Allen Jackson NOW

Allen Jackson: Good evening and welcome to Nashville. I’m Allen Jackson. For years, Americans have been told that concerns about individuals who are in the country illegally and participating in our elections are just exaggerated. But with the midterms approaching, the Trump administration has taken a very different approach—an approach that includes identifying the vulnerabilities and enforcing the laws already on the books.

The Justice Department recently charged 16 people across seven states with alleged election-related crimes, including non-citizens accused of illegally casting ballots. But the investigation extends well beyond those cases. Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullin says authorities are looking into more than 300,000 suspected cases of individuals illegally casting ballots.

We’ve already seen what happens when safeguards fail. The Democratic governor of New Jersey disclosed that a software error improperly registered roughly 6,600 people who had identified themselves as non-citizens. The Trump administration has put greater emphasis on prevention, not simply prosecuting an illegal vote after it’s cast. And the administration has given states tools to verify citizenship before an illegal ballot enters the system. About 10 red states have been using it, but other states, mostly Democrat-led states, not only refused to use it, they went to court.

This raises a question Americans have every right to ask: who is protecting the ballot box? Voting in an election is one of the defining privileges of American citizenship. If you enter this country illegally, you do not have the right to choose America's leaders. Election integrity isn't something you can begin worrying about after the ballots have been counted.

Voters need to know that when they cast their ballot, government has done everything possible to ensure that the people participating alongside them in an election are legally entitled to do so. We’ve been made aware by President Trump that our election system has some real vulnerabilities that need to be addressed.

A few months ago, President Trump drew attention to China stealing the voting records of nearly 220 million Americans, that our voting machines are vulnerable to outside hacks, and that 278,000 individuals who are here in our country illegally are registered to vote with the power to affect outcomes for all Americans. I would think both parties would be extremely concerned about this, but that’s not what we’re seeing.

It feels completely foolish to me that we don’t have or don’t want to have voter ID. Once upon a time, voter ID might not have been considered a necessary thing, but our world has changed. We had 20 million people come across our border illegally during the Biden administration, and in order to maintain secure elections today, we have to adapt in a way that makes sense to the world that we’re living in now. Voter ID isn't an intrusion; it’s a necessary tool that will help ensure our liberties and our freedoms by making sure our citizens are the ones who are doing the voting.

I also want to draw your attention to another dynamic at play. There is a strategy to propagate chaos and confusion in our court system through lawfare, where the will of the people and the initiatives they voted for get stifled by individual judges. I give you a case in point. One federal district judge in Massachusetts has become a major obstacle to the administration's effort to tighten mail voting procedures ahead of the 2026 midterms.

In June, US District Judge Indira Talwani, she’s an Obama appointee, she blocked key provisions of Trump's executive order that directed federal agencies to develop citizenship-based voter lists and called for new postal service rules on mail ballot delivery. She ruled that the duly elected president of the United States had exceeded his authority. The administration adjusted and they moved forward with the plan, but then in early August, the same judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration's mail ballot procedures from taking effect anywhere in the country for the 2026 midterms.

The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court and on August the 24th, the court stepped in and lifted that legal barrier, saying the district judge's challenge was premature because the postal service hadn't yet finalized its procedures. Two days later, the postal service finalized the rules. You guessed it; the very next day, the same district judge, Judge Talwani, she issued a new temporary restraining order.

After Talwani blocked the finalized USPS mail ballot rule again, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court again, but on September the 14th, the Supreme Court refused to lift her injunction, leaving the block in place through the midterms. One federal district judge in effect upended the will of the people across the nation by leaving open mail ballot fraud vulnerabilities for the upcoming midterms.

What’s also noteworthy is this same judge in 2025, she blocked the Trump administration from ending a Biden-era program which had allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to illegally enter the country and remain in the US. Folks, we’ve got to pay attention to what's happening. Ignoring laws, stealing votes, condoning illegal activity—these are all symptoms of a culture with diminished Christian influence.

If you want more godly politicians and godly judges and godly community leaders, we’ve got to make our faith voice a little more robust. If you want to see a righteous transformation in society, we’ve got to speak the truth. In a moment, we’re going to be joined by the senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, Hans von Spakovsky. I’ll be right back.

Guest (Female): Every day brings new reasons to worry. Family, finances, health, the future. Sometimes it feels like the weight of tomorrow steals the peace we’re meant to enjoy today. But Jesus gives us a different invitation. In Matthew chapter six, he tells us, "Do not worry." Not because life will always be easy, but because our Heavenly Father is faithful.

