Month: October 2026

Trump’s Hail Mary effort to interfere with elections

The DOJ today (10/15/26) sued the state of California over what it alleged were 20,000 non-citizens on voting lists in the state.  It makes the assertion without access to the state’s voter lists.

On August 18 the administration asserted that 24,000 non-citizens voted in 2020. It is now asserting that about that number of non-citizens are ready to vote in one state.

Today’s suit comes after two key court defeats by the Trump administration, and weeks after an allegation of 15,903 non-citizens on Nevada’s voting list was cut to zero. The suit comes weeks after a whistleblower’s allegations were disclosed about improper federal efforts to challenge state voting lists.

How the courts took away DOJ’s two major weapons

Federal courts have denied the Trump administration power to demand voter lists from states and denied it power to take alleged non-citizen voters to court. These decisions removed the most direct means of the administration to cause havoc in the November 2026 elections.  The administration’s blocked actions, in the context of overwhelming evidence that non-citizens are not on voting lists except perhaps in trace amounts, were to flood the media with lurid allegations before an election. Proving the allegations was basically irrelevant.

The Trump administration is counting on allegations not being proved wrong until after November.

It takes time to prove these allegations wrong.  It took two months (July 2026 – Sept. 2026) from when DHS told Nevada there might be 15,903 noncitizens registered to vote, then reduced the number to 185. Nevada responded that its records indicated all 185 were citizens.

Whose voter database is being used by the administration?

A League of Women Voter’s suit filed also today – 10/15/26 –alleges that an ICE unit called Homeland Security Investigations is in charge of collecting and analyzing voting databases provided by commercial firms. The suit cites LexisNexis and its product Accurint.

 

Time line for Trump’s failed attempt to obtain state voter lists

The Trump administration just lost by court decision the power to prosecute persons on the gounds of voting as a non-citizen. On October 9 it also lost its fight to require states to submit their voting lists.  The time line suggests that the administration did not really expect or depend on finding many instances of non-citizen voting, but rather wanted the chance to wave supposed evidence near the November 2026 election that millions of those on voter lists were non-citizens.

The Trump administration on August 13, 2025 demanded that California hand over its voting lists, threatening legal action if it did not. The letter cited its authority under the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

On April 21,2026 Common Cause sued the federal government over the constitutionality of its attempt to obtain by demand state voter lists. Several individuals party to the suit had had their names removed from voter lists when some states voluntarily provided their lists despite their being citizens.

On July 7, 2026 the administration sent letters to all 50 states warning of criminal prosecution if any official knowingly retains on voting rolls a non-citizen. It also asserted that 52 U.S.C. § 21144. makes it illegal for a non-citizen to vote in federal elections.

(Go here for the Brennan Center’s fact sheet on the administration’s efforts.)

On October 9, 2026, in Common Cause et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, invalidated DOJ’s voter-list policy, finding it exceeded statutory authority and violated privacy and administrative-law requirements.

“[The government]  suggest that every American citizen who registers to vote is the subject of a voter fraud investigation underway by the Civil Rights Division simply because they registered to vote. And the defendants downplay the risk of voter disenfranchisement, despite knowingly relying on inaccurate database to check voter Eli eligibility. Behind all the window dressing, the challenged policy represents a federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote. But Congress has left the authority for a Constitution has always placed it: the states.”

Judge Sooknanan did not depend on the “Election Clause,” Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”

The judge’s ruling was justified on four grounds:  (1) No statute authorizes it. The Civil Rights Act of 1960, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act don’t permit it. (2) It is “arbitrary and capricious.” That violates the Administrative Procedure Act. (3) It violates the Privacy Act, both its substantive and procedural protections. And (4) It violates the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The ruling referred to a 2006 audit which found that approximately 3.3 million citizens misclassified as noncitizens in Social Security records used by SAVE. The administration could have created chaos.

