During the presidential election, Musk courted conservative-leaning voters by offering $1 million payouts in a sweepstakes to those who agreed to sign a petition. Federal law prohibits payments to Americans in exchange for their registering to vote or casting ballots. Musk’s allies argued that he was not doing that, but merely paying people who signed a petition.

Musk, the world’s richest person, has returned to the tactic as he tries to elect a conservative judge, Brad Schimel, in a major race for control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The billionaire has offered a chance to earn $1 million to signers of a petition opposing “activist judges.”

Related Story: Musk Promises to Go to Wisconsin to Personally Deliver $2 Million to Voters

Musk’s Initial Offer and Subsequent Deletion

Early Friday, Musk took it a big step further: He told his 219 million followers on the social site X that when he visited Wisconsin on Sunday, he would hand out two $1 million checks to people who had already voted in the election “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” The offer was open only to those who had already voted, he said.

But later on Friday, Musk quietly deleted his post on X.

About 12 hours after that initial post, he said he had to “clarify a previous post.” He wrote that “entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges,” adding, “I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition.”

Related Story: Musk Announces $1 Million for Wisconsin Voter in Supreme Court Race

Legal Scrutiny and Potential Violations

Musk, whose shoot-from-the-hip approach on his social media site has gotten him in plenty of legal trouble over the years, appeared to be bowing to the legal scrutiny that was building Friday.

It is Wisconsin law, not federal law, that applies, and the state’s Democratic attorney general, Josh Kaul, on Friday sued to block Musk’s payments. (In a curious twist of fate, the case was randomly assigned to Susan Crawford, the liberal judge whom Musk is trying to defeat. She quickly recused herself.)

Several experts argued before Musk’s deletion of his post that his new inducement, which seemed to condition the chance of winning $1 million on voting, was illegal under state bribery laws.

“Conditioning entrance to this event and eligibility for the $1 million payout on having voted arguably violates Wisconsin law, which prohibits offering or giving anything of value to induce a person to vote,” said Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer who has defended the legality of some of Musk’s petition payouts.

Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said that Musk’s original offer was “pretty clearly” a violation of state bribery laws. While Musk’s offer before the November 2024 election was a “gray area,” Godar said, “the key difference here is that the rally and the million-dollar payments are limited to people who have already voted.”

Related Story: Trump and Musk Are Suffering From Soros Derangement Syndrome

Controversy and Media Attention

Part of the reason for Musk’s petition and payouts has been to gin up controversy and attention from the news media. His 2024 petition was challenged in Pennsylvania state court just before Election Day, and a state judge declined to put a stop to it.

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Theodore Schleifer/Eric Lee

c.2025 The New York Times Company

The post Elon Musk Backtracks on a Legally Questionable Plan to Pay Voters appeared first on GV Wire.

The election, conducted in the small towns and suburbs of Lancaster County where no Democrat had won since the district was redrawn decades ago, joined two currents that are powering the political moment. It underscored the galvanizing fury among Democratic voters, who have flocked to rallies and crowded town hall meetings in the early weeks of Trump’s second term. And it was further evidence of the changes in the two parties’ electorates, with Democrats drawing more and more of the kind of highly educated voters who reliably turn out for special elections.

The victory does not affect control of the state Senate, where Republicans now hold a four-seat majority, though another special election, near Pittsburgh on Tuesday, gave the Democrats a one-seat majority in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The outcome of the House special election was not a surprise, but the margin of the Democratic victory there also exceeded Kamala Harris’ performance in the district in 2024.

Malone’s Unexpected Victory

The winner of the state Senate election, James Andrew Malone, 51, is a heavy-bearded, soft-spoken information technology consultant who has been mayor of East Petersburg Borough, a small town northwest of the city of Lancaster, for the past seven years.

He defeated Josh Parsons, chair of the Lancaster County Commission and an outspoken pro-Trump conservative. Parsons was strongly favored in the district, where Republicans hold a substantial registration advantage.

The seat opened up when the Republican lawmaker who had held it for a decade left office to work for Dave McCormick, a Republican who was elected to the U.S. Senate last year.

Related Story: Schumer Says He Won’t Step Down as Senate Democratic Leader

Shifting Political Landscape

A Democrat had not won the district since it was shifted to Lancaster from the city of Philadelphia in 1979. Still, concern on the right began bubbling up in recent days, especially after the first reported tallies of mail-in ballots showed a big lead for the Democrats. Scott Presler, a right-wing activist who barnstormed Pennsylvania for the Trump campaign last year, raised alarms about the state Senate race late last week, a warning that was emphasized on social media by Elon Musk.

As the outcome of the race was becoming clear Tuesday night, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said in a post on the social media platform X that voters in the district had “rejected a candidate who embraced the extremism and division coming out of D.C. In a district carried comfortably by Donald Trump just a few months ago, they chose a better way forward.”

