The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires a president to obtain congressional authorization — or withdraw U.S. forces — within 60 days of notifying Congress that hostilities have begun. That deadline arrived on May 1, 2026, with Trump having sought no such authorization for the war with Iran he launched on February 28. Rather than comply, Trump wrote to congressional leaders claiming the hostilities had “terminated” — a claim his own administration contradicted by launching a new military operation. He also suggested the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional and said he would not seek authorization because it had never been sought “before” by other presidents — a claim that is flatly inaccurate.

The administration’s legal reasoning has shifted repeatedly. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the ceasefire “pauses or stops” the 60-day clock — a theory legal experts say the War Powers Resolution “does not accommodate.” Then, on May 4 — three days after declaring hostilities “terminated” — Trump launched “Project Freedom,” a new military operation deploying more than 100 aircraft and guided-missile destroyers to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran attacked U.S. forces and vessels the following day.

Some Republicans have broken with the administration on the question: Sen. Susan Collins stated that “the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in decisions of war and peace,” and Sen. Lisa Murkowski announced plans to introduce an authorization for use of military force when the Senate returns from recess on May 11. But most Republican lawmakers have deferred to the president, with House Speaker Mike Johnson claiming Congress does not need to act because the U.S. is “not at war.” The result is a president who has initiated, escalated, paused, and relaunched military force against a sovereign nation entirely on his own.

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, fundamentally rewriting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito narrowed the conditions under which voters can challenge racially discriminatory maps to require proof of intentional discrimination — a standard Congress deliberately did not write into the law and that is extraordinarily difficult to meet. Combined with the Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which barred federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering, Callais effectively removes judicial oversight from redistricting entirely. As Justice Kagan wrote in dissent, the decision renders “Section 2 all but a dead letter.”

The ruling immediately triggered a redistricting wave across the South. Louisiana suspended its May 16 primary — even as absentee ballots were already being cast — to allow the legislature to eliminate the majority-Black second congressional district it had been ordered to create. Alabama filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court to strike down its court-ordered maps the day after the ruling. Tennessee passed new maps, creating a map that eliminates the only Democrat-held seat in the state (it’s already being challenged in court). South Carolina, Mississippi, and other states have urged their legislatures to follow suit. At the same time, Virginia’s voter-approved redistricting effort, which was meant to counterweight Republican gerrymanders, was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court. This further tilts the playing field ahead of this year’s elections.

The consequences extend beyond the South. Callais compounds a mid-cycle redistricting wave — already unprecedented in modern history — that began in 2025 when multiple states redrew their maps. Analysts estimate the ruling could eventually help eliminate as many as 19 majority-minority seats. When map-drawers can predetermine electoral outcomes without meaningful judicial check, the act of voting itself is undermined.

In the days following a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the White House is trying to use the episode to renew pressure on ABC and its parent company Disney to dismiss late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. The controversy traces to a Thursday night sketch (days before the assassination attempt) on Jimmy Kimmel Live! in which Kimmel performed a mock host’s speech and joked that first lady Melania Trump had “a glow like an expectant widow.”

Both President Trump and the first lady suggested Kimmel should be fired. But most troublingly, Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, has also taken action against ABC in the days since Kimmel’s joke aired, formally calling for ABC to defend its license to broadcast. This is not an isolated incident. In September, ABC and two of the country’s largest TV station owners — Nexstar Media and Sinclair — suspended Kimmel’s show after Carr threatened affiliates following comments Kimmel made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Protect Democracy has been fighting back. Just this week, we filed a legal action in the D.C. Court of Appeals, seeking to force the FCC to respond to a formal petition filed last fall calling on the FCC to rescind the news distortion policy. The policy is one of the enforcement levers that Carr has abused to censor protected speech, and when the petition was filed, Carr responded by tweeting “How about no”. The petitioners behind this action include a bipartisan coalition of former FCC chairs, commissioners, and senior-level staff, joined by the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA). The stakes extend beyond one television host. As former Republican FCC Chairman and petitioner Mark Fowler warned, the government has no legitimate role in deciding what speech is acceptable.

