# Trump's Aggressive Election Strategy

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 24 Sep 2026, 35 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/1020611f-3bb0-4b68-a38b-b4cf0023d462/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Danielle Lang, Vice President for voting rights and the rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, discusses the battle over Missouri’s congressional map and aggressive tactics by the Trump administration to control the midterm elections. Then Alex Ebert, Bloomberg Law senior correspondent, discusses San Francisco’s lawsuit against Trump’s Truth Social over offering customers priority access to the president’s posts for $100,000 per month. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:07] Speaker 2: They say the third time's a charm. Well, maybe this
[0:12] Speaker 2: latest appeal to the Supreme Court will be the final
[0:15] Speaker 2: word on the maps Missouri will use in the midterm.
[0:19] Speaker 2: The dispute over a new map drawn to help Republicans
[0:22] Speaker 2: gain a seat in the pivotal midterms has triggered confusion
[0:26] Speaker 2: and uncertainty for more than a million potential voters who
[0:30] Speaker 2: could be shuffled among districts. It comes amid crucial administrative deadlines.
[0:35] Speaker 2: Election officials in Missouri have already started mailing ballots to
[0:39] Speaker 2: military personnel and other voters outside the country. In two
[0:43] Speaker 2: separate rulings this month, the Supreme Court has told Missouri
[0:47] Speaker 2: it must use its old map, not the new gerrymandered
[0:51] Speaker 2: map drawn up by Republicans. But on Monday, a three-judge
[0:55] Speaker 2: panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said the
[0:58] Speaker 2: Constitution requires that the state use the same voting map
[1:02] Speaker 2: in November that it used during the primary elections. And
[1:07] Speaker 2: now the case is back at the Supreme Court. Joining
[1:10] Speaker 2: me is Danielle Lang, Vice President for Voting Rights and
[1:14] Speaker 2: the Rule of Law at the Campaign Legal Center. Danielle,
[1:18] Speaker 2: Missouri's redistricting battle has been among the longest and most
[1:22] Speaker 2: complex in the roughly dozen states that have sought to
[1:27] Speaker 2: change their House districts over the past year. Explain why
[1:31] Speaker 2: it's back at the Supreme Court once again.
[1:33] Speaker 3: That's a great question. I think it's because some of
[1:37] Speaker 3: the plaintiffs in the Missouri case can't quite get the
[1:40] Speaker 3: hint from the Supreme Court. And that seems to be
[1:43] Speaker 3: the case, I think, for the Eighth Circuit as well.
[1:46] Speaker 3: So twice this has been before the Supreme Court already.
[1:49] Speaker 3: And the Supreme Court has said, no, we have to
[1:51] Speaker 3: follow what the Missouri Supreme Court has said about the
[1:55] Speaker 3: redistricting and what map needs to be used. But notwithstanding
[2:00] Speaker 3: those two prior orders from the Supreme Court, the Eighth
[2:04] Speaker 3: Circuit nonetheless ruled in favor of plaintiffs that are trying
[2:08] Speaker 3: to seek the use of a map that the Missouri
[2:10] Speaker 3: Supreme Court has said cannot be used. And under those circumstances,
[2:14] Speaker 3: we have to go back to the Supreme Court to
[2:16] Speaker 3: correct that error.
[2:18] Speaker 2: So the Supreme Court ordered Missouri to use its old
[2:22] Speaker 2: map in the upcoming midterm elections. However, during the primaries,
[2:28] Speaker 2: Missouri used the new map, which was drawn up to
[2:31] Speaker 2: give Republicans an advantage. So they're using a map with
[2:35] Speaker 2: different lines from that used when voters went to the
[2:40] Speaker 2: polls for the primaries, that does seem like it might
[2:43] Speaker 2: cause some problems. And the Eighth Circuit said it's unconstitutional.
[2:48] Speaker 3: Right. But I would just say in this context, I
[2:51] Speaker 3: think the Supreme Court has already been clear. You know,
[2:53] Speaker 3: these are not new facts. The issue was already brought
[2:56] Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court of whether or not the Missouri
[3:00] Speaker 3: Supreme Court's order could be evaded. And the answer was no.
[3:04] Speaker 3: And so under those circumstances, I wouldn't expect there to
[3:07] Speaker 3: be a change in the Supreme Court's position.
[3:09] Speaker 2: And also the ballots have been mailed already, right, to
[3:12] Speaker 2: overseas and military voters?
[3:15] Speaker 1: Exactly.
[3:15] Speaker 3: You know, it is far too late to change things.
[3:18] Speaker 3: The election is underway and the Supreme Court has already
[3:21] Speaker 3: spoken twice.
[3:23] Speaker 2: Let's turn now to some of the problems that seem
[3:26] Speaker 2: to be arising ahead of the election. as President Trump
[3:32] Speaker 2: is trying to assert greater federal control over the elections,
[3:37] Speaker 2: and the Justice Department is employing an aggressive strategy that
[3:40] Speaker 2: includes suing states for voter records, investigating election officials, and
[3:46] Speaker 2: even seizing ballots in some states. And this is setting
[3:50] Speaker 2: off alarm bells as to what might happen on Election Day.
