The city’s Hispanic majority, news media reach and air links to Latin America have made it an ideal base for politicians escaping their home countries.

© Ricardo Arduengo/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Disease is spreading among mink and cattle in a ‘completely preventable’ outbreak

Welcome to The Midterms, Actually. Every week I’ll be writing about two things: one big idea or trend I see forming across the 2026 primaries, and one thing I’m hearing from a voice on the ground. And be sure to check your inboxes this coming Wednesday for a special post-midterms edition! Let’s get into it.

One big idea: Talk of a blue wave makes it less likely 

We’re in the thick of what I’ve come to call the silly season of an election cycle. Just days out from November 3 — but weeks into early voting — this is often the time when predictions, analysis, and expectation setting from both parties gets laundered through the media; and is most disconnected from the data. Why? Reasons vary — but I mostly find it an effort to proactively explain the expected results. 

For example: in expectation of Democratic Party success, we’re seeing a wave of stories that preemptively explain how that support materialized and what implications it carries. Nate Silver declared on Ezra Klein’s podcast that next Tuesday could mark the “end of the Trump era” if Republicans perform as badly as the polls suggest. Democratic factions are already trying to claim credit for populist messages on corruption and affordability or moderation on cultural issues in red states that they expect to deliver big wins.

Surely, our reporting on America, Actually also speaks to the possibility of this result: We’ve tracked President Donald Trump’s unpopularity from the beginning of the year, when MAGA radio host John Fredericks said the administration’s handling of the Epstein files was ruining its credibility. We’ve gone to Trump’s UFC event in Washington, DC, where young men told us they’d turned on the president after the Iran war. We’ve been to a Speedway in a battleground district in Pennsylvania, where Trump’s own voters said the high price of gas felt like a betrayal from a president who promised to do the opposite. 

However, in this post, I wanted to consider one reason why we all could be making a familiar mistake. In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections there were similar expectations of an anti-Trump wave that never fully materialized, even as he lost that second run. And this isn’t just a criticism of the polls: Some of that overperformance, I suspect, has to do with Republicans’ electoral strategy. 

Let me explain: Fear has become Republicans’ one and only source of voter motivation. GOP candidates are not engaging in debates, virtually hiding from the campaign trail, and not really offering a competing vision against their Democratic opponents. They are simply seeking to scare voters about what a Democratic congressional voters may mean, whether it’s the recent freakout about Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s relatively tame promise about accountability for Trump’s enablers, or the rank Islamophobia we’re seeing deployed against Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, or the endless ads warning candidates will pursue some radical LGBTQ agenda.

Still, just because something is unseemly (or bigoted) doesn’t mean it’s not an effective electoral strategy, and it should be noted that conjuring up fears about women and minority candidates may be the oldest (and most successful) electioneering tactic in the book. And a big part of these attacks is an explicit or implied argument that, whatever you might think of the Republican or Democrat in an individual race, a big Democratic majority would have the power — and feel emboldened by their success — to go way further than you should be comfortable with for years to come.

Here’s what I’m saying: Over the years, I’ve found the No. 1 motivator of Republican voters on Election Day to be the expectation of a Democratic wave. That is, after months of coverage that focuses on Democrats leading the polls and issues with Republican unity and enthusiasm, the exact focus causes Republicans to, eventually, come out on Election Day. It’s not that the polls missed white working-class voters (though they sometimes do) or even that Republican signs of base dissatisfaction were wrong (plenty of them really were unhappy with Trump in 2016). It’s more that, for many GOP voters, dissatisfaction with their own party will usually be overcome by their disdain for their liberal opponents and a nervousness that they might change the country in ways that can’t be reversed later on. The Democratic base is often seeking inspiration; the GOP base is largely motivated by fear.

Here’s what John Fredericks, the radio host, told me for our upcoming episode about the GOP’s “final argument”: 

“These fake polls came out over the summer. Democrats are going to win. Democrats are going to win. Trump is down… It was like a fake news, fake poll, full court press that went on for months, that has now motivated MAGA voters out of fear to turn out.”

And to some degree — I believe him. To me, this is a clear reason why Republicans often outperform their low expectations. But it’s also a reason to step away from the takes of electoral silly season, especially with Election Day just around the corner. Voters can consider the issues themselves; there’s no need for constant speculation about the results that overly raises expectations for one side or panics the other.

