The United States Postal Service (USPS) on Friday issued a 95-page final rule that it plans to implement immediately if the government obtains relief from two existing injunctions. It would require USPS employees to verify that outbound federal ballot mailings comply with new envelope, barcode, and data-reporting requirements before accepting them from election officials.

The rule was designed to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order from March 31. It directs the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Social Security Administration, to compile and send lists of adult citizens in each state. Separately, it directs USPS to establish state-specific lists of people to whom election officials intend to send mail-in or absentee ballots, along with unique ballot-envelope identifiers.

A ​pair of court ‌orders blocks the rule from implementing the rule before midterm elections in November.

Read More: Trump’s Order Restricting Mail-In Voting Rebuked by States

About the two injunctions blocking Trump’s mail-in voting order 

Two injunctions bar USPS from implementing its new rule. They were issued by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani on June 25 and Aug. 11.  

What the June Injunction Covers

A coalition of 23 states, along with the District of Columbia, filed a lawsuit on April 3 seeking to block Trump’s executive order, arguing that the President does not have the authority to dictate state voting practices. 

In June, the presiding judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding two sections of the order unlawful and constitutionally invalid. It barred federal agencies from implementing those sections against plaintiff states and D.C. for elections held on or before Nov. 3. It also blocked USPS from refusing to transmit ballots based on whether voters appeared on the new state-specific lists.

What the August Injunction Covers

Voting-rights groups brought a separate lawsuit against the Trump Administration on April 2, claiming the executive order was unconstitutional, “dangerous,” and could disenfranchise eligible voters. It resulted in the August injunction, which bars USPS from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the executive order’s mail-voting provisions for any elections ahead of or on Nov. 3. It also prohibits USPS from completing the specified rulemaking for those elections.

Talwani wrote that the executive order was “causing confusion and threatening both increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy.” She also concluded that “the executive branch has no authority to regulate elections.”

Critics of the executive order have echoed that concern, saying that the Trump Administration is looking to force federal oversight on elections even though the duty is  enshrined to states and Congress in the Constitution. 

“Yesterday’s new mail-in voting rule is an attempt to weaponize USPS as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to take over elections,” Michael McNulty, the senior policy director for government-reform nonprofit Issue One, said in a statement Saturday. 

McNulty argues that the rule would shift postal workers “from neutral transporters of a state-led process to a federal gatekeeper of states’ outbound mail ballots.”

However, the USPS has asserted in the final rule that the requirements “do not amount to election administration, nor do they usurp state resources.”

“Rather, they regulate the use of the mail to improve operational efficiency and support the faithful execution of federal law,” it says within the rule.

Voting-rights groups challenge the USPS mail-in ballot rule

A coalition of voting-rights organizations has filed an emergency motion asking the federal district court to enforce its Aug. 11 injunction against USPS. The plaintiffs argue that issuing an immediately effective final rule, intended for possible use in November, violated the injunction.

USPS acknowledged that it would not implement the final rule for the 2026 election unless the government obtains relief from both injunctions. However, the coalition argued that USPS issued the rule in violation of the Aug. 11 injunction, without seeking a stay or filing an appeal.

It also said that USPS could have given the rule an effective date that falls after the 2026 midterms without violating the injunction, while the “immediate” effective date could sow “chaos” and “confusion” ahead of November. 

“Enforcement of the court’s preliminary injunction is necessary to hold this administration accountable for its unlawful action and make clear that voters can confidently cast their mail ballot free from federal interference this November,” said a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs, which includes the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, and the U.S. Vote Foundation. 

Postmaster General David Steiner defended the rule when it was proposed in June, saying at a Senate hearing that he “would think that states would want the information to ensure that the ballots that they think they’re sending out are the ballots that are actually getting sent out.”

TIME has reached out to USPS for comment.

In late July, the Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the June 25 injunction while its appeal proceeds. After Talwani issued the Aug. 11 injunction, the Administration urged the justices to address that second order as well through the pending proceeding—an approach the plaintiff states opposed. 

But unless the Aug. 11 injunction is separately stayed or lifted, or the Supreme Court expressly addresses it, it continues to bar USPS from implementing its new rule for the midterm elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump to continue construction on a new White House ballroom with a temporary stay issued Friday—just before the aboveground portion of the project was about to be halted.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a one-sentence order, stayed a federal district court judge’s injunction that barred further development. The move gives the full Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump Administration’s request to keep the injunction on hold while it seeks further review. However, there is no established timeline for when Roberts or the Court might take further action. 