[3:55] Speaker 2: And the NAACP is suing over what it says is
[3:59] Speaker 2: a Trump administration plan to station armed federal agents near
[4:04] Speaker 2: voting locations. The federal government has sent monitors to election
[4:08] Speaker 2: sites before. Tell us what normally happens.
[4:12] Speaker 3: Yes, there's been a longstanding federal observer policy and program
[4:17] Speaker 3: from the Department of Justice as well as congressional observers.
[4:21] Speaker 3: But that's all they are. They are observers. They cannot interfere.
[4:25] Speaker 3: They cannot even enter polling places unless they're invited. They
[4:30] Speaker 3: have to stand outside. And so it is not the
[4:33] Speaker 3: case that observers can interfere with our elections in any way.
[4:38] Speaker 3: So that's a longstanding practice. And of course, I would
[4:42] Speaker 3: expect there to be observers at the polls this year,
[4:45] Speaker 3: the same way that they have always been. Of course,
[4:48] Speaker 3: there have been concerning and fear-mongering statements from members of
[4:52] Speaker 3: the administration saying, suggesting perhaps more nefarious motives at the
[4:57] Speaker 3: polls by federal officials. But their federal law is actually
[5:01] Speaker 3: very clear. There's a statute that says that you cannot
[5:05] Speaker 3: send federal armed officials to the polls. Point blank. That
[5:11] Speaker 3: is the law. There are no ifs, ands, or buts
[5:14] Speaker 3: to that law. And so there is no reason for
[5:19] Speaker 3: there to be federal armed officials at the polls.
[5:23] Speaker 2: Have the Justice Department or FBI officials hinted that they
[5:26] Speaker 2: might be armed?
[5:28] Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think that that is the image
[5:30] Speaker 3: that is evoked by FBI officers, ICE and the like,
[5:34] Speaker 3: is that those are typically law enforcement that are armed officials.
[5:38] Speaker 3: But the point is that there is no kind of
[5:40] Speaker 3: military or law enforcement, federal law enforcement permitted at the polls.
[5:44] Speaker 3: In fact, many states don't even allow state law enforcement
[5:48] Speaker 3: to be at the polls, except for under very limited circumstances. Because,
[5:53] Speaker 3: of course, voters should feel at ease at the polls.
[5:56] Speaker 3: And there are some communities that feel very ill at
[5:59] Speaker 3: ease when law enforcement is present.
[6:02] Speaker 2: So the NAACP is one of the groups that's suing
[6:05] Speaker 2: over this plan to place armed federal agents at the polls. So,
[6:09] Speaker 2: I mean, what can they hope to get before an
[6:11] Speaker 2: election that would stop that from happening?
[6:15] Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that groups like the NAACP are putting
[6:18] Speaker 3: down a marker to make it very clear in the
[6:21] Speaker 3: litigation that the law stands, that the law is clear,
[6:26] Speaker 3: and that federal law enforcement will not be tolerated at
[6:30] Speaker 3: the polls, and that the civic engagement community, the civil
[6:34] Speaker 3: rights community has voters back. And so... We'll see how
[6:39] Speaker 3: that litigation plays out and whether or not there will
[6:42] Speaker 3: be any kind of preliminary relief sought there. But one
[6:45] Speaker 3: way or another, it lays down a very clear marker.
[6:47] Speaker 3: This is the law and we will not tolerate it
[6:50] Speaker 3: to be violated.
[6:52] Speaker 2: I'm also wondering, so if despite this, armed agents end
[6:56] Speaker 2: up at the polls, what happens at the polls? Because
[6:59] Speaker 2: at that point you have disruption. I'm sure you have
[7:02] Speaker 2: some voters who are intimidated already. What happens if the
[7:06] Speaker 2: state runs to court or the county runs to court
[7:09] Speaker 2: and tries to get an order? Yeah.
[7:11] Speaker 3: First, I just want to assure listeners that we don't
[7:14] Speaker 3: have any reason to believe that there's going to be
[7:17] Speaker 3: kind of swarms of law enforcement at the polls. I
[7:20] Speaker 3: expect 2026 elections to go the way that voters normally
[7:25] Speaker 3: experience their elections, that they go to the polls, they
[7:28] Speaker 3: meet their friendly election officials, they get their sticker and
[7:32] Speaker 3: And they go along their merry way. But, you know,
[7:37] Speaker 3: as this lawsuit kind of demonstrates, civic engagement communities are
[7:41] Speaker 3: prepared for every eventuality and to protect voters. So what
[7:45] Speaker 3: does that look like? Okay, so if law enforcement appears
[7:50] Speaker 3: improperly at the polls, voters are going to have community
[7:54] Speaker 3: members there with them. They can just go ahead and vote. right?
[7:58] Speaker 3: They're going to move forward with their day. They're going
[8:00] Speaker 3: to lawfully cast their ballot and move on. And in
[8:04] Speaker 3: the meanwhile, there will be very prompt legal action. And
[8:08] Speaker 3: I would imagine that any such attempts at deployments would
[8:12] Speaker 3: be very quickly cut off.
[8:14] Speaker 2: I mentioned the head of the Civil Rights Division before,
[8:18] Speaker 2: Harmeet Dhillon. Historically, the Justice Department has has focused on
[8:24] Speaker 2: addressing racial discrimination, language and disability access at polls, and
[8:30] Speaker 2: other barriers to voting. Under President Trump, that's changed. And
[8:35] Speaker 2: now you have the department suing more than two dozen
[8:38] Speaker 2: states for their voter rolls. Explain why they want those rolls.
[8:44] Speaker 3: Yeah, the Department of Justice has been on a mission
[8:48] Speaker 3: to try to hoover up all of Americans' voter data
[8:52] Speaker 3: across the entire country, including social security numbers, driver's license numbers,
[8:58] Speaker 3: voter history. There's just no reason for the Department of
[9:01] Speaker 3: Justice to do that. There is no lawful basis for
[9:04] Speaker 3: the Department of Justice to do that. And it raises
[9:06] Speaker 3: both concerns about their motives as well as the privacy
[9:09] Speaker 3: of that data for American voters. And the good news
[9:13] Speaker 3: is that they have been unsuccessful. Red and blue states
[9:16] Speaker 3: alike have pushed back and they have been unanimous in
[9:20] Speaker 3: their victories thus far in the courts and kind of
[9:23] Speaker 3: pushing back on those attempts to hoover up American voter data.
[9:27] Speaker 2: Does this search for state voter rolls have anything to
[9:32] Speaker 2: do with the case before the Supreme Court where we're
[9:34] Speaker 2: waiting for the court to make a decision about the
[9:37] Speaker 2: Trump administration's use of the SAVE database?
[9:42] Speaker 3: Yes and no, I would say. Technically, no. And the
[9:45] Speaker 3: Department of Justice has at times suggested that they are unrelated.
[9:50] Speaker 3: But at the same time, we actually do know from
[9:54] Speaker 3: reporting that the Department of Justice did appear to be
[9:58] Speaker 3: sharing that data with... with Department of Homeland Security and
[10:02] Speaker 3: using this so-called SAVE database to try to match voters
[10:07] Speaker 3: to other federal data. And what the district court and
[10:12] Speaker 3: the D.C. Circuit found in that case is that that
[10:15] Speaker 3: entire process was unlawful. It violated the Privacy Act, and
[10:20] Speaker 3: it had all sorts of both security and accuracy concerns.
[10:24] Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll talk
[10:27] Speaker 2: about how state election officials and county officials are trying
[10:31] Speaker 2: to game out what might happen, the worst-case scenarios during
[10:35] Speaker 2: the midterm elections. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
[10:42] Speaker 2: While the Constitution largely puts states in charge of elections,
[10:46] Speaker 2: President Trump has sought to reach into virtually every corner
[10:50] Speaker 2: of the voting process as he boosts baseless accusations of
[10:55] Speaker 2: widespread fraud. And he's empowered agencies like the Justice Department
[11:00] Speaker 2: to pursue extraordinary legal tactics to assert greater federal control
[11:05] Speaker 2: over U.S. elections. I've been talking to Danielle Lange. Vice
[11:09] Speaker 2: President for Voting Rights and the Rule of Law at
[11:11] Speaker 2: the Campaign Legal Center. Harmeet Dhillon, who's the head of
[11:15] Speaker 2: the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, warned of
[11:19] Speaker 2: criminal investigations of state and local election officials for failing
[11:24] Speaker 2: to clean up voter rolls. Sending letters to top election
[11:28] Speaker 2: officials nationwide. I mean, is there a reason for her warning?
[11:33] Speaker 3: This is intimidation and nothing more. If you'll remember back
[11:38] Speaker 3: at the beginning of the year when there was that
[11:40] Speaker 3: huge ice surge in Minneapolis, the Department of Justice was
[11:45] Speaker 3: trying to kind of trade on, oh, perhaps we will
[11:49] Speaker 3: pull back on our ice surge if you will give
[11:51] Speaker 3: us this data or information that we want about voters,
[11:55] Speaker 3: which just shows the kind of length of intimidation that
[11:59] Speaker 3: and kind of thuggery that the Department of Justice has
[12:02] Speaker 3: been willing to engage in when it comes to their
[12:05] Speaker 3: mission to undermine our elections. So I see those letters
[12:09] Speaker 3: of kind of trying to threaten election officials into doing
[12:12] Speaker 3: their bidding as just another element in that scheme. Election
[12:17] Speaker 3: officials have regular list maintenance processes that they go through
[12:21] Speaker 3: year round. They are constantly cleaning their rolls to make
[12:26] Speaker 3: sure that people who've passed away or moved are removed
[12:29] Speaker 3: and that everybody who's newly registered gets registered. That's their
[12:33] Speaker 3: job and they know how to do it well. I
[12:35] Speaker 3: will say the one time that they're not doing it,
[12:38] Speaker 3: they're not doing kind of removal list maintenance is right now.
[12:42] Speaker 3: In the 90 days before a federal election, it's actually
[12:45] Speaker 3: illegal to engage in systematic list maintenance. So election officials
[12:49] Speaker 3: have already gone through all those processes in a timely
[12:52] Speaker 3: manner so that they could pause them in the run-up
[12:55] Speaker 3: to the election so that nobody gets improperly removed without
[12:59] Speaker 3: the ability to kind of fix it before the election.