As is often the case in elections held between the presidential and midterm elections, leaders of both parties are looking to a small handful of races for signs about voter engagement and enthusiasm. One of the first surprises this year came in January, when a Democratic candidate for the Iowa Senate won in a solidly conservative district.

Bigger tests lie ahead, with several coming next Tuesday. In Wisconsin, a closely divided swing state, tens of millions of dollars have poured into an election for a state Supreme Court seat, which will determine whether liberals retain a majority on the court. In Florida on the same day, two special congressional elections are scheduled. Both are in solid Republican territory, but the Democratic candidates have raised substantially more money than their Republican opponents.

Related Story: Democrats’ Popularity Plummets, yet Midterm Prospects Remain Strong

Changing Demographics in Lancaster County

The election in Lancaster County was a particularly clear-cut illustration of how the Democratic Party is assembling a well-educated, politically attuned base that is particularly inclined to turn out for special elections.

While the city of Lancaster became increasingly Democratic over the years, the rest of the county remained a Republican stronghold. Farmers and religious conservatives in Lancaster County were voting Republican long before Trump began winning over disgruntled Democrats in postindustrial areas elsewhere in the state. But as the city boomed, well-heeled retirees flooded into upscale suburbs and surrounding boroughs in the county. These new voters, plus younger professionals moving to the area for a lower cost of living, nudged one town after another toward the Democrats.

This is one of the reasons that Stella Sexton, one of Malone’s campaign managers, believed that with an aggressive ground game, Democrats had a chance.

“It was hard to get the ball rolling back in January,” she said. Democratic donors and potential canvassers were downcast and dispirited after the 2024 election. But, she said, “we didn’t have time for that.”

—

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

By Campbell Robertson

c.2025 The New York Times Company

The post Democrat Notches an Upset in Pennsylvania State Senate Race appeared first on GV Wire.

Now, the billionaires’ influence on politics is colliding in a spring election that will decide whether conservatives or liberals control the supreme court in an important presidential battleground state. Both Musk and Soros have spent large sums on the race for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, making them easy targets in a debate between the two candidates Wednesday.

While the race is officially nonpartisan, Democrats and Republicans have lined up behind each candidate. Former state Attorney General Brad Schimel, who is backed by Republicans, called Soros a “dangerous person to have an endorsement from.” The philanthropist has spent $1 million to benefit his opponent, Democratic-supported Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford.

She fired back by saying Musk “has basically taken over Brad Schimel’s campaign.” The Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is running Trump’s massive federal cost-cutting initiative has funded two groups that have together spent more than $10 million to promote Schimel.

The exchange highlighted how the April 1 election, which will affect looming cases on abortion, voting rules, congressional district boundaries and more, has drawn national scrutiny in a year when there are just a handful of consequential elections. It also showed how the two polarizing billionaires are playing an outsized role in the race, as each side seeks to weigh down the other with political baggage.

Those tactics make sense in an off-year, spring election when voters may not know the candidates or be paying much attention, said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist.

“You’ve got to tie it to national themes,” he said. “The overall strategy is, how can you scare your base into making sure they show up at the polls?”

Soros has been reviled by conservatives for years for his donations to liberal prosecutors and other left-wing and anti-authoritarian causes. Musk, a newer power player in political giving, has angered liberals because of his role in Trump’s campaign last year — his super PAC spent about $200 million to help get Trump elected — and his efforts to slash federal government services and staff through the new Department of Government Efficiency.

Soros Has Been a Longtime Target of Conservatives

The 94-year-old Hungarian American and Jewish billionaire has been a conservative target for decades.

Core to their ire is the spending he and affiliated groups have done to elect liberal prosecutors — officials that Republicans argue are too soft on crime. GOP lawmakers have called attention to Soros’ donations in efforts to recall those prosecutors, saying the people he supports have put communities at risk.

Trump also has used Soros to tarnish the credibility of people and groups he doesn’t like. In a recent executive order aiming to punish the law firm Perkins Coie, he said the firm “has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws.”

Attacks on Soros often veer into antisemitic and conspiratorial territory, with some falsely casting him as backing violent protesters or having secretive family ties.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — an ally of Trump — has boosted that trope by promoting the belief that Soros is engaged in covert plots to destabilize Hungary. Pressure from the autocratic leader prompted a university Soros founded to move its programs from Budapest to Vienna in 2018.

Ahead of the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Soros gave $1 million to the Wisconsin Democratic Party. He made a donation in the same amount ahead of this year’s race, prompting Schimel and his supporters to invoke Soros in campaign messaging and ads.

“Susan Crawford takes her marching orders from George Soros, (Illinois Gov.) JB Pritzker, anti-ICE sheriffs, and Defund the Police radicals,” Schimel’s campaign wrote on X earlier this month. “Which side are you on?”

Musk’s New Political Relevance Gives Democrats a Rebuttal

Musk hurtled onto the political scene in the last couple of years, spending big money to secure Republican control of the federal government and in states where he has businesses.

Last year, he spent nearly $300 million on Republican campaigns, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The bulk of that was to boost Trump, but a super PAC he founded also spent millions on U.S. House races.

Musk also has dabbled in state politics in Texas, where he has moved several of his businesses. He became involved in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race shortly after Tesla sued the state in a dispute over a law barring automakers from operating or controlling vehicle dealerships. The case ultimately could end up before the state Supreme Court.

The curious timing, his unabashed support for Trump and his chaotic moves in the federal government, make Musk a dream target for the left, said Wisconsin Democratic strategist Joe Zepecki, who is not involved in the race.

“Having a villain makes everything easier,” he said. “It’s not a cue to the partisans – it’s a clarion call. Crawford is with us, and Schimel is in the pocket of Elon Musk, the most unpopular person in America right now who can’t get off the front page.”

Crawford has leaned into the attacks, referring to Musk as “Elon Schimel” in the debate. She also reminded voters of Musk’s actions at DOGE, such as recommending the firing of government workers helping to fight the avian flu outbreak.

The race, which is seen as a litmus test of how a battleground state’s voters are responding to the first months of the Trump presidency, also might offer clues into how they view Musk’s role in the administration.

The Strategy Isn’t Without Risk

A challenge both candidates face is that as they attack each other for being supported by notorious high-dollar donors, they must rationalize having their own wealthy benefactors.

Crawford needs to associate Schimel with Trump as much as possible to win, said Brandon Scholz, a former Republican strategist in Wisconsin who now identifies as an independent. The Musk donations help with that – as do flyers distributed to voters by Musk’s America PAC that say Schimel will ” support President Trump’s agenda.”

There could soon be more opportunities to show those ties: A Monday town hall billed as a get-out-the-vote effort for Schimel will be co-hosted by one of Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., and political activist Charlie Kirk.

Schimel, meanwhile, needs diehard Trump voters to come out to the polls, said Scholz. It’s a “double-edged sword,” he said, because it means the candidate will have to gamble with turning off some voters.

Soros also has less name recognition than Musk right now, Scholz said. That could be one reason why Schimel has relied more in recent weeks on traditional conservative messaging, such as accusing his opponent of letting criminals off with lenient sentences.

During the debate, he said he has no control over outside donations or the messages they spread. He also said he wouldn’t give Trump or Musk special treatment if he’s elected to the court. Instead, Schimel said, he treats the courtroom like a baseball umpire would — “not rooting for any team.”

Crawford also distanced herself from Soros’ donation by noting it was made to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which has endorsed her. She said while Schimel has revealed how he’ll vote on some pending cases, she has “never promised anything, and that is the difference.”

Swenson reported from New York.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about the AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

The post George Soros and Elon Musk Clash in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race appeared first on GV Wire.

He’s looking on his first day to increase domestic energy production and stop diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the federal government, among other actions.

An incoming president signing a flurry of executive orders is standard practice. Executive orders allow a president to wield power without action from Congress. But there are also limits to what orders can achieve.

Understanding Executive Orders

Basically, they are signed statements about how the president wants the federal government to be managed. They can be instructions to federal agencies or requests for reports.

Many orders can be unobjectionable, such as giving federal employees the day after Christmas off. They can also lay out major policies. For example, President Joe Biden signed an order to create a structure for establishing regulations on artificial intelligence. But executive orders — and their policy sausage-making siblings, the proclamation and political memorandum — also are used by presidents to pursue agendas they can’t get through Congress.

New presidents can — and often do — issue orders to cancel the orders of their predecessors.

As the American Bar Association notes, the orders do not require congressional approval and can’t be directly overturned by lawmakers. Still, Congress could block an order from being fulfilled by removing funding or creating other hurdles.

Related Story: Trump Returns to Power After Unprecedented Comeback, Emboldened to Reshape US

Frequency of Executive Orders

Throughout U.S. history, there have been several thousand executive orders, according to data collected by the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. George Washington signed eight executive orders, while Franklin Delano Roosevelt did 3,721.

During his first term, Trump, a Republican, signed 220.

Biden, a Democrat, signed 160 as of Dec. 20.

Related Story: Trump to Release Records on the Assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin ...

Political Messaging and Limitations

Trump forecasted signing as many as 100 executive orders on his first day, possibly covering deportations, the U.S.-Mexico border, domestic energy, Schedule F rules for federal workers, school gender policies and vaccine mandates, among other Day 1 promises made during his campaign. He’s also promised an executive order to give more time for the sale of TikTok.

Trump had asked Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., to write an order stopping the development of offshore windmills for generating electricity. But it’s entirely possible that Trump could also roll out many planned executive orders over time.

Many of Trump’s measures are likely to draw Democratic opposition.

And in several major cases, the orders will largely be statements of intent based off campaign promises made by Trump.

Both Congress and the courts can potentially block executive orders.