We already have the scope of information we’ll get: Democrats are well-positioned to take back the House. They’ve expanded the map in the Senate elections and in governor’s races across the country. They’ve done so with a relentless focus on affordability and lowering prices, eschewing the talk of climate change and social issues for priorities that are more tangible to their base. 

But that doesn’t mean there’s a cakewalk to a blue wave. And if anything, the expectation of its arrival may make it more hard to accomplish.  

What I’m hearing

This week, we spoke with Mikella Schuettler, a Report for America corps member with the Associated Press in Arizona. She’s been covering how federal policy changes to benefits affect different communities, including refugees and other legal immigrants. 

You reported on refugees and other legal immigrants losing Medicaid coverage. Who is affected, and what have you heard from families about what losing that coverage means for them? 

My reporting focused on people including refugees, victims of human trafficking, and others who were granted legal asylum, pushed from Medicaid as a result of last year’s tax and spending reductions bill that Republicans often refer to as the One Big Beautiful Bill. Coverage has generally not been available to undocumented immigrants, but it’s been standard to offer legal immigrants, including those who are fleeing wars or genocide, healthcare coverage in order to support their entry into the country. 

I spoke to a family who entered the US on a T-visa, which is a special visa for victims of human trafficking. Their 17-year-old son got into a car accident five years ago and requires various machines and medications in order to survive, but without Medicaid coverage they won’t be able to pay for almost any of his care. When I spoke to them, they were unsure of how long he would be able to live. His mother told me she believed the Trump administration was attempting to make it so difficult for immigrants, even legal ones, to live in the US that people will self-deport. Though she understands this, she knows her son won’t survive traveling back to Mexico either. 

How are people finding out about these changes, and what options do they have when their coverage ends? 

In Arizona, people received letters in the mail anywhere from about two months to just days before their coverage was cut. Additionally, if people have somehow missed these letters (perhaps they haven’t updated their addresses), it’s possible they’ll only discover they’ve been cut when they go to receive care. If the state has accurately assessed a person’s immigration status, there is no opportunity to appeal the decision once cut. 

In Arizona, unlike many other states, the cuts also impacted some lawfully present children. 

I spoke to a single mother whose son has autism and was frustrated because she felt abandoned by the system with no way to appeal. Medicaid pays for a speech pathologist and some additional support after school, which allows her to work in a long-term care home. She received the notification that her son’s coverage was ending in the mail about a week before the deadline. At first, she told me she felt relieved because she knows all her immigration papers are in order. She was shocked to find even though she’s working, paying taxes, and legally entered the country, there was no way to appeal this decision.

In your reporting, are people connecting these changes to decisions in Washington? How, if at all, is that showing up in conversations about the midterms? 

None of the people I spoke to can vote in the federal election. However, I’ve spent the last week speaking to voters across Phoenix, and healthcare is a galvanizing topic for both Republicans and Democrats. Over the past few years, federal prosecutors in Arizona have found countless instances of people defrauding the Medicaid system, raking in millions of dollars to run addiction rehabilitation centers that either don’t exist or don’t provide the care they allege. This has really angered a lot of people and soured attitude towards the Medicaid system in general. 

At the same time, the stories I’ve heard from people who rely on coverage are indicative of what future cuts could look like. In January, states will implement various work requirements that are projected to force millions of US citizens off Medicaid, requiring them to prove employment before getting coverage again. These cuts coming down the pipeline after the midterms are also a major concern for voters in Arizona, who worry emergency rooms will be overrun by people who aren’t insured.  

Karl Bushby has walked 31,000 miles, crossing some of the world’s harshest landscapes. He plans to reach his mother’s house in England next week.

© Sam Bush for The New York Times

Mr. Cárdenas, the only son of a Mexican president, never won the office but became a leading figure in the country’s democratic transformation.

© Luis Barron/Eyepix, via Zuma, via Reuters

Ms. Huerta, a champion for workers and Latinos, revealed this year that she had been sexually assaulted by Cesar Chavez. But some women said she rebuffed their own complaints about abuse within the movement.

© Court Mast/Associated Press

She founded the United Farm Workers with Cesar Chavez. In early 2026, she told The Times that she had been raped by him decades earlier. She was 96.

© George Ballis/Take Stock/The Image Works, via PBS Distribution

Senator Darline Graham, the South Carolina Republican, is struggling to replicate her late brother’s success. Republicans lead in the Florida Senate race and Democrats are up in Minnesota.

© Jillian Vordick/The New York Times

The banking giant reminds customers that "you're responsible for activity" resulting from your AI agents' access.