[13:02] Speaker 2: Every investigation, et cetera, has shown that the incidence of
[13:07] Speaker 2: non-citizens voting is very, very low. But we had that
[13:12] Speaker 2: disclosure in New Jersey of the state software error that
[13:16] Speaker 2: registered several thousand non-citizens in 2023 and 2024, including several
[13:23] Speaker 2: hundred who ended up voting. And I wonder how much
[13:27] Speaker 2: that is giving credence to Trump's continuing claims of fraud
[13:34] Speaker 2: and non-citizens voting.
[13:36] Speaker 3: Listen, the administration has been on a consistent message, unsupported
[13:41] Speaker 3: by the facts or the evidence for a long time,
[13:44] Speaker 3: while predating this particular data point about New Jersey, telling
[13:49] Speaker 3: Americans lies about the integrity of our elections. And so
[13:54] Speaker 3: I think that you would tell those lies under any circumstances.
[13:57] Speaker 3: It is a mission of the administration to undermine our elections.
[14:03] Speaker 3: What happened in New Jersey was actually an example of
[14:06] Speaker 3: where there are errors, how the system should work. They
[14:09] Speaker 3: found the errors. They fixed them. They resolved it. And
[14:13] Speaker 3: it's important to note here that that was a data issue.
[14:17] Speaker 3: It was not a question of voters trying to engage
[14:21] Speaker 3: in subterfuge. These were individuals who had actually disclosed their
[14:25] Speaker 3: citizenship status when they got their driver's license. And the
[14:29] Speaker 3: agency made an error a data error. So nothing in
[14:33] Speaker 3: a kind of new restrictions on voting or the like
[14:37] Speaker 3: would have prevented that. It was a human data error.
[14:42] Speaker 3: And we caught it and we fixed it. And that's
[14:45] Speaker 3: exactly what should happen.
[14:46] Speaker 2: California's AG Rob Bonta told Bloomberg recently that Democratic state
[14:52] Speaker 2: officials are gaming out worst case scenarios for November, including
[14:57] Speaker 2: if federal agents show up to seize ballots. What happens
[15:03] Speaker 2: if federal agents come to try to seize ballots?
[15:07] Speaker 1: Here's what I'll say.
[15:09] Speaker 3: I think our elections are going to run really well
[15:10] Speaker 3: in 2026. The federal government doesn't have power over running
[15:15] Speaker 3: our elections. Their elections are run by thousands of individual
[15:20] Speaker 3: jurisdictions with their own power over the elections and election materials.
[15:25] Speaker 3: I also think it's right for state officials to be
[15:28] Speaker 3: gaming out worst case scenarios because, of course, this administration
[15:33] Speaker 3: has engaged in a lot of really dangerous threats. It
[15:36] Speaker 3: has engaged in unprecedented activities like going to seize the
[15:40] Speaker 3: ballot materials in Fulton County, Georgia. And what I would
[15:44] Speaker 3: expect is that state officials will be very well prepared
[15:48] Speaker 3: to push back on those, to immediately seek return of
[15:52] Speaker 3: those materials, to make sure that we have backup data
[15:55] Speaker 3: where possible to verify our election results. And so I
[16:00] Speaker 3: am gratified, although I very much hope it's unnecessary, that
[16:05] Speaker 3: state officials will have plans for every scenario.
[16:10] Speaker 2: And so now as far as there have been all the,
[16:12] Speaker 2: you know, the legal battles over mail-in ballots and the
[16:15] Speaker 2: post office trying to impose rules on the states submitting ballots,
[16:21] Speaker 2: has that all been settled? Is that all over? Yes.
[16:26] Speaker 3: The USPS rule is not going to be in place
[16:31] Speaker 3: in any way, shape, or form for the 2026 election.
[16:36] Speaker 3: It has been enjoined by Congress. two separate district courts,
[16:40] Speaker 3: the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, has said we
[16:43] Speaker 3: are not going to disrupt that injunction.
[16:46] Speaker 2: As far as going back to the Missouri map and
[16:49] Speaker 2: the congressional map situations, all this confusion over the maps
[16:53] Speaker 2: and this last-minute jockeying is because President Trump made that request,
[16:58] Speaker 2: starting with Texas, to redistrict. Besides Missouri, are there any
[17:04] Speaker 2: other states' maps that are still in question?
[17:08] Speaker 3: No, there should not be. Elections are underway. You know,
[17:11] Speaker 3: I mean, for the reasons we talked about at the
[17:12] Speaker 3: top of our discussion, Missouri also shouldn't be a question
[17:16] Speaker 3: except for the kind of unreasonable behavior, I think, of
[17:19] Speaker 3: the plaintiffs in that case. And I very much hope
[17:22] Speaker 3: that that's going to be put to an end, hopefully today,
[17:27] Speaker 3: if not later this week by the Supreme Court. And
[17:31] Speaker 3: so voters have really been put through the ringer this
[17:34] Speaker 3: year with this redistricting war. It's something that voters should
[17:38] Speaker 3: not have had to face. It is absurd for there
[17:44] Speaker 3: to be this race to the bottom when it comes
[17:46] Speaker 3: to redistricting when there doesn't need to be any redistricting
[17:50] Speaker 3: being done mid-cycle. Normally, we only redistrict every 10 years
[17:55] Speaker 3: with new census results. This is unprecedented. But I think
[17:59] Speaker 3: that we are at the end and it's time for
[18:02] Speaker 3: voters to actually have their voices heard.