In the updated book, *Freedom from Worry*, Pastor Allen Jackson shares practical, biblical encouragement to help you replace anxiety with confidence in God's promises. Through scripture, discussion questions, memory verses, and daily reflections, you’ll discover practical ways to experience the peace Jesus offers every day. Request your copy of *Freedom from Worry* with your gift of $20 or more at AllenJackson.com or call 800-880-5102.

Allen Jackson: Tonight we’re joined by senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, Hans von Spakovsky. Welcome to the show, Hans.

Hans von Spakovsky: Allen, thanks for having me back.

Allen Jackson: It's always good. President Trump recently instituted a White House ban on three media outlets: CNN, MS-Now, and Politico. It created a bit of a firestorm. In your legal opinion, does he have the right to do that?

Hans von Spakovsky: Well, what the courts have said is that you can't ban reporters from the White House in general, and what they're talking about is the press room which, as you know, has many, many journalists in it, without due process—giving them the chance to understand why they've been banned and giving them a chance to rebut any charges against them.

But those are based on security concerns. The courts have recognized a First Amendment right for folks to be in the White House in the press room. That's very different, however, from other places like Air Force One and the Oval Office. There they apply different standards and you don't necessarily have a First Amendment right as a reporter to be in those more limited locations.

Allen Jackson: Well, the Attorney General Todd Blanche made a comment on this. Let's listen to what he said and then I’ll follow up.

Todd Blanche: The President hasn't denied access. That's not the right way to describe it. This is what the President has said is that he is sick and tired of certain media outlets just refusing to report accurate news. And so look, it is a privilege to be in the White House for anybody. And really the unfortunate and sad thing here is that after years and years and years of one-sided media coverage of the President from certain outlets, the President finally said, it's not fair to the American people that this is happening and did something about it.

Allen Jackson: So as I understand it, they weren't banned from reporting whatever they wanted to report. They just lost access to that briefing room. But you're saying they do have a right to be there.

Hans von Spakovsky: I'm saying that's what the courts have said. But there's a case actually pending right now from actions last year in which the court said that while a First Amendment may apply to a right to be in the big press room, it does not apply to more secure areas, again, like the Oval Office.

And there, CNN has just gone back to court because they claim that they have a right to be part of the pool. The pool is the very small number of reporters out of this huge gaggle of reporters that are chosen to be able to go into the Oval Office. And I think actually on that issue, I think CNN will lose. I think the President has the ability out of all those reporters to decide which of them will be in those smaller, more secure locations, and CNN doesn't have some kind of right to be there more than any other reporter.

Allen Jackson: It's fascinating to watch it unfold. Illegal voting continues to be a concern in the nation, and these back-and-forth between the President and a series of judges. The DOJ recently indicted 16 aliens across seven states for being illegally registered and voting. Seems like just a drop in the bucket. What's the significance of what's unfolding?

Hans von Spakovsky: It is just a drop in the bucket. I don't know if you saw this, but just a couple weeks ago Reuters, which is not exactly some kind of conservative outfit—it’s just a wire service—they actually reported that at least 30,000 aliens have gotten registered in states in the last few years. And it's very clear that that could make the difference in close elections. We have close elections all the time.

What's great about the Justice Department is frankly for a long time DOJ just ignored alien voting, aliens breaking the law, and they finally are doing something about it. And you mentioned those cases; they just indicted even more aliens all over the country for illegally registering and voting in elections.

Allen Jackson: I'm curious. Lawfare continues to be a part of the landscape that we're watching, and it seems that these federal judges, district judges, have enormous power to stop initiatives that are coming from the executive branch. In the medical side of the world, the licensing bodies can control somewhat the activity of the medical community. In the legal world, is there any way to restrict these judges?

Hans von Spakovsky: No, unfortunately not. Under our Constitution, federal judges, once they're confirmed, are there for life. They can only be removed through impeachment. And the only other thing that can be done when they issue what are frankly bad decisions is for higher courts to overturn them.

We just saw that on this issue because you had a federal judge in DC, a Biden appointee. She had issued an injunction telling states they were not allowed to use the Department of Homeland Security's alien database to verify the citizenship of people who are registered to vote. Well, last week the Supreme Court dissolved her injunction and said there is no reason why states cannot use that federal database. But she's an example of the worst of the worst.

Allen Jackson: It's baffling to those of us that watch this without formal legal training because it seems like the judges are able to not rule based on the law, but based on their personal opinion.

