Two right-wing provocateurs, James O’Keefe and Cam Higby, are facing election-related charges in Minnesota after posting videos of an undercover stunt intended to expose alleged deficiencies in election security. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said each man faces a count of unlawful voting and identity theft. “Elections are the bedrock of democracy and their protection is one of our highest priorities,” Moriarty said in a statement. “Individuals engaging in unlawful conduct related to our elections will be held accountable.” Hegseth directs military cyber forces to use ‘every authorized asset’ to defend midterm elections from foreign interference amid Trump’s funding cuts to election security agenciesO’Keefe, a self-proclaimed “guerilla journalist” infamous for his undercover videos, and Higby, a social media influencer, posted the video at the heart of the charges in August. It shows the two men approaching election judges at multiple voting precincts in Minneapolis wearing burqas, speaking in fake accents, and allegedly misrepresenting their identities, in an effort to expose what O’Keefe and Higby say are gaps in the rules that allow residents to vouch for the identity of other voters. The video, which remains pinned on Higby’s X account, is called “I Wore Burqa To EXPOSE Election FRAUD In Minneapolis.” No ballots were cast in the course of their efforts.Prosecutors said Wednesday that O’Keefe and Higby deceived the election judges by using the identities of real Minnesota voters “without those voters’ knowledge or permission” in violation of state law. Each count carries up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Neither man is in custody, according to charging documents. Tim Evans/AFP via Getty Images – PHOTO: People fill their ballots during the first day of early voting for the midterm elections in Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 16, 2026. In a statement, O’Keefe called the charges “weaponized lawfare” and defended his undercover video as journalism protected by the Constitution. He vowed to fight the charges. “This is not political,” he said. “It is fundamental. It is about whether citizens still have the right to question their government.” In a post shared on X, Higby said, “No laws were broken. They want me in PRISON for exposing election vulnerabilities in their state.” O’Keefe did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Steve Simon, the state’s top election official, said in a statement that “any attempt to disrupt or deceive our election workers will not be tolerated.” The charges announced Wednesday in Minnesota are not O’Keefe’s first brush with the law. In 2010, O’Keefe pleaded guilty in Louisiana to a misdemeanor charge of entering a federal property under false pretenses after he posed as a telephone repairman to gain access to a U.S. senator’s New Orleans office. This article originally appeared on ABC News at https://abcnews.com/US/2-wing-provocateurs-facing-election-related-charges-minnesota/story?id=137646933

It was, for a while, considered one of those colorful quirks that crop up in the course of an election: the fact that not one but two candidates named Dan Sullivan will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot for U.S. senator from Alaska. One Dan Sullivan — Dan S. Sullivan — is the state’s incumbent Republican senator. He is trying to fend off a fierce challenge from former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola and secure a third term. The other Dan Sullivan — Dan J. Sullivan — is a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle. He has never previously campaigned for public office, and he switched his registration from “unaffiliated” to “Republican” just before the deadline to run. (He has since switched back to unaffiliated.)But now the situation seems to be getting more serious. At President Trump’s direction, the Justice Department last week sued in federal court to block certification of the election if Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses, alleging that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan is a Democratic plant whose purpose is to siphon away votes. Then, on Wednesday, the New York Times published an extensive investigation that appears to substantiate that allegation, calling it “Democrats’ secret effort to stack Alaska’s ballot.””The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader,” the paper wrote. “The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.”In response to the report, Trump called for both Peltola and the “fake” Dan Sullivan to be removed from the ballot in a post on Truth Social.YahooThe outcome of the legal dispute, if it moves forward, could have enormous national implications. Democrats need to win at least a few Senate races in historically Republican states to secure a majority in the chamber. Polls suggest Alaska is one of their best chances to turn a red seat blue. Given how close other races across the country appear to be, a legal ruling that erases a narrow Peltola victory could be the pivot point that allows the GOP to keep control of the Senate for the last two years of Trump’s presidency.How did this happen, and where do things go from here? Here’s everything you need to know to catch up and make sense of the story. How Alaska wound up with two Dan Sullivans on the ballot Ballot-stacking — the process of recruiting a spoiler candidate to help your candidate win — isn’t unheard of in politics, and the Times says it’s “generally considered legal.” But it’s a lot easier in Alaska than other states because of the unique way elections work there. When Peltola ran for reelection to the U.S. House in 2024, the state GOP backed an effort to help a second Democrat — an inmate who conducted his campaign from a New York prison — remain on the ballot. And during this year’s primaries, super PACs aligned with both parties “flooded the state with ads for fringe candidates” in an attempt to “dilute support for the mainstream candidates opposed by the groups,” according to an October Alaska Beacon report. How is any of this possible? The Last Frontier sends the top four primary candidates to the general election regardless of party — then asks voters to rank them on Election Day in order of preference. This means that candidates can claim any party affiliation on the ballot without being vetted by parties themselves. (Dan J. Sullivan