[18:04] Speaker 2: Is the whole point of a lot of this just
[18:07] Speaker 2: intimidation and to try to stop people from coming to
[18:11] Speaker 2: the polls?
[18:12] Speaker 3: I think that is part of the purpose, but I
[18:14] Speaker 3: don't think it will work. I think there is this
[18:16] Speaker 3: idea that we can kind of demoralize voters. We can
[18:21] Speaker 3: scare voters. We can confuse voters. And so that will
[18:26] Speaker 3: change the outcomes of an election. But I actually think
[18:29] Speaker 3: American voters are a lot more resilient than that. They
[18:32] Speaker 3: can kind of see through things. all of this morass
[18:36] Speaker 3: and see that what's really happening is that there's a
[18:38] Speaker 3: lot of attention being paid to the rules of voting
[18:41] Speaker 3: trying to undermine their vote because their vote is powerful.
[18:44] Speaker 3: I am pretty confident that voters are going to be
[18:48] Speaker 3: steadfast in making sure that their voices are heard.
[18:51] Speaker 2: There's always, I don't know, is it always or often
[18:54] Speaker 2: litigation after the elections over results?
[18:59] Speaker 3: I suppose I would say often, but it's close to
[19:01] Speaker 3: always if you think about a national election, there's always
[19:04] Speaker 3: going to be some elections that are very close and
[19:06] Speaker 3: therefore lead to some post-election litigation.
[19:09] Speaker 2: Are you guys anticipating that there'll be even more this midterm?
[19:14] Speaker 3: I think it's really hard to say. You know, a
[19:17] Speaker 3: lot of this will often depend on how close the
[19:19] Speaker 3: races are. When elections aren't that close, it doesn't really
[19:24] Speaker 3: leave a lot of options for candidates to try to
[19:27] Speaker 3: undermine the results. where they are closer or where candidates
[19:34] Speaker 3: are unwilling to concede to the voice of the American people.
[19:39] Speaker 3: They will sometimes try to use the courts as a
[19:41] Speaker 3: way to change the results. But I've been through a
[19:45] Speaker 3: few cycles of that now, and it doesn't succeed.
[19:48] Speaker 2: The Justice Department is still re-litigating or investigating the 2020 election.
[19:54] Speaker 2: I mean, they actually seized ballots in Georgia, right?
[19:58] Speaker 3: They did seize ballot materials in Georgia related to the
[20:01] Speaker 3: 2020 election. That's correct.
[20:03] Speaker 2: I mean, it's been litigated so many times, I can't imagine.
[20:06] Speaker 3: So many times over. I can tell you that you
[20:09] Speaker 3: and most Americans would prefer to not hear anything more
[20:13] Speaker 3: about another investigation into an election that occurred six years ago.
[20:17] Speaker 2: Oh, I'm wondering, I've been reading about concerns for the
[20:22] Speaker 2: safety of election officials and election workers because in recent years,
[20:28] Speaker 2: they've been subjected to more threats of harassment and violence
[20:32] Speaker 2: than And that some election offices have done security upgrades
[20:39] Speaker 2: because of these threats.
[20:41] Speaker 3: I mean, let me start by saying that I think
[20:43] Speaker 3: that listeners, if there's one thing they can do to
[20:45] Speaker 3: help support our elections, be kind to your election officials.
[20:49] Speaker 3: Say thank you. They are doing hard work and it
[20:52] Speaker 3: is a real civic duty and it's a labor of
[20:55] Speaker 3: love for election officers. officials. They serve our democracy at
[20:59] Speaker 3: the front lines. And they have been subject to really
[21:02] Speaker 3: outrageous harassment and intimidation because of the lies that have
[21:07] Speaker 3: been told to the American people.
[21:09] Speaker 2: About our elections.
[21:10] Speaker 3: And I find that really heartbreaking. That being said, I
[21:14] Speaker 3: do think that state-level officials have worked hard to make
[21:18] Speaker 3: sure that election officials have the support that they need.
[21:21] Speaker 3: And we're continuing to try to provide election officials with
[21:25] Speaker 3: the support that they need. Some states have specific laws
[21:29] Speaker 3: protecting against intimidation. And that's a place where we need
[21:33] Speaker 3: to continue to pump resources. If we care about our democracy,
[21:36] Speaker 3: we need to continue to pump resources into its clean administration,
[21:40] Speaker 3: make sure that officials have everything they need to do
[21:43] Speaker 3: their job safely.
[21:44] Speaker 2: And do you have any advice for voters in general?