Hans von Spakovsky: Well, I agree, and this isn't going to stop until and unless the Supreme Court finally comes down really hard on specific judges for doing that. And so far they haven't done that, and I think the chief obstacle to that has been the Chief Justice, John Roberts.

Allen Jackson: We need to take a short break. Can you stand by for another segment?

Hans von Spakovsky: Of course.

Allen Jackson: Those of you watching, if you have a phone nearby, try logging onto ajnow.com. Send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. We'll be right back.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told us a handful of times, "Do not worry." Well, here's what I know about Jesus. If he tells us not to do something, it's possible for us to put it down. We've put together a six-week email series to help each of us lead lives free of worry. Folks, we live in a tumultuous world, lots of confusion, but I don't believe we have to be plagued by worry. You can go to allenjackson.com/freedom, sign up for the email series. Let's live worry-free.

Guest (Male): Truth matters. I'm not talking about your truth or my truth, but *the* truth. Well, on *Allen Jackson NOW*, I talk with top voices and insiders about what's happening today.

Because it's easy to look away from evil, and when you do that, it gets worse and worse and worse. Including the economy.

Hans von Spakovsky: I expect a very strong year in 2026.

Guest (Male): Conflict in the Middle East.

Guest (Female): And if there's something that is evil and you're silent and you don't speak out against it, you're agreeing with it.

Guest (Male): Energy, political unrest.

Guest (Female): They're trying to thwart the law to benefit them politically.

Guest (Male): You'll be surprised at how much isn't covered by the legacy media. Well, our goal is to equip you to help find a trustworthy perspective on what's happening around us. So when you have conversations throughout your day, you can bring the truth you learn in those places. It's time to be salt and light. Our nation needs it.

Allen Jackson: We're back now with the senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, Hans von Spakovsky. Sir, in the current election, we have a number of candidates running with a socialist orientation, and they're very openly saying they want to do some bizarre things like remove the Senate, the presidency, either abolish the Supreme Court or change the number of justices. It's a frightening perspective to set aside 250 years of legal precedent, the way our nation has operated. Is this merely a ballot issue?

Hans von Spakovsky: No, the growth of the socialist Democrats and frankly, Marxists and communists should be frightening to a lot of people and particularly the support they're getting. They are talking the same way the French revolutionaries spoke in what became a very bloody revolution. They are speaking along the same lines as the Bolsheviks who again fought a very bloody revolution in Russia. They seem to have the very same views and attitudes, and if they get elected in any significant numbers, they will help begin the destruction of the American Democratic Republic, and they are extremely dangerous.

Allen Jackson: It seems to me they're being embraced by the leadership of the current Democratic Party. Is their desire for power so great that they're willing to risk the future of our Republic?

Hans von Spakovsky: The answer to that unfortunately is yes. And staying in power is so important to them that they are willing to embrace this. That actually is related to the prior topic we were discussing.

The Democratic Party has been against anything that would find or prosecute aliens who are registering and voting. Now, why would they do that? The only reason is that they want aliens voting in elections even though it's illegal because they think it will help them win elections and let them stay in power. That's how important retaining control of government is to them.

Allen Jackson: And just for clarity's sake, the simplest way to take a big step forward in election integrity is just to prevent people who are here illegally from participating in the system. Only citizens vote.

Hans von Spakovsky: No, that's exactly right, and that's why it's really unfortunate for the American people that the SAVE Act is stuck in the Senate. This is a law that would require you to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote. It's a simple requirement and it’s one that ought to be enforced all over the country.

Allen Jackson: Well, and that's an 80/20 issue with a majority of Americans in favor of that. And yet our Senate, duly elected leaders, aren't willing to enforce the clearly expressed opinion of the general public. That's just unacceptable.

Hans von Spakovsky: No, I agree, and that ought to be the entire focus right now of the Senate and unfortunately it has not been.

Allen Jackson: Well, the state of Missouri has been in a long and complex redistricting battle over this past year. Can you give us an overview of that battle and why it’s significant to all of us?

Hans von Spakovsky: In 2025, the Republican-controlled legislature put together a new congressional redistricting plan that would have replaced the 2022 map. That 2022 map resulted in six Republicans, two Democrats. The new 2025 map was expected to result in the election of seven Republicans and one Democrat.

But the Missouri State Supreme Court said that that map could not be effective and would not be effective until and unless it was approved by a referendum which is going to be on the November election. That was appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court again last week issued a short order saying it was not going to overrule the Missouri State Supreme Court and it actually told federal courts...