When the Department of Homeland Security sent Nevada a list of 185 names last month that it claimed identified noncitizens who had been improperly allowed to register to vote, state election officials got to work.
On Tuesday, the state sent a strongly worded rebuke to the federal government: Every single person on the list was a lawful citizen.
“As for the 185 individuals, our records indicate that they were citizens,” Greg D. Ott, a deputy attorney general in Nevada, wrote, according to a copy of a letter sent to Department of Homeland Security officials obtained through open records requests. “You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise.”
Ott also stated that DHS officials had still not provided enough data for election officials to investigate their claims. Nor have they turned over the list of nearly 16,000 individuals they claim may be noncitizens.
“Our records do not support DHS’s claims, and DHS has still not provided evidence to change that,” Francisco Aguilar, the Democratic secretary of state in Nevada, said in a statement. “Instead, DHS officials continue their attempts to intimidate election officials into compliance and deter voters with huge claims of fraud with no evidence. Repeating unsupported claims does not make them true.
It was the Trump administration’s latest stumble in a broad campaign to find proof of widespread noncitizen voting in U.S. elections, despite decades of evidence that it is extremely rare.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Nevada’s characterization was “false” and “the list of 185 were simply a subset of individuals that had gone through a rigorous manual review process” at the time of the last meeting between the two agencies.
The back and forth began in July, when President Donald Trump and Markwayne Mullin, the homeland security secretary, said they had identified more than 270,000 noncitizens on voter rolls in just four states: Nevada, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Both men stated the claims as fact, yet letters sent to election officials in the four states in the days that followed indicated that the numbers may have been inflated. Each letter qualified Trump’s concrete assertions with the phrase “there may be as many as.” None offered actual proof of noncitizens on voter rolls.
In Nevada’s case, Mullin initially claimed that there were as many as 15,903 noncitizens on the voter rolls. But in a meeting between Nevada election officials and the Department of Homeland Security last month, department leaders admitted that their initial claim was unsubstantiated. That prompted some pointed questions from Nevada election officials, according to a video recording of the virtual meeting.
“So what you’re saying is the 15,000 number has not been vetted?” asked C. Murphy Hebert, the chief deputy in the Nevada secretary of state’s office.
“I probably wouldn’t use the sentence, ‘It hasn’t been vetted,’” replied Kimberley Vogt, an official with Homeland Security. “Because definitely we’ve done something with it to get down to 15,000. So I wouldn’t say that. But it hasn’t had a full manual review of each one.”
Following the meeting, Vogt sent a clarifying email to Nevada officials. “I also wanted to be sure I clarified that we did not reduce the 15,903 to 185,” she wrote. “We’ve manually reviewed some of the 15,903 and confirmed 185 are not U.S. Citizens.”
Now, Nevada officials are saying even that 185 number is wrong. They also took issue with a letter DHS sent them in early September, in which the agency reiterated its initial claims about nearly 16,000 noncitizens on the rolls and pressured state officials to review each case in a letter to Nevada officials in early September.
“Each one of the 15,903 individuals identified should be carefully reviewed by your state to determine eligibility for voting in a federal election,” read a letter from the Department of Homeland Security sent Sept. 9.
But Nevada election officials said in their letter that DHS “has never provided Nevada with a list of 15,903 individuals.” Instead, they said, the department sent them a smaller batch of roughly 6,000 individuals, identified only by what Homeland Security called a voter case number.
“DHS still has not provided any additional verifiable information for the individuals it suggests are noncitizens,” they wrote.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that the 6,218 individuals had “the highest number of matching attributes” to a potential noncitizen in their records, and that the smaller tranche of voters “was at the request of Nevada. They wanted to start with a subset less than the 15,903 registrants DHS originally identified.”
Nevada officials disputed that claim, and records reviewed by the Times did not show Nevada making that request.
Ott also said the use of so-called voter case numbers, which Nevada officials took to mean voter registration numbers, was imprecise.
Using only “voter case numbers” without any other information such as a name, date of birth, address, or another verifiable data point could lead to the identification of multiple individuals, Ott said. This is because Nevada recently transitioned to a statewide voter registration system that was previously run by counties. So an individual may have been assigned one number by a county in the past and a different number under the new statewide system.
“The number also doesn’t tell us whether an individual was born in the United States, naturalized, derived citizenship through a parent, or holds any particular immigration status,” Ott wrote. “A number that matches a voter record thus establishes only that a number exists in, or once existed in, a voter registration system.”
Trump’s demand for evidence of fraud has prompted multiple governmental efforts. The New York Times this month reported that hundreds of agents with Homeland Security had been temporarily pulled from their duties investigating international crimes and terrorism for a roughly three-week intensive search for noncitizens on voter rolls. The methodology was criticized by Democrats as faulty and potentially illegal, and the Virginia attorney general wrote a letter demanding more information.
Private equity investor Gregory L. Segall, a Philadelphia Republican who was a key backer of Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s 2023 campaign, has resigned from three city boards as he weighs other “civic engagement” opportunities, according to a copy of one of his resignation letters obtained by The Inquirer.
Parker, a Democrat, appointed Segall to the Philadelphia Gas Works board, the Philadelphia Tax Reform Commission, and the Mayor’s Business Roundtables. Segall resigned from all three effective Aug. 31. He also served as a vice chair of Parker’s transition committee when she was taking office.
“While I am stepping away from this role, I remain committed to civic engagement and intend to explore other ways to continue the journey I have been privileged to pursue over the last several years,” Segall, the chairman and CEO of Versa Capital, wrote in his letter resigning from the Mayor’s Business Roundtables, an advisory group convened by Parker.
Segall’s moves come as candidates are gearing up to run in next year’s municipal elections, when Parker and all 17 City Council members are up for reelection.
Candidates in the primary election have until early spring to decide whether they are running.
Claudia Vargas, a journalist who formerly worked for NBC10 and The Inquirer, reported this week that Segall was considering running for Council.
When contacted by The Inquirer, Segall, who lives in Chestnut Hill, said Wednesday he is “not running” for Council.
“People have suggested multiple forms of public service, including Council, and I have no plans or commitments at this time,” Segall, 63, said in an interview.
Segall said he continues to “strongly support Mayor Parker, and my highest and best hope is that my public service will be in aid of her continued success.”
Parker on Wednesday declined to comment on the report of Segall exploring a run for office.
From 2022 through 2025, Segall and his wife donated $37,300 to Parker’s campaign, according to campaign finance records. He also gave $150,000 to a super PAC backing her 2023 run, and $6,200 to her transition committee, the records show.
“The 2023 election took place at a time of crisis in the city, and getting the right leader was never more critical,” Segall said. “So the reason for my commitment to her was quite simple: Before I’m a Republican, I’m a Philadelphian.”