Little known a year ago, she is a Democratic Socialist drawing comparisons to New York’s Zohran Mamdani. She has mounted a strong challenge to the incumbent, Karen Bass.

© Ariana Drehsler for The New York Times

The left says its populist message can attract moderates and conservatives in addition to liberals. That theory will be put to the test in a series of competitive races on Election Day.

© The New York Times

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s re-election ended a string of victories by right-wing candidates in Latin America. His opponent, Flávio Bolsonaro, fled Brazil for the United States.

© Amanda Perobelli/Reuters

The left says its populist message can attract moderates and conservatives in addition to liberals. That theory will be put to the test in a series of competitive races on Election Day.

© The New York Times

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva triumphed over Flávio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of the right-wing leader he defeated four years ago.

© Alexandre Schneider/Getty Images

They’re trying to build middle-class lives in New York. But many 30-year-olds in the city feel worse off than their parents. Is it average adult angst? Or something more enduring?

© Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the leftist incumbent, and Flávio Bolsonaro, the right-wing challenger, face off in a narrow race that could redefine the future of Latin America.

© Adriano Machado/Reuters

Election Day is almost here — but even after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the election won’t really be over. The vote count will take days or even weeks in some states. President Donald Trump seems certain to raise objections to results he doesn’t like — he’s already getting started in Alaska — and he has threatened to marshal the forces of the federal government in his efforts.

It’s an anxious moment for American voters: Will we have a free and fair election — or not? Luckily, says Eliza Sweren-Becker, deputy director in the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, there is still one thing that every American 18 and older can do to make sure their voice is heard: vote.

“I think that is the intent. It’s to create a lack of confidence. It’s to discourage voters from participating,” Sweren-Becker told Vox’s Astead Herndon on America, Actually. “But the only way that that campaign to undermine our confidence and to sow distrust actually works is if voters stay home. The way to defeat that attempt to shake voters’ trust in democracy is just to participate.”

Sweren-Becker spoke with Astead about what states could do to speed up their vote counts and ensure everyone has a chance to cast their ballot, the need to restore the Voting Rights Act, and the long-term impact of Trump’s election denialism.

Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

Let’s start with Election Day. More than a dozen states count late-arriving ballots. President Donald Trump has used the shifting vote counts as pretense to further his own election interference claims.

How prepared should folks be for a long wait in November for results? And how that could impact confidence in the results?

You’re absolutely right that we may get results out of states or in certain races in the days following Election Day. Voters should not expect to have the final result on Election Day.

And when you hear reporting on the news that somebody’s ahead or somebody’s behind, remember: They haven’t counted all the votes yet.

The critical thing is we need to count every vote, and every person’s vote needs to be counted.

So while it is true that some states allow ballots to arrive after Election Day, they all have to be cast by Election Day. The Supreme Court just this year said that it’s totally appropriate for states to set their own ballot receipt deadlines. We have to be patient, as an American electorate, to get the proper results to count every ballot and make sure all the voices are heard.

But isn’t it kinda wild that we can’t get results on election night? I saw Donald Trump cite the Brazilian presidential election, and while I know he’s doing that from a self-interested place, I did think for a second: Why does it take so long for us to put these results together?

I could totally understand why people would prefer the results faster. And candidly, could states do better at preparing and counting faster? Sure. But they have limited resources. They are working their butts off to prepare for the election with the staff that they have, and then they work tremendously hard to count properly, accurately, as fast as they can.

Could states change their policies to allow them, in some places, to pre-process ballots, to allow them to get to results faster? Sure. I’m not saying states shouldn’t change their policies to create more efficiency here. But given the rules of the road that we have, we need to make sure that every properly cast ballot is counted.

If I’m someone who is concerned about election security and free and fair elections, what should I be looking out for?

So, for example, I have heard that there is some anxiety about mail voting.

If you want to cast a mail ballot, just know that you probably have a bunch of options in your state as to how you can cast it. You can certainly rely on the mail and have USPS deliver that ballot, but of course, we know occasionally mail gets delayed. Your state may have ballot drop boxes. You may have ballot drop-off at election officials’ offices, or even at polling places.

Find out your options.

Yes, definitely find out your options. Voters should also check their voter registration status. Make sure it’s up to date with their current address. Of course, if you’re not registered to vote and you still have time in your state to register, please do register.

Everyone should participate. Our democracy works best the more of us that can participate. If your registration date has not passed, don’t forget to register to vote. Vote with your friends, vote with your community, vote with your family. Voting should be joyful. It’s a civic experience that I think is really fun.