 

 

Hispanic Catholic support of Trump at 18%

Per a Pew Research poll, Hispanic Catholic support of Trump went from 31% in January 2025 to 18% in October 2026.  White Catholic support declined from 59% to 39%. About one third of self-described Catholics in the United States are Hispanic.

Court thwarts the feds from taking to court non-citizens who vote

The Trump administration wants to go after in court non-citizens who vote. On October 1, Judge David S. Leibowitz, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied it. Leibowitz ruled that only states have the power to do that. (Go here and here. The administration is appealing.)

Had the decision supported the administration, we would see many – hundreds? –  highly publicized federal cases, as part of its effort to make non-citizen voting a salient political issue.

The administration was counting on 18 U.S.C. §611, which Congress enacted in 1996, as part of immigration legislation. It generally prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, with penalties of a fine, up to one year’s imprisonment, or both. Liebowitz said that section 611 was unconstitutional, because only states can set voter qualifications (such as barring felons from voting).  Per the reasoning of the court, a state could authorize non-citizens to vote including for congress and the presidency.

The Indian-American voter, and rhe rise of anti-Indian attacks

Here is a snapshot of the Indian-American electorate: booming in size, and shifting towards the political center.  But also, with the rise of the Indian-American politician and with anti-immigrant policies of Trump,  it has reason to feeling targeted.

In 2024 about 2.6 million Indian-Americans were eligible to vote compared to 1.9 million in 2018. (These come from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimates.)  This implies an average annual increase of about 6% — far greater than the annual increase of Hispanics, and of course greater than that of white Americans, where the growth is flat to declining. Assuming continued growth of 6% in 2025 – 2026, that would bring us to about 2.9 million, roughly 1% of the entire eligible population. This fast growth is consistent with a demographic profile of a rapid increase of Indian immigrants from a small base in 2000 — with children born in the 2000s.

The Carnegie Endowment has been polling Indian Americans for some years. Here were a few key trends. Between 2020 and 2026 support for the Democratic Party declined from 52% to 46%. Support for the Republican Party grew from 15% to 19%. As for independent status: from 23% in 2020 to 29% in 2026.  Today, 53% self-identify as somewhere along the liberal spectrum, while only about 25% self-identify themselves as conservative. More are considering themselves moderate, now at 32%. Context: the total eligible population today is much more less liberal (liberal 28%, moderate 33%, conservative 35%).

Since 2024 younger American Indian-Americans, under the age 30, shifted towards Democrats whereas those over 50 years old moved in the opposite direction towards Republicans.  Young women are more Democratic than young men. The erosion of Democratic support is particularly strong among those without a college degree. Overall, political polarization by income level has strengthened.

Among reasons for not supporting the Republican Party, the overwhelming factor is a perception that the Republican Party is intolerant of minorities. This observation has grown quite a lot since 2024. Carnegie’s figures are not complete on this, but it may be that Indian-Americans may be more ready to say today than before that they have had negative experiences (it may be that younger persons are more ready to say this outloud).  As for reasons for not supporting the Democratic Party the outstanding one is the perception that the Democratic Party is weak on illegal immigration.

Inflation and jobs are uppermost in concern. Views in Trump immigration policy tend to track with moderate Americans – right with removing many, but opposed to very aggressive enforcement.

Anti-Indian sentiment

The Center for the Study of Organized Hate has studied a rise of factors which taken altogether evince an anti-South Asian sentiment.

One factor is White House policy which directly and adversely impacts Indians in ways greater than other nationalities. “A number of administration policies, particularly those related to the H-1B visa program, have disproportionately impacted South Asians who account for the majority of H-1B visa holders and constitute the single largest group of overseas students in the US. Members of the Trump administration have long been opposed to the visa program, with some like Stephen Miller accusing India of “cheating on immigration policies.”

Another factor is the rise of Indian-Americans in politics. They have become more visible — Kamala Harris, Usha Vance, Kash Patel, Zohran Mamdani, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Vivek Ramaswamy, and others.