initially claimed to be a Republican.) It also means that as ,long as they finish in the top four, primary candidates don’t have to earn many votes to secure their very own ballot line on Nov. 3. (Dan J. Sullivan won 4,107). For months, Republicans have questioned Dan J. Sullivan’s intentions and tried to get him tossed off the ballot. In June, the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed their arguments, ruling that neither state law nor the U.S. Constitution provided any legal basis for removing Dan J. Sullivan’s name. How the Senate candidates will appear on Alaska’s midterm ballot.elections.alaska.govThe more obscure Sullivan has “maintained that he [is] running in good faith and of his own volition, as a moderate Republican and not a secret Democrat,” as a Times profile put it in August. He said he’d voted in the past for some Alaska Republicans, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski, even though he also “acknowledged previous donations to Ms. Peltola and a handful of other Democrats,” and said he would prefer Peltola for Senate over the Republican incumbent “if it was between those two.” But according to this week’s Times report, “operatives aligned with” the Peltola campaign convinced Dan J. Sullivan to enter the race “to help Mary.” The report cited as its sources 12 people “who participated in or were told of the plan” as well as interviews with other would-be recruits and dozens of internal text messages.For the record, both Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which directs the party’s campaign strategy in Senate races across the country, have denied any “involvement,” and Dan J. Sullivan did not respond to the Times’s repeated requests for comment. One of the Times’s main sources — former Peltola campaign manager and longtime aide Elisa Rios, who had been planning to file a wrongful termination lawsuit — also tried to retract her statements to the paper ahead of publication. The Times story described an elaborate endeavor — which was “internally called the ballot composition project” — that “involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.” The Times also reported that the “Peltola campaign’s lawyers, as well as senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee” were “involved” with the effort.The Trump administration’s lawsuitLegal battles over the dual Dan Sullivan issue had been confined to state courts until last week. That’s when Trump’s administration filed its lawsuit aiming to have the certification of the results blocked if Peltola wins a close election that may have been affected by Dan J. Sullivan’s presence on the ballot. “Should Alaska certify any electoral results tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan … the State and its officers will fail in its obligation to protect the integrity of its election,” the Department of Justice wrote in its legal filing. “I’m the one that said do it,” Trump said Friday of the lawsuit. The suit argues that a Democratic victory should be considered invalid if Peltola wins by a margin smaller than the total number of votes that Dan J. Sullivan receives — under the assumption that those votes may have come from confused voters who intended to vote for the incumbent Republican senator instead. Democrats have asked the courts to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the administration lacks “any statutory or constitutional authority to insert itself” into the state’s electoral process. Alaska’s state government, which is currently led by Republicans, has also filed to dismiss the administration’s lawsuit. On Monday, a federal judge agreed to fast-track consideration of the dispute to potentially allow it to be resolved before Election Day. Many legal experts say the lawsuit has a slim chance of success. First, it requires a very specific outcome in which Peltola wins by what would likely need to be a very thin margin. Even in that scenario, election law experts say, the appearance of confusion on the part of voters does not create legal grounds for the federal DOJ to have the results rejected.”I believe that this lawsuit is abusive in its intentions and borders on frivolous in its arguments, and that it is destined for defeat in the courts should it reach the merits,” Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, told the Alaska Beacon.Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, told the Harvard Gazette that the law the administration is relying on in its lawsuit — the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) — does not give federal authorities any power to challenge state election procedures. “The lawsuit has nothing to do with voter registration. There’s no allegation that anybody is improperly registered in Alaska; there’s no claim that Alaska isn’t in compliance with the NVRA’s requirements for voter registration,” Stephanopoulos said.More generally, experts say the lawsuit runs against the Constitution’s language granting states the power to run their own elections. “This is purely a matter of state law, and the administration has absolutely no authority to tell Alaska when or how to certify the results of its Senate election,” David Becker, a former Justice Department attorney who worked on voting rights cases, told Alaska Public Media.What’s next?The federal judge in Alaska considering Democrats’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit issued an order late Wednesday allowing their challenge to move forward. She gave the DOJ until Thursday afternoon to respond.That likely only matters in an extremely close race, which is not the recent norm in Alaska. The last time Dan S. Sullivan was on the ballot, he defeated his top challenger, independent candidate Al Gross, by 45,000 votes. The most recent Senate race, in 2022, was closer, but the top two finishers were both Republicans. Things are expected to be much tighter this time around. Peltola has held a consistent lead in the polls since the summer, but her advantage has steadily shrunk in the months leading up to Election Day. The most recent surveys have her ahead by 2 points, well within the margin for Sullivan to win. The Cook Political Report, one of the nation’s most respected election forecasters, lists the race as a toss-up. Another well-regarded forecaster, the Center for Politics, categorizes it as “leans Democrat.”This article originally appeared on Yahoo News at https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/alaska-democrats-linked-to-secret-effort-to-recruit-2nd-dan-sullivan-to-tip-senate-race-report-200632493.html

