Citizens will not only have greater influence over the president’s execution of laws, Professor Yoo says, but the government will also become “more transparent and more accountable.”

Congress usually doesn’t tackle funding the government until it absolutely has to. But with the prospect of another shutdown looming ahead of November’s midterm elections, Senate Republicans are risking their own – and President Donald Trump’s – major priorities to address that funding months ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline.

Sharp partisan divisions on issues such as the Iran war mean some members are already predicting a budget impasse before the new fiscal year begins in October. That could trigger the fourth government shutdown of Mr. Trump’s second term. Two of those shutdowns were prolonged, and polls show more Americans blamed Republicans than Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune wants to avoid a shutdown. On Tuesday, the South Dakota Republican said he will postpone progress on a major bill House Republicans just advanced until the Senate can figure out a way to temporarily keep the government afloat through the fall. That means Congress wouldn’t address long-term funding until after the midterms, in which Democrats are favored to retake the House and have a small but real shot at the Senate.

Why We Wrote This

There have been three federal government shutdowns during President Donald Trump’s second term. The potential for a fourth this fall is driving Senate Republicans’ political strategy months ahead of the budget deadline.

Mr. Thune’s strategy puts the two key issues in the House Republicans’ bill framework – emergency Iran war funding and Mr. Trump’s demands for tighter election integrity measures – on hold for at least the next month.

His action underscores how the growing frequency of government shutdown fights is driving changes in how Capitol Hill operates when it comes to one of Congress’ most important functions each year: funding the government.

Republicans have a majority in both chambers, and they have a tiny window to get their remaining priorities passed before the midterms threaten to change the dynamics of power. Prioritizing government funding so early could make that window even smaller.

“We’ve got to start now,” says Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, on the need to pass temporary funding. “We can’t wait till the end of the day, because [Democrats are] not going to pass it.”

Republican priorities stalled

House Republicans Wednesday advanced a framework for a bill that would allot $73 billion for the Iran war, $10 billion for election integrity, and $12 billion for farmers. They’re moving it forward through a special process known as reconciliation, which would allow Republicans to skirt a Senate filibuster and pass their policies without Democratic support.

But Majority Leader Thune’s announcement means the bill almost certainly won’t advance before Congress takes its monthlong August recess.

Mr. Thune says he hopes to negotiate with Democrats to pass a bipartisan, temporary extension of current government funding levels, known as a continuing resolution, or CR, through the fall. If the Senate can’t achieve that, though, he has floated a procedural maneuver that would use the House’s reconciliation bill to pass that extension – meaning, if successful, that Republicans would fund the entire government, at least for a few months, without Democratic buy-in.

The deadline for Congress to pass government funding is the end of September – and shutdowns, when they happen, often take place in October. This year, Republicans appear wary of a potential shutdown the month before elections that could put Democrats in control of at least one chamber.

“[Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer and the Democrats want to shut the government down,” says Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. “They want to inflict the maximum pain on the voters before Election Day because they think they get a political benefit from it.”

Not every Republican welcomes Mr. Thune’s approach. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told the Monitor on Wednesday that he’s afraid Republicans will waste valuable time negotiating with Democrats on a bipartisan funding extension that will never come to fruition, given the pressure he says Mr. Schumer is under from his party not to cooperate.

“If I were king for a day, [reconciliation is] all I would do,” he said.

Shutdown politics

Lengthy government shutdowns are becoming more common. In 2013, during the Obama administration, the government shut down for 16 days. The first Trump administration saw a record-breaking 35-day stoppage, which was exceeded by another record-breaking 43-day shutdown last year.

In a poll conducted by Ipsos last November, Americans were more likely to say that Republicans in Congress were to blame for the 2025 shutdown than Democrats. Republicans were also blamed for a 76-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

Both Republicans and Democrats lament the fact that coming to an agreement to fund the government has become so challenging.

“When you move to CRs, then you start using reconciliation for budgeting, and it really distorts the whole process,” says Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “We need to go back and make regular order ... more common.”

