Postmaster general rejects Trump claims about ability to handle mail-in ballots
EyeWolf/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Postmaster General Louis DeJoy on Thursday said former President Donald Trump and others are “wrong” to question the Postal Service’s ability to deliver ballots ahead of the presidential election.
Asked by a reporter, at a virtual preview of the 2024 election, to respond specifically to Trump’s claim that the Postal Service might deliberately misplace mail-in ballots, DeJoy responded tersely: “My response is like my response to everyone who says that we’re not prepared for the election — it’s that they’re wrong,” he said. “I don’t know that I need to comment any more than that. They’re wrong.”
At the top of his prepared remarks, DeJoy pushed back on those engaging in rhetoric that undermines the public confidence in the Postal Service, which, DeJoy reminded reporters, had been delivering ballots since 1864.
“We recognize that election officials are under an extreme amount of pressure, and will remain so for at least the next two months,” he said. “We also recognize that the American public will become increasingly alarmed if there is ongoing dialogue that continues to question the reliability of the Postal Service for the upcoming elections.”
“Let me be clear,” DeJoy continued. “The Postal Service is ready to deliver the nation’s mail in ballots.”
DeJoy said the Postal Service delivered 99.89% of ballots from voters to election officials in the 2020 election, which he called a “highly sensitive, sensationalized environment.”
In an interview with right-wing outlet Real America’s Voice from Las Vegas last week, former President Donald Trump escalated false and baseless claims about mail-in voting, even suggesting a possible lawsuit.
“I read the post office is saying how bad it is. The post office is critiquing themselves, saying we’re really in bad shape. We can’t deliver the mail. And they’re not even talking about mail in ballots, right? We’re going to dump millions and millions of dollars,” Trump said, repeating false claims that the last election was “rigged” and that the U.S. voting system is “bad.”
The lawsuit from Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner claims Musk and his America PAC are “running an illegal lottery in Philadelphia (as well as throughout Pennsylvania).”
Musk announced the eighth winner of his super PAC’s $1 million prize in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Saturday and doubled down on his promise to continue offering the money to a registered swing state voter who has signed his petition. He said participants are not required to vote, but the online petition form says one has to be a registered voter to be eligible.
“We’re trying to get attention for this very important petition to support the Constitution. And, it’s like, if we, you know — we need the right to free speech; we need the right to bear arms,” Musk said at the rally.
“So we’re going to be giving out a million dollars every day through Nov. 5,” he continued. “And also, all you have to do is sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendment. That’s it. You don’t even have to vote. It’d be nice if you voted, but you don’t have to. And then just basically sign something you already believe in, and you get a test to win a million dollars every day from now through the election.”
Federal law singles out anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting.” The penalty is a fine of no more than $10,000 or a prison sentence as long as 5 years.
When asked for comment, a representative for America PAC pointed ABC News to a post on X announcing Monday’s $1 million giveaway winner, which was published after news of the lawsuit broke. The winner on Monday was from Michigan, according to the post.
The person added it is fair to “infer” the PAC plans to continue handing out the $1 million checks.
The Department of Justice sent a letter to Musk last week warning him the giveaway may violate federal law, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News. The letter from the Election Crimes Branch of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section was sent to Musk’s PAC, the source said.
“I’ve gone back and forth on it,” Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia University Law School, told ABC News. “It clearly violates the spirit of the statute, but it’s not 100% clear to me that it violates the letter of the law.”
Other experts, like Doug Spencer, a professor of election law at the University of Colorado, said “it seems like it really crosses the line.”
(LINCOLN, NE) — Dan Osborn, a former union president and Navy veteran who ran an unusually competitive U.S. Senate campaign in deep-red Nebraska as an independent, is launching a new political action committee meant to help working class candidates like himself run for office.
“At least the idea is to help other people like me, who are teachers, nurses, plumbers, carpenters, bus drivers, to be able to run for office in their particular counties, states, areas, and we can help them accomplish that,” Osborn told ABC News in an interview by phone on Monday.
“You know, we’ve created something pretty special here in Nebraska. And I just want to continue that.”
The organization, the Working Class Heroes Fund, is a new hybrid political action committee (PAC) that will support working-class candidates and mobilize working class voters, according to an announcement and a PAC spokesperson. The group will also advocate for labor unions, including supporting strike funds, which help union workers cover expenses if they go on strike.
Osborn hopes the PAC’s work will help bring more workers’ perspectives to government, about how “people don’t want handouts from their government… they just want to know when you go and you put in your time, you put in your eight hours work for eight hours pay, that your paycheck matters, right?” Osborn said. “And going to be able to afford your mortgage and your cars and hopefully set aside money for college and some Christmases.”
The PAC is a new organization and not a conversion of Osborn’s campaign committee, according to a spokesperson. It will vet and consider which working-class candidates to support on a case-by-case basis, and will support candidates across political parties.
Could supporting candidates across party lines lead to pushback? Osborn, who eschewed party labels or support during his Senate bid, feels that doesn’t matter.
“I’ve never really understood why, if you’re a part of a party, that you have to have a specific set of beliefs, and you have to reject the other set of beliefs, and vice versa,” he said.
Osborn had campaigned explicitly on his labor bonafides, including his work as a steamfitter and mechanic, as well as his insistence that he’d be a truly independent voice in the Senate.
On Election Day, Osborn lost to Fischer by 8 percentage points — not as thin of a margin as some polls had predicted, but well ahead of the margin between President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris; Harris lost statewide to Trump by 21 points. (Harris did lead Trump in the state’s 2nd Congressional District, netting her one Electoral College vote.)
Asked if he was surprised by the margin between him and Fischer, Osborn said, “Yes, I was, actually — and it sucked. I suppose if I had to describe it in one word, it sucked.
“You know, I really thought that the people in Nebraska saw the value in electing a working-class person,” he said, but a late influx of money into the race supporting his opponent made a difference. “Does it hurt a little bit? Sure, but again, I think we created something here.”
His family is “not taking [the loss] as good as I am,” Osborn said later with a chuckle. “Everybody goes back to school and we go back — I’m going back to work tomorrow, and my wife, she was working the whole entire time to help pay for the endeavor. But, you know, we were all hoping for different results, and we didn’t see it.”
Osborn said he was not surprised by the larger margin between Trump and Harris, given Nebraska’s deep Republican lean.
One of the trickier dynamics in the race was that as Osborn tried to maintain an independent image, some national Democrats or Democratic groups indicated that if he was elected to the Senate, he would caucus with Democrats. (Throughout his campaign, Osborn emphasized he would not plan to caucus with either party.)
Did that hurt his campaign? Osborn thinks it made a difference.
“I can’t consult with those people. I don’t even know who they are. They’re making money off of my name, which is completely ridiculous,” he said, adding that he wants independent expenditures out of politics more generally.
His own organization, however, is allowed to make independent expenditures, as a hybrid PAC. Asked about that, Osborn acknowledged the irony but said the PAC will support candidates who support campaign finance reform and want an end to how money influences politics.
“The independent expenditure is part of the problem, and I would love nothing more than our elected officials to get rid of my PAC because it shouldn’t exist. You know what I mean? None of this should exist.”
Even as he launches the PAC, however, Osborn said he is also heading back to work as a steamfitter.
“The debt collectors do not care that I ran the closest Senate race in the country, unfortunately,” he told ABC News. (Pre-Election Day polling had found the race among the closest Senate races in the country, although the final results have been closer in other Senate races, such as in Michigan and Pennsylvania.) “So I got to pay my bills. So yes, I’m going back to work.”
Would he run again for public office? Osborn said he wouldn’t rule it out: “I’m open to everything that’s going to be on the table.”
“In my neighborhood, there’s a position open: the dogcatcher’s open,” he added, “So I should probably start there,” he said, although he immediately clarified, “That’s a joke.”
-ABC News’ Brittany Shepherd, Will McDuffie, Isabella Murray, and Kate Walter contributed to this report.
People inspect the remains of an Iranian missile that fell into the home of a Bedouin family in the Negev desert near Arad, Oct. 2, 2024, in the aftermath of an overnight Iranian missile attack on Israel. (Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Even as Iranian missiles were streaking across the skies over Israel this week, U.S. officials say they were actively engaging with their Israeli counterparts to game out an appropriate response to the attack and underscore the need to avoid escalation.
Now that the fog of war has subsided to reveal that Iran’s barrage on Tuesday did not incur massive loss of life or widespread damage, several Biden administration officials tell ABC News they’re more optimistic they can persuade Israel to carry out a measured response — but said they still fear a significant counterattack could trigger additional military action from Iran that leads to spiraling escalation in the Middle East.
One U.S. official said Israel aims to reestablish deterrence through its response by putting on a show of force. However, the official said Israel is unlikely to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities — a move that would spark ire from Tehran and one President Joe Biden made clear he does not support following a conversation with other members of the G7.
“We’ll be discussing with Israelis what they’re going to do,” Biden said Wednesday. “All seven of us agree that they have a right to respond, but they should respond in proportion.”
Another U.S. official said Israel could opt to go after other targets critical to Iran’s economy, like the country’s energy grid or its oil production infrastructure, but that striking a military installation would be the route with the lowest risk of escalation.
They added that the Biden administration believes Israel is still evaluating its options and has not yet set a firm timeline for its response.
An Israeli official told ABC News on Wednesday that its retaliation would be “significant” and “come fast.”
The Iranian regime has issued a range of messages following Tuesday’s attack on Israel, blaming the presence of the U.S. and some European nations in the Middle East for the turmoil in the region and declaring that peace depends on “rooting out the evil of these countries” while also declaring Tehran doesn’t want a broader war.
“We don’t seek war, it is Israel that is forcing us to react,” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said during a press conference in Qatar on Wednesday.
Tehran said its attack was incited by the assassination of Hamas’ political leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil in July, which was widely attributed to Israel, and the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli strike last week.
The Biden administration has lauded the killing of Nasrallah, saying Israel acted to bring the leader of a designated terror organization to justice. But the killing of the Iranian proxy group’s leader has also complicated the leverage the U.S. has over Israel.
In April, Tehran launched a drone and missile attack at Israel to settle the score following an Israeli airstrike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, Syria. Then, the tit-for-tat ended with a murmur — a muted counterblow from Israel on a single Iranian military site.
But in the spring, Israel still wished to avoid provoking Hezbollah, making the country more amenable to the Biden administration’s pleas for caution. Now, Israel is actively carrying out ground incursions into Lebanon and has greatly diminished the militant group’s capability.
The Biden administration initially responded to Israel’s actions in Lebanon by urgently calling for a cease-fire.
Now, U.S. officials say they are still pursuing a diplomatic solution, but the public messaging from Washington has pivoted back to one of support for Israel rather than calls for truce in Lebanon.
“Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully supportive of Israel,” Biden said.