Gregory Segall, Chairman and CEO of Versa and Supporter of Mayor Parker, speaks at the Union League of Philadelphia Presidential Luncheon in Philadelphia, Pa., on Thursday, September 18, 2025.Tyger Williams / Staff Photographer
Citing Republican Party sources, Vargas reported that Segall was considering running for one of the two at-large seats on Council that are elected citywide and are set aside by the Home Rule Charter for minority-party or independent candidates.
Republicans held those seats for about seven decades until Councilmembers Kendra Brooks and Nicolas O’Rourke won them over the last two election cycles as members of the progressive Working Families Party.
Brooks is considering challenging Parker in next year’s mayoral election, sources previously told The Inquirer, which would require her to resign from her Council seat.
The Philly GOP has been strategizing ways to recapture the seats, and a run by Segall, a wealthy businessman who could potentially help fund his own campaign, could be a major opportunity for the party.
Segall donated $2,500 to the Republican City Committee last October.
GOP chair Vince Fenerty said he has met Segall and thinks he is a “nice and honorable man.”
“We’re a party that welcomes any potential candidate, and the decision to endorse would be up to our ward leaders,” Fenerty said in an interview Thursday.
Brian O’Neill, who represents the 10th District in Northeast Philadelphia, is currently the only Republican on Council. Democrats hold the remaining 14 seats.
NEW YORK — Three news organizations banned from the White House for days were back Thursday after a judge handed CNN, MS NOW, and Politico a reprieve in an extraordinary showdown between President Donald Trump and outlets whose coverage he dislikes.
But media coverage of Trump’s White House was hardly normal. On a high-profile day when Chinese leader Xi Jinping was visiting Washington and planning to attend a state dinner, no major American network was airing live coverage.
After the White House banned CNN from a rotation of five major U.S. broadcast outlets who take turns shooting and sharing video, the other four — in a show of solidarity — were still declining to participate in the so-called video pool.
It was part of a chaotic day at the White House and in court.
Initially, in the morning, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico journalists were denied entry. A Secret Service agent had confiscated their credentials as part of the ban. After the ruling for the outlets in the early hours Thursday, White House operations officials were notified to restore access to the affected reporters, but said they needed time to find, reactivate and deliver their entry badges. The process took over two hours, according to an administration court filing.
In his decision to provisionally lift the ban, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the three outlets’ access. He said they had met the legal thresholds to obtain a temporary restraining order and were likely to succeed in showing that their press passes were revoked without due process.
The ruling did not address CNN’s removal from the White House video pool. The White House did not respond to an email seeking comment.
The judge’s ruling issued a temporary order
Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — said the government must have clear standards for conduct that would lead to revoking a press pass. He called the standard of objectionable reporting outlined in letters that the White House sent the outlets “so vague it hardly does the trick.”
The judge also made clear he did not buy the administration’s argument that the news outlets’ reporting endangered national security — and noted that Trump himself had not used that argument in the beginning, focusing solely on what he called negative coverage.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., the news outlets’ attorney, said the judge’s quick ruling vindicated the freedom of the press, due process and the rule of law.
“I think we’re going to end up stronger because of this, and this tactic of just attacking the press, attacking individual journalists, is going to be discredited,” Boutrous said in an interview on MS NOW Thursday afternoon. “The law is just clearly on our side here,” he said.
The temporary restraining order — typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court — expires in two weeks. The judge gave both sides until Oct. 5 to file their arguments over whether he should consider issuing a longer-lasting ruling called a preliminary injunction. Kelly said he “intends to rule expeditiously” on the preliminary injunction request.
Attorneys debated access to the White House and any risk to national security
Boutrous argued in the hearing that there was an urgent need for renewed access, saying that the ban caused irreparable harm to the outlets at a time of momentous news events. “We’re at war,” he told the judge. “We have world leaders coming to Washington.”
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik, in his argument, reiterated the administration’s point that the president has the right to choose who gets into the White House.
“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.
In arguing that Trump was not engaging in viewpoint discrimination — the government singling out specific media outlets for the content of what they say or publish — Velchik said the president had criticized other news organizations, but not banned them. He noted, for example, that Trump had called ABC “the worst.”
Major networks refrained from covering Trump for the media pool
On Wednesday, after the hearing, the major networks refused to air footage of Trump without assurances that CNN would be permitted back into the video pool.
At Joint Base Andrews, where the president formally welcomed Xi, journalists from Fox News, CBS and NBC were present but not shooting video.
Other television outlets whose crews were present, according to signs on their tripods and cameras, were NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV.
The Associated Press said it provided video coverage of Trump greeting Xi to its customers, so they could decide whether to broadcast. “We did not stream the coverage on our own platforms, including APNews.com or our YouTube channel,” said an AP spokesman, Patrick Maks.
In an advisory to customers, AP said it would not have independent video coverage of meetings between Trump and Xi. It noted that a U.S. government handout live feed could be accessed on the White House website.
The AP was one of some 50 groups filing an amicus brief ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, urging the court to immediately restore the three outlets’ White House access.
U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver hasn’t put her life on hold to fight what she sees as totally unfounded charges by the Trump administration that she supposedly assaulted a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer during a protest last year.
Instead, the first-term Democratic congresswoman is expecting her second child next month, she’s up for reelection in November, and because of Congress’ backward policies on parental leave (as in, there are none), she continues to put in long hours representing New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District, which includes her hometown of Newark.
Lurking in the background, however, is the knowledge that if convicted on two charges of assaulting an ICE officer, she could be sentenced to as much as 17 years in prison.
It’s way more than most people in her situation could handle.
McIver’s inner strength is next level.
She is running for reelection on Nov. 3 while fighting efforts by the Trump administration to make an example out of her. McIver is also repping her constituents in Newark in Washington, D.C., all while caring for — and expanding — her family.
Her journey to motherhood hasn’t been easy. McIver, 40, has spoken openly about her yearslong struggles with fibroids, her use of in vitro fertilization (IVF), and her opposition to President Donald Trump’s merciless immigration enforcement campaign. She hopes her candor resonates with women who also are trying to balance career, pregnancy, and motherhood.
Meanwhile, she is scheduled to give birth to her second child on Oct. 16. After she delivers, McIver will become one of fewer than 20 members of Congress ever to have done so.
My jaw dropped during the interview in which McIver informed me that as a member of Congress, she isn’t entitled to maternity leave. Postpartum, McIver also won’t be able to cast votes for legislation remotely or by proxy.
“They give you nothing,” McIver said. “It makes no sense that you have to give birth and instead of focusing on healing and nursing, you have to literally put that to the side and share that with getting back to work. It’s honestly disgusting. It’s unbelievable in 2026 that this is where we are still at.”