Related Story: Bitcoin Soars Past $109,000 Ahead of Possible Early Action on Crypto by Trump

For example, Congress in 1992 revoked an executive order by then-President George H.W. Bush that would establish a human fetal tissue bank for scientific research by passing a measure that the order “shall not have any legal effect.” Congress can also deny funding to agencies and hamstring the enforcement of an order.

There are also legal challenges based on the argument that a president exceeded his legal authorities. When President Harry Truman tried to seize steel mills during the Korean War, the U.S. Supreme Court said he lacked the authority to take private property without authorization from Congress.

The post What Is an Executive Order? A Look at Trump’s Tool for Quickly Reshaping Government appeared first on GV Wire.

With America’s population shifting to the South, political influence is seeping from reliably Democratic states to areas controlled by Republicans. Coming out of a presidential election where they lost all seven swing states, Democrats are facing a demographic challenge that could reduce their path to winning the U.S. House of Representatives or the White House for the long term.

If current trends hold through the 2030 census, states that voted for Vice President Kamala Harris will lose around a dozen House seats — and Electoral College votes — to states that voted for President-elect Donald Trump. The Democratic path to 270 Electoral College votes, the minimum needed to win the presidency, will get much narrower.

“At the end of the day, Democrats have to be able to win in the South or compete in the South” if they want to control the levers of government, said Michael Li, senior counsel for the Democracy Program at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Otherwise, it’s a really uphill battle every time.”

The Brennan Center, which is left-leaning, projects Democratic states in 2024 would lose 12 seats in the next census. The right-leaning American Redistricting Project forecasts a similar blue-to-red shift but pegged the loss at 11 seats, not 12.

Related Story: Can Democrats Be the Party of the Future Again?

The South’s Gains

Li’s latest projection, which was released late last year, is based on the last two years of population changes and shows the South gaining more House seats than it has had in history. It would be the continuation of a decades-long trend of the population shifting from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and inland West. Americans and immigrants are gravitating toward warmer climates, cheaper housing, lower taxes and plentiful jobs.

The Brennan Center projects that California will lose four seats and New York two in the 2030 census. Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin would lose one seat each. Except for Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which are swing states, all of those states have consistently backed Democrats for president and sent Democratic majorities to the House.

No GOP strongholds are projected to lose seats. Florida and Texas are projected to pick up four seats each. Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina and Utah are forecasted to each gain one. All of them backed Trump for president last year, though Arizona and North Carolina were competitive, and all have Republican majorities in their U.S. House delegations.

Related Story: Democrats Frustrated Over Joe Biden Reversing Course and Pardoning His Son

A Changing Map

Entering Election Day, there was a broad consensus that Harris would comfortably win 226 electoral votes and Trump 219, with both campaigns fighting over seven battleground states to reach the 270 electoral votes required to win. Those seven battleground states had 93 electoral votes — and Trump won all of them.

If the projected map for the next decade were used in 2024, Trump’s electoral college margin would have been even larger. He would have won the Electoral College 322-216 instead of 312-226.

On the flip side, Democrat Joe Biden still would have won in 2020 with the projected map for the 2030s, but the margin would have been closer. Instead of a 306-232 victory, Biden would have beat Trump 292-246.

Harris could have won last year by keeping the “Blue Wall” — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — along with one congressional district in Nebraska, a state that splits its electoral votes. In the next decade, that won’t be enough, according to current projections. The Blue Wall strategy combined with safely Democratic states would net just 258 electoral votes, 12 short of victory.

Related Story: Top Democrats Vow to Make California Affordable Again

How Do Democrats Remain Relevant?

To control the White House, House or Senate, Democrats will likely need to do better in the three southern swing states. Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina lean conservative but have elected Democrats at a statewide level.

Alternatively, they could try to achieve their long-elusive goal of turning Texas blue or reverse the recent trend toward Republicans in Florida, once a swing state that has shifted hard to the right.

To be sure, Republican dominance in the 2030s is not a foregone conclusion. Not long ago, Democrats thought they were building an insurmountable majority due to their strength with voters of color and a growing Latino population across the country. But that fell apart when Trump and the GOP began making inroads with the Democrats’ traditional working class base.

Hispanic voters were more open to Trump than they were in 2020. And while Harris won more than half of Hispanic voters, that support was down slightly from the roughly 6 in 10 Hispanic voters that Biden won, according to AP VoteCast. Roughly half of Latino men voted for Harris, down from about 6 in 10 who went for Biden.

Democratic resurgence will require much more investment in state parties and a frank assessment of how to appeal to parts of the country that supported Trump, said James Skoufis, a New York state senator who on Thursday ended his campaign to be chair of the Democratic National Committee.

“It requires a reorientation of how we speak with voters,” Skoufis said. “It requires emphasizing our working class values again. And if we’re being honest with ourselves and we’re owning some of what just happened two months ago, we need to shed this perception that we are an elitist party.”

The post Democrats’ Crisis of the Future: The Biggest States That Back Them Are Shrinking appeared first on GV Wire.

Rebranded and reorganized, the rally has a new name — the People’s March — as a means to broaden support, especially during a reflective moment for progressive organizing after Trump’s decisive win in November. The Republican takes the oath of office Monday.

From Women’s March to People’s March

Women outraged over Trump’s 2016 presidential win flocked to Washington in 2017 and organized large rallies in cities throughout the country, building the base of a grassroots movement that became known as the Women’s March. The Washington rally alone attracted over 500,000 marchers, and millions more participated in local marches around the country, marking one of the largest single-day demonstrations in U.S. history.

This year, the march is expected to be about one-tenth the size of the first one and comes amid a restrained moment of reflection as many progressive voters navigate feelings of exhaustion, disappointment and despair after Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss. The comparative quiet contrasts sharply with the white-knuckled fury of the inaugural rally as massive crowds shouted demands over megaphones and marched in pink pussyhats in response to Trump’s first election win.

“The reality is that it’s just hard to capture lightning in a bottle,” said Tamika Middleton, managing director at the Women’s March. “It was a really particular moment. In 2017, we had not seen a Trump presidency and the kind of vitriol that that represented.”

Related Story: Trump Arrives in Washington for Inaugural Celebrations Marking Return to Power

Broadening the Movement’s Appeal

The movement fractured after that hugely successful day of protests over accusations that it was not diverse enough. This year’s rebrand as a People’s March is the result of an overhaul intended to broaden the group’s appeal. Saturday’s demonstration will promote themes related to feminism, racial justice, anti-militarization and other issues and will end with discussions hosted by various social justice organizations.

The People’s March is unusual in the “vast array of issues brought together under one umbrella,” said Jo Reger, a sociology professor who researches social movements at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. Women’s suffrage marches, for example, were focused on a specific goal of voting rights.

For a broad-based social justice movement such as the march, conflicting visions are impossible to avoid and there is “immense pressure” for organizers to meet everyone’s needs, Reger said. But she also said some discord isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

“Often what it does is bring change and bring in new perspectives, especially of underrepresented voices,” Reger said.

Related Story: Valley Congressmen and GOP Leaders Will Attend Trump Inauguration

Shifting Focus and Long-Term Goals

Middleton, of the Women’s March, said a massive demonstration like the one in 2017 is not the goal of Saturday’s event. Instead, it’s to focus attention on a broader set of issues — women’s and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigration, climate and democracy — rather than centering it more narrowly around Trump.

“We’re not thinking about the march as the endgame,” Middleton said. “How do we get those folks who show up into organizations and into their political homes so they can keep fighting in their communities long term?”

The post Tens of Thousands Expected to Converge on Washington for March Days Before Trump Takes Office appeared first on GV Wire.

The ritualistic changing of power will get underway as Washington’s solemn pomp is paired with Trump’s brand of party: a fireworks showcase at one of his luxury golf properties, guests including tech industry titans, friends from the business world and conservative media stars, and thousands of his supporters streaming in from around the country.

Frigid Temperatures Force Indoor Ceremonies

With a blast of Arctic air expected to leave the nation’s capital facing frigid temperatures on Inauguration Day, organizers were also scrambling to move inside most of Monday’s outdoor events, including the swearing-in ceremony.

Opera singer Christopher Macchio, Trump’s choice to sing the national anthem at the ceremony, told The Associated Press on Saturday that an indoor performance would help the sound of the music and his vocal performance.

But, Macchio added, “I have to say, I was looking forward to seeing 100,000 people spread across the National Mall. So unfortunately I won’t be getting that visual while I perform, but it’s still going to be such a tremendous honor.”

On Pennsylvania Avenue leading to the White House, crews were breaking down metal bleachers that would have been used for outdoor inauguration viewing stands.

Related Story: Trump’s Swearing-in Will Move Inside the Capitol Rotunda Because of ...

Protests and Celebrations Begin

Even before Trump got to town, groups of protesters began taking to the street in the morning as a light sleet fell.

Melody Hamoud, a Washington resident, wore a pink hat that she had on at a 2017 march to protest Trump’s first inauguration.

“I just didn’t want to sit home and fret in front of the TV,” she said. “I wanted to feel like our movement still has energy and be around others who felt the same.”

Trump, a Republican, left office in 2021 as a political pariah after his refusal to accept his loss to Democrat Joe Biden led a mob to overrun the Capitol. He then broke tradition by skipping Biden’s inauguration.

Biden will adhere to one of the most potent symbols of the democratic handover, welcoming Trump to the White House and joining him on the ride to the Capitol before he takes the oath of office.

Related Story: A Rebranded Women’s March Returns Before Trump’s Inauguration

Star-Studded Celebrations and Tech Titans

The first time Trump was sworn into office eight years ago, the former reality TV star billionaire came in as an outsider disrupting Washington’s norms, delivering a dark inaugural address as his swearing-in drew large protests and some clashes in the street.

