Connect with us

Politics

Column: A president who won't tell the truth about California may unfairly punish the state

Published

on

Column: A president who won't tell the truth about California may unfairly punish the state

California has a problem with its elections.

Not the way they’re conducted or administered, though there’s certainly room for improvement.

The problem is with a certain pouty president who can’t get over the fact California voters just aren’t that into him.

Donald Trump lost the state by a whopping 4.2 million votes in 2016. He nursed his bruised ego by suggesting the result was tainted by “millions and millions” of fraudulent ballots — even though there’s zero evidence supporting that claim.

In November, Trump won back the White House, but still lost California by nearly 3.2 million votes. Not exactly a nail-biter, but definitely better than his showings in 2016 and 2020. Apparently, though, a gold star for progress wasn’t enough to boost our needy president’s self-esteem.

Advertisement

“I think we would’ve won the state of California,” Trump told supporters at a post-inauguration celebration, “if the state had stronger voter identification laws.” Another assertion that’s not remotely grounded in reality, but Trump’s gonna Trump.

Yes, it’s grown tiresome. But all that whining could be written off as just more gaseous venting had the president not threatened to withhold desperately needed aid to fire-ravaged Southern California.

“I have a condition,” he told reporters before touring the charred remains of Pacific Palisades: Voter ID legislation to remedy what Trump falsely described as “a very corrupt” state election system.

(He also reiterated his demand that California change its water policies, but maybe that’s been solved by the troops Trump supposedly sent to turn on the water flow from the Pacific Northwest. There were no troops and there is no such flow, but whatever.)

Predictably, House Speaker Mike Johnson chimed in with his own false election claims, asserting that Republicans lost three California House seats in November because of vote-counting chicanery. “Inexcusable,” he huffed, echoing Trump’s suggestion there may be political terms for wildfire relief.

Advertisement

There is so much wrong with those kinds of threats, including the fact they’re morally reprehensible and utterly without precedent in the American annals of natural disaster — that is, until Trump came along. But we’ll save those lamentations for another day.

There’s also a great deal that Trump, Johnson and their California-bashing allies get wrong about the integrity of the state’s election system.

For starters, repeated nationwide studies have shown that voter fraud “is vanishingly rare and voter impersonation is nearly nonexistent,” as the Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy think tank at New York University, has noted.

That leaves us — let’s quickly do the math — millions and millions shy of the supposedly fraudulent votes that tipped California away from Trump.

As for the state’s notoriously prolonged vote-counting process, it may be a source of vexation. (Including to many within the state.) But there’s nothing nefarious going on there, either.

Advertisement

Over the years, California lawmakers have enacted policies aimed at encouraging the greatest voter turnout possible, which is a commendable goal in a representative democracy. Once votes are cast, the state makes every effort to ensure they’re properly tabulated. And there are a great many to be counted. The number of presidential ballots cast in California last November — nearly 16 million — exceeds the population of all but four states.

It takes time to ensure that each of those ballots is legitimate. (That’s how you prevent fraud.)

That may require verifying an individual’s address or checking his or her signature against the one on file. Or shipping a mail ballot that was dropped off at the wrong location to the county where it should have been cast.

A considerable number of provisional ballots also need to be processed. For instance, if someone shows up at the wrong polling place they are allowed to cast a ballot, which then must be scrutinized.

All those steps hold up the final count, which, unfortunately, has invited disingenuous claims about vote-switching and stolen House seats. There is a straightforward, perfectly innocent reason why Democratic candidates sometimes pull ahead after trailing in early returns: Election day balloting has skewed Republican in recent years while mail ballots, which are counted later, have tended to favor Democrats.

Advertisement

If you want quicker results, the state should shell out more money to pay for it. Counties are responsible for tabulating ballots, but get nothing from Sacramento for that responsibility. Let the state pay to hire more staffers. Also, lawmakers could do more to help election offices in rural California, which are cash-starved compared with those in big urban areas.

Another change worth considering: Would shifting from county-managed voter registration databases to a state-managed system boost efficiency?

Those are all relatively small modifications, however, in a system that needs no major overhaul.

“For eight years, Trump has cried wolf, pushing claims attacking the integrity of California’s elections,” Sen. Alex Padilla, the state’s former elections chief, said in an email. “There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud and Trump’s actions are an attempt to sow distrust in California’s elections because he doesn’t like the results.”

It’s said, quite rightly, that elections have consequences. So does lying about elections.

Advertisement

Bogus claims only serve to undercut faith in our democratic process and insult the many people working diligently to ensure the honesty and efficiency of our election system. They do so under increasingly stressful and sometimes dangerous conditions.

There’s no harm considering whether things can be done better.

But not by holding hostage tens of thousands of people whose lives have been devastated by wildfire. “They deserve support from their president,” Padilla rightly stated, rather than “political gamesmanship.”

And not by seeking needless fixes for a nonexistent problem conjured up by a president who’s not just a sore loser but a sore winner, as well.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending