High energy prices, an unpopular war, and frustration with the economy are hammering Republicans across the country in competitive races. 

But they have at least one more card to play: the trans card.

Republican groups, including Elon Musk’s America PAC, are spending millions to fund a blizzard of trans-focused attack ads against Democrats, focusing specifically on a few controversial sub-issues where conservatives believe public opinion is in their favor.

The ads accuse Democrats of supporting taxpayer-funded “sex change surgeries for children,” of wanting to “let biological men enter girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms,” and of letting “men play in girls’ sports.”

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz summed up the message pithily in an X post to a disillusioned Republican, writing: “Bro we need your vote. I hate the war too. But the Democrats want to trans your kids.”

This rhetoric has been commonplace for years in Republican ads and stump speeches. What Democrats are doing this time, though, is more notable.

In 2024, Kamala Harris chose to ignore attacks like these, hoping voters simply wouldn’t find them relevant (“Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you,” an infamous ad claimed). But Harris’s defeat convinced many Democrats that they needed a different approach. So they’re pushing back, in public statements and, especially, in their own response ads. In some cases, they’re adopting more conservative positions, in others more conservative rhetoric, and still others have tried to accuse their opponents of misleading voters with culture-war pandering. 

These moves by high-profile Democrats are being closely watched by partisan strategists looking for a way to win, and supporters of transgender rights, who are anxious about just how much Democrats might concede and who might be hurt in the process. In conversations with people working on campaigns and in advocacy this week, the question of how, exactly, the candidates should handle the wave of well-funded attacks is intensely controversial. 

“I think many of them are still working out how to respond in a way that is persuasive to swing voters and also protective of transgender kids,” Lanae Erickson of the center-left group Third Way told me.

The question of how Democrats respond to trans rights is, in many ways, a bellwether for deeper questions within the party. How far does the party’s longtime commitment to expanding rights extend, how much do Democrats actually disagree on the underlying substantive issues, and just how far do the outer reaches of the party’s big tent extend? 

In a year where Democrats have the rare chance to push deeper into conservative territory than perhaps any time in the last decade, some have urged battleground candidates to concede whatever is necessary to local sensibilities, while others have raised concerns that certain Democrats have been going too far — for instance, in referring to trans women or girls as “men” or “boys,” as several candidates have done.

Some candidates, Jessica Arons of the ACLU told me, have been “piling on and echoing the conservative talking points, so they sound indistinguishable from their opponents.” She added: “I think that is the wrong thing to do both morally and strategically.”

The implications are broader than just what ads get run. Trans advocates had been tremendously successful at winning the Democratic Party to their cause; now, some fear that if breaking from activists is shown to be effective, then more and more in the party will do it — which would put the future of trans rights in further jeopardy.

What Democrats are saying in response to these attacks

While polls show most of the US public believes trans people should have equal rights and nondiscrimination protections, in recent years there’s been a backlash focusing on particular issues involving children or traditionally sex-segregated spheres of activity. 

On these topics — medical interventions for children who want to transition, and trans athletes in girls’ or women’s sports or locker rooms — the positions of trans activists are more controversial, and poll badly. Naturally, Republicans overwhelmingly focus on these as their most promising lines of attack against Democrats.

One way candidates are responding this year is, basically, to dispute the premise — call the attacks an irrelevant distraction, and to change the subject back to the economy. That’s what Sherrod Brown, running for Senate in Ohio, tried in one recent ad. “With everything going on, that’s what they’re talking about?” one voter in the ad says. Then another is shown saying: “In Ohio, it’s against the law to perform transgender surgeries on kids” — a statement of fact, rather than one about Brown’s own opinion on the topic.

Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for governor of Texas, tried a variation on this approach — by making a joke. A recent ad of hers says that her opponents call her “too woke” but that she thinks working people are “too broke,” and closes with: “I’m Gina Hinojosa. My pronouns are mom, Texan, and soon-to-be-governor.”

Supporters of this approach argue that it can work because polls show voters care about issues like the economy far more than trans issues. It’s a way to stick to topics where Democrats largely agree, both with each other and often with swing voters, without overly antagonizing vulnerable coalition members (though some transgender Texans did express concern about Hinojosa’s ad).

Some Democrats argue, though, that it doesn’t directly answer the doubts voters may have after so many Republican attacks. Like it or not, they say, voters in red states especially do have real policy differences with national Democrats, who have often signed onto far-reaching antidiscrimination bills that touch on related issues. These voters may fear Democratic candidates will be beholden to their base’s demands if they’re elected.

So at the other end of the spectrum are Democratic candidates — often in red states and districts — who are now saying they don’t actually support the most unpopular parts of the trans rights agenda, and using language that’s anathema to trans rights supporters.

“No, I don’t want kids getting surgeries to change genders, or men in girls’ bathrooms,” Mary Peltola, running for Senate in Alaska, said in one ad. 

Mom found the ad she called me about yesterday

— 🐴 Jam 🍂 Comms open! (@wyrdlittleguy.bsky.social) 2026-09-20T08:32:16.901Z

“I oppose letting men in women’s locker rooms,” said Sarah Trone Garriott, running for a congressional seat in Iowa, in an ad of her own.

“I don’t believe that biological males should compete against females in sports,” Josh Turek, running for Senate in Iowa, told reporters this summer.

“I voted with Republicans to keep transgender ideology out of our schools, because parents know what’s best for our kids,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur, running for reelection in Ohio, said in an ad, adding: “And boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

#OH09

Medium Buying: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) is out with a new ad

“I voted with Republicans to keep transgender ideology out of our schools because parents know what’s best for their kids… and boys should not play in girls’ sports.” pic.twitter.com/pdfQCwN7ns

— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) September 17, 2026

In addition to the actual policy positions, some trans rights supporters find the choice of language here disturbing. To them, the use of terms like “men,” “boys,” and “biological males” in such ads is an ominous rejection of one of the fundamental trans rights principles: that trans women are women and should be recognized as such.

Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee for governor of Ohio, said this summer that she did not support “boys playing in girls’ sports,” earning backlash from local activists that her campaign struggled to address.

Journalist Erin Reed, who has covered this topic quite closely on her Substack Erin in the Morning, has said that she advocates for “withholding your vote from the leading anti-trans Dems, the ones calling us biological males and/or declaring they will be in favor of healthcare restrictions.” Reed’s fear is that, if such tactics are shown to be effective, more and more Democrats will opportunistically turn against trans causes.

Other supporters of trans rights, though, argue that the stakes of this election for trans rights specifically are enormously high, and that Republican victories would mean far worse policies on the causes they care about. They argue Democrats should be judged on what they do, not what they feel they need to say to get elected in a state run by Republicans who’ve already pursued or enacted policies targeting trans people’s access to healthcare. 

“I personally would have trouble pulling the lever for a candidate calling me a biological male,” Ari Drennen, founder of the messaging firm Pink and Blue Strategies, told me. “That said, I think elections are fundamentally a choice between two candidates. And very often, the Democrat will have better positions on trans issues than the Republican.”

Can James Talarico find a middle ground?

In between those two poles — changing the subject and rejecting pro-trans positions on certain issues — some have pointed to James Talarico, the Democratic Senate nominee in Texas, for trying to stake out a middle ground.

Gender has been a major issue in Talarico’s race, with attack ads heavily featuring his past comments that “God is non-binary” and that there were at least six genders. (He said more recently that those comments were “cringey” and “missed the mark,” and that there are “two sexes” plus “a small percentage of people with genetic abnormalities.”)

Gillian Branstetter of the ACLU wrote on Substack that, while “multiple Democratic candidates have sought to separate themselves from transgender people and our rights,” Talarico has done so “more gently than others.”

For instance, this month, Talarico told Fox News: “I oppose trans athletes playing in girls’ sports if it endangers safety or fairness.”

That’s not a blanket ban, and it uses more sensitive language. For that, Drennen gave Talarico some credit: “He talked about ‘trans athletes.’ He didn’t say, ‘I don’t like boys in girls’ sports,’ or ‘I don’t want men in women’s sports.’” 

In the same Fox interview, Talarico said that he would support a national ban on trans surgeries for minors. But Branstetter wrote that such surgeries are “already vanishingly rare.”

“Talarico’s position on surgery is consistent with where Andy Beshear was in 2023. Beshear is often spoken of in our community as an example of how to support trans people as a red state politician,” Drennen told me. She also argued that “Ken Paxton is one of the most extreme anti-trans politicians in the entire country.”

Reed, however, characterized Talarico as an “anti-trans Democrat” on her Substack, arguing that surgery bans “can include top surgery for older teens as well as hormone pellet implants” (a therapy in which hormones are placed under the skin), which are more common than the more controversial and rare bottom surgeries that come up in political debates. 

Arons of the ACLU told me that Talarico’s comments were “kind of a Rorschach test. Some people are going to think that’s still harmful, that it contributes to stigma, and that it might be an indication of how he will vote. Others are going to see it as maybe a smart, savvy political thing to say, and are going to care more about how he votes than how he talks about it.”

