government

The Justice Department Has Disbanded Its Voting Rights Division

The Justice Department Has Disbanded Its Voting Rights Division

sparta

When a fresh administration arrives in Washington, DC, there are always shifts in policy focuses and staff. Alex, an attorney within the Department of Justice’s Voting Section, had managed to navigate Donald Trump’s initial term and believed he could endure the second.

Just hours after the president’s inauguration, he recognized his miscalculation.

“I was simply mistaken,” he states. “It was drastically different from the first Trump administration. There was an undeniable feeling that this would not be identical. And then within the Voting Section, the response was to start dismissing cases.”

The Voting Section was created in the agency’s Civil Rights Division after the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 to guarantee that every American possesses an equal right to vote.

Alex, whose name has been altered to safeguard his identity, is among the numerous attorneys who have been removed since Trump returned to the White House.

Approximately 30 lawyers were present in the Voting Section when Trump was inaugurated in January 2025. Three months later, only two remained. The departing attorneys have been supplanted by half a dozen newcomers with minimal federal court experience, making numerous fundamental mistakes in court documents. They have also shown a readiness to adhere to Trump’s anti-voting orders, filing numerous lawsuits in an effort to compel states to submit unredacted voter rolls.

WIRED consulted a dozen experts and former Voting Section attorneys regarding the extensive dismantling of the Justice Department’s Voting Section under Trump. Many spoke anonymously due to concerns about backlash from the Trump administration.

As the November midterms approach, multiple sources inform WIRED that the harm inflicted on the DOJ’s Voting Section may be beyond repair. They express concern that the ultimate aim is to furnish Trump with what they term evidence to usurp control of elections from the states. “I believe in the long run, it’s about creating material to contest or subvert elections,” states Alex, who has worked in the Voting Section for many years.

“They’ve transformed what was once the centerpiece of the Civil Rights Division, the Voting Section, into a tool against voters,” Michelle Kanter Cohen, policy director and senior counsel at the Fair Elections Center, informs WIRED. “This was formerly a section that upheld individuals’ voting rights, fought against intimidation, and enforced federal voting regulations designed to shield individuals from discrimination and to make voting fair and accessible. It is being twisted into a political instrument to advance conspiracy theories of the Trump administration.”

Former attorneys from the Voting Section concur. “I dedicated eight years in the Voting Section as a trial attorney engaged in what was the core mission of the section since its inception, which was enforcing the Voting Rights Act and other federal laws that safeguard the right to vote,” Eileen O’Connor, who is now senior counsel at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice, tells WIRED. “The activities they are pursuing now are the exact opposite.”

The White House did not respond to inquiries regarding the new Voting Section lawyers, but spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated to WIRED that “the Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act all grant the Department of Justice complete authority to ensure states align with federal election laws, which require accurate state voter rolls.”

Voting Rights

In the period following the 2020 presidential election, Trump attempted to weaponize the Justice Department by appointing special counsels to probe into election conspiracy theories. It failed. At every instance, officials and political appointees at the department resisted, even threatening mass resignations.

Currently, Trump is again looking to exploit the power of the Justice Department to erode confidence in the election process. This time, sources inform WIRED, no one is standing in opposition.

Colorado's Repair Legislation Rejected

Colorado’s Repair Legislation Rejected

sparta

A controversial bill in Colorado aimed at undoing repair protections within the state has been defeated. Advocates for the right to repair had focused on the bill, perceiving it as a sign of how technology companies might seek to weaken repair legislation more broadly across the United States.

The state’s significant 2024 repair law, referred to as the Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment, came into effect in January 2026, ensuring individuals have access to the tools and documentation necessary to repair digital devices such as smartphones, computers, and Wi-Fi routers. The proposed SB26-090 bill aimed to introduce an exception for “critical infrastructure,” a term that is vaguely defined and raised concerns among repair advocates.

Introduced during a Colorado Senate hearing on April 2, SB26-090 gained backing from companies including Cisco and IBM and was unanimously passed in that hearing. It subsequently passed the Colorado Senate on April 16. However, during an extensive hearing in the Colorado House’s State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, the bill was ultimately stopped with a 7 to 4 vote.

Danny Katz, executive director of CoPIRG, remarked on the collaborative effort to fight the bill, which included repair advocates from groups such as PIRG, Repair.org, iFixit, Consumer Reports, along with local businesses and environmental organizations.

“While we were making headway in reducing its momentum, we were still facing losses,” Katz stated in an email. He attributed the significant impact to the diverse testimonies from cybersecurity specialists, businesses, repair advocates, recyclers, and others.