On the evening of April 25, a gunman armed with multiple weapons charged a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton, where President Trump, Vice President Vance, and nearly the entire Cabinet were attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

While the investigation is ongoing, it appears that this may have been the third attempt on the president’s life in the last two years. A spate of killings, attacks, and threats against prominent figures in both parties underscores the enormous risks now inherent in American public life. Political violence against any public official is an unacceptable assault on democratic self-governance. When citizens use force to substitute for the ballot, they corrode the foundational premise of democracy, which is that political disagreements are settled through persuasion and elections, not intimidation and bloodshed.

Political leaders in a democracy have a responsibility to uphold norms of nonviolence and eschew inflammatory rhetoric. The president and those around him have not always met that standard. Trump has called his political adversaries “vermin” and blasted the press as “enemies of the people.” When he has been confronted with that language, the pattern has been consistent: a brief note of unity followed by a swift pivot to partisan attack. This time proved no different: within 24 hours, Trump argued in a 60 Minutes interview that peaceful protesters at No Kings rallies contributed to the attacker’s actions, treating constitutionally protected dissent as a precursor to violence. A president who condemns violence against himself while continuing to describe his opponents as enemies — and who treats peaceful protest as a gateway to terrorism — is not lowering the temperature.

It’s important to remember, too, that there are things we can do to lower the temperature:

• We can condemn political violence, regardless of whether it’s directed at figures we support or vehemently disagree with.
• We can intentionally avoid spreading false narratives, fueling conflict, or providing platforms to extremists.
• We can use legal tools to hold those accountable who spread dangerous misinformation, put others at risk, or threaten those engaged in the political process.

We can all collectively choose to obtain our information from trusted, official sources, avoiding the contentious and inaccurate information that often circulates online.

ICE has now formally set a target of 1 million deportations per year in its congressional budget justification. The pace of deportations reflects that ambition: through the first six months of fiscal year 2026, ICE carried out 234,236 removals — roughly 74% more than at the same point in either of the two prior years.

Meanwhile, the physical infrastructure of mass deportation keeps expanding. DHS is converting warehouse space across the country into mega-detention centers, including an 1.2 million-square-foot facility in Social Circle, Georgia — a town of 5,000 people — that could hold up to 10,000 detainees.

Most troublingly, the pattern of sweeping up U.S. citizens continues: a Denver-born U.S. citizen was deported to Mexico on April 7 after a traffic stop, according to a Univision journalist who contacted him directly, with Morales saying agents pressured him into signing voluntary removal papers out of fear of imprisonment. 

On April 21, 2026, the Trump Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on charges of wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering — rooted in the SPLC’s decades-long practice of paying confidential informants to infiltrate violent extremist groups, the same technique the FBI employs as a matter of course. House Judiciary Committee Democrats launched a formal inquiry on May 1, citing whistleblower disclosures that senior DOJ leadership ordered prosecutors to fast-track the case despite significant internal concerns about its weakness.

On May 6, the FBI raided the legislative office and cannabis business of Virginia state Senate President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas — the most powerful Democratic legislator in the Commonwealth. The raid is reportedly connected to a federal corruption investigation that sources say originated during the Biden administration. Lucas has not been charged with any crime.

The timing demands scrutiny. The raid came just two weeks after Virginia voters approved a redistricting referendum Lucas had championed — one Trump publicly denounced — and which could shift several U.S. House seats in 2026. The Eastern District of Virginia overseeing the probe has been subject to a sustained politicization effort: Trump installed his personal attorney as U.S. Attorney despite her lack of prosecutorial experience, before a federal judge ruled her appointment invalid. When judges named their own acting replacement, the administration fired that pick too. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones noted the district’s conduct had already “undermined public confidence” in the office, citing its failed prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James.

As the administration continues to perpetuate the Big Lie and spread misinformation about the midterms, the White House has installed election deniers in key offices across the federal government. This effort is gaining traction. A Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests that 46% of Americans believe there is widespread fraud in American elections. As efforts to seize ballots in states across the country indicate, the administration is determined to create an environment where misinformation about elections can thrive.

This misinformation is the groundwork for attempts to dispute the results of the election after the votes are counted. Elections in the United States remain free and fair, but we each have to do our part to keep them that way.