“The outpouring of anti-Indian hate on X61 in January 2025 was a response to an X post by Ramaswamy, in which he unfavorably contrasted mainstream American parenting culture with Indian-American parenting practices. It was also driven62 by a response to a post by Krishnan,63 in which he called for reforms to ease pathways for obtaining H-1B visas and green cards. Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary in June 2025 elicited an outpouring of Islamophobia as well as anti-South Asian hate targeting his Indian heritage, immigrant background, and racial identity. These attacks became more pronounced64 following his victory in the mayoral election in November 2025.”

 

Asian Americans: some of their thoughts

From a 2023 Survey by Pew Research:

Among seven categories of Asians, Japanese appear to self-identify as more successful than others and more integrated with U.S. born Americans

More than half of Asian American adults say all of most of their friends share their ethnicity or an Asian — no surprise. By comparison 38% of second-generation friends are mostly of their own ethnicity or otherwise Asian.

Over 85% are comfortable if a family member married someone who is not Asian.

About 20% of Asian adults have hidden some aspect of the heritage from nominations. This is least the case with Japanese.  40% of Asians under 30 years old say that they have hidden some aspect of their heritage. Second generation, Asians are more likely to hide their identity than first-generation Asian. This may reflect an unexplored thought that first generation think is it impossibel to hide.

Asian immigrants are looking for some kind of national leader for their group. 73% of Asian, American women and 64% of Asian American men say having a national leader is extremely a very important.

Regarding party affiliation, 62% of all Asian voters identify with the Democratic Party, and 34% with the Republican Party. The exception are Vietnamese, where 51% identify with the Republican Party. Young Asians under 30 are much more inclined (88%) to identify with Democrats. And Democratic Party affiliation increases significantly with formal education.

The rate at which Asian Americans regard themselves as typical Americans varies considerably by time in the US. If in the US for 10 years or less, only 20% consider themselves American, whereas with 21 years here or more 50% consider themselves American. Second generation: 67% and through a higher generation: 75%. This means that a quarter of Asian Americans in the third or later generation still consider themselves primarily Asian rather than American.   Responses to several questions that Asians with little formal education tend to regard themselves as Asian over American.

Asian American adult adults generally agree with US citizens on aspirations and values, for example in freedom of life’s choices having a good material life.

 

Another try to pass a farm worker bill

The farming industry regularly comes up with a bill to nomalize the status of unauthorized farm workers.  Close to 600 farm organizations are backing a House bill aimed at ensuring workforce supply. It includes a provision to normalize legal status – i.e. provide for amnesty. HR 9535, Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act of 2026 was introduced by Glenn Thompson, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania. It overhauls the H-2A program for temporary (i.e. seasonal) workers, focused on farm work.

The farm industry says, “While exact numbers are difficult to determine, it is estimated that roughly 70 percent of hired crop workers are foreign-born, with about 40 percent lacking legal work authorization. Unauthorized labor peaked at 55 percent around 2000 but remains a key part of the nation’s farm labor pool.”

I have written about how the H-2A program use has surged in the past ten or so years. (Also here.) It went from 150,000 workers in 2015 to 400,000 workers in 2025. Enrollments now appear to be at the 500,000 level.

What is happening: unauthorized workers in farming have either flattened out or declined, and very few non-immigrant American citizens are going in.  Estimates of the size of the paid (i.e. non-family) farm workforce are all over the map – perhaps 1.5 million, 2.2 million on the very high side. This is a heavily labor contractor-run workforce, concentrated in five states. The H-2A program is dominated by labor contractors. (Go here for 2026 California analysis.)

Among the provisions of the bill are 350-day contracts (vs seasonal) and arrangements that could run to three years.

As for normalization of legal status, Section 2 of the bill provides for not a path to citizenship but only legal status in the H-2A program, with no access to public benefits. “Applicants generally would have to demonstrate either that they voluntarily departed the United States or that they were unlawfully present on May 31, 2026, and performed at least 180 days of agricultural work during the previous two years. The waiver would apply only to specified immigration violations that occurred before the worker obtains H-2A status and would not create a new immigration status or a pathway to permanent residence.” (Go here.)

