Americans can’t afford to be complacent about our election security. The right to vote is one of the most indispensable civil rights in a constitutional republic, but it is not self-executing. Laws must protect that right, ensure its proper administration, and defend it against error, fraud, and foreign influence.
Citizenship must be verified when voters register. States must maintain accurate voter rolls and give federal authorities the data to which they’re legally entitled. They must also have reliable proof-of-eligibility requirements and prosecute election-law violations.
Americans have fought too long and sacrificed too much to surrender sovereignty to administrative negligence and foreign influence.
This is ultimately not merely an election-administration issue — it is a matter of sovereignty.
The proposition that only American citizens may vote in elections is a cornerstone of our republic. The citizenship requirement preserves self-government and ensures that those who decide our elections are members of the American political community. If these basic rules are treated as mere aspiration rather than an enforceable legal requirement, then American sovereignty is at risk.
The vote — and the machinery that receives, records, verifies, counts, and reports it — is how the American people confer legitimate authority on public officials.
The size of the illegal immigrant population in the country underscores the point. The Department of Homeland Security estimated that roughly 11 million unauthorized immigrants — or 3.3% of the U.S. population — resided in the country in January 2022. The Federation for American Immigration Reform’s March 2025 estimate puts this population at approximately 18.6 million at the beginning of 2025.
Whatever the precise number, the practical consequence is the same: A large non-citizen population resides in communities served by state voter-registration systems.
The cost of waiting to verify eligibility until after an election is too high, because even one unlawful vote dilutes a lawful citizen’s vote and undermines confidence in the electoral process.
RELATED: 11 years later, Trump’s immigration promises still aren’t law
Recent reports only reinforce the need for scrutiny. DHS has found that preliminary reviews identified more than 250,000 potential non-citizens on voter rolls in four states and asked those states to work with the department on election security. Some state officials and election experts have disputed that claim. Fine. Then investigate it thoroughly, transparently, and promptly. The answer to a serious allegation is verification, not indifference.
Though Congress began requiring states to offer voter registration when people apply for or renew driver’s licenses through the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, convenience is not the enemy of integrity. The NVRA did not relieve states of their duty to maintain accurate voter rolls. States must ensure that illegal aliens and other ineligible persons do not vote in elections.
History supplies ample warning on this score. A review of Department of Motor Vehicles records revealed that Philadelphia mistakenly allowed non-citizens to register to vote around 2016. State officials later revised the system, but the episode demonstrates why citizenship verification cannot be left to bureaucratic happenstance.
And the problem isn’t limited to administrative error.
In the Eastern District of North Carolina, federal prosecutors charged 19 foreign nationals with voting in the 2016 election. In the Southern District of Florida, three non-citizens pleaded guilty to illegally voting in federal elections and committing related election offenses.
These numbers may not be large in isolation, but that misses the point. Election crimes are crimes against public trust. They injure every lawful voter whose ballot is entitled to equal weight under law.
RELATED: George Washington’s advice for the midterms
To combat this, states and municipalities should require reliable proof of citizenship and verification before an ineligible registration can result in a ballot being cast. State election officials should coordinate with federal authorities to obtain accurate citizenship and immigration-status information, consistent with law. The Department of Justice should continue to prosecute those who breach the system.
Encouragingly, some states have begun to act. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that four states enacted documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirements in 2026. Thirteen states now have such laws at some point in the registration process, though litigation and court decisions have prevented some provisions from taking effect.
Other states have adopted bifurcated systems that allow voters who have not provided documentary proof of citizenship to vote in state elections, while still requiring verification for federal elections. These reforms reflect a necessary shift toward verifying citizenship rather than relying solely on a voter’s word.
The reason is obvious. If election safeguards are weak enough to allow non-citizens to register, vote, or otherwise influence elections, public policy could be shaped by individuals who have not assumed the duties of American citizenship or pledged allegiance to the constitutional order. That is a clear breach of the social compact.
The federal government already recognizes the critical nature of citizenship when public trust and national interest are at stake. For example, many national security positions require U.S. citizenship because they involve access to sensitive government information.
Though voting is different from government employment, it is still an exercise of sovereign authority. Through the ballot, citizens choose who will make law, set policy, spend public money, appoint officials, and direct the machinery of government. Sovereignty is preserved not by slogans but by laws faithfully enforced, passed by representatives chosen by American citizens.
State legislators must give election officials the tools to reinforce safeguards, confirm citizenship, maintain accurate voter rolls, and protect citizen self-government. Americans have fought too long and sacrificed too much to surrender sovereignty to administrative negligence and foreign influence.
The rule is simple, just, and essential: American citizens — and only American citizens — must decide American elections.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.