Democrat Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia expressed a similar dislike of short-term funding extensions on Monday, even as he said he was considering whether to vote for one.

“I wish we didn’t budget this way,” he said.

Democrats are divided on whether to help Republicans pass temporary funding. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters this week that she would “of course” be interested in working with Republicans on a bipartisan continuing resolution.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

At least three Democratic senators the Monitor spoke to on Wednesday said they would need to see what was in the continuing resolution before making a decision. Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock said it would be preferable to “a party-line exercise like reconciliation.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said an early CR would be “fine,” but that she wanted to hear what the administration’s plan was to end the war in Iran.

Staff writer Victoria Hoffmann contributed reporting for this story.

Congress usually doesn’t tackle funding the government until it absolutely has to. But with the prospect of another shutdown looming ahead of November’s midterm elections, Senate Republicans are risking their own – and President Donald Trump’s – major priorities to address that funding months ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline.

Sharp partisan divisions on issues such as the Iran war mean some members are already predicting a budget impasse before the new fiscal year begins in October. That could trigger the fourth government shutdown of Mr. Trump’s second term. Two of those shutdowns were prolonged, and polls show more Americans blamed Republicans than Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune wants to avoid a shutdown. On Tuesday, the South Dakota Republican said he will postpone progress on a major bill House Republicans just advanced until the Senate can figure out a way to temporarily keep the government afloat through the fall. That means Congress wouldn’t address long-term funding until after the midterms, in which Democrats are favored to retake the House and have a small but real shot at the Senate.

Why We Wrote This

There have been three federal government shutdowns during President Donald Trump’s second term. The potential for a fourth this fall is driving Senate Republicans’ political strategy months ahead of the budget deadline.

Mr. Thune’s strategy puts the two key issues in the House Republicans’ bill framework – emergency Iran war funding and Mr. Trump’s demands for tighter election integrity measures – on hold for at least the next month.

His action underscores how the growing frequency of government shutdown fights is driving changes in how Capitol Hill operates when it comes to one of Congress’ most important functions each year: funding the government.

Republicans have a majority in both chambers, and they have a tiny window to get their remaining priorities passed before the midterms threaten to change the dynamics of power. Prioritizing government funding so early could make that window even smaller.

“We’ve got to start now,” says Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, on the need to pass temporary funding. “We can’t wait till the end of the day, because [Democrats are] not going to pass it.”

Republican priorities stalled

House Republicans Wednesday advanced a framework for a bill that would allot $73 billion for the Iran war, $10 billion for election integrity, and $12 billion for farmers. They’re moving it forward through a special process known as reconciliation, which would allow Republicans to skirt a Senate filibuster and pass their policies without Democratic support.

But Majority Leader Thune’s announcement means the bill almost certainly won’t advance before Congress takes its monthlong August recess.

Mr. Thune says he hopes to negotiate with Democrats to pass a bipartisan, temporary extension of current government funding levels, known as a continuing resolution, or CR, through the fall. If the Senate can’t achieve that, though, he has floated a procedural maneuver that would use the House’s reconciliation bill to pass that extension – meaning, if successful, that Republicans would fund the entire government, at least for a few months, without Democratic buy-in.

The deadline for Congress to pass government funding is the end of September – and shutdowns, when they happen, often take place in October. This year, Republicans appear wary of a potential shutdown the month before elections that could put Democrats in control of at least one chamber.

“[Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer and the Democrats want to shut the government down,” says Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. “They want to inflict the maximum pain on the voters before Election Day because they think they get a political benefit from it.”

Not every Republican welcomes Mr. Thune’s approach. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told the Monitor on Wednesday that he’s afraid Republicans will waste valuable time negotiating with Democrats on a bipartisan funding extension that will never come to fruition, given the pressure he says Mr. Schumer is under from his party not to cooperate.

“If I were king for a day, [reconciliation is] all I would do,” he said.