US immigration agents often work with their faces covered and do not wear identification. [Reuters] Details of more than 41,000 personnel working for the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including thousands involved in immigration enforcement, have been leaked to the public.The leak includes names, work addresses and phone numbers of DHS staff, including agents working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection, along with descriptions of the work they do for each agency.Wednesday’s leak marks the third time in recent weeks that a government agency has been targeted by leaks or hacks.A DHS spokesperson said the agency is “aware of a potential breach and is actively working to address the situation swiftly and effectively.””We take all security threats against our employees and officers seriously and will work to ensure all are properly protected,” the spokesperson added. “We will update the public when more information is available.”The seemingly unprecedented breach of employee information was made public online. A group called the Department of Peace accessed the information from DHS, while journalist and cybersecurity researcher maia crimew alongside the website Distributed Denial of Secrets put it online.The information was put in a database named Icepick.Most of the agents included, more than 21,000 of them, work for CBP, according to the data. Nearly 6,600 work for ICE. Other records show agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Protective Service and even people working for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.The leaked information also included dozens of previously unknown operation names, the agents that led and worked on those operations, and some of the technology they used in their work, including tech provided by Cellbrite and Palantir. The groups wrote in an online statement that the the leak was not meant to be a directory of every DHS agent. Rather the aim was to replace “anonymity with accountability”, according to Emma Best, a co founder of DDoSecrets.”The leak is extraordinary but deceptive in it’s simplicity as it identifies the officials responsible for overseeing covert and undercover operations, the government’s hunt for leakers and the failed BlueLeaks investigation – along with key personnel in DHS’s ever-escalating rendition and deportation programs,” Best added.BlueLeaks refers to a massive leak of US police data in 2020, data from which DDoSecrets also hosted.A spokesperson for the Department of Peace pointed directly at actions by ICE agents for the groups work to hack DHS records. “On July 17th, Markwayne Mullin said he was ‘turning up the heat’. This is what happens to ICE when you do that,” the spokesperson wrote on Wednesday.Mullin in March became Secretary of Homeland Security. The Department of Peace said it accessed the DHS agent profiles through a single sign-on service called Okta.Okta is a popular online security tool that organisations use to ensure that only people with access to internal platforms are logging on to them.A spokeswoman for Okta said the company is aware of the claims being made, but said: “Okta is secure, and we have no evidence our data or systems were compromised.”Last month, the FBI was hacked by a group called ShinyHunters, which took personal information about thousands of agents. In recent days, the Federal Election Commission, which makes public political campaign donation data, was taken offline because of a suspected hacking attempt. Public backlash to US immigration enforcement has been building as the Trump Administration has pushed a huge increase in arrests and deportations of people suspected of being in the country illegally.Immigration operations this year have repeatedly turned violent, with ICE agents shooting at more than two dozen people and killing at least nine people. Those killings include the high profile deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, both of whom were shot and killed by ICE agents this year in Minnesota, despite not being the targets of arrests.Often, ICE agents carry out enforcement actions while their faces are covered by masks and sunglasses. Immigration agents rarely identify themselves, despite being required by law to do so, and US politicians have publicly demanded DHS enforces the requirement. Since President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025, the US has enacted nearly 1 million deportations, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute. More than 70% of the deportations have been of people with no criminal record.This article originally appeared on BBC at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq8jzkpjr28vo?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Byahoo.north.america%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D

A sign points toward voting stations inside the Arroyo Seco Regional Branch Library in Los Angeles. (Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)A federal judge in a blistering opinion Wednesday denied a Trump administration request to immediately block California elections officials from counting the ballots of 20,000 voters whose citizenship the administration questions. The administration swiftly said it would appeal.U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the administration’s allegations were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.Carter’s ruling was the second to deny the Trump administration a temporary restraining order against the state and Los Angeles County this week, after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s emergency request in a separate order Monday.Carter ruled after a 3½-hour hearing Tuesday, where a slew of attorneys for the state, county and independent voting rights groups argued against the administration’s demands.Read more: Your last-minute voter guide to California’s 2026 general electionFirst Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — who is the top federal prosecutor in L.A. and argued for the Trump administration at Tuesday’s hearing — wrote on X that his office had already filed notice of appeal and “will immediately seek an emergency order” reversing Carter back in the 9th Circuit.