[21:48] Speaker 3: It's a busy time, and I think it can be
[21:50] Speaker 3: really dizzying. I think the one thing I would say
[21:52] Speaker 3: is that listeners are going to see a lot in
[21:55] Speaker 3: the news about voting rules and challenges in the news,
[21:59] Speaker 3: and it will be hard to follow it all. But
[22:01] Speaker 3: I think you can have faith that at the end
[22:03] Speaker 3: of the day, what's going to happen this November is
[22:06] Speaker 3: we're going to have an election day. We're going to
[22:08] Speaker 3: cast our ballot. Those ballots are going to get counted.
[22:11] Speaker 3: And then we're going to have results. And those results
[22:13] Speaker 3: are going to lead to new elected officials throughout the country.
[22:18] Speaker 3: And so there's going to be a lot of dizzying
[22:21] Speaker 3: fights in the short term. But voters just have to
[22:24] Speaker 3: have the eye on their prize, which is to just
[22:27] Speaker 3: make sure that they know what they need to do
[22:30] Speaker 3: to make a plan to vote.
[22:31] Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me today, Danielle. That's Danielle Lange.
[22:35] Speaker 2: Vice President for Voting Rights and the Rule of Law
[22:37] Speaker 2: at the Campaign Legal Center. Coming up next on the
[22:40] Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. San Francisco is suing Trump's social media platform,
[22:46] Speaker 2: Truth Social, for offering customers who pay $ 100, 000 a month
[22:52] Speaker 2: priority access to the president's and other high-level officials' posts
[22:57] Speaker 2: before they're available to the public. I'm June Grosso, and
[23:00] Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg. San Francisco's city attorney is urging
[23:08] Speaker 2: a state court to block Trump's social media platform, Truth Social,
[23:13] Speaker 2: from offering customers who pay $ 100, 000 a month priority access
[23:19] Speaker 2: to the president's and other high-level officials' posts before they're
[23:23] Speaker 2: available to other users. In the lawsuit filed in San
[23:27] Speaker 2: Francisco's Superior Court, The city attorney says that Trump Media
[23:31] Speaker 2: and Technology Group is aiding and abetting Trump's violations of
[23:36] Speaker 2: federal ethics and anti-corruption law and violating other federal laws
[23:41] Speaker 2: that protect against insider trading. Quote, it's a pay to
[23:45] Speaker 2: play scheme for early access to the president's market moving
[23:49] Speaker 2: government decisions. This public scheme has turned public trust into
[23:53] Speaker 2: private profit. This is corruption, plain and simple. Trump media
[23:59] Speaker 2: said the lawsuit fails to grasp the basic distinction between
[24:03] Speaker 2: public and non-public information. Joining me is Bloomberg Law's senior correspondent,
[24:08] Speaker 2: Alex Ebert. Alex, tell us more about this, shall we
[24:12] Speaker 2: call it a service?
[24:12] Speaker 1: So Trump media and through their company, Truth Social, they've
[24:17] Speaker 1: created a paid subscription program that allows early access to
[24:23] Speaker 1: Trump and other senior officials' posts on Truth Social. It's
[24:27] Speaker 1: called Truth API. And for $ 100, 000 a month, you get
[24:31] Speaker 1: some early access to some pretty critical information if you
[24:35] Speaker 1: were a trader. Think about announcements about tariffs, or maybe
[24:40] Speaker 1: if there's a merger happening that the government is allowing,
[24:43] Speaker 1: or perhaps if the government leaked the Bureau of Labor
[24:46] Speaker 1: Statistics a little bit early. These kind of things might
[24:49] Speaker 1: pop up on Truth Social, and these people would have
[24:52] Speaker 1: first dibs at getting to see them.
[24:54] Speaker 2: Is this already ongoing? Have people subscribed?
[24:57] Speaker 1: This is ongoing. People have subscribed. There's been an investor
[25:01] Speaker 1: call about it. And the early sort of pronouncements on
[25:05] Speaker 1: it are that we've seen investors interested in it. We've
[25:08] Speaker 1: seen crypto firms interested in it. And these are folks
[25:11] Speaker 1: that really can take advantage of lightning quick actions on
[25:16] Speaker 1: information to make bets in.
[25:19] Speaker 3: The stock market.
[25:19] Speaker 2: $ 100, 000 a month. I mean, to me, that's high, but
[25:22] Speaker 2: is that high for a service like this?
[25:25] Speaker 1: Well, I'm not aware of what the market price is
[25:27] Speaker 1: for a service like this, but let's consider we work
[25:30] Speaker 1: for Bloomberg, right? It is definitely more than you'd pay
[25:33] Speaker 1: for a terminal subscription. And the difference there between buying
[25:38] Speaker 1: a terminal subscription or purchasing a true social API framework
[25:42] Speaker 1: is that This is public information from public officials that
[25:45] Speaker 1: they got from their public offices. And so you see
[25:49] Speaker 1: lawsuits challenging this idea of potential trading on the information
[25:53] Speaker 1: that you get from being in office.
[25:55] Speaker 2: The San Francisco city attorney is suing. Why are they
[25:59] Speaker 2: suing in particular?