I try to take my kids with me to vote because it’s exciting. They get stickers. Everyone loves stickers.

It’s half the reason I go.

It’s also a reminder. You get your sticker, other people see you, they know it’s Election Day, maybe they go out to vote.

It’s a way to be part of your community and invest in your community and to choose who you want to be a leader of your community.

What about after Election Day?

Earlier this year, Democrats and Republicans in Congress circulated a letter asking members to commit to recognizing state-certified winners and “oppose any attempt to refuse or delay a seating of a member-elect.” We saw House Speaker Mike Johnson delay the swearing-in of an Arizona representative last year,

That seems to me like maybe a preview of what might be to come. How fearful should we be of these post-election attempts to block members from being seated?

I think those scenarios are highly unlikely. I understand why folks are worried about them, but the reality is, states have their own certification processes, which are laid out in state law and that are mandatory for them to follow. It is not discretionary whether states certify their elections. So once there is a new Congress, we have confidence that they will be seated according to how the voters actually cast their ballots.

I want to end by thinking about Trump’s consistent questioning of the integrity of our election system. If he ultimately doesn’t try to actually steal the election, what is the long-term impact of his relentless focus on it and support for policies like the Save America Act?

Just because we have won in many courts against this administration doesn’t delude me into thinking that this administration is just going to stop in this years-long campaign to sow doubt in our election systems.

I think that is the intent. It’s to create a lack of confidence. It’s to discourage voters from participating. And to some degree, I think the administration has succeeded in creating some confusion about the rules or a lack of confidence. But the only way that that campaign to undermine our confidence and to sow distrust actually works is if voters stay home.

The way to defeat that attempt to shake voters’ trust in democracy is to participate in our democracy and to turn out and to make their voices heard regardless of party, regardless of candidate. To say that we will not be made to fear participation in our democracy, but we are going to continue to seize it and take joy in it and show that we deserve a stronger representative democracy that serves all Americans.

What are things that could happen to inspire trust in our electoral system? Are there reforms that you think might make the public feel a reinvigorated sense of confidence?

There are certainly things that Congress could do to create a national floor of voter access and ensure that someone’s right to vote doesn’t depend on what state they live in. That includes basic reforms like same-day registration, online voter registration, universal access to mail voting that doesn’t require strict satisfaction of certain excuse requirements, which still exists in many states.

I think it’s time for Congress to ban partisan gerrymandering. I also think it’s time to restore the Voting Rights Act, and Congress can enact a statutory right to vote that is meaningfully enforceable so that voters can go to court if their voting rights have been burdened, and they can get a real remedy.

That has been really undermined by the Supreme Court, but Congress can and should respond. They have it within their power. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set rules for elections. They should.

The 2026 midterms are less than two weeks away, which means we’ll soon have a better idea of what the next two years of American politics could look like. If Democrats win at least one chamber of Congress — and they’re comfortable favorites to control the House — they’ll enter 2027 with oversight power for the first time in Donald Trump’s second term. If they win the Senate, too, they’ll have even more power. 

Whatever the outcome, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin wants her party to hit the ground running. In an interview with Vox’s Astead Herndon at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, she explained that the key divide in the Democratic Party is no longer “moderate versus progressive.” 

“Particularly in the era of Trump, I think it is fight versus flight,” she said. “Regardless of your persuasion, do you believe that we need to think differently about how we exercise power and oversight in the era of Trump and if we don’t, we’re at risk of losing our country as we know it?” 

Slotkin, who says she’s on “Team Fight,” discusses what that Day 1 Democratic agenda should look like, how she plans to hold the Trump administration accountable, whether she’s considering a presidential bid, and more.

Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

How does Congress reassert its role so that people believe in the kind of checks and balances that Trump has washed away?

When I think about, hopefully, Democrats doing well in a few short weeks here, the election is the end of one phase, but a much more important phase then comes into focus, and that’s what you do with the power that you’ve won.

If we manage to win the House and especially the House and the Senate, there’s three things that we need to do. One, we need to pick two or three big pieces of legislation that speak directly to people’s pocketbooks and go hard on those — I would say housing and healthcare. 

Number two, we do have to have accountability for the unbelievable corruption that we are living under right now. But you can’t just make that your whole personality. You have to pick signature cases, and you have to go after people and projects that are super egregious. 