The ruling comes after months of debate over a legal challenge brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that a President cannot unilaterally make a major, permanent change to federally owned property when Congress has not authorized it, pointing toward the Property Clause of the Constitution.

“We reiterated that the Administration has no unilateral legal authority—constitutional, statutory, or otherwise—to build a Ballroom on the site of the now-demolished East Wing, unless and until Congress expressly approves,” the National Trust for Historic Preservation said in a statement last week. “Each court that has reviewed this case has agreed with the National Trust. We hope the Supreme Court will uphold the rule of law by stopping this illegal project.”

Read More: What to Know About Trump’s Aide Natalie Harp

Trump reacted to the administrative stay on Truth Social on Friday, praising both the Supreme Court and Roberts, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2005. 

“We are grateful for the Decision of the United States Supreme Court,” Trump said. “The Military/Ballroom Complex being built on the hallowed grounds of the White House, which is so vital for National Security, will be THE GREATEST OF ITS KIND!”

Here’s what to know about the latest updates on the $400 million project.

How did the ballroom case reach the Supreme Court?

Two lower-court decisions brought the dispute before the Supreme Court.

First, Senior Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the National Trust was likely to succeed on its claim that the project required congressional approval, and he ruled in March that construction on the aboveground ballroom could not take place while litigation continued. He modified that preliminary injunction on April 16 to clarify that security-related work could continue if it is "strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House.”

The second decision came when the Trump Administration appealed, and a D.C. Circuit panel upheld the modified injunction. In its August ruling, it said that each President is a “temporary tenant, not the owner,” of the White House.

According to Kimberly Wehle, professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, the injunction is meant to ensure that the project does not advance while the courts review its legality, the limits of presidential authority, and whether it might cause irreparable harm. 

“The court is saying, ‘We just need to stop the bleeding right now, because if this continues, it'll just cause more harm,’” she tells TIME. 

The Trump Administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene through an emergency application, which is meant for urgent review of time-sensitive matters that fall outside of the typically months- or years-long case review timeline for the country’s highest court.

The case was put in front of Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals filed in the D.C. Circuit. 

That led to the administrative stay—a short-term order that freezes a lower court decision or deadline in order to buy time for a bench to review an emergency request. An administrative stay does not reflect a case’s merits or legality; it acts as an interim measure for a future ruling from Roberts or the Court.

In this case, it paused the preliminary injunction originally handed down by Leon. Therefore, the stop-work order was put aside for the time being, allowing construction to continue. 

"We are aware of the administrative stay," the National Trust tells TIME, in response to the latest developments. "To be clear, this is not a final decision on the merits of the government’s stay application, and we await further action.”

No court has issued a final ruling on the project’s legality. But next steps will likely include determining whether the renovation is two distinct projects—aboveground and below—or a singular build. 

Is Trump building a ballroom or a military complex?

Trump’s 90,000-square-foot construction project comprises a luxury ballroom—which is meant to host 650 seated guests—with an underground military complex beneath it, featuring “protective missile resistant steel columns, beams, drone proof roofing materials, and bullet, ballistic, and blast proof glass,” according to one court document. 

Lower courts treated the two components separately, finding that the National Trust was likely to establish that the aboveground ballroom required congressional approval while exempting underground security construction from the injunction.

In making his injunction determination, Leon said: “Defendants themselves distinguished between below-ground and above-ground construction, stating that ‘the below-surface work is driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction.’” 

Leon and the D.C. Circuit said the Administration had shifted from treating the components as independent to describing them as inseparable. The Administration disputes that characterization, saying the design became less flexible as construction progressed. It now argues that the entire project is integrated and that halting the aboveground work would compromise its structural integrity and security functions.

“Every day the President does not have access to the vital security features of the military complex presents unacceptable risk, no matter how long the Project takes to complete,” Solicitor General John Sauer argued in court filings last week. “Built with integrated engineering, the Project will provide in a very large way, a ‘safe room’ for the Presidency and the continuity of government.”

Presidents in the past have relied on the White House’s Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), which dates to World War II, as a safe room or bunker. The Administration has argued that the former East Wing’s security infrastructure had become vulnerable to modern threats, including drones and missiles, making the new construction urgent. 

In court documents, it claimed the former building “cannot protect guests against inclement weather, let alone high-powered weapons.” 

The White House in August shared AI-generated images of drones, military personnel, and vehicles on the roof of the ballroom. Trump has claimed that a “drone port” will feature a launching deck and defense station. 

He told reporters in March on Air Force One that the ballroom would become a “shed for what’s being built under” and that it would have its own security features, such as bulletproof glass.

Whether or not the two components are accepted as a single entity, from a legal standpoint, could determine the outcome of the outstanding emergency relief. 