Shutdown politics

Lengthy government shutdowns are becoming more common. In 2013, during the Obama administration, the government shut down for 16 days. The first Trump administration saw a record-breaking 35-day stoppage, which was exceeded by another record-breaking 43-day shutdown last year.

In a poll conducted by Ipsos last November, Americans were more likely to say that Republicans in Congress were to blame for the 2025 shutdown than Democrats. Republicans were also blamed for a 76-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

Both Republicans and Democrats lament the fact that coming to an agreement to fund the government has become so challenging.

“When you move to CRs, then you start using reconciliation for budgeting, and it really distorts the whole process,” says Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “We need to go back and make regular order ... more common.”

Democrat Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia expressed a similar dislike of short-term funding extensions on Monday, even as he said he was considering whether to vote for one.

“I wish we didn’t budget this way,” he said.

Democrats are divided on whether to help Republicans pass temporary funding. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters this week that she would “of course” be interested in working with Republicans on a bipartisan continuing resolution.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

At least three Democratic senators the Monitor spoke to on Wednesday said they would need to see what was in the continuing resolution before making a decision. Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock said it would be preferable to “a party-line exercise like reconciliation.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said an early CR would be “fine,” but that she wanted to hear what the administration’s plan was to end the war in Iran.

Staff writer Victoria Hoffmann contributed reporting for this story.

As part of his pressure campaign to get Congress and states to make changes to election administration, President Donald Trump is preparing to give a primetime address on Thursday, in which, according to news reports, he will present newly declassified intelligence related to the 2020 election.

Mr. Trump has long claimed fraud and irregularities made Joe Biden’s victory illegitimate, despite a lack of evidence to support those assertions. Reports suggest that the president’s speech could include allegations that China interfered in U.S. elections.

Federal investigators have concluded that foreign manipulation had no practical impact on the 2020 election, and numerous state election audits found no evidence of the voter fraud or voting machine failure alleged by Mr. Trump.

Why We Wrote This

President Donald Trump has kept election security a front-burner issue since his loss in 2020, though his claims of fraud have been disproved. He is again elevating the issue ahead of this year’s midterms, which could see Democrats regain control of at least one chamber of Congress.

Several election observers say it’s unlikely the information Mr. Trump discusses on Thursday will reveal anything that wasn’t already known in January 2021, when Mr. Trump was still in his first term.

“I expect most of this to be just declassified versions of stuff we already knew publicly,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said on a call with reporters Wednesday.

More broadly, Mr. Becker and others say they are concerned that Mr. Trump is undermining voter confidence in the integrity of elections, as the nation is gearing up for the fall midterms, in which Democrats could win control of one or both houses of Congress. And they underscore that U.S. elections are more secure than they’ve ever been.

“The states are doing an incredible job of running elections right now,” Mr. Becker said. “They’re going to continue doing a great job, regardless of whether in deep red states or deep blue states, run by Republicans or Democrats.”

No evidence of manipulation

President Trump has long argued that voting machines can be hacked by foreign rivals. But the allegations have not been proved.

Following the 2020 election, Mr. Trump and his allies alleged that Dominion Voting Systems machines deleted millions of Trump votes or switched them to Mr. Biden. Supporters of Mr. Trump claimed a reporting error in Antrim County, Michigan, was evidence that Dominion’s machines could secretly switch votes. But state and federal investigators concluded that Dominion software did not alter ballots or vote totals, and the error in Antrim County resulted from human mistakes, ballot-design changes, and mismatched software configuration.

Trump allies made a wide range of other claims regarding voting machines. They alleged that Dominion was connected to Smartmatic, another voting machine company, and that the machines were vulnerable to manipulation. In all cases, investigators found no evidence of fraud or malfeasance by election officials or of manipulation by foreign powers.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency concluded in December 2020 that there was no evidence of tampering with voting machines, and that the claims themselves were “intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of US elections.” This report was issued while President Trump was still in office.