[26:00] Speaker 1: Yeah, they're suing because they're saying this is about the
[26:03] Speaker 1: haves and have nots. You're going to have a lot
[26:05] Speaker 1: of investors in the world that can't afford $ 100, 000 a
[26:08] Speaker 1: month to get at this information. And they're saying some
[26:12] Speaker 1: pension funds can't get at it. People with their 401ks,
[26:16] Speaker 1: they're not going to have the same access to this
[26:19] Speaker 1: quick information from Trump and other members of his cabinet
[26:23] Speaker 1: that would allow them to trade as quickly and efficiently
[26:26] Speaker 1: as the people that are paying into Truth API. They're
[26:29] Speaker 1: saying that this creates violations of California's unfair competition law.
[26:36] Speaker 2: It certainly seems unethical. But Trump has made billions of
[26:40] Speaker 2: dollars during his presidency doing things that other presidents would
[26:45] Speaker 2: never have done. I mean, most other presidents don't do
[26:48] Speaker 2: any business dealings during their presidency.
[26:51] Speaker 1: Well, I'm not here to comment on the ethics of it,
[26:54] Speaker 1: but it's definitely unprecedented.
[26:55] Speaker 2: Right.
[26:56] Speaker 1: And in the lawsuit, you see San Francisco trying to
[27:00] Speaker 1: do an interesting bank shot here. They're trying to say
[27:04] Speaker 1: that this program violates federal laws, right? Securities violations or
[27:10] Speaker 1: insider trading violations. And because of that, you can sue
[27:15] Speaker 1: claiming that this is an unfair business practice in California.
[27:19] Speaker 1: That is different from the litigation that we're seeing out
[27:23] Speaker 1: of the D.C. District Court. There you have a couple
[27:26] Speaker 1: of nonprofits suing, saying these are constitutional violations. We're talking
[27:30] Speaker 1: about people trading on their office and it's violating First Amendment,
[27:34] Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act rights of U.S. citizens.
[27:40] Speaker 2: So what are the plaintiffs looking for in these lawsuits?
[27:43] Speaker 1: Well, the two different lawsuits, I believe, are looking for
[27:45] Speaker 1: the exact same thing, which is to shut this down.
[27:48] Speaker 1: The question is going to be, you know, in California,
[27:51] Speaker 1: can you get some sort of injunction there that covers
[27:53] Speaker 1: the state and does that matter? You know, can you
[27:56] Speaker 1: get it to cover the entire country? And the same
[27:58] Speaker 1: in D.C. For the folks in D.C., their claim is, listen,
[28:02] Speaker 1: we have a First Amendment right to listen. This is
[28:04] Speaker 1: public information. You can't trade on it for ethics reasons.
[28:08] Speaker 1: But for constitutional reasons, you cannot do this because when
[28:13] Speaker 1: that information becomes public, it is in the public sphere.
[28:18] Speaker 1: This is a public forum. You need to give this
[28:20] Speaker 1: up to the public. So we need to stop the
[28:22] Speaker 1: president's company from doing so.
[28:24] Speaker 2: Trump media said in a statement that the lawsuit fails
[28:27] Speaker 2: to grasp the basic distinction between public and non-public information
[28:33] Speaker 2: and also accused the city's attorneys of being left wing activists.
[28:37] Speaker 2: What is the Trump administration's position?
[28:40] Speaker 1: The Trump administration's position is that they can do that.
[28:43] Speaker 1: I think it'll be really interesting to watch this litigation
[28:46] Speaker 1: moving forward for a couple of reasons, if we can
[28:49] Speaker 1: just roll the clock. I think the first will be standing, right?
[28:53] Speaker 1: Especially in the city's case, it'll be interesting to see
[28:56] Speaker 1: if the court there finds issues with that. I think
[28:59] Speaker 1: it'll be fascinating to watch if the underlying claims here
[29:03] Speaker 1: get a really hard look too, because... You know, we
[29:06] Speaker 1: are talking about something that's a little bit more amorphous
[29:08] Speaker 1: there and kind of a bank shot relying on federal laws.
[29:11] Speaker 1: You've seen under this unfair competition law, insider trading type
[29:15] Speaker 1: suits brought against some defendants, including big investment firms. But
[29:22] Speaker 1: they're rare, right? And do those cases brought against folks
[29:26] Speaker 1: like Morgan Stanley and Coinbase sort of play in the
[29:29] Speaker 1: same sandbox as something against a social media company where
[29:33] Speaker 1: the whole idea behind it is to share information? So
[29:37] Speaker 1: these are sort of open questions there. And then in
[29:39] Speaker 1: the District of Columbia case, I'm going to be really
[29:43] Speaker 1: interested to see how standing works there as well. Because
[29:46] Speaker 1: if I were the Trump administration or its defenders, I
[29:49] Speaker 1: would be saying that, you know, there is a delay
[29:52] Speaker 1: on public dissemination of information between groups of people all
[29:55] Speaker 1: the time. And depending on the amount of delay here,
[29:58] Speaker 1: you know, this might be fine under the Constitution.
[30:02] Speaker 2: As you write on Monday, a group of former prosecutors
[30:05] Speaker 2: and federal agents filed an amicus brief in yet another
[30:08] Speaker 2: case against this service in the Southern District of New York.
[30:12] Speaker 1: So you have this group of amicus, 53 prosecutors and
[30:16] Speaker 1: law enforcement agents that worked on public integrity, public corruption matters.