Could construction outrun judicial review?

In Trump’s post on social media Friday, he said that construction of the ballroom “is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

The Administration claimed in its Aug. 13 application that 65% of construction was done. When the project was announced in 2025, the White House said that construction would be done “long before the end of President Trump’s term.” The Administration is now saying that the framework will be substantially complete by November, with the official completion date set for August 2028, according to appendixes to the emergency application that was submitted by the Trump Administration.

This raises the question of whether a majority of the structure could be completed before the litigation is resolved.

Lawyers for the National Trust accused the Trump Administration in a court filing earlier this month of “trying to outrun judicial review,” pointing to the Administration’s own assertion that the structure will soon be “virtually impossible to deconstruct.”

Wehle says that Roberts’s stay is “giving Trump exactly what he wants” by allowing him to get ever closer to the project’s completion while the courts assess whether he is breaking the law.

“This is the Supreme Court greenlighting unconstitutional, lawless behavior by the President,” Wehle says. She questions whether the President is being accommodated because it seemed like the project had gone too far and might be harder to undo at this point than to simply finish—especially when weighing the potential harm to the public in terms of cost, damage, and timeline.

But if that’s true, she asks, “What kind of precedent does that set?”

“That is a precedent that says the law is optional,” she explains. That could embolden a strategy of acting first and asking permission second, if at all. 

If the project were ultimately found unlawful after construction was substantially or entirely complete, the case could present unusual questions about what remedy remained available—including whether a court could order the structure altered, reverted, or removed.

Trade talks between the United States and Canada collapsed Friday. With President Donald Trump’s 50% tariffs taking effect the following day, Prime Minister Mark Carney quickly responded with retaliatory measures that go into effect in September.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent out guidance for importers saying that the tariffs, which Trump first announced last month, would go into effect Saturday. They impact about $20 billion of Canadian goods, including hockey sticks, building materials, clothing, beer, and cheese. 

Negotiators from both countries had worked for weeks to reach a trade deal, leading up to a three-day extension of the original tariff deadline. At the time, Trump suggested that an agreement had been reached, writing on Truth Social on Tuesday that he had “paused” the tariffs because the two countries “have a DEAL!”

But in a statement just before midnight on Friday, Carney said that “progress has not been enough to meet our objectives for Canadians.”

Read more: Trump Imposes 50% Tariff Hike on Canadian Goods

“As a result, this evening, I have decided to suspend trade negotiations with the U.S. and have directed Canada’s negotiators to return to Ottawa,” the Prime Minister said. He accused the Trump Administration of introducing last-minute changes to the deal that he said were “unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal.” 

Following the collapse of the negotiations, Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday and said that Canada “wants the benefits of being a State, without being one” and that it has “also charged our great farmers, for many years, massive amounts of Tariffs. No more!!!”

It’s unclear what Trump meant in his latest tirade, though the U.S. President has previously floated the idea of making Canada the U.S.’s 51st state.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on social media on Saturday that Canada had “declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week.”

“New demands and walk backs of other commitments by Canada have upended the careful balance reached in the past days,” Greer said. “This is a missed opportunity for Canada to partner with the United States.”

Carney vowed that the tariffs would not go unanswered. Speaking at a news conference Saturday, he announced dollar-for-dollar tariffs on U.S. goods.

“We ⁠cannot ​accept what they have offered, and ​we will not give what they have asked,” he said.

The retaliatory tariffs will touch U.S. sectors including steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics, and they will go into effect Sept. 8.

The growing rift between the U.S. and Canada

Polling conducted before the talks collapsed suggests that most Canadians supported taking a hard line in negotiations with the U.S.

An Angus Reid Institute poll from July found that 65% of Canadians say that their government should approach the U.S. either cautiously, as a potential threat, or as an enemy.

Reflecting similar sentiments, a Léger poll from this month showed that 56% of Canadian respondents want the federal government to make no further concessions to Washington in ongoing trade and tariff negotiations—compared to 31% who favor flexibility.

While the new import taxes will only apply to about 5% of what Canada ships to the U.S. each year, the breakdown in negotiations further fractures an already strained relationship between the two countries and their leaders.
Trump and Carney have taken swipes at each other since the U.S. President returned to office last January. 

After an article claimed that the country was in a “technical recession” this summer, Trump revived his call to make Canada the 51st state in the U.S.

Carney then mocked Trump at a housing policy event in Toronto on Aug. 5 when his teleprompter stopped working.

“Unlike a certain world leader, I do not view this as a conspiracy,” Carney told reporters, referencing Trump's claims of “sabotage” after a teleprompter malfunctioned during his address at the United Nations General Assembly last September.