On April 18, 2023, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787 million in a defamation lawsuit, avoiding a trial that would have exposed how the cable-news giant had promoted false claims about the 2020 presidential election.

Still, the Trump administration has continued to look for evidence of tampering or fraud. In May 2025, a team led by then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard seized voting machines in Puerto Rico and claimed to have found “cyber security and operational deployment practices that pose a significant risk to U.S. elections.” Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, and its citizens cannot cast votes in presidential elections. In January 2026, FBI agents executed a search warrant at the election office of Fulton County, Georgia, seizing boxes of ballots from the 2020 election.

On July 9, President Trump ousted the three remaining board members of the Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan federal commission that develops election administration guidance and helps states comply with federal voting law.

Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University, says, “Elections are really more robust and more secure than they’ve ever been.”

That doesn’t mean hacking is impossible, he says. “There are still some technical weaknesses in U.S. election systems that, if exploited under some circumstances in some jurisdictions, could alter an election outcome potentially.” But to date, “there is no evidence whatsoever that any U.S. election outcome has ever actually been changed through technical tampering.”

What have states done to enhance election security?

Since 2020, nearly every state has enacted laws to improve election security and address vulnerabilities.

All 50 states now require some form of postelection audit. Georgia, for instance, codified statewide risk-limiting audits, which use randomly selected hand-counted ballots to affirm the accuracy of vote counts. Many states have improved their systems for updating voter lists, with New Jersey, for example, requiring enhanced review of death notices two months prior to elections to remove deceased people from voter rolls.

On technology, many states revamped their rules on election infrastructure, prohibiting voting systems from connecting to the internet, enhancing testing before elections, and requiring stronger password management and physical security standards for equipment.

And many states have strengthened chain-of-custody procedures for the transfer of ballot documents from one person or place to the next.

While Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen praised the Trump administration’s direction for the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agencies to aid his state in removing “half a million ineligible voters from our voter files,” other states say the administration is attempting to overreach the federal government’s powers under the Constitution.

“The courts have been clear time and time again: states run elections, not the federal government,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a July 6 statement. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s secretary of state, added in her own July 6 statement that her state’s elections are “transparent, accurate, accessible, and secure. And while the U.S. Department of Justice continues to pursue baseless allegations to confuse voters about those facts, we welcome anyone who wants to – in compliance with the law – observe Michigan’s elections process.”

How are states and the Trump administration at odds?

The president’s speech Thursday also comes after his administration filed some 30 lawsuits against state election officials demanding voter registration rolls, and followed up with a letter earlier this month to all 50 states, reminding state officials they could be prosecuted if they allow undocumented immigrants to vote in elections. To date, federal judges have dismissed 15 of those lawsuits; the rest are pending.

Among the latest cases to be dismissed was a lawsuit against West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner on July 14. In a statement, Mr. Warner, a Republican, said the decision affirmed his state’s position to follow the law preventing disclosure of “sensitive personal information.”

Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, also a Republican, is being sued for refusing to hand over confidential data. On July 7, he was one of 50 secretaries of state who received a letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, warning that state officials could be prosecuted if they don’t follow federal law.

On July 10, the state's Republican attorney general, Raúl Labrador, responded, suggesting that Justice “stop threatening your friends in Idaho. Idaho is fully committed to supporting President Trump’s goal of ensuring that only US citizens are registered and actually vote in Idaho.”

Mr. McGrane says in an interview that Idaho’s procedures are “exactly in line with a lot of what you see the president and others wanting to see happen.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Even so, Mr. McGrane says Idaho values its independence and the principle of local control over elections. “We want to be able to share what we’re doing and best practices, but also always want to have control of our own destiny,” he says.

– Olivia Fletcher, Emily Staunton, and Donald Keough contributed reporting for this story.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Associated Press, National Public Radio, USA Today, Reuters, The Heritage Foundation, The Center for Election Innovation & Research, The Brookings Institution, Willamette Week, NBC News