This time, the protests are expected to be far less noticeable, eclipsed by the ceremonies and celebrations around Trump’s taking power. As one more marker of Trump’s remarkable comeback, the events surrounding his inauguration will be more celebrity-studded than the last time, along with a noticeable turnout by a cadre of tech-world billionaires.

Country music stars Carrie Underwood, Billy Ray Cyrus and Jason Aldean, disco band the Village People, rapper Nelly and musician Kid Rock are all scheduled to perform at inauguration-related ceremonies and events. Actor Jon Voight and wrestler Hulk Hogan are also expected to make appearances, as are a crew of Trump-embracing business executives: Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew.

Related Story: Valley Congressmen and GOP Leaders Will Attend Trump Inauguration

Inaugural Events Schedule

The pageantry begins Saturday, when the president-elect leaves his Florida home to head to Washington. Trump’s advisers have not detailed how he will spend the first part of the day, and the only public event on Trump’s schedule is an evening reception and fireworks show at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, outside the city.

While Trump holds court at his club, Vice President-elect JD Vance will attend a reception for Cabinet members and host a dinner in Washington.

On Sunday, the eve of his inauguration, Trump is scheduled to participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery before heading to a rally at Capital One Arena in Washington. The rally will be followed by a private dinner.

On Inauguration Day, Trump will start with the traditional prayer service at St. John’s Episcopal Church before heading to the White House for a customary tea with the outgoing president and first lady.

Trump then heads to the Capitol, where his ceremony has been moved indoors as temperatures are set to plummet and make it the coldest Inauguration Day in 40 years. It’s not quite clear how the ceremony will be adapted to the Capitol Rotunda, which holds only 600 people. More than 250,000 guests were ticketed to view the inauguration from around the Capitol grounds.

Eight years ago, Trump’s critics were wrestling with whether to attend his inauguration, contemplating whether to buck long-standing practice and send a signal to the divisive new president. This year, much outspoken resistance to Trump has faded away, though there will be two notable absences: former first lady Michelle Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Neither gave an explanation as to why she was skipping the ceremony.

After Trump takes the oath of office and delivers his inaugural address, there will be a ceremonial farewell to Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. As the new Republican government takes power, Trump will head to a signing ceremony at the Capitol to approve some of his first official acts, followed by a congressional luncheon and review of U.S. troops.

The planned traditional parade down Pennsylvania Avenue has morphed into an indoor event because of the cold, with Trump again planning to speak to his gathered supporters before he heads to the White House for a signing ceremony in the Oval Office. A trio of glitzy balls will follow in the evening, punctuated by musical performances.

Trump’s arrival in Washington will once again be accompanied by protests and vigils on issues such as abortion, immigration rights and, this time, the Israel-Hamas war, but the feel and the force of those demonstrations are expected to be different from the outset of his first term.

The Women’s March, spurred by women outraged over Trump’s win in 2017, drew more than 500,000 people to Washington and millions more in cities around the country, marking one of the largest single-day demonstrations in U.S. history.

The march is returning Saturday, rebranded as the People’s March, with organizers saying their focus will be less on Trump and more on broader goals around women’s and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigration, climate and democracy. It is expected to draw about 50,000 people, far fewer than eight years ago.

The post Trump Arrives in Washington for Inaugural Celebrations Marking Return to Power appeared first on GV Wire.

“The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. “There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way.”

Rotunda Prepared as Alternative Venue

The Rotunda is prepared as an alternative for each inauguration in the event of inclement weather. The swearing-in was last moved indoors in 1985, when President Ronald Reagan began his second term. Monday’s forecast calls for the lowest inauguration day temperatures since that day.

Outgoing President Joe Biden, members of Congress and other dignitaries and notable guests will be able to view the ceremony from inside the Capitol.

Related Story: IMF Sees Steady Global Growth, but Warns That Trump Tariff, Tax and Deportation ...

Alternate Plans for Ticketed Guests

Alternate plans are required for the more than roughly 250,000 guests ticketed to view the inauguration from around the Capitol grounds and the tens of thousands more expected to be in general admission areas or to line the inaugural parade route from the Capitol to the White House.

Trump said some supporters would be able to watch the ceremony from Washington’s Capital One Arena on Monday, a day after he plans to hold a rally there. He said he would visit the arena, which has a capacity of about 20,000, after his swearing-in, and host a modified inaugural parade there.

Trump said other inaugural events, including the Sunday rally and his participation in three official inaugural balls on Monday night, would take place as scheduled.

Related Story: Kristi Noem, Trump’s Homeland Security Pick, Faces Pointed Scrutiny on ...

Record-Breaking Cold Temperatures Expected

The National Weather Service is predicting the temperature to be around 22 degrees (minus-6 Celsius) at noon during the swearing-in, the coldest since Reagan’s second inauguration saw temperatures plunge to 7 degrees (minus-14 Celsius). Barack Obama’s 2009 swearing-in was 28 degrees (minus-2 Celsius).