Later that day, Trump called Canada’s leadership “nasty” during an event at Red Rock Casino Resort in Las Vegas as trade negotiations were ongoing.

"Yes, it's a tough negotiation,” Carney said in response. “You can change the adjective and say 'nasty,' but for ​Canada it's ​a question ⁠of Canadian jobs, it's a question of the future of Canadian enterprises.”

With negotiations suspended and matching tariffs on the way, the rift has moved beyond rhetoric into a widening trade war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is facing a major internal political challenge after a recently dismissed defense minister called for a wartime presidential election. But holding an election during an ongoing war would pose enormous legal and logistical challenges—and it may not be possible at all.

Ex-Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov's challenge comes amid an ongoing war with Russia. While Zelenskyy’s five-year term was scheduled to end in May 2024, elections have been suspended under martial law since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Fedorov posted a nine-minute video online Tuesday, demanding that Ukraine “restore a full democratic process even amid a prolonged war.”

Read More: Chalk One Up for Ukraine

“Democracy cannot be held hostage by Russia. We are fighting precisely because we want to remain a free European state,” Fedorov said. “We must find a legal, safe, and ‌realistic mechanism which will allow Ukraine to renew its full democratic process even in the conditions of ​a long war.”

Fedorov, 35, was a longtime ally of Zelenskyy before he was abruptly fired in July amid mounting friction with military leadership, and his departure sparked days of protests. On Wednesday, Yevhenii Khmara was confirmed as the new defense minister.

Although Fedorov did not mention Zelenskyy in the video, he issued a blistering critique of Ukrainian leadership, saying that the country is in a “systemic crisis of governance” and alluding to corruption. The accusation comes just after Zelenskyy fired deputy chief of staff Iryna Mudra on Wednesday amid a money-laundering investigation. 

This is not the first time that Zelenskyy has come under fire for the suspended elections. Last year, President Donald Trump attacked him as a “dictator without elections.” However, the Ukrainian President has steadfastly denied that he is using the war to cling to power and said he would be open to an election if it could be safely and securely held.

“I am now asking—and I am stating this openly—for the United States, possibly together with our European colleagues, to help me ensure security for holding elections,” he told reporters on WhatsApp at the end of 2025. He said there would need to be “guarantees” from the United States and Russia to ensure safe voting practices.

Zelenskyy had yet to respond to the comments from Fedorov as of Wednesday afternoon, but experts say it is unlikely that an election can take place in Ukraine.

What stands in the way of holding elections in Ukraine?

Historically, very few countries have held elections in wartime, Konstantin Sonin, a professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, tells TIME, adding that it's very unlikely for an election to happen in Ukraine.

A ceasefire would first be needed—but Sonin says it’s unlikely that Ukraine would trust any assurances from Russia.

“I cannot imagine that Ukraine would rely on any kind of guarantees from Russia to have elections,” Sonin tells TIME. “[Concerns about] Russian election interference are half of the problem.”

Sonin says that there are also many “practical limitations” to putting the necessary technology and infrastructure in place for a secure vote.

“The main limitation is that it's difficult to count votes from the occupied territories,” he says. 

Russia occupies roughly 19% of Ukraine. According to Ukrainian figures from January of that year, there could be as many as 4.5 million adults living in those occupied territories. Millions more Ukrainians have been internally displaced.

Who could challenge Zelenskyy?

It’s unlikely that any challenger would successfully unseat the Ukrainian President amid the ongoing war, Sonin says.

“Zelenskyy won elections in 2019, defeating the incumbent, and since then navigated an extremely complex terrain of Ukrainian politics,” he says. “He would defeat any other candidate.”

Sonin says in years past there were potential presidential alternatives—including General Valerii Zaluzhnyi—who might have been perceived as someone who could “prosecute the war better.”

Zaluzhnyi long held that he had no political ambitions; however, in July, Ukrainska Pravda reported that Zaluzhnyi told Zelenskyy he would run if elections were held in the fall, citing sources close to both men. Sources told the outlet that Zaluzhnyi had changed his mind because he didn’t want to disregard the trust that people had placed in him.

“Ukraine is not losing, and there is so much hope,” Sonin says. “I do not see how Zelenskyy would not win these elections.”

Recent polling, however, complicates Sonin’s assessment. SOCIS, a polling firm, found that Zelenskyy would finish first in the first round in an election against Fedorov, Zaluzhnyi, and Kyrylo Budanov—the current chief of staff for the President, who has not publicly expressed any intention to run. Zelenskyy would capture 22% of the vote as compared with Zaluzhnyi’s 21% and Fedorov’s 13%. 