Defense attorneys for the autistic J6 pipe bomb suspect have claimed in a new court filing that FBI agents "coerced" him into confessing after he mentally short-circuited during their lengthy interrogation.
On Dec. 4, 2025, Brian Cole — a 31-year-old Virginia man "requiring support" on account of a level-1 Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis, according to his attorneys — was arrested and interviewed by federal agents, having been accused of planting pipe bombs at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee on Jan. 5, 2021.
'How am I supposed to explain that I'm innocent?'
Cole was initially charged with interstate transportation of explosives and with malicious attempt to use explosives. A superseding indictment filed on Wednesday further charges Cole with two felony counts of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and two felony counts of committing an act of terrorism while armed.
According to court documents, the FBI identified Cole as a suspect partly on the basis of his alleged purchases of "multiple items consistent with the components that were used to manufacture the pipe bombs placed at the RNC and DNC," including five nine-volt battery connectors, multiple endcaps, two white kitchen timers, 14-gauge electrical wire, and steel wool.
These alleged purchases took place months and in some cases years ahead of the incident, as the FBI affidavit acknowledges.
The FBI further alleged that Cole "purchased equipment that would facilitate the manufacturing of a pipe bomb"; that cellphone data places him in the area around the time the bombs were supposedly planted; and that his Nissan Sentra was observed driving past a license plate reader near where the devices were ultimately found.
John Shoreman, one of Cole's defense attorneys, noted just weeks after the arrest that the suspect — who has pleaded not guilty in the case — is an autistic, "mild-mannered man" who lived with his mother and "whose life is run by strict routine."
RELATED: 'We have compromised the FBI': Pokemon lovers boast of shocking hack on federal website
Shoreman, responding to prosecutors' claim that Cole confessed to planting bombs, told NPR in January, "Whether or not that post-arrest interview [on Dec. 4] constitutes a confession — a lawful confession — is something that we will need to visit at a later stage in this case."
Cole's attorneys filed a motion on Tuesday requesting the suppression of statements that Cole made to the FBI during his interrogation on Dec. 4, arguing that their client had not provided law enforcement with "a voluntary confession."
According to the defense, the video and transcript of Cole's interrogation:
show the methodical dismantling of a man whose autism spectrum disorder left him unable to withstand the psychologically coercive tactics deployed against him, and who told the agents so, in real time, while they pressed him, told him his professions of innocence were criminal, and threatened to “drag” his family through the same experience Mr. Cole had gone through that morning — the morning that started at gunpoint.
The defense characterized the events of Dec. 4, 2025, as discombobulating for Cole, starting with his arrest at gunpoint, his isolation in an interview room with a pair of special agents, and his alleged instruction by the FBI agents prior to Mirandization that he would benefit in the long run from being "forthright with us."
The defense indicated that Cole was utterly bewildered by the accusation that he was involved in the pipe bomb plot.
Citing the transcript, the defense claims Cole initially responded: "Whoa, wait a minute. Wait a minute. ... This, this is a misunderstanding. Please tell me. Please tell me. Please, please, please tell me."
Cole allegedly also stated, "Please tell me this is a misunderstanding," another five times, begged to be given time to process the information, then repeatedly stated, "Oh, my God."
According to the defense's motion, Cole "underscored his deteriorating mental state to the agents dozens of times" and began to physically manifest signs of mental distress, including gagging and experiencing chills that prompted one agent to wrap him in a blanket.
Over the course of his apparent breakdown, Cole repeatedly referred to his mental challenges, repeatedly denied the accusations, and repeatedly stated, "How am I supposed to explain that I'm innocent?" according to the filing.
After the FBI agents allegedly made numerous threats and assertions of "infallible certainty" about evidence supposedly implicating Cole, the suspect began "stimming," then broke, claimed his attorneys.
Cole's attorneys defined stimming as "the self-regulating repetition characteristic of an autistic person in acute physical and emotional distress." According to the defense, Cole manifested this stimming behavior when he allegedly chanted, "I didn't, I didn't, I didn't," then said to himself, "Do whatever you can to clear your name. You can get out of this."
After Cole allegedly short-circuited, the agents supposedly gave him an off-ramp, asking him to identify a suspect in surveillance footage. The filing, citing the transcript, summarizes the exchange Cole allegedly had with the agents that resulted in Cole identifying the suspect as himself:
“Do you recognize that person?” “No.” “Have you watched this video before?” “No.” (Tr. at 92.) Only then did the agents remind him what a denial would cost: “lying to federal agents is breaking the law. That’s another crime. ... So more lies just makes it worse, okay? ... No, look at me. Do you understand that?” (Id.) Seconds later, repeating the question drew the opposite answer. “So, is this individual you?” (Pause.) “Yes.”
The defense claimed in the filing that Cole's identification of the suspect as himself after repeated denials "was not the product of the video; Mr. Cole had just denied recognizing himself in it. It was the product of the threat — the agents turned 'No' into 'Yes' by telling him that 'No' was itself a crime."
Following Cole's apparent admission that he was the suspect on-screen, he allegedly began "repeating the agents' own script back to them."
Furthermore, the FBI agents, having apparently recognized that Cole is close with his family and sensitive about their perception of him, allegedly threatened to "drag them all here" and subject them to a similar ordeal unless he told them "the truth," according to the filing.
After reviewing audio of Cole's interrogation and related documents, Richard Leo, a professor of law and psychology at the University of San Francisco, said in a Sept. 24 report filed by the defense that Cole's Dec. 4 interrogation:
involved the use of psychological interrogation techniques, methods, and strategies that have been shown by social science research to increase the risk of eliciting false and unreliable statements, admissions and/or confessions (i.e., situational risk factors). These included: Reid-based guilt-presumptive interrogation; false and exaggerated evidence ploys; minimization and maximization; and implied (if not explicit) promises of leniency and implied threats.
In light of Leo's conclusion and the recordings that prompted it, the defense argued that Cole's statements to the FBI were "involuntary under the totality of the circumstances" and that his interrogation was "objectively coercive."
Cole's attorneys did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
A Justice Department spokesperson told Blaze News that the department "intends to respond to the defense’s motion in a filing with the Court" and "does not comment on pending litigation." The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia told Blaze News, "We will respond to the motion in our filing with the court."
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) demanded on Wednesday that FBI Director Kash Patel resign over Cole's case, stating what Patel and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino "have done to this autistic black man is inexcusable."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Deportation flights are cleared for takeoff.
The Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday issued an emergency ruling allowing the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to "third countries," or those other than their nation of origin. The administration has deported Cubans and Venezuelans to African nations like Liberia and Eswatini.
'A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike.'
Though the one-page stay did not include a vote count, the three liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson noted they would not have granted the Trump administration's request.
The Department of Homeland Security wasted no time taking a victory lap on social media.
"In our second Supreme Court victory in less than a week, DHS’s third country removal policy is back in effect," DHS General Counsel James Percival said on X after the ruling. "A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike. It’s not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home."
The practice became a practical necessity for removing illegal aliens after several countries, including Cuba and Vietnam, refused to accept the return of their deported nationals.
Though third-country deportations to African nations have generated prominent media attention, Mexico remains the leading destination for said removals. Of the roughly 25,000 third-country deportees since the policy took effect, 20,000 have been sent to Mexico.
Department of Justice Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the successful application to stay Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's February judgment.
RELATED: Libertarian think tank clutches pearls about reduced Islamic migration — but it's music to MAGA ears
"The United States relies on third countries in part to facilitate the removal of criminal aliens who are otherwise difficult to remove because their home countries and other countries refuse to take them," Sauer wrote in the filing. "Absent an effective third-country removal policy, the United States is forced to retain (and often release into the interior) vicious criminals who have already harmed our communities."
Tuesday's emergency ruling is a temporary stay, not a final decision. The justices also granted the administration review and set oral argument for December.
SCOTUS will evaluate in December whether Murphy had jurisdiction to issue a nationwide pause and whether the third-country policy is lawful on its merits. The emergency ruling allowed the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations without the lengthy notice-and-hearing process previously imposed by Murphy.
"The Left wants you to believe that removing aliens to countries other than their home country is cruel," Percival said. "What is cruel is allowing criminal illegals who can’t be sent home to stay in our communities and victimize anew."
Tuesday's order marks the third time that the Supreme Court has granted the federal government third-country deportation powers pending a final hearing and decision.
The DHS and DOJ did not respond to requests for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Department of Justice is seeking to indict former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson for “lying” to Congress about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, according to new reporting. The news comes years after The Federalist exclusively exposed Hutchinson for her contradictory claims on the subject. Punchbowl News’ Laura Weiss reported on Thursday claims […]
A Democrat-controlled Congress would give the same party subpoena power, committee leadership roles, and resources to do what it's done in the past: investigate and harass its opponents.
All Americans will bear the brunt of elected officials' failure to justly punish Jack Smith and others who weaponized the federal government against conservatives.
Documents obtained by Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley shows Smith and his cronies spying on journalists as well as lawmakers.
'The Garland Memorandum was the product of pressure by senior leadership to ... bring federal pressure to bear on parents.'
The Department of Justice filed a judicial misconduct complaint on Wednesday against several Minnesota-based federal judges for “pander[ing]” to legacy media about ICE operations in the state. “Seven federal judges in the District of Minnesota talked to the New York Times about cases, some of which are on-going, in a manner that the Department of […]
Registering eligible citizens to vote is an entirely legitimate civic activity. Paying them to do it is something else.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com