“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” Essayli wrote.State elections officials, other state leaders, voting rights advocates and election experts all cheered the ruling.“For the second day this week, our country’s legal system is standing up to the President’s authoritarian attempts to remain in power unchecked and unchallenged,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said.“Today’s ruling is yet another important victory for the rule of law and the right to vote,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. “But this fight is not over. We will keep fighting to protect California’s elections from unlawful federal interference and get this baseless lawsuit dismissed.”Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, whom the Trump administration sued along with the state and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, said the ruling “reinforces what we have maintained throughout this process: election integrity and the protection of eligible voters go hand in hand.”Anna Baldwin, the director of voting rights litigation at Campaign Legal Center who argued before Carter on behalf of the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens, said Carter had “affirmed what the Constitution has already made clear: The states and Congress oversee our elections, not the White House and not the Department of Justice.” Read more: Read the ballot rulingRick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, said Carter’s ruling was as sweeping a rejection of the Trump administration’s illegitimate attempts to interfere in California’s election as could possibly be written. “The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” Hasen said.And that is appropriate given that the case was a “total overreach of federal power,” Hasen said. “The Constitution’s clear that states have the authority to run Congressional elections unless Congress passes a statute otherwise — and Congress didn’t do so here.”The Trump administration sued California, Weber and Logan on Oct. 15 — three months after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote a letter to Weber alleging that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizens registered to vote in California, and two days after acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote again to Weber and Logan, giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 voters on the latest list.Much of the debate since has centered on the origins and evidence in support of that list.California and L.A. County officials have said the list appears to be inaccurate, with Logan’s office saying its review of a subset of about 200 voters found that a substantial portion appeared to have been born in the U.S. — a claim that has been disputed by Homeland Security officials.Elections officials from several other California counties have also raised concerns about the accuracy of smaller lists of voters derived from the 20,000 that were sent to them by Justice Department officials last week, along with a warning that they could face criminal penalties if they tabulate those votes. Officials have said the lists they received contained the names of individuals who did not appear to live in their counties or did not appear to be registered.State officials have pointed to similar lists being rejected as inaccurate elsewhere, including in Nevada. And during Tuesday’s hearing, multiple attorneys for voter advocacy groups — including the NAACP and Mi Familia en Acción — challenged both the origins and the reliability of the Trump administration’s data, and questioned why the Trump administration has so far refused to disclose when and from whom it obtained the purchased California voter roll data it says its analysis is based on.State and county officials have said that complying with the Trump administration’s demands would badly disrupt the election and could disenfranchise legitimate voters who are wrongly included on its inaccurate list.Justice Department officials have defended the list, saying it is composed of 20,000 individuals whom the administration has “high confidence” are not citizens, and that that number represents the “floor” to the issue — while the earlier, 190,000-strong list was the “ceiling” and also included people the administration had suspected but had less confidence were noncitizens.They argued that Carter should immediately bar the state and county from tabulating ballots from the flagged voters until they can prove those voters are citizens — in part because, as soon as cast ballots are received in person or removed from their envelopes, they cannot be resegregated.Essayli has said federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” to support their claims. At Tuesday’s hearing, he said once federal authorities obtained the purchased voter registration records from the state, they “had to enrich or enhance or add, supplement, information to the voter file, so they took the info that was on there — names, addresses — and they used a database that’s often used by law enforcement, it’s used commercially.”However, in sworn court filings, other administration officials have acknowledged “discrepancies” with some of the records and noted that more recent reviews of the data did show some people on the list appear to have citizenship claims. Essayli told Carter, “We’re never going to stand here and tell you that everything is 100%.”In his ruling Wednesday, Carter also focused in part on the reliability of the list, noting that the process by which the Trump administration compiled it, and the reliability of outside databases to build it, remained unclear and could not be determined to be reliable based on the record before the court — particularly given that administration lists elsewhere have been shown to be unreliable. But Carter also touched on several other weaknesses he saw in the Trump administration’s case — weaknesses that were also hit on by the 9th Circuit panel that rejected the administration’s request Monday. Among them, Carter found that the request violates federal law precluding altering of election rules on the eve of an election. Read more: Judge in L.A. weighs feds’ request to block 20,000 California votes with skepticismCarter wrote that prosecutors like Essayli can prosecute individuals who illegally vote — which he called a “clear remedy” to the administration’s concerns about illegal voters casting ballots — but that the administration’s demands to force the state and county to set aside 20,000 ballots at once “would wreak havoc and disrupt the election that is already underway, create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens.”