Stories

Browse major news stories and see what officials have said.

Sep 23, 2026

ProPublica Reports the FBI's Anti-Corruption Squad Was Circling Susan Collins Over a Defense Contractor's $150,000 to Her Super PAC — Until Trump Returned and the Probe Was Dropped — Collins Calls It "Clearly a Political Hit Job," John Thune Blames "a Left-Wing Outlet," and Her Democratic Opponent Says "This Is Corruption of the Highest Order"

On September 22, 2026, ProPublica reported that an FBI public-corruption squad had been seeking approval by late 2024 to open a wider bribery investigation touching Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), built on previously undisclosed FBI interviews with Martin Kao, the former CEO of Hawaii defense contractor Navatek, who is serving an 87-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2022 to illegal campaign contributions and fraud. Kao told agents that after a November 2019 meeting with the head of the pro-Collins super PAC, who allegedly asked for $500,000, he routed $150,000 to the PAC through a shell company, and that Collins had committed to steering Navy research contracts to the company. According to ProPublica, the inquiry was abandoned after Trump returned to office and FBI Director Kash Patel removed the agents and dismantled the unit handling it. Collins, who faces Democrat Troy Jackson in one of the most competitive Senate races of the midterms, denies any wrongdoing, noting that the Biden Justice Department found none in 2021, and blamed the report on Chuck Schumer. The FBI said the allegations "had already been investigated by the FBI years ago and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins' campaign." The New York Times separately reported that agents had found little to corroborate Kao's claims.

“[Thune called the report a] political hit job by a left-wing outlet. … I don't think there's ever been any implication that she or her campaign were in any way implicated in that.”
John Thune (R-SD) · Sep 23, 2026

Sep 20, 2026· Updated

Trump Promises Every Adult Citizen a $5,000 "Dividend" — but Only if Republicans Keep the House and Senate — and Within a Day a Republican Senator Is Drafting the Bill, a Republican Congressman Is Asking Who Pays for "Well Over $1 Trillion," and a Democratic Governor Calls Him the "Briber in Chief"

Closing the first night of the Republican Party's midterm convention in Dallas on September 9, 2026, President Trump promised to send every adult US citizen a $5,000 "dividend" — explicitly conditioned on Republicans holding both the House and the Senate in the November 3 midterms. "If the Republicans win, you win with us," he told the crowd, framing the payment as the kind of cash distribution "a successful company will do" for its shareholders, and saying at least part of it would come from tariff revenue. Independent estimates put the cost between $1.15 trillion and $1.35 trillion, and the pledge drew pushback from both parties within hours. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) said he would have a bill ready to pass "immediately after the November 3rd election." Vice President JD Vance narrowed the offer in a Fox News interview, suggesting wealthy Americans would not qualify and pointing to tariff collections as the funding source. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) publicly asked how the administration intended to pay for it, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) mocked the figure outright. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) accused the president of making himself the "briber in chief," noting that the $2,000 tariff rebates Trump promised in November 2025 never arrived. Federal law makes it a crime to offer or make a payment to induce someone to vote for or against a candidate, and legal commentators raised that statute immediately.

“It's absolutely inflationary. If Joe Biden had proposed that, conservatives would have been all against it. … [I]f the government borrows money, it's going to drive up how much somebody pays for their mortgage, for their car note, perhaps for their credit card.”
Bill Cassidy (R-LA) · Sep 20, 2026

A Progressive State Senator Beats Roughly $5 Million in AIPAC-Aligned Spending to Win Eric Swalwell’s Old Seat — and Aisha Wahab Becomes the First Afghan American Elected to Congress

The Associated Press called California's 14th District special election for state Sen. Aisha Wahab on Thursday, August 20, 2026, two days after polls closed, with Wahab leading fellow Democrat Melissa Hernandez 53 percent to 47 percent with more than 95 percent of the vote counted. Wahab will serve the remainder of former Rep. Eric Swalwell's term, which runs through January 2027; Swalwell resigned in April 2026 amid sexual misconduct allegations he denies. Wahab becomes the first Afghan American elected to the U.S. Congress. She had already been the first Afghan American to hold elected office in the United States, winning a Hayward City Council seat in 2018, and the first Muslim woman and first Afghan American in the California Legislature. The race drew unusually heavy outside money for a special election. The United Democracy Project, the super PAC aligned with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spent roughly $2.5 million against Wahab in the final weeks alone, with reported totals across AIPAC-aligned entities running to about $5 million or more. Wahab, who has called Israel's conduct in Gaza a genocide and supports ending U.S. military aid to Israel, made the spending itself a campaign issue and described the advertising as "$5m of lies." Hernandez, the president of the BART Board of Directors and a former mayor of Dublin, conceded and said she hopes for a different outcome in November, when the two are set to face each other again for the full two-year term under a newly redistricted map. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) congratulated Wahab on what he called a "decisive victory." Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Pete Aguilar had earlier lobbied Wahab against running.

“Congratulations Aisha Wahab on your decisive victory. I look forward to working with you on Medicare for All, a living wage, and ending the war in Iran.”
Ro Khanna (D-CA) · Aug 21, 2026

Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Coordinated Party Campaign Spending (NRSC v. FEC)

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC that the federal cap on "coordinated party expenditures" — how much political parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates — violates the First Amendment. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that the Watergate-era limit in the Federal Election Campaign Act unconstitutionally restricts core political speech, and the Court overruled its 2001 decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, warning the ruling lets party committees act as a conduit for large donors to evade contribution limits. The decision allows national and state party committees to spend unlimited sums coordinated with candidates, reshaping the 2026 midterms and beyond.

“A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”
Donald Trump (R-FL) · Jun 30, 2026