 

Late September polls on immigration

September polling (Politico and WSJ) shows broad multi-party support for stopping illegal migration, and Republicans as a whole say that immigration as a whole has not had a positive effect. But when unauthorized persons who have not broken laws become the focus, even Republicans swing towards accepting their presence.  This apparent confusion among Republican reflects a long-standing median view across the political spectrum that is comfortable with immigrants including those unauthorized to keep the country moving. Inherent in the median mindset is a tortured logic of “I like immigrants, just not so many, and laws must be enforced.”

The media has been adverse / brutal to mass deportation. Minneapolis has had a lasting effect. The Spanish language media is reporting heart-breaking stories.

From Politico:

MAGA advocates have a tougher line on immigration  on some issues than other Trump voters.

“Border should be fully closed” MAGA 55% Other Trump voters 40%”BUT “Immigration has an overall positive effect” MAGA 29% other Trump voters 41%

On the other hand, there is little support for  deporting“People living in the U.S. for several years without legal status” MAGA 17% other Trump voters 41%.

And, “Both MAGA and non-MAGA Trump voters are open to maintaining or increasing the number of people coming into the U.S. to work in sectors facing labor shortages, such as health care or agriculture. Sixty-five percent of MAGA Trump voters and 69% non-MAGA Trump voters say they want to see about the same number — or more — people coming to the U.S. to work in those sectors facing labor shortages.”

From a Wall Street Journal late September poll:

“Create a pathway to citizenship for long-term immigrants who contribute to their communities:” Democrats 97% Republicans  54% independents 69%.

 

600,000 foreign born persons lose Medicaid coverage today, 10/1/26

Today, October 1, 2026, roughly 600,000 foreign-born persons without a green card lose Medicaid coverage, and will rely from now on primarily for free care services such as in federally-funded community care centers and hospitals. This is a rough estimate, an extrapolation from a handful of state-specific estimates.  (I draw on here, here and elsewhere for this posting.)

The cutbacks would be much higher except that Cubans and Haitians who are covered by the legal statuses addressed are exempted. Due to the frustrating failure of the government to provide counts of persons accounted for by immigrant status,  I cannot estimate how many Cubans and Haitians avoid the cutbacks. It could be several hundred thousands.

In 2021, the Migration Policy Institute wrote that as of 2019, 9.5 million foreign-born persons (out of a total then of about 45 million) were in economic conditions associated with eligibility for Medicaid, but about half were ineligible, either because they were unauthorized or due to some previously established rule applying to immigrants. After the time of the report, millions of persons came to the U.S., many with conditional legal status.  If one takes these rough estimates into account, perhaps a million – couple of million foreign born persons in the country were as of September 30,2026 eligible for Medicaid – this is a crude guess.

Without knowing the specific conditions of legal presence one cannot say if a person – Afghan, Venezuelan,  etc. – is affected. It is almost as if the blow falls differently door by door.

Below is a summary of the major categories – not all – affected.

The refugees, people granted asylum, and humanitarian parolees losing Medicaid coverage beginning October 1, 2026, are people legally present in the United States who previously qualified for coverage but have not obtained green cards or another status that preserves eligibility. They generally have low incomes and meet their state’s other Medicaid requirements. Some will retain coverage through exceptions for children and pregnant people or through state-funded programs.

Refugees. Those still holding refugee status without permanent residency will lose ordinary federally funded Medicaid unless an exception applies.

People granted asylum.  They may already have lived here for years while their cases were considered. The affected group consists of people whose asylum has been granted but who have not yet become permanent residents. A pending asylum application alone generally did not establish eligibility for ordinary federal Medicaid.

Humanitarian parolees. Humanitarian parole itself provides temporary permission to remain, rather than permanent residency.