Of course, fudging the issue can only work for so long. If Talarico and these other candidates win, they’ll have to take stands, take votes, and develop records on the substance of these issues eventually. And many advocates are still optimistic that, when they do, they’ll stand with trans rights.

“I think Democrats are committed to being the truly most trans-affirming party within our peer countries,” Tré Easton, vice president of the center-left Searchlight Institute, told me. “And in order to lay claim to that mantle, they’re going to have to navigate this hard moment. But I think a lot of people are committed to making sure that this gets done right.”

When the AI apocalypse becomes regular dinner-table conversation, you know we’ve reached the freakout stage. Rogue AI agents are hacking into competitors. Former Big Tech employees are posting Skynet-style warnings on social media. CEOs are crying for help in ways that have made this once-wonky tech issue a frontline political fight. 

I still think many of the concerns outlined by the AI leaders themselves are massively self-serving — especially when their companies are soon to go public. But the growing list of AI scandals is real. And it tells us that the status quo for regulating this powerful new technology is not working.

The question now on everyone’s mind: Is any kind of global brake possible? What form of AI safety regime is practical, over the short term, when there is no trust between major governments? And what could possibly work when companies are loath to give up their secret sauce and are bent on domination in the global AI race?

Two major conversations are now playing out, in real time. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington for a three-day summit — part of which will be dedicated to AI risks. The same day, with the United Nations meeting for its annual General Assembly, heads of the world’s leading AI companies urged the UN to police the emerging technology, or risk potentially wiping out humanity. “We could lose control of the future to AI,” OpenAI’s boss, Sam Altman, bluntly told the UN’s Security Council.

Confronted with this collective freakout, it’s time to take a long, deep breath. 

In fact, AI safety has been on a lot of policymakers’ minds for years now, gaining momentum after ChatGPT was introduced in 2022. Governments have held hearings, convened expert groups, and drafted their own outlines of how to keep it under control. These weren’t just idle listening exercises. They aren’t all well known to the wider public, but they yielded real plans.

Barring any breakthroughs this week, we already have a quasi-planetary shield against the potentially runaway technology. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that it’s not really up and running yet. It’s also not clear whether it will actually work. So what is it — and how can we fix it so we have a global system that responds in time to deal with the incredibly fast-moving threats from AI?

What the global AI patchwork looks like now

For the last four years, the most tech-savvy nations — and would-be AI leaders — have been running serious conversations about this exact AI safety threat. Some are in Congress and the White House; some at the UN, at the G7, and in other capitals.

I’ve been covering this closely as a global technology journalist, from my current perch at a think tank. Here’s what the landscape looks like:

• There are national AI safety and security institutes, government-funded bodies whose job it is to kick the tires of AI companies’ latest products before they are let loose into the wild. 
• There are also voluntary commitments by companies, many of which have made their own pledges or developed joint standards, to protect elections from AI threats, stop the spread of AI-fueled deepfake imagery, and joint government-corporate efforts to bake safety into how the technology develops.
• At the international level, there’s a G7-led reporting mechanism — embraced by the most important Western tech nations that allows AI giants to share how they are building their latest models, as well as create standards for how to reduce catastrophic risks.
• An international scientific report provides a yearly update on risks posed by the most advanced AI systems, based on existing research, to help governments plan for the worst. 

What’s missing from all that?  What we currently lack — and what is needed between now and the end of 2026 — is a way to turn this cottage industry of AI safety mechanisms into a functioning, but crude, first-responder system when things suddenly go wrong. 

The last four years have laid out a pathway, and some of the necessary systems even exist. But there’s no way to respond globally, and in real time, when an AI crisis hits — especially if such a possibly doomsday event cuts across countries already skeptical of each other.

This week’s US-China summit may be a step in the right direction. Under proposals outlined by American officials, Washington and Beijing could set up a hotline between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in case of an AI incident affected each country’s national security. 

It’s still unclear if Trump’s meeting with Xi will lead to such progress. Chinese officials also have balked at Washington’s pleas for AI rules because, so far, Congress has failed to act, and China already has some of the world’s most stringent AI oversight.

For AI to be “safe,” this conversation will need to go beyond this week’s US-China summit. Relying just on Washington and Beijing — arguably the most important AI powers — would not solve the underlying problems, nor would it make other countries feel more comfortable.

What we need next, so it really saves us

I’ve been talking to AI safety experts and government officials, and it’s clear the missing piece is a way to activate this whole system in a crisis. Countries don’t all have to have the same AI safety policies, and they never will. But as with nuclear weapons — a similarly high-threat technology that the world found a way to contain — safety requires a rough global agreement on how to respond quickly when something goes terribly wrong.