“The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies will honor the request of the President-elect and his Presidential Inaugural Committee to move the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies inside the U.S. Capitol to the Rotunda,” a spokesperson said Friday.

The post Trump’s Swearing-in Will Move Inside the Capitol Rotunda Because of Intense Cold Weather appeared first on GV Wire.

When President-elect Donald Trump met with congressional Republicans shortly after his November 2024 election victory, he floated the idea of another term: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good we’ve got to figure something else out.'”

At first glance, this seems like an obvious joke. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is clear that Trump can’t be elected again. The text of the amendment states:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

That amendment was passed in response to Franklin Roosevelt’s four elections to the presidency. Since George Washington had stepped down at the end of his second term, no president had sought a third term, much less a fourth. The amendment was clearly meant to prevent presidents from serving more than two terms in office.

Because Trump has been elected president twice already, the plain language of the amendment bars him from being elected a third time. Some have argued that since Trump’s terms were nonconsecutive, the amendment doesn’t apply to him. But the amendment makes no distinction between consecutive and nonconsecutive terms in office.

Though the 22nd Amendment prohibits Trump from being elected president again, it does not prohibit him from serving as president beyond Jan. 20, 2029. The reason for this is that the 22nd Amendment only prohibits someone from being “elected” more than twice. It says nothing about someone becoming president in some other way than being elected to the office.

Related Story: Trump Tasks Congressman With Writing Executive Order to Halt Offshore Wind

Skirting the Rules

There are a few potential alternate scenarios. Under normal circumstances, they would be next to impossible. But Donald Trump has never been a normal president.

On issue after issue, Trump has pushed the outer limits of presidential power. Most importantly, he has already shown his willingness to bend or even break the law to stay in office. And while Trump claims he’s only joking when he floats the idea of a third term, he has a long history of using “jokes” as a way of floating trial balloons.

Furthermore, once he leaves office, Trump could once again face the prospect of criminal prosecution and possibly jail time, further motivating him to stay in power. As Trump’s second term progresses, don’t be surprised if Americans hear more about how he might try to stay in office. Here is what the Constitution says about that prospect.

Related Story: Biden Warns of Dangers of ‘Oligarchy’ of Ultra-Rich, ...

Other Ways to Become President

Nine people have served as president without first being elected to that office. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were all vice presidents who stepped into the office when their predecessors either died or resigned.

The 22nd Amendment does not bar a term-limited president from being elected vice president. On the other hand, the 12th Amendment does state that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President shall be eligible to that of the Vice-President of the United States.”

It’s not clear whether this restriction applies to a two-term president who is ineligible for a third term because of the 22nd Amendment – or whether it merely imposes on the vice president the Constitution’s other criteria for presidential eligibility, namely that they be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

That question would have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the justices decide in Trump’s favor – as they have recently on questions regarding the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause and presidential immunity – then the 2024 ticket of Trump-Vance could become the 2028 Vance-Trump ticket. If elected, Vance could then resign, making Trump president again.

Related Story: Trump’s Outsider Cabinet Picks Are Rapidly Gaining Support for Confirmation

No Resignation Needed

But Vance would not even have to resign in order for a Vice President Trump to exercise the power of the presidency. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution states that if a president declares that “he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office … such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

In fact, the U.S. has had three such acting presidents – George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Kamala Harris. All of them held presidential power for a brief period when the sitting president underwent anesthesia during medical procedures; Cheney did it twice.

In this scenario, shortly after taking office on Jan. 20, 2029, President Vance could invoke the 25th Amendment by notifying the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate that he is unable to discharge the duties of president. He would not need to give any reason or proof of this incapacity.

Vice President Trump would then become acting president and assume the powers of the presidency until such time as President Vance issued a new notification indicating that he was able to resume his duties as president.

Alternative Paths to Power

But exercising the power of the presidency doesn’t even necessarily require being president or acting president.

Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration for autocratic Russian President Vladimir Putin, so he might want to follow the example of the Medvedev-Putin “tandemocracy.”

In 2008, term limits in the Russian constitution prevented Putin from running for president after two consecutive terms. Instead, he selected a loyal subordinate, Dmitry Medvedev, to run for president.

When elected, Medvedev appointed Putin as his prime minister. By most accounts, Putin remained firmly in power and made most of the important decisions. Following this example, a future Republican president could appoint Trump to an executive branch position from which he could still exercise power.

In 2012, Putin was able to run for president again, and he and Medvedev once again swapped roles. Since then, Putin has succeeded in amending the Russian Constitution to effectively allow him to remain president for the rest of his life.

Using a Figurehead

Then again, Trump might just want to avoid all of these legal subterfuges by following the example of George and Lurleen Wallace. In 1966, the Alabama Constitution prevented Wallace from running for a third consecutive term as governor. Still immensely popular and unwilling to give up power, Wallace chose to have his wife, Lurleen, run for governor. It was clear from the beginning that Lurleen was just a figurehead for George, who promised to be an adviser to his wife, at a salary of $1 a year.