“The Executive Branch cannot replace the remedy Congress carefully enacted with its own unlawful and unconstitutional solution instead,” Carter wrote.“Eroded trust in our democracy is irreparable. Once a vote is segregated, lasting harm has occurred. If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” he wrote. “This Court declines to be a party to such process.”Carter also denounced the Justice Department’s letters to county elections officials threatening them with criminal penalties if they don’t comply with its demands to set the ballots aside — writing that “these threats must stop.”An appeal, if one is filed by the Trump administration, would face a “tough road ahead,” Hasen said.While not guaranteed, the appeal is likely to be taken back up by the same three-judge appellate panel who previously heard — and rejected — the administration’s emergency request to block state officials from counting the ballots. That panel — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the previous request narrowly, ruling 2 to 1 that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter because Carter had not had a chance to rule in the lower court. However, both judges in the majority — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — wrote separately from the court decision to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits too.Among other things, they wrote that the U.S. Constitution gives power over elections to the states and Congress, not the executive branch, and that federal law precludes such voting probes so close to an election.Get the L.A. Times California Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week.This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.This article originally appeared on LA Times at https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/judge-denies-feds-request-block-005308566.html

Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh pushed back Wednesday on any suggestion that next week’s midterm elections had a role in the Fed’s decision to keep interest rates steady. He also dodged multiple questions on political topics and pressure coming his way from the Oval Office.But it wasn’t for a lack of trying from the assembled reporters.”I appreciate the question, but I’m not going to be responding to quotes from public officials,” Warsh said during a press conference when presented with criticisms from President Trump that interest rates should be lower and that his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee were “political.” When the subject turned to the midterm elections, Warsh was similarly curt.”Politics played no role in the decision,” the chair said, adding, “I just spent two days with my colleagues upstairs. I didn’t hear an utterance about politics.” He had another political topic to address before it was over when he was asked about a hearing planned for next week of a White House committee investigating allegations against Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook.Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates?Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh departs after speaking during a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee’s interest rate decision in Washington on Oct. 28. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)SAUL LOEB via Getty ImagesIt’s the latest twist in the White House effort to remove Cook from the central bank. Warsh was asked if he personally or the Fed as an institution would be involved in those proceedings.”Not to my knowledge,” he said.Warsh even seemed wary of weighing in on President Trump’s effort to rebrand artificial intelligence (AI) as super intelligence (SI), answering a question on the topic before quickly noting, “whether you pronounce it AI or SI … is up to you.”Read more: How jobs, inflation, and the Fed are all relatedHe defended the central bank’s decision to keep interest rates steady less than a week before the midterm elections and maintained that he is determined to get inflation to 2%.But the bevy of political questions underscored the meeting’s politically fraught timing, which the Fed has had to navigate before.The central bank raised rates in 2022 ahead of midterm voting, which Democrats blasted. The Fed then cut rates in 2024, which then-candidate Donald Trump immediately called “a political move to try and keep somebody in office.” This time, the central bank held steady. Trump didn’t immediately weigh in on the merits of the decision but told reporters on Wednesday afternoon he had not spoken to Warsh about this week’s decision.Last month, the president said he had spoken to Warsh before that meeting and has long been vocal about why he thinks interest rates should be lower.President Donald Trump leaves the stage after a campaign rally in Lubbock, Texas on Tueday. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)Chip Somodevilla via Getty ImagesOther elected officials, meanwhile, were quick to comment, with a round of finger-pointing from both sides of the aisle after the interest rates were left unchanged.Republican Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith pointed at the Fed itself.”It’s well past time for interest rates to come down … I hope the Fed will bring borrowing costs down soon so we can keep building a stronger, brighter future for American families,” Smith said in a statement.Democrats also said they wanted lower rates but blamed Trump.Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement, “Americans deserve lower interest rates and lower costs, but Donald Trump is standing in the way.”Yet contrary to both sides’ wishes, the Fed’s next move is expected to be a hike. The odds in the CME FedWatch Tool, which calculates how traders view upcoming Federal Reserve decisions, priced in a greater than 80% chance on Wednesday afternoon that the Fed will raise rates a quarter point at its next meeting in December.This story has been updated with additional developments.Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.This article originally appeared on Yahoo Finance at https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/article/i-didnt-hear-an-utterance-about-politics-warsh-bats-away-midterm-talk-following-rate-decision-203737154.html