What’s needed right now is a 90-day, opt-in rapid response mechanism that joins existing pieces of the AI safety puzzle together. I’ve pieced together some ideas about how it should work, and who needs to sign on. Granted, none of what I outline below is sufficient. But, together, they are more plausible than trying to negotiate a comprehensive global regime — let alone arrange another AI summit — while Washington, Beijing, and other national capitals disagree over what “AI safety” actually means.

All of these options are based on existing mechanisms, are derived from efforts that have worked in other policy areas, and provide a band-aid to the AI safety dilemma until a more durable solution can be negotiated.

• First, developers, AI safety institutes, and regulators, from across different countries, should agree that when an incident occurs, it triggers a specific Chernobyl-style protocol. That would mean submitting a confidential report within a 72-hour period to a national designated responder and a small technical secretariat. It can build on the OECD’s AI Incidents Monitor, lead to a technical, multi-stakeholder confidential investigation into what went wrong, and, subsequently, the publication of an anonymized lessons-learned note.
• Second, governments and developers can agree to publish common declarations related to safeguards, residual risks, escalation thresholds, and independent auditing before the release or upgrading of a next-generation model. It would use the G7 Hiroshima AI Process reporting framework as its base, and turn the current hodgepodge of corporate safety declarations and voluntary standards into a common minimum disclosure obligation. View it as similar to the collective bank stress tests after the 2008 global financial crisis. It can allow outsiders to truly compare models’ safety protocols without putting someone in charge of determining which company is doing it best.
• Third, create a Cold War-style US-China AI safety hotline — but see it as an initial step that can later be opened to other countries. There are good reasons, in the long term, that Washington and Beijing should not be allowed to rule artificial intelligence between them, and the rest of the world should have a real seat at the table. But for now those are the two “great powers” in the tech conversation, and we can set that philosophical argument aside to create a standing, technically-informed direct line of communication for acute AI-risk incidents. Its remit is inherently narrow: prevent dangerous misunderstandings linked to serious model incidents, AI-enabled cyberattacks and/or alleged breaches of agreed safety commitments.

There are obvious limits to what I describe above. For one, it’s an inherently Western-centric view that primarily discounts global majority countries. It also places too much sway on existing institutions like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as on the US-China relationship. Other countries’ officials will legitimately balk at all three options, and rightly so.

But this is not about creating a vague, unenforceable UN-led mandate for AI safety. Nor is it about corralling the geopolitical cats to hammer out a global AI treaty. The options — a collective safety protocol and incident reporting protocol; common pre-release standards; and a US-China AI safety hotline — are inherently short-term. They are also based on existing efforts and those that have worked successfully for other policy areas.

There will be time to quibble about the future of AI safety. But now is not that time. The latest AI models are moving faster than many had expected, tech bosses are worried their creations are already out of control, and the window for action may be smaller than we all think.  

What is required are practical steps to assuage people’s growing concerns amid heightened geopolitical tension, a lack of trust between governments and companies, and a need not to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: The media outlets President Donald Trump banned from the White House last week are back. 

What happened? Early on Thursday morning, a federal district court ruled that the White House had to immediately restore press credentials for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW and allow the outlets’ reporters back into the building. 

The White House did, eventually — but only after multiple reporters were rebuffed over the course of the morning. They were allowed back in around noon, nearly 11 hours after the court’s order.

What’s the context? Trump announced the short-lived ban last week on Friday afternoon, writing that outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES” while covering him. He also threatened that additional outlets could be added to the ban. 

Why did Trump want to ban journalists in the first place? Most recently, the White House line has been “national security”: On Monday, Trump accused reporters of “violat[ing] our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources.’” 

On Thursday, however, Judge Timothy Kelly, a first-term Trump appointee, wrote that the White House offered “little to back up their asserted national security interest.” (According to the media newsletter Status, one of the “unknown sources” the White House was complaining about was none other than Vice President JD Vance, speaking to reporters on a press call.)

Trump himself has also suggested a simpler motive: Last week, he told reporters that “it’s really just cumulative stories of the last two years. You get sick of it.”

Is this the end of the case? Not yet. Thursday’s ruling was only a temporary restraining order, good for 14 days max, and Kelly has said that he “intends to rule expeditiously” on a more durable preliminary injunction. Trump has already promised to appeal in the extremely likely outcome that the ruling also goes against him.

And with that, it’s time to log off…

I found this Washington Post article breaking down whether you should get a Covid booster shot this fall extremely useful, and you might too. 

Plus: Fat Bear Week is on, and it’s not too late to vote. You learn more and can meet some of the contestants here. 

Thanks for reading, have a great evening, and we’ll see you tomorrow!