Everyone knows the East Wing of the White House, and people feel that in a way that’s different from a nameless contract at the Pentagon or whatever. So you need to pick those signature cases and go hard on accountability, not just Trump. Because of course, there will be moments of, “Let’s go after Trump himself.” As someone who voted to impeach him twice, he’s still there, right?

But the people around Donald Trump who are doing his bidding and enabling this have no such immunity. They have no immunity the way the president does. And to me, he couldn’t do any of this stuff without all of those people saluting and supporting it. So you go after the people who do his bidding. 

Third, we have to Trump-proof the government going forward so that no president of any party can ever abuse the system the way he did, because we figured out under Trump that a lot of the stuff that we thought were laws were actually just norms, standards, habits, expectations, good citizens.

And shame was required.

Shame was required. And when you have a president who has no shame, they just walk all over that. And then even for things that were laws, the penalties, the teeth are not there. So you make an ad that plays during a football game, a political ad paid for by US taxpayer dollars, your dollars. The penalty is like, you have to pay a fine.

Well, if they have the money and they have all the keys to the government, they’re going to pay that fine and not worry about it. So how do we get teeth in the things that were laws and strengthen those other laws going forward?

You mentioned Trump-proofing the government. At this point, he has stacked the courts with a lot of favorable folks. He controls the Republican Party, has installed people who do his bidding on each of those levels.

Is that possible? It does seem a little hard to figure out how the government becomes Trump-proof when it’s beyond an individual at this point.

One of the things I think is changing about politics is that there is a groundswell of energy around certain issues that is not partisan. The groundswell going on in the Midwest about data centers or Flock cameras or AI in general is not like, “I’m a Democrat, I’m a Republican.” It is organized and grassroots. 

Data centers went zero to 60 faster than any issue I’ve seen out there. And I think harnessing that outrage — and that outrage also, I think, is growing on the corruption side — so how do you harness that for an ethics package? 

And look, I don’t agree with Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri on almost anything, but he has a bill to get rid of corporate PACs and money in politics. Working with strange bedfellows, I think there is still a lot we can do because of that upward pressure.

The other piece I was going to ask about — you mentioned the impeachment efforts, and I feel like one of the things that came from those was a lack of belief from the public about the effectiveness of those efforts.

Let’s say Democrats were to take back the House and possibly the Senate. Should impeachment be a focus of a potentially incoming Democratic House?

I will say, because I still see him on the floor, that if Sen. Mitch McConnell had done the right thing, then Donald Trump would have been impeached after January 6, but he did not. And his legacy, along with his health issues, will be how he is remembered.

I am into effectiveness, and if we have the House but not the Senate, I don’t have a ton of faith that my Republican colleagues are going to have any more strength. I want to look at these signature cases and not just focus on the president, but on the people who enabled him. 

I want young people coming out of school to say, “Should I go work for the Trump administration? That sounds fun. I might get an opportunity.” I want them to be like, “Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.” I want that deterrence message sent.

I have to ask about [2028]. A number of Democrats have said already that they’re thinking about running for president. Is that something you’re thinking about?

I have been open that I’m looking at it. It does not need to be me. I just need someone who understands the mission. And if that person comes out of the big process, I will be the first gal to get on whatever team they’re on and help them win in the parts of the country that I know well.

But I think what is clear to me is that the American public is looking for something different — that generational shift. And I think that there’s hopefully going to be lots of opportunities for lots of people who you might not be thinking of who haven’t been sitting waiting their turn who are going to get in the mix. And I think that’s a good thing.

I wanted to ask about something on the 2028 front. One thing that we have heard consistently over the last year, and I think this is a consequence of Democratic trauma from 2024 and also 2016 — people’s fears about sexism when women run. I’ve heard so many people, including women voters, tell me they think it needs to be a white guy.

I find it to be a kind of depressing takeaway of those elections. It’s wrong, and I know it’s wrong because this very question is what we’ve been digging into as I’ve traveled around the country. What I think is happening is right now, is the public is so in search of something different from the traditional. If you’re a good communicator, if you’re exciting, if you’ve got big ideas, you can surmount what are thought of as traditional deficiencies or traditional weaknesses.

So if you’re a woman, if you’re African American, if you’re Muslim American, if you’re whatever, those things forever have been thought of as negatives. But if you’re the right person with the right energy, you can surmount that. I think we’re seeing that around the country already.

Patient is isolating at home after being infected by cattle

Authorities have said the attack was thwarted by FBI agents after they monitored the 18-year-old for nearly two years and ultimately supplied him with the AK-47 he planned to use.