The campaign’s slogan of “Two Governors, One Cause,” made it clear that a vote for Lurleen was really a vote for George.

Lurleen won in a landslide.

According to one account of her time in office, the Wallaces had “something of a Queen-Prime Minister relationship: Mrs. Wallace handles the ceremonial and formal duties of state. Mr. Wallace draws the grand outlines of state policy and sees that it is carried out.”

Trump’s wife was not born a U.S. citizen and therefore isn’t eligible to be president. But as the head of the Republican Party, Trump could ensure that the next GOP presidential candidate was a member of his family or some other person who would be absolutely loyal and obedient to him. If that person went on to win the White House in 2028, Trump could serve as an unofficial adviser, allowing him to continue to wield the power of the presidency without the actual title.

The post How Trump Could Try to Stay in Power After His Second Term Ends appeared first on GV Wire.

This time, Trump is returning to office after winning the 2024 election that began with Biden as his party’s nominee and ended with Vice President Kamala Harris atop the ticket. She will preside over the certification of her own loss, fulfilling the constitutional role in the same way that Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, did after the violence subsided on Jan. 6, 2021.

Usually a routine affair, the congressional joint session on Jan. 6 every four years is the final step in reaffirming a presidential election after the Electoral College officially elects the winner in December. The meeting is required by the Constitution and includes several distinct steps.

What Happens When Congress Meets?

Under federal law, Congress must meet Jan. 6 to open sealed certificates from each state that contain a record of their electoral votes. The votes are brought into the chamber in special mahogany boxes that are used for the occasion.

Bipartisan representatives of both chambers read the results out loud and do an official count. The vice president, as president of the Senate, presides over the session and declares the winner.

The Constitution requires Congress to meet and count the electoral votes. If there is a tie, then the House decides the presidency, with each congressional delegation having one vote. That hasn’t happened since the 1800s, and won’t happen this time because Trump’s electoral win over Harris was decisive, 312-226.

Related Story: Congress Notified of Planned $8 Billion Weapons Sale to Israel

Changes Since the Last Certification

Congress tightened the rules for the certification after the violence of 2021 and Trump’s attempts to usurp the process.

In particular, the revised Electoral Count Act passed in 2022 more explicitly defines the role of the vice president after Trump aggressively pushed Pence to try and object to the Republican’s defeat — an action that would have gone far beyond Pence’s ceremonial role. Pence rebuffed Trump and ultimately gaveled down his own defeat. Harris will do the same.

The updated law clarifies that the vice president does not have the power to determine the results on Jan. 6.

Harris and Pence were not the first vice presidents to be put in the uncomfortable position of presiding over their own defeats. In 2001, Vice President Al Gore presided over the counting of the 2000 presidential election that he narrowly lost to Republican George W. Bush. Gore had to gavel several Democrats’ objections out of order.

In 2017, Biden as vice president presided over the count that declared Trump the winner. Biden also shot down objections from House Democrats that did not have any Senate support.

Related Story: Trump Endorses Mike Johnson To Stay On as House Speaker After Government ...

The Certification Process

The presiding officer opens and presents the certificates of the electoral votes in alphabetical order of the states.

The appointed “tellers” from the House and Senate, members of both parties, then read each certificate out loud and record and count the votes. At the end, the presiding officer announces who has won the majority votes for both president and vice president.

Handling Objections

After a teller reads the certificate from any state, a lawmaker can stand up and object to that state’s vote on any grounds. But the presiding officer will not hear the objection unless it is in writing and signed by one-fifth of each chamber.

That threshold is significantly higher than what came before. Previously, a successful objection only required support from one member of the Senate and one member of the House. Lawmakers raised the threshold in the 2022 law to make objections more difficult.

If any objection reaches the threshold — something not expected this time — the joint session suspends and the House and Senate go into separate sessions to consider it. For the objection to be sustained, both chambers must uphold it by a simple majority vote. If they do not agree, the original electoral votes are counted with no changes.

Related Story: Trump Appears to Side With Musk, Tech Allies in Debate Over Foreign Workers ...

In 2021, both the House and Senate rejected challenges to the electoral votes in Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Before 2021, the last time that such an objection was considered had been 2005, when Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, both Democrats, objected to Ohio’s electoral votes, claiming there were voting irregularities. Both the House and Senate debated the objection and easily rejected it. It was only the second time such a vote had occurred.

Once Congress counts the votes, what’s next?

After Congress certifies the vote, the president is inaugurated on the west front of the Capitol on Jan. 20.

The joint session is the last official chance for objections, beyond any challenges in court. Harris has conceded and never disputed Trump’s win.

The post How Congress Will Certify Trump’s Electoral College Victory on Jan. 6 appeared first on GV Wire.