Concerns about possible loss have haunted Republicans in all of the United States, from Maine, where Senator Susan Collins is struggling to retain the seat she has held for three decades in the Senate, to Alaska, where President Donald Trump traveled to support Senator Dan Sullivan, passing through other states in the center of the country that Democrats seek to win, to turn the equation in their favor in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Democrats hope that the polls will reflect positively in the ballot boxes during the midterm congressional elections on November 3, and to benefit to the maximum extent from the decline in President Trump’s popularity due to inflation and the rise in prices of fuel derivatives, energy, fertilizers, and other daily commodities, in addition to the war with Iran.
Senator Collins, who is described as a moderate Republican from a state that leans more toward Democrats, faces an unprecedented milestone in her political career, less than three weeks later.
Collins won five elections in a state that usually votes Democratic in presidential elections, thanks to consolidating her reputation as an independent Republican who has achieved tangible achievements in Maine. But this year, it is grappling with forces that are suffocating it from several sides: working-class anger at rising prices, and calls for generational change. Above all, there is an overwhelming desire among many voters to express their rejection of President Trump’s performance in his second term.
Collins, 73 years old, is one of the few skeptics of President Trump, and is waging a fateful political battle, seeking to win in a state where voters are angry with Trump and consider that she did not oppose him strongly enough.
Her race against progressive Democrat Troy Jackson, a former member of the state legislature, indicates a close contest. Some of her supporters say they are angry because her name is associated with the Supreme Court overturning the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights in 2022. Anger has been compounded by rising heating fuel prices due to the Iran war, as well as public anger over the killing of an immigrant at the hands of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in the state.
Battle in Alaska
At the weekend, President Trump headed to Alaska, which is considered a stronghold for conservatives who support him and the Republicans, traveling a distance of 3,400 miles to mobilize his popular base to preserve the seat of Senator Dan Sullivan, who is facing intense, unexpected competition from former Democratic Representative Mary Peltola.
With Republicans' chances of winning Senate seats in states such as North Carolina and Georgia diminishing, Alaska has become a decisive battleground in the midterm elections.
In contrast to the enthusiasm shown by Republicans in this cold state with Trump's visit, anti-Trump protesters from local Democratic groups took action.
From the podium, Trump attacked Peltola as “crazy.” He strongly criticized another candidate with the same name as Dan Sullivan. He urged the audience to support his candidate for the House of Representatives, current Representative Nick Begich, and Bernadette Wilson for the position of governor of the state. “Vote for the real Dan, vote for Nick,” Trump said, summarizing his list of candidates in Alaska. Vote for a wonderful governor.”
The crowds exploded with cheers when Trump summoned to the podium two men from the Wasilla area whom the administration of former President Joe Biden accused of violating the Clean Air Act. He signed the pardon decisions for them during the gathering.
Trump also called to the podium Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to announce that his agency plans to invest more than $160 million to expand high-speed internet access in the state. Sullivan, who received a standing ovation during his speech, did not mention the war in Iran, when he acknowledged the “high cost of energy” that has caused suffering for some.
Conservative Republican candidate for the state House of Representatives, Michael Bowles, who is currently competing with a moderate Republican candidate, said that the turnout rate of men who are not affiliated with any political party in the state raises concern.
Additional retreats
Meanwhile, Republicans have backed away from a number of House races, while Democrats have rushed to fundraise to support their candidates whose chances looked slim earlier this year.
The most prominent Republican political action committee in the House of Representatives canceled spending in four congressional districts extending from the Midwest to the East Coast, and increased its investments in 16 other districts from Texas to Pennsylvania. Another political action committee allied with President Trump also reduced its spending in a crucial Las Vegas area.
In contrast, the House Democratic Campaign Committee is looking to exploit open seats in Republican-controlled districts, and hopes to raise millions of dollars over the next week to fund a final round of ads that they say could lead to at least six additional seats.
The shift in money in the last three weeks of the midterm election campaigns indicates an increasingly defensive stance from Republicans, who have already lowered their expectations in the Senate races, and new enthusiasm on the part of Democrats, who are trying to exploit President Trump's declining popularity.
Republicans also reduced their spending in the first district of Iowa; Three-term Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks is defending her seat against Democrat Christina Bohannan.
Likewise, officials said the group will not continue spending in New Jersey's 7th District; Republican Rep. Tom Kaine, who has been in office for two terms, is competing with Democrat Rebecca Bennett.
Instead, the group will boost districts where Trump narrowly beat Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024. Safety and Affordability, an offshoot of Make America Great Again, has allocated nearly $1 million in ad spending aimed at supporting Republican Marty O'Donnell's campaign in Nevada's 3rd District.
US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly ordered that journalists from CNN, MS Now, and the Politico website continue to be allowed into the White House, until the ban decision taken by President Donald Trump last month is decided.
Last month, President Trump announced his decision to prevent journalists from these institutions from entering the White House due to their “continuous spreading of false news.” His decision was implemented immediately, and the US Secret Service confiscated their press accreditations.
The news organizations resorted to the judiciary, claiming that the presidential ban came in retaliation for their news coverage, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, adding that their reporters were deprived of their constitutional right to due process, because they were not notified that their reports might lead to the withdrawal of their entry permits to the White House or given an opportunity to respond.
In a 26-page decision, Judge Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, agreed to the media organizations’ request to issue a judicial order allowing their journalists to continue their work in the White House until the case is resolved, stressing that canceling journalists’ entry permits is a violation of their rights stipulated in the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Journalists' rights
“President Trump’s revocation of plaintiffs’ entry permits would likely be an action that would deter any reasonable journalist or news organization from publishing stories to which they object,” the federal judge wrote in his decision, adding that “revocation of plaintiffs’ entry permits has a significant impact on how, whether, and to what extent they can do their work.”
He considered that Trump's statements "indicate that by canceling the plaintiffs' entry permits, he intended to change their coverage of him, which reinforces his position that this action is sufficient to deter any journalist (...) from working in the same way as he had previously worked."
Trump had expected his administration to lose in court to CNN, MS Now, and Politico. He reported on his platform, “Truth Social,” that if Judge Kelly ruled against him, the Ministry of Justice would appeal the ruling.
The defense attorney for CNN, MS Now, and Politico, lawyer Theodore Boutros, believed that the court was right to prevent the White House from implementing the ban.
He said in a statement, “When the President issued his decision to ban freedom of the press, he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
He added, "Since then, the president has repeatedly, frankly and consistently, publicly admitted that he prevented our clients from entering the White House to punish reports that he did not like, and to try to force journalists to cover his news in the way he preferred." He stressed that “the harm that this ban has caused to our clients, to the First Amendment to the Constitution, and to the public as a whole is enormous.”
National security
The White House had provided lists of articles it described as “threatening national security and/or spreading misinformation.” But most of these articles were written by journalists who do not have official entry permits to the White House. One story in Politico was based on a press conference call organized by the White House. During the news conference, reporters were asked to attribute quotes to a “senior administration official,” according to court records.
At a hearing last week, the judge pressed Justice Department lawyers on the Trump administration's justification for the ban, and why the government's argument in court appeared to differ from Trump's. The Department of Justice stated that President Trump decided to prevent the media from entering the White House because it violated professional standards and threatened national security. But Trump repeatedly attacked the media for their “negative” coverage of his administration and for publishing “constantly bad stories.”
In his decision, Kelly stated that the Trump administration did not provide evidence proving that the decision to cancel the permanent entry permits of CNN, MS Now, and Politico journalists was initially based on national security grounds, stressing that the reports cited by the White House as controversial “are common, whether good or bad.”