U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D., N.J.) speaks to reporters after Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested while protesting at the Delaney Hall ICE detention center in May 2025.Angelina Katsanis
Legislation that would have greatly helped her and other members of Congress in her position failed to garner adequate Republican support to pass last year. McIver blamed House Speaker Mike Johnson, among others, whom she said “don’t give a damn — and don’t want to make this a place that works for moms because they don’t want moms here.”
After the election on Nov. 3, McIver intends to immediately return to Washington and get back to work. Luckily, she will have help from her “great village” that includes her mother. “I’m a stickler about not missing votes,” McIver pointed out, adding, “There are so many things that Republicans are going to be trying to do.”
McIver, along with several other elected officials, had been attempting to inspect conditions at Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed facility along an industrial stretch of land near Newark Liberty International Airport in May 2025 when a scuffle broke out.
McIver placed herself next to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka to shield him during the melee. I’ve watched the video numerous times. It doesn’t show her throwing a punch or striking anyone. No one was injured, either. But that didn’t stop Alina Habba, a former defenselawyer for Trump who briefly served as a U.S. attorney inNew Jersey, from filing assault charges against McIver.
McIverattempted to get the charges dismissed. In August, an appeals court ruled that McIver’s actions were nonlegislative and not protected by constitutional immunity, which clears the way for legal proceedings against her to proceed.
Glynda C. Carr, the founder of Higher Heights for America PAC, described what happened as a “flash point” of the anti-immigration detention center movement that future generations will read about in history books.
“This is bigger than LaMonica McIver,” Carr said, adding that the case could establish a baseline for whether elected officials will be permitted to conduct oversight of ICE detention centers without fear of prosecution.
As for McIver, I’m sure her case will be tied up in the courts until after Trump leaves office, and then thrown out once new people come into office. Meanwhile, becausemembers of Congress are prohibited from accepting pro bono legal work, McIver has to raise money to pay her legal bills, which are expected to exceed $1 million.
It’s a lot to juggle, along with being pregnant, serving as a member of Congress, and being under attack by a government hell-bent on making life more difficult for working women, especially African American women.
Driven by the surging energy demands of artificial intelligence, America is resurrecting its nuclear past. Earlier this month, the Department of Energy finalized a $1.9 billion loan to restart Iowa’s Duane Arnold Energy Center, idle since 2020, so it can power Google’s expanding AI operations.
Yet, as the United States prepares for this nuclear revival, regulators are rethinking a principle that has governed radiation protection for more than a half century. In July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed eliminating the requirement that radiation exposure remain “as low as reasonably achievable” — what is known as the ALARA standard. That would leave some limits on radiation exposure in place, but it would remove the expectation that the operators of nuclear plants continually work to reduce unnecessary exposure.
Supporters argue that this change simply does away with a standard that added little value. NRC Chairman Ho Nieh compared ALARA to setting a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit and then telling drivers to go “as slow as reasonably achievable.” If regulators have already set a safe limit, why insist that workers stay even further below it?
The analogy is persuasive — and historically misleading.
During the 1950s and 1960s, regulators employed a system with only a limit on exposure. And as Americans learned that staying under it didn’t necessarily keep people safe, they demanded more stringent limits and lost faith in regulators and the safety of nuclear reactors.
ALARA emerged to assuage such fears, and it has successfully reduced exposure in the half century since. History suggests that eliminating it will hinder the public’s willingness to go along with a nuclear power revival.
The question of how much radiation exposure is too much emerged almost as soon as radiation entered modern life. Physicians who embraced the diagnostic power of X-rays in the late 19th century quickly discovered their dangers, as doctors, technicians and researchers suffered burns, tissue damage and cancers after prolonged exposure. Clarence Dally, an assistant to Thomas Edison who tested X-ray tubes on his own hands for years, had both arms eventually amputated and died of cancer in 1904.
Rather than abandon the promising technology, however, experts tried to determine how much radiation the body could tolerate. By 1934, the International X-ray and Radium Protection Committee had settled on numerical “tolerance doses,” premised on the belief that a threshold existed below which radiation caused no harm.
The Atomic Age tested that confidence. The Manhattan Project turned radiation from a specialized medical hazard into an industrial one, as thousands of workers handled uranium, plutonium and other radioactive materials. At the same time, geneticist Hermann Muller and others warned that radiation could damage genes in ways that might not surface for years or generations.
Given these warnings, and the newly expanded pool of people facing the risks of radiation, confidence in the ability of experts to set a safe limit for radiation exposure collapsed.
In 1934, the protection committee had set a tolerance dose of roughly 0.2 roentgens a day. Within two decades, fear of risk had driven that number down by three-quarters. But even this lower figure came with no claim of safety. Authorities had stopped believing any single number could mark a clean line between safe and unsafe exposure.
They also understood the perils of public concern continuing to rise. An internal Atomic Energy Commission memo from 1948 flagged the risk of a “shattering effect on morale” should employees learn how uncertain the safety standards were. Accordingly, the agency kept much of the research quiet.
Instead of trying to reduce risk, regulators tried to reframe how people thought of radiation risks. They scrapped the language of “tolerance doses” and instead focused on the concept of a “maximum permissible dose.”
The shift sounded technical, but it marked a real change in thinking: no longer would authorities guarantee that a permissible dose was a safe dose. Rather, as historian Shannon Cram has written in her history of U.S. radiation-worker regulation, officials were setting a level that they judged to involve an acceptable risk, given radiation’s benefits and the practical costs of reducing exposure further.
The limits of that guarantee became clear in the uranium mines that supplied the Manhattan Project and, later, civilian reactors. For years, miners worked under exposure guidelines that officials considered acceptable, though no binding federal limit applied. By the early 1960s, however, a Public Health Service study of Colorado Plateau miners found lung cancer rates several times higher than expected, rising sharply with cumulative exposure.
Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff
The lesson was blunt: the exposure level deemed permissible had not protected miners, and those who set it knew the ground under that number was shakier than they let on. In 1967, amid press exposure and growing unrest among miners, Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz proposed a binding federal radon limit; it did not take effect until 1971.
As nuclear power grew rapidly throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the concerns about radiation exposure spread from miners and industrial workers to the general public. People in areas around nuclear plants wondered if only having a maximum exposure limit truly protected them adequately.
In 1969, Northern States Power sought to open its new Monticello plant on the Mississippi River. But in response to public concern, Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency tried to impose radioactive-release limits tighter than the AEC allowed.
The dispute sparked a court fight, in which 20 states sided with Minnesota. The battle became a flashpoint for the burgeoning environmental movement. Activists had doubts about whether the federal ceiling on releases was protective enough for the communities living near reactors.
In 1971, recognizing the need to reassure the public, theAEC responded by requiring plants to keep releases “as low as practicable.” A few years later, the NRC, the successor to the AEC, refined that standard into ALARA: exposures should stay “as low as reasonably achievable.”
The word “reasonably” did real work. As historian J. Samuel Walker has explained, ALARA never demanded eliminating every conceivable exposure regardless of cost; it accepted that nuclear work carried risk. What it rejected was the idea that staying under a number settled the question of safety.
The importance of this new standard was evident on shop floors. The earlier “maximum permissible dose” had simply told plants when they crossed legal lines. ALARA, by contrast, made managers ask a harder question: can this job be done with less exposure?
Plants started engineering exposure away, shielding jobs in advance, sending in robots instead of people and timing shifts so no one lingered in a hot zone. Compliance stopped being enough on its own.
ALARA has been successful: even as the maximum permissible dose never moved, the average dose of radiation exposure for workers has fallen. Regulators didn’t lower the bar; plants just kept clearing it by more.
The nation’s most infamous nuclear accident illuminated the importance of ALARA: during the 14-year, billion dollar operation to clean up the 100 tons of ruined fuel from the contaminated plant at Three Mile Island, workers were never exposed to more radiation than they’d have encountered operating ordinary reactors.
This history exposes the problem with Nieh’s analogy. A dose limit marks the point at which regulators judge the risk to workers unacceptable, not the point at which risk begins. The NRC itself still relies on a radiation-risk model that assumes any dose carries some risk. ALARA is the rule that acts on that assumption, requiring plants to use available technology to cut exposure wherever the cost is reasonable.
At a moment when the U.S. faces rising energy demands thanks to AI, and nuclear power offers a way to meet them without driving up carbon emissions, maintaining ALARA is important. The regulation was crucial for reassuring skeptical Americans that nuclear power could be safe.
Abandoning ALARA would mean returning to a system in which meeting the limit is the whole obligation, and in which Americans see compliance as a guarantee of safety. No regulator can honestly make that guarantee. History suggests that letting people believe otherwise risks destroying regulators’ credibility and turning workers and communities against nuclear operations. As the industry works to meet America’s growing demand for power, that is a bet it can ill afford.
Thomas Bishop is a senior lecturer in American and environmental history at the University of Lincoln and author of “Every Home a Fortress: Cold War Fatherhood and the Family Fallout Shelter” (2020). He is currently writing “A People’s History of the Permissible Dose,” a history of radiation risk and worker activism in the United States.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Inquirer.
One in four likely Pennsylvania GOP voters has not heard of the state’s Republican candidate for governor, as Gov. Josh Shapiro continues to pull ahead with less than six weeks remaining until Election Day, according to a new poll.
According to the poll, Shapiro’s lead has now expanded beyond the advantage he held the month before the 2022 election against State Sen. Doug Mastriano (R., Franklin). Shapiro went on to beat Mastriano in that election by nearly 15 percentage points, or 800,000 votes — a drubbing that the GOP vowed not to repeat.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
Pennsylvania Republicans endorsed Garrity in September 2025 — an unprecedented early nod to unify behind her in an effort to put up a stronger fight against Shapiro after the party largely withheld its support for far-right Mastriano. Garrity has won statewide twice and received the most votes in Pennsylvania history for a statewide office, a record previously held by Shapiro. In January, President Donald Trump endorsed Garrity, calling her “an America First Patriot.”
But building on that early enthusiasm has proven to be a challenge for Garrity, who for months has struggled to raise money, compete with Shapiro’s $60 million war chest, and gain name recognition in the critical battleground state where registered Democratic voters narrowly outnumber Republicans.
Garrity, 63, who entered politics in 2020 after a long career in the U.S. Army Reserve, raised only $1.8 million this summer and spent $1.5 million, according to her latest campaign finance filing, posted Tuesday. Shapiro raised $13.3 million during that time and spent $31 million.
Gov. Josh Shapiro addresses the audience during a rally for congressional candidate Bob Brooks at the United Steelworkers Union Hall in Bethlehem, Pa. on Sunday, July 26, 2026.David Maialetti / Staff Photographer
And while Shapiro has dramatically increased his advertising spending on TV and streaming services to top $27 million this year, Garrity has spent a total of $744,000 on ads so far, according to media tracking firm AdImpact.
Both Shapiro and Garrity have released ads attacking each other for their past support for data center development, an increasingly unpopular issue among both Republicans and Democrats. Garrity’s ad criticizing Shapiro has been viewed about 802,000 times in the Philadelphia media market, according to AdImpact. Shapiro’s commercial labeling Garrity as “Pennsylvania’s number one fan of data centers” has been viewed 416 million times.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
“Within the data right now, Josh Shapiro is a favorite son in the state of Pennsylvania, and they see him as doing a fantastic job,” said Don Levy, the director of the Siena Research Institute, which conducted the poll of 615 likely Pennsylvania voters from Sept. 15 to 21. “Barring double lightning bolts or a triple rainbow, he’s going to win.”
Garrity’s lack of campaign spending has allowed Shapiro to define her in the race, experts have said.
George Stanton, 77, a registered Republican from Lebanon County who participated in the poll, said he will support Garrity in November. He said Shapiro’s attack ad about Garrity’s past support for data centers, which he said he agrees with, helped him learn more about her positions.
Voters trust Shapiro more than Garrity on all of the top issues facing them, the poll found, including the state’s economy, the cost of living, data centers and artificial intelligence companies, and vaccine policy. In recent weeks, Shapiro has been embroiled in a battle with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom he has blamed for spreading misinformation as Pennsylvania experienced a deadly measles outbreak. And at a summit in Pittsburgh last week, Shapiro called for more regulation of AI companies but said innovation of the technology should still be harnessed.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
Scott Byers, 79, a Republican from Westmoreland County who supported Trump in 2024, is planning to vote for Shapiro this fall because “he just seems to be more in line with the public, with the feelings of his constituents.”
That includes Shapiro’s position on AI and data centers, which Byers believes should be more difficult to build. All he knows about Garrity’s views is what he catches on commercials — but it does not feel comprehensive, said Byers, who participated in the poll.
“I think technology in itself is going a bit beyond what is necessary. I feel that it’s hard to pinpoint, but I just feel that there’s too much emphasis on technology,” Byers said.
Campaign volunteers hand out signs to supporters of Gov. Josh Shapiro and Democratic Pa. Senate candidate Chris Thomas at a rally in Towamencin, Montgomery County before heading out to canvass on Sunday, Sept. 29, 2026.Tom Gralish / Staff Photographer
Approximately 60% of likely voters strongly approve or somewhat approve of the job Shapiro is doing as governor, according to the poll. That includes 30% of Republican voters, 89% of Democratic voters, and 59% of independents in the critical swing state where Shapiro maintains high popularity.
As a moderate politician, Shapiro has been able to capture most independent voters and even win over some Republicans, according to the poll.
Lesa Yeager, 63, considers herself an independent voter with centrist views who voted for a third-party candidate in the 2024 presidential election. She is an ardent union supporter and also thinks the nation should have a strong border. She said she trusts Garrity, as the state’s treasurer, to do a better job handling Pennsylvania’s economy.
But she is supporting Shapiro this November, in large part, because of his work on schools.
“I like that he’s very pro-education,” she said. “I am a fan of charter schools because I sent my kids to charter schools.”
Two of her children, now 35 and 37, benefited from smaller classroom sizes and adjustable curriculums, she said.
Yeager said she has also reached her limits with Trump’s behavior during his second term and believes Shapiro would continue to represent the state positively.
“I just think Trump is such a bully and so mean and just does whatever he wants, and I just want someone who isn’t that,” Yeager said.
She appreciates the Republicans who distance themselves from Trump. “But it’s tough to tell who is and who isn’t, a lot of times, and I would rather vote for someone I know isn’t going to support Trump on a lot of the things that he does,” she added.
Still, Garrity has found some backing among Pennsylvania’s electorate, though even some of those supporters say they don’t know much about her.
GOP gubernatorial nominee Stacy Garrity and her running mate Jason Richey hold up their arms in Harrisburg, Pa., Saturday, February 7, 2026. Kalim A. Bhatti / For The Inquirer
Susan Roller of Lancaster said she plans to vote for Garrity this fall because “she’s more responsible and will protect our freedoms.” Roller, who is retired, said she is particularly distressed about Shapiro’s positions supporting access to abortion and encouraging vaccines.
But as far as getting to know more about Garrity, Roller, 72, said she has not “seen a lot” of messaging on television about her.
In 2022, Shapiro did not participate in any debates while he maintained a double-digit lead over Mastriano, declining the Republican’s requests as an “unserious stunt.” Shapiro held a 13-percentage-point lead over Mastriano in a New York Times/Siena poll conducted that October — a closer margin than Shapiro’s lead over Garrity this year.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
The 2022 midterm election was a much different political moment for Democrats, said Levy of the Siena Research Institute.
“That was a point in time when the Democratic star was on the decline,” he added. “Everything was a bit of a referendum on Democrats, on the job that [former President Joe] Biden was doing, how we were coming out of the pandemic.
“The overall political climate in which the ’26 election is taking place vs. ’22 is really kind of night and day,” Levy said.
Staff writers Joe Yerardi and Fallon Roth contributed to this article.
Pennsylvania voters are giving President Donald Trump worse grades on key economic issues than they did a month ago — a sign of a potentially dimming outlook for Republicans as the president asks voters to act as if he is on the ballot this fall.
Trump’s overall job-approval rating among likely voters in the state has dropped 5percentage points since Augustand now sits at 34%, with 63% disapproval, according to a new Inquirer/New York Times/Siena University poll published Thursday.
His handling of the economy and the cost of living, which consistently rank as voters’ top concerns this year, is viewed negatively by a larger share of his own Republican supporters and of voters in general than it was last month, according to the poll of 615 likely voters conducted from Sept. 15 to 21.
Gas prices are Trump’s worst-performing issue amongall Pennsylvania voters and among those who voted for the president in 2024, when he won the swing state by nearly 2 percentage points.
That includes Robert Jenkins, 47, of East Stroudsburg, who said Trump is now running the country like a “cowboy” and has not lived up to the promises he made to bring down prices.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
And with rising gas prices, the Republican is just thankful that his truck does not run on diesel.
“Now we’re at like $4.35, $4.40, and I just don’t understand it. I know we’re having the thing with Iran, but I didn’t ever feel in my life that we were that dependent on Iranian oil,” said Jenkins, who works in the registrar’s office at East Stroudsburg University.
As both parties go all-out to motivate their bases — especially in Pennsylvania, where four key races could determine control of the U.S. House — Democrats clearly have an enthusiasm advantage fueled by a backlash to Trump’s agenda.
Just under six weeks out from Election Day, about two-thirds of likely Democratic voters are “very enthusiastic” to cast their ballots, while just half of Republican voters say they feel the same way.
Alex Hansen, 35, a pharmacist and Democrat from Bucks County, said the midterms have become a “referendum” on the Trump administration.
“The things he’s said and done are just so beyond the pale and unacceptable. … I don’t think it should have to be a public referendum on the federal administration, but that’s what it’s become,” said Hansen, who participated in the survey.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
Will voters punish Republicans for Trump’s agenda?
As Democrats look to win control of the U.S. House, they are targeting Trump’s handling of affordability issues specifically — mostly highlighting rising inflation and spiking gas prices due to the war in Iran.
Just 24% of voters approve and 73% disapprove of his handling of prices at the pump, the poll found. Half of Pennsylvania voters who cast their ballots for Trump in 2024 also disapprove.
Don Levy, the director of the Siena Research Institute, said as Trump’s approval rating continues to decline, he expects more GOP politicians running in competitive swing districts to distance themselves from the president.
“There’s tremendous frustration with the president,” Levy added.
Republican candidates have largely avoided talking about gas prices, highlighting instead the tax cuts and other economic policies the GOP-controlled Congress and White House haveenacted in the last two years.
A bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act ushered through the House by Republican leaders last week, for instance, aims to prevent data centers from passing on energy costs to consumers. The National Republican Campaign Committee called it a “huge step” in statements praising Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers’ votes for the bill,which has yet to pass the Senate and might not do so before the election.
On the economy overall, Trump gets positive ratings from just 34% of all voters and 75% of self-identified Republicans — which is less than the 39% and 81% he got, respectively, in August.
Onthecost of living,25% of all voters and 62% of Republicans give him positive marks, an 8-percentage-point drop for all voters and an 11-point drop for Republicans from a month ago. At the same time, his positive approvals around immigration and the war in Iran, at 42% and 31%, respectively, have remained about the same.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
Pennsylvania Republicans may now have to grapple with that reality at the ballot box.
They are defending four competitive districts out of Pennsylvania’s 17 U.S. House seats. And three are running for reelection in what independent election experts consider some of the few “toss-up” races nationwide — U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, in the Lehigh Valley and Poconos; U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan, in a Scranton-based Northeast Pennsylvania region; and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, in a Harrisburg-based district.
U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican facing a challenge from Democratic Bucks County Commissioner Bob Harvie, is also in a competitive race drawing national attention.
The vulnerable Republicans have taken different approaches. Mackenzie and Bresnahan spoke at the first-ever GOP convention in Dallas earlier this month, when Trump pleaded with his supporters to turn out as if he was also on the ballot. Perry, a staunch Trump ally, also attended.
U.S. Rep Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Bucks) and his Democratic challenger Bob Harvie (third from right) attend the Garden of Reflection remembrance ceremonies Friday, September 11, 2026 at Garden of Reflection in Yardley, Pennsylvania.William Thomas Cain / For The Inquirer
But how Trump’s approval ratings — and the fact that 56% of likely voters want to see Democrats control the House — factor into those races remains to be seen.
Jenkins, the East Stroudsburg Republican, said Trump’s handling of the economy will not affect his vote for Bresnahan because the lawmaker has regularly shown up to the events he leads at a veterans’ association in Monroe County.
Hansen, the Democratic voter from Bucks County, said he is leaning toward voting for Fitzpatrick in the 1st Congressional District race, but he said he could be open to picking Harvie once he learns more about the candidate’s priorities and “what he plans to do to oppose his Republican colleagues and Trump’s agenda.”
The pharmacist said he and his wife, who was laid off three months ago, are tightening their purse strings to deal with rising costs as they care for their young child and another on the way.
But he said he does not view Fitzpatrick as being totally roped into Trump’s negative perception.
The Bucks County lawmaker is the least loyal House Republican to the president and the GOP, but he has still voted with Trump and his party nearly 70% and 77% of the time, respectively, this term, a recent Inquirer analysis found.
“Fitzpatrick has put up at least a little bit of resistance, which is better than, you know, a lot of the sock puppets that Republicans have right now in Congress,” Hansen said.
Alex Hansen at his Bucks County home Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026. He is one of the voters who participated in an Inquirer/New York Times/Siena University poll that showed dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump. Tom Gralish / Staff Photographer
How affordability became No. 1 for Democrats this fall
In the final weeks before the midterm elections, Harvie’s campaign plans to keep tying Fitzpatrick to the affordability crisis. That includes highlighting the Republican lawmaker’s vote to advance the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the House(before voting against its final passage weeks later) — but also not necessarily aligning him with Trump.
“It is really about pointing out what Brian Fitzpatrick has done, the votes he’s taken, and how those votes have affected people in this district,” Harvie said in an interview with The Inquirer Editorial Board on Tuesday.
“Now, are they Trump priorities, too? They are, sure, but it’s not necessarily just hanging Trump around his neck. He’s kind of done that to himself.”
Harvie and his counterparts in the other swing districts are zeroing in on cost-of-living issues amid voters’ plummeting dissatisfaction with Trump’s handling of the economy.
Janelle Stelson, a former local TV reporter running against Perry, highlighted the cost of a cheeseburger in a recent ad that referred to Perry’s support of Trump’s tariffs and a separate proposal that would eliminate income and other taxes in favor of a national sales tax. The average cost of a pound of ground beef, which she pegged at $7.29, is more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage.
Stelson’s campaign said in a statement that Perry “has made life more expensive for Central Pennsylvanians, voting to raise the price of utilities, gas, and housing while gutting benefits for working people.”
In a statement, Perry said his platform on affordability includes eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security. Perry also said he supports reducing electricity costs and raising child tax credits.
“We draw a strong contrast with our opponent on the kitchen table economic issues that are front and center with Voters,” Perry wrote in the statement,which also disputed Stelson’s ties in the district.
Spokespersons for Fitzpatrick and Bresnahan did not respond to a request for comment.
Paige Cognetti, the Democratic mayor of Scranton, who is running against Bresnahan, has contrasted Northeastern Pennsylvania voters’ struggles with rising costs against Bresnahan’s personal wealth and stock-trading while in office.
“While Rob’s cashing in, NEPA families are paying the price. His corruption is costing us and that’s why he will lose in November,” a Cognetti spokesperson said while noting “record diesel prices, cost-raising tariffs, and sky-high healthcare premiums.”
Governor Josh Shapiro (left) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (right) pose after rally for Congressional candidate Bob Brooks (center) at the United Steelworkers Union Hall in Bethlehem, Pa. on Sunday, July 26, 2026.David Maialetti / Staff Photographer
In Mackenzie’s district — where the freshman Republican squeaked through one of the narrowest races in the country two years ago — Ronalyn Birnbaum of Carbon County said she has been working since she was 13 years old. Now, at 69, she said, she has come to terms with not having the money to retire and afford groceries, Medicare, and her inhaler.
“I’m going to give [Brooks] a shot only because I know that Ryan Mackenzie sticks up for a lot of the Trump policies and procedures,” said Birnbaum, a Democrat.
Andres Weller, Mackenzie’s campaign manager, criticized Brooks’ platform in a statement and said Mackenzie favors “commonsense reforms” and is “running on his bipartisan record of delivering for our community.”
Benny Stanislawski, a Brooks campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the Democrat is “running to bring costs down for working families Mackenzie has left behind,” including through the Republicans’ vote for the One Big Beautiful Bill.
As Democrats’ messaging appears to gain traction, 53%of respondents in The Inquirer/New York Times/Siena poll said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district, while 44% said they would choose the Republican. The poll did not ask about specific races.
Both parties still have work to do on their brands. A majority of likely voters see each party as focused on the wrong things — 51% for Democrats and 59% for Republicans.
Birnbaum said the problems she hopes voters can address at the ballot box — like the cost of living — have been a long time coming.
“This country should have been fixed a long time ago, but nobody seemed to care, and we’re finding that with the infrastructure here in this country, too,” Birnbaum said. “Nobody thought about these things. They thought about themselves, I guess.”
Staff writers Gillian McGoldrick and Joe Yerardi contributed to this article.
Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify the reference to a proposed national sales tax in Janelle Stelson’s ad attacking U.S. Rep. Scott Perry.
A majority of Pennsylvania voters view U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D., Pa.) more as a Republican than a Democrat as he continues to heavily criticize his party and side with President Donald Trump in some major policy areas, according to an Inquirer/New York Times/Siena University poll published Thursday.
For the first time in polling conducted by Siena University on behalf of The Inquirer and the New York Times, a plurality of likely voters in the state have a negative view of Fetterman.
The senator is viewed “somewhat” or “very” unfavorably by 47% of voters and favorably by 42%, according to the poll of 615 likely voters from Sept. 15 to 21. That’s an 11-percentage-point swing since the organizations’ poll in August found Fetterman maintained an overall positive favorability rating.
Four years after he flipped a Republican-held seat with a promise to be Democrats’ 51st vote in the Senate, just 26% of likely voters consider Fetterman as more of a Democrat than a Republican, the poll found.
A majority — 57% — view him as more of a Republican.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
“He insists that he’s not going to be changing parties. However, a lot of people are afraid of that because of the way he has voted,” said Sandra Boyles, a retired teacher and Democrat in Fayette City who believes “a lot of people feel betrayed” by the senator.
Nearly three-quarters of Democrats see Fetterman as a Republican. And roughly half of Republicans feel the same way, as do a similar proportion of independents.
Fetterman’s party loyalty has become a pressing question — not just for his own political future, but also for which party controls the U.S. Senate during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.
Democrats need to win at least four competitive Senate races in Trump-friendly states to win the majority, an uphill battle that has seemed like more of a possibility in recent weeks as the president’s popularity lags.
Independent election experts consider Democrats to have a real chance of winning states like Texas, Iowa, and Alaska. Ohio, North Carolina and Maine are also official Democratic targets. Even Kansas, which Trump won by 16 percentage points in 2024, appeared to raise some level of concern for Republicans when Vice President JD Vance tried to boost the GOP incumbent this month.
Neither of Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seats is on the ballot this fall. But if Democrats retake the majority by one or two votes, Fetterman’s role as a wild card — even one who votes with Democrats the vast majority of the time — could have an impact as his party tries to rein in or reverse the president’s agenda.
“That would definitely be a concern of mine,” said Boyles, 74.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
Fetterman has not said whether he will seek a second term in 2028, and he has repeatedly rejected the idea that he would switch parties.
“I’m a lifelong Democrat who votes overwhelmingly with my party — and should the Senate flip in November, I will still be the 51st vote that I ran on,” he said in a statement while facing a new round of criticism for appearing by video at the GOP convention in Dallas this month.
Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senators John Fetterman (left) and Dave McCormick appear together on June 29 to promote the savings accounts for kids that were a signature piece of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.Tom Gralish / Staff Photographer
Fetterman’s Democratic colleagues have tried to keep him in the fold.
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat and chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said this week that Fetterman is a “very reliable Democratic vote.” As she leads her party’s effort to win the Senate races,Gillibrand said, she does not have, nor has heard others having, concerns about Fetterman’s role in a slim Democratic majority.
“I’m very grateful that Sen. Fetterman is serving in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, and I think he will continue to do so,” Gillibrand said.
Still, Fetterman has supported parts of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, the war in Iran, and some of the president’s nominees. Senate Democratic leaders would likely try to act as a check on Trump in each of those areas if they win the majority for the next two years.
Fetterman has also left the door open to leaving the Democratic Party if it makes opposition to Israel an official party stance. The senator has not explained exactly what that situation would look like, though he has been highly critical of Democrats when they push back against the Israeli government’s war against Hamas.
With the three-year anniversary of the conflict approaching on Oct. 7, more than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed and nearly all Gazans have been displaced, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Critics say Israel’s military response has been excessive, while Fetterman has said he supports the war in order to root out Hamas fighters who initiated the war by killing more than 1,200 people in Israel in a terrorist attack.
The latest poll of Pennsylvania voters shows Fetterman’s position is out of step with a majority of voters.
Among Pennsylvania likely voters, 60% are against the U.S. providing additional economic and military support to Israel, compared with 34% who support it.
Four in five Democrats, and about a third of Republicans, oppose the aid to Israel. In a sign that Fetterman would face a challenging reelection campaign, 63% of Democrats said they would support a candidate who opposed aid to Israel.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();
Victor Oyola, 47, of Philadelphia, said he considers himself a conservative Democrat and has no issues with politicians supporting Israel’s right to exist. But Fetterman has been more of a voice for the foreign nation than for his home state, he said, while also showing limited interest in other aspects of his position.
“You don’t want to do the job, but you’re strongly supporting Israel over Pennsylvania?” said Oyola, who works in retirement management. “Everything is Israel, Israel, Israel. But what about Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania?”
Reports of Fetterman’s lack of interest in doing routine aspects of his job as a senator also appear to have played a role in how Pennsylvanians view him.
In a widely circulated story earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Fetterman tried to evade meetings with leaders at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and with wounded veterans, as well as a funeral for three York County police officers who were killed while on duty.
Donald Harer, a Democrat from Northumberland who voted for Fetterman in 2022, said that he saw the story and that it seemed like the senator has “really not held his end of the bargain and done his job the way he’s supposed to.”
As an Army veteran who served in Iraq, Harer said, he was particularly disappointed in Fetterman’s reported refusal to meet with wounded veterans.
“When he campaigned, when he first started to run, he seemed like a go-getter,” said Harer, an operations manager for a grocerystore. “But he let a lot of people down. I kind of call him a traitor.”
Don Levy, the director of the Siena Research Institute, which conducted the poll, said he did not know if changes in Fetterman’s favorability ratings since last month could be attributed to the recent national attention on him.
But with recent polls continuing to show Fetterman’s widespread cross-party support, his position as a Democratic darling for the GOP and antagonist for Democrats “looks pretty baked in,” Levy said.
“The Republicans have now grown in their favorability for him, which may be a reflection of them starting to feel like ‘he’s one of us,’” Levy added. “And Democrats are even more upset with him for moving away from what they believe they elected him to do.”
Staff writers Joe Yerardi and Gillian McGoldrick contributed to this article.
A whistleblower lawsuit accuses Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration of bypassing procurement requirements meant to safeguard the use of taxpayer dollars, including during renovations to the governor’s mansion, and firing a staffer who had raised concerns.
The administration waived competitive bid requirements after purchases were made, split transactions to bypass the threshold requiring a bidding process, and kept paying a security contractor who no longer provided service, the suit says — claims that a spokesperson for Shapiro rejected.
The federal lawsuit is the latest in the controversy surrounding the security upgrades and renovations to the state-owned governor’s residence in Harrisburg and Shapiro’s personal home in Abington Township, after a man firebombed the mansion on the first night of Passover in 2025 while the governor and his extended family were asleep inside.
This work was largely done through the state’s emergency procurement process that allows agencies to the skip lengthy bid protocols, as officials took quick action to strengthen security.
But the overall cost and questions over whether the correct processes were followed led to scrutiny by Republican lawmakers. The project at Shapiro’s Abington residence also led to a property dispute with his neighbors, who filed a federal suit against him that led the Shapiros to sue in return. Those lawsuits are ongoing.
Nicole Moyer, a procurement specialist with the Pennsylvania Department of General Services, claims in the federal lawsuit filed last week that after she repeatedly raised concerns about the “waste and wrongdoing” by the agency, she was fired.
Moyer, 49, has been working in procurement since 1995, first in the Army and later at the Pennsylvania State Police and various state agencies, according to the complaint. She joined the Pennsylvania Department of General Services in 2023.
Rosie Lapowsky, Shapiro’s press secretary, said in a statement that the allegations “by a disgruntled former employee who was dismissed from her position” are “totally and completely false.”
The suit, filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the state, also names the Pennsylvania Department of General Services and former General Services Secretary Reggie McNeil, along with other officials from the agency that oversees the state’s purchasing, construction, and facilities. Shapiro is not a named defendant.
Mark Schwartz, a Delaware County attorney representing Moyer, said he hoped Shapiro will be deposed as part of the litigation.
“The question is how involved, if at all, was the governor in terms of the residence procurement process,” Schwarz said.
In her role as a procurement specialist, Moyer would not have beenaware of details about the emergency procurements for the governor’s residence project, Lapowsky added. Shapiro’s administration complied with “all relevant procurement policies,” she said.
“PSP identified necessary security improvements based on its assessment and issued an emergency declaration consistent with the procurement code in the fastest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way to complete the work and ensure the safety of the governor and his family,” Lapowsky said.
The whistleblower lawsuit claims the administration flouted bidding requirements and made purchases outside of existing contracts, often to meet specifications provided by Shapiro’s interior designer, de la Torre Design Studio.
The firm had been quietly hired to renovate the official residence by Team Pennsylvania, a Harrisburg-basednonprofit that operates the public-private partnership between the state and private businesses. Shapiro has come under scrutiny previously for utilizing the group to watch the Philadelphia Eagles lose to the Kansas City Chiefs in the 2023 Super Bowl and for other trips, Spotlight PA reported.
Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, waves before meeting with Mike Parson, governor of Missouri, at the NFL Experience to make a friendly wager on the Super Bowl outcome. The governors met at the Lombardi Trophy on Saturday, Feb. 11, 2023, in Phoenix, Ariz. .David Maialetti / Staff Photographer
De la Torre had been working on the governor’s mansion before the fire, and asked for a specific brand of lighting fixture for the design.
The Pennsylvania Department of General Services deemed the $456,000 purchase too expensive, the suit says, and did not budge when the supplier revised the cost to $380,000.
But after the fire, the costly lighting fixtures were installed without any competitive bid or paper trail that would allow the purchase to be audited, according to the complaint.
Similarly, a $17,000 carpet was purchased and partially installed before procurement’s approval and outside existing contracts for carpets and floorings, the suit says.
Time and again, through other examples detailed in the lawsuit between the April 2025 fire and her March termination, the general services department had to issue waivers after the fact to “clean things up,” the suit says.
Moyer also questioned overlapping payments for the security monitoring companies for Shapiro’s residences, the home of Lt. Gov. Austin Davis, and regional offices, with one company not providing services for months, the suit says.
“Nonetheless, the proposed emergency job order contract that included provision for private residences was processed under the same umbrella as state facilities without bidding,” the complaint says.
The residences are not the only place Moyer says the administration fell short of the procurement requirement.
Earlier this year, the suit says, general services approved a $20,000 lactation pod for the Capitol even though a $4,950 option was available under an existing contract. The only difference between the pods was “outer fake ‘woodgrain’ decal,” according to the complaint.
“Plaintiff questioned the rationale for paying substantially more for a minimal aesthetic modification,” the suit says. “Plaintiff was overruled.”
Moyer was terminated in March after repeatedly reporting concerns, including on whether the department couldlegally make purchases for private residencies, the suit says.
Moyer, a registered Republican from York County, filed her suit just weeks ahead of the forthcoming midterm elections, in which Shapiro, a Democrat, is seeking a second term.
Lapowsky said the suit was “clearly timed” to hurt Shapiro politically.
McNeil left his post as secretary of the general services department in August. Shapiro appointed executive deputy secretary Sandra Aguilera to serve as acting secretary.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge weighing whether to block President Donald Trump’s ban of three news outlets from White House grounds expressed some skepticism Wednesday in response to the government’s defense of the move.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, didn’t rule from the bench after hearing arguments in an extraordinary showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes.
But the judge questioned whether the administration met its legal responsibilities and provided the news outlets with adequate due process before banning them on Friday, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently, the president has said negative coverage was dangerous for the country.
The news outlets argued they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination — and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the First Amendment.
Kelly said his decision must be guided by courts’ prior rulings in comparable First Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them.
“I think it is fair to say that the processes that the court laid out wasn’t followed here,” Kelly said.
It wasn’t clear when Kelly, who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — would issue a decision on the news outlets’ request for a restraining order. But he said he’d rule as soon as possible.
CNN, Politico and MS NOW each told The Associated Press they’d have no comment on the emergency hearing.
Prior rulings indicate journalists should be heard before press passes are revoked
Kelly opened by reminding both sides that he’s required to apply case precedent.
The rulings in two prior cases over press access — including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court — made clear that journalists were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.
“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Velchik said.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the outlets, called the ban an “unprecedented, unreasonable punishment” and said there was “not a semblance of due process.”
“The president should be able to take immediate action to protect national security,” Velchik told the court.
In response, Boutros said, “Suddenly it’s a national security case,” arguing that the president brought up that point only after the lawsuit was filed.
The Trump administration outlined ‘reporting incidents’ of each news outlet
In a filing late Tuesday, administration lawyers argued that the ban does not violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to a free press. It contended that the outlets, in their reporting, violated “standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues and publishing sensitive or classified information.”
The administration went on to detail letters that were sent to each outlet that identified “a non-exhaustive list of reporting incidents, including those that have threatened national security and spread falsehoods.”
The “reporting incidents” cited in the filing included: CNN reporting on “‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker”; MS NOW reporting “on an alleged leak investigation”; and Politico publishing “a document detailing funding for the White House ballroom containing intricate descriptions of how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements.”
Further examples were given in individual letters. Politico’s letter detailed six incidents of reporting, including in June citing a “senior administration official … granted anonymity” predicting whether a preliminary deal would end the conflict with Iran.
That item appeared to reference a background briefing set up by the White House, where an official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House itself. Several other outlets also reported the official’s remarks.
Major networks continue to refrain from covering Trump for the media pool
The ban prompted other media outlets to take action in solidarity. The five-network U.S. network press pool — a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, and to which CNN belongs — decided to suspend coverage of Trump events until further notice.
After the hearing Wednesday, the networks were poised to continue their ban on filming Trump coverage. At Joint Base Andrews, where the president was to formally welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping later, journalists from Fox News, CBS and NBC were present but not shooting video, and some appeared to be breaking down their cameras.
Other television outlets whose crews were present, according to signs on their tripods and cameras, were NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV.
Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, an amicus brief was filed by other news groups, urging the court to immediately restore the three outlets’ White House access.
The brief — filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents’ Association and 49 media outlets and industry groups, including The Associated Press, The New York Times and Reuters — says “the targeted expulsion of news media from White House grounds injures the public interest” and ”unassailable First Amendment law makes any viewpoint-based decision to bar reporters from a nonpublic forum constitutionally repugnant.”
The proceedings are historic, said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
“No president has taken this explicit of a step” to ban entire news outlets because he doesn’t like their reporting, she said. “There have been various presidents throughout history who have grumbled about the press or threatened to take more major steps, but really there was nothing at this level before Trump.”