Supporters of the bill, backed by firms like Cisco, pointed to possible cybersecurity threats as justifications for modifications to the law. They contended that granting repair tools to all individuals could enable malicious entities to reverse engineer essential technology. However, opponents argued that this logic was flawed, pointing out that most hacks occur remotely, rather than through physical interference.

During the hearing, Democrat Chad Clifford, a state representative from Colorado, emphasized Cloudflare’s use of a lava lamp wall for internet encryption, advocating for the necessity of keeping sensitive systems confidential for security purposes. He remarked, “How they accomplish that, in my opinion, should remain a secret, even in Colorado.” Nevertheless, cybersecurity experts highlighted that the majority of cyber attacks result from remote actions, not physical modifications.

John Solly: The DOGE Agent Charged with Scheming to Shift Social Security Information to His New Position

John Solly: The DOGE Agent Charged with Scheming to Shift Social Security Information to His New Position

sparta

John Solly, a software developer and previous member of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is allegedly reported to have informed colleagues that he had kept critical Social Security Administration (SSA) data on a USB drive with plans to present it to his new employer, as per sources. Since October, Solly has held the position of chief technology officer for Leidos’ health IT sector, which possesses substantial contracts with SSA. Solly’s online footprint has been erased this week. Through his legal representation, Solly refutes any accusations of misconduct. Leidos has found no proof that supports the whistleblower’s allegations. Solly was a member of a 12-person DOGE team at SSA, contributing to various projects. A report, not specifying Solly or Leidos, was submitted to the SSA’s Inspector General, claiming that a former DOGE employee had taken SSA data to possibly use at a private-sector firm, anticipating clemency for any illegal acts. Solly asserts that he did not partake in the alleged conduct. Leidos stands as a prominent SSA contractor, continuing to gain substantial contracts despite cuts under DOGE’s initiatives.

New Duties Enforced by Trump to Circumvent Supreme Court Ruling

New Duties Enforced by Trump to Circumvent Supreme Court Ruling

sparta

President Trump is enacting a 10 percent tariff on almost all imports into the US, following a Supreme Court ruling that annulled most tariffs that were applied by the US government last year.

In an executive order issued Friday evening, Trump mentioned a few exceptions, such as imports of essential minerals, beef and fruits, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and items from Canada or Mexico. The new tariffs are expected to take effect on February 24, 2026.

During a press briefing on Friday afternoon, Trump voiced his disappointment over the Supreme Court’s ruling and openly criticized the six justices who opposed his trade policies, calling them “a disgrace to our nation.” When asked about how two of the justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, voted to overturn, Trump referred to them as “an embarrassment to their families.”

The revised trade approach is based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which enables the president to independently and swiftly implement tariffs of up to 15 percent in scenarios of “large and serious” trade deficits. These tariffs last for just 150 days unless Congress extends them. Similar to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), this legislation has not previously been used by a US president in this way.

After the 150-day period, it is possible for Trump to repeatedly reapplied Section 122 tariffs. Alternatively, the administration may utilize this duration to formulate other tariff strategies, effectively changing legal frameworks to sustain similar regulatory impacts, as noted by Gregory Husisian, a partner and litigation attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP, who has aided numerous companies with tariff refund requests. “[Section 122 tariff] is for a limited time period, so it’s going to be a bridge authority,” Husisian remarks.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration could accelerate the process of conducting trade inquiries based on national security or unfair trade practices abroad, which are necessary for implementing Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs. “We are also starting multiple Section 301 and other inquiries to safeguard our country from unfair trade practices by other nations and companies,” Trump mentioned at the press briefing, referring to these alternative tariff options that require more time to activate.

In a different executive order, the administration confirmed that despite the nullification of IEEPA tariffs, the de minimis exemption—which exempted ecommerce parcels valued under $800 from taxes—remains on hold. The termination of de minimis last year resulted in considerable delays in package processing at the US border and increased prices on budget shopping platforms.

During the press briefing, Trump did not clarify what would happen with companies requesting tariff payment refunds. The Supreme Court’s ruling did not specify how the tariffs should be refunded. In response to a reporter’s question on the subject, Trump suggested that the matter would likely be resolved in court.

Experts inform WIRED that they expect the refund process to be intricate and lengthy, potentially necessitating companies to file grievances and calculate the amounts they believe are owed. The government could dispute the assessed amounts. This process could take several months up to more than two years.

The Supreme Court ruling underscored that the IEEPA provides the president with significant powers during emergencies but does not encompass taxation. In the press briefing, Trump repeatedly misrepresented the ruling: “But now the