[30:21] Speaker 1: And they're pointing to all of these concerns over the
[30:24] Speaker 1: ethics that you were bringing up before. They're just trading
[30:27] Speaker 1: on public information. This is profiting from the.
[30:33] Speaker 2: Office.
[30:33] Speaker 1: And it's not just Trump. We're talking about posts from
[30:37] Speaker 1: other federal officials. You've got Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.
[30:42] Speaker 1: You've got HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. You've got
[30:46] Speaker 1: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FBI Director Kash Patel. And
[30:51] Speaker 1: at least in the D.C. litigation, you have Natalie Hart,
[30:54] Speaker 1: Trump's executive assistant, as a defendant because she's the fast
[30:57] Speaker 1: fingers behind Trump's true social posts. So it's even broader
[31:02] Speaker 1: than Trump when it comes to this idea of taking
[31:05] Speaker 1: public information, putting it behind a paywall, at least for
[31:08] Speaker 1: a limited amount of time, and extracting profits from it.
[31:11] Speaker 2: I mean, this is unique, right? This has never happened before.
[31:15] Speaker 2: Anything like this.
[31:17] Speaker 1: This is unique. There is no precedent for it. You
[31:20] Speaker 1: don't see anything in these lawsuits referencing back to anything from,
[31:24] Speaker 1: you know, the times of earlier American scandals. You know,
[31:28] Speaker 1: we're inside the eye of a hurricane here, you know,
[31:32] Speaker 1: looking out at the combination between an aggressive social media
[31:37] Speaker 1: company that's looking to monetize and compete using, you know,
[31:42] Speaker 1: an owner president's post. And you're looking at liberal groups
[31:47] Speaker 1: reaching out to try to stop it, you know, because
[31:50] Speaker 1: they see it either as disadvantaging their people limiting access
[31:53] Speaker 1: to public information or as a grift. So, yes, this
[31:57] Speaker 1: is completely unheard of.
[31:59] Speaker 2: I mean, if this were not President Trump, it's something
[32:03] Speaker 2: that you would expect an agency like the SEC to
[32:06] Speaker 2: be investigating.
[32:07] Speaker 1: You'd expect that. I think that we would run into
[32:10] Speaker 1: similar issues that we saw with investigations regarding Jack Smith
[32:15] Speaker 1: and the fact that you cannot investigate a sitting president. But,
[32:21] Speaker 1: you know, we also have some interesting nesting issues there, right?
[32:26] Speaker 1: Because Trump's trust, the blind trust, holds his ownership in this.
[32:30] Speaker 1: And so I'm sure there's someone out there who can
[32:33] Speaker 1: make an argument that there should be an investigation into this,
[32:36] Speaker 1: but you don't have that yet. You see in California, too,
[32:40] Speaker 1: that the underlying allegations here sort of, you know, beg
[32:44] Speaker 1: for that, right? They're saying that there are violations here
[32:48] Speaker 1: of securities laws, but you don't have an investigation to
[32:53] Speaker 1: back that up. So the question then becomes, if you
[32:56] Speaker 1: don't have some sort of written in stone violation there,
[33:01] Speaker 1: can you support the allegations that San Francisco is bringing?
[33:05] Speaker 2: Do you know how Truth Social is doing as a company?
[33:08] Speaker 1: Not well, according to Bloomberg's own reporting. During a recent call,
[33:13] Speaker 1: it sounds like there are several hundred million dollars in debt.
[33:16] Speaker 1: The gist is that, you know, they're sort of floundering
[33:19] Speaker 1: and this could be a way for them to make
[33:22] Speaker 1: up the gap that they have between other social media companies.
[33:25] Speaker 1: And $ 100, 000, you know, per user that's looking for this
[33:29] Speaker 1: quick information is not a drop in the bucket. That
[33:31] Speaker 1: can be serious cash.
[33:33] Speaker 2: And do you have any idea how much they've made
[33:36] Speaker 2: so far?
[33:37] Speaker 1: I've seen reporting that indicates that they've made about a
[33:40] Speaker 1: million dollars in one month.
[33:41] Speaker 2: I'm surprised there hasn't been more publicity about this, at
[33:45] Speaker 2: least so far. Perhaps the lawsuits will bring the publicity.
[33:50] Speaker 1: You see these lawsuits trying to attack and challenge this
[33:55] Speaker 1: unprecedented business relationship with the sitting president that raises all
[33:59] Speaker 1: of these issues and concerns. There's going to be fights
[34:02] Speaker 1: over standing. There's going to be fights over applications of
[34:05] Speaker 1: these law and whether these litigants can prove of these claims.
[34:09] Speaker 1: But the underlying accusation that a public official is seeking
[34:14] Speaker 1: to profit from early announcements, that's not in dispute. It's
[34:18] Speaker 1: actually the business model.
[34:20] Speaker 2: Well, thanks so much for the conversation, Alex. That's Bloomberg
[34:22] Speaker 2: Law Senior Correspondent Alex Ebert. And that's it for this
[34:26] Speaker 2: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always
[34:29] Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
[34:32] Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
[34:36] Speaker 2: www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into
[34:41] Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall
[34:45] Speaker 2: Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.