Because none of the candidates would command the majority, which is required in Ukraine, the top two contenders would move on to a runoff election. And if the vote did reach a second round, the poll projected a loss for Zelenskyy. He ranked behind Fedorov, Zaluzhnyi, and Budanov in the prospective runoff modeled by SOCIS.

Recent developments in the war could also shift those political dynamics. In the past few weeks, Ukraine has expanded its aerial war against Russia. It started ramping up production of long-range missiles that can travel up to 1,500 miles (2,400 km) from the border and has already targeted several key retail and energy hubs in and around Moscow.

According to Ukrainian media, Zelenskyy’s approval rating has dipped since the war started, but still remains close to 60%.

Florida Rep. Cory Mills, the incumbent representing the state’s 7th District, lost his Republican primary on Tuesday to former TV anchor Ryan Elijah after a controversial campaign for a third term in Congress.

President Donald Trump notably gave Mills his “Complete and Total Endorsement” on Feb. 10, when he wrote a social media post describing the candidate as “an America First Patriot.” But it didn’t seem to outweigh ongoing allegations of sexual misconduct, accusations of mishandling campaign finances, and questions about his military record.

Read More: Trump Says Voters Are Angry With Republicans—But Not With Him. Here’s What Polls Show

“Whether [Mills] wants it to be or not, obviously the allegations against him have become the defining thing that people are talking about,” says Kevin Wagner, professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University.

“The president's endorsement is powerful,” he says, “but it doesn't prevent voters from making a calculation on what they think of him individually in that seat.”

The controversies that came to define Cory Mills’s campaign

Going into the primary, the latest polling showed Elijah with 44% of the vote, while 27% backed Mills and 19% remained undecided. That meant there was no assured winner heading into Tuesday, Wagner says, with the number of undecided voters suggesting a lot of “volatility” in the race.

Incumbents are often the strong frontrunners in re-election campaigns for Congress, but Mills has been embroiled in a string of scandals in the past year. Last October, there was a court-issued injunction against him after a former girlfriend accused Mills of threatening to release explicit videos of her. The judge found that the woman in question, Lindsay Langston, provided evidence in support of her claim that Mills caused "substantial emotional distress." He wrote in his ruling that he did not find Mills's "testimony concerning the intimate videos to be truthful." In a separate incident in February 2025, D.C. police responded to a report that Mills had assaulted a woman with whom he was in a relationship. The woman later retracted her account, according to Politico, and police did not charge Mills.

In November 2025, the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into Mills. Its review included allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as allegations that he may have "omitted or misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure statements." The Committee emphasized that the investigation itself did not indicate that any violation had occurred, and Mills has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Mills's military record also came under scrutiny when several veterans disputed the account provided in his recommendation for a Bronze Star, which he was awarded in 2021 for his actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. In 2025, five individuals who served with him claimed that they did not recall his presence at the incidents for which he was awarded the medal. According to NOTUS, Mills attributed the discrepancies to differing recollections amid the chaos of wartime.

His campaign was hurt further this month after two of his fellow incumbent lawmakers in the state, Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Mike Haridopolos, endorsed Elijah. Then, last week, Gov. Ron DeSantis told reporters that he does not support Mills.

“I have not endorsed Cory Mills and I do not support Cory Mills,” he said.

Trump also appeared to distance himself last week when he reposted endorsements for all of the Republicans up for election in Congress on Truth Social—except Mills.

What to know about Florida’s 7th District race in November

While the 7th District will likely stay red in November, attention is turning to how Florida’s redrawn congressional map could reshape its midterm races.

The new map, signed into law by DeSantis in May 2026, redrew 21 of the state’s 28 districts, looking to reduce the number of Democratic-leaning districts from eight to four—affecting Democratic incumbents like Kathy Castor in Tampa, as well as Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Jared Mokowitz in South Florida.

While District 7 was not radically redrawn, Aubrey Jewett, professor of political science at the University of Central Florida, says that since this new map favors Republicans, flipping the 7th District could help offset any losses elsewhere in the state.

Elijah will go up against Democratic candidate and military veteran Bale Dalton in November, who is endorsed by Pete Buttigieg. Jewett says Dalton could be a viable candidate.

And if Dalton were to win, he says: “That might help not only the Florida congressional delegation pick up a Democratic seat, but of course, yeah, maybe at the national level, might offset some of these losses that they're expecting.”

Current polling and election forecasts show that Democrats are favored to take back the majority in the House of Representatives in November, which would be consistent with an existing pattern where the sitting President’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections.