The Common Ills: Sunday Chat & Chews: Alaska and Vivek's appalling and tasteless ad

Sunday, October 25, 2026

Sunday Chat & Chews: Alaska and Vivek's appalling and tasteless ad

9 days until the midterms are over. Jonathan Karl observed today on ABC's THIS WEEK:

Early voting is underway in 47 states. About 26 million Americans have already cast ballots. In Georgia, more than a million people voted in the first week alone. The first day breaking a midterm record. In Iowa, Texas, Kansas, we’ve seen signs Democratic enthusiasm and voting is up. Those are states with Republican Senate seats that Democrats hope to flip.

And nine days out, the president is already laying the groundwork to challenge the results. On Thursday, the Justice Department sued to block Alaska from certifying its Senate race if the Republican incumbent loses. Asked about that on Friday, the president said, quote, “I’m the one that said do it.” That’s an extraordinary statement for a president to make. It runs against a fundamental American value that justice is administered without regard to politics, that the Justice Department doesn’t interfere in elections.

It’s also not a sign of confidence. Candidates who expect to win don’t start talking about contesting the results before the votes are counted.

On the Dept of (In)Justice's move on Alaska, Robert Davis (RAW STORY) quotes DEMOCRACY WATCH's Marc Elias:

"This is serious stuff," Elias said. "This is going to determine whether we have free and fair elections or not, and I think it's going to determine whether or not Democrats are going to be able to sweep the House and the Senate, as I expect them to, or Donald Trump is going to try to rig the outcome."

Elias noted that the Justice Department's arguments are seemingly meritless. For instance, the law the DOJ cited in its brief deals with voter registration, not certification, Elias said.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs (NEW YORK TIMES) explains:

Rather than simply push false claims at his rallies or target voters his administration claims should not be on the rolls, Mr. Trump moved to pre-emptively challenge the certification of Alaska’s Senate election if the Republican candidate narrowly loses.

In doing so, Mr. Trump harnessed the power of the federal government to try to interfere in the voting process before Election Day — essentially trying to nullify an opponent’s potential win before the game has been called.

Even for a president who worked to undermine and overturn the 2020 presidential election, the anticipatory strike reflects a new intensification of Mr. Trump’s attempts to use his official powers to achieve the election results he wants — one that undermines the democratic process, according to election and legal experts. While they say the administration’s lawsuit is unlikely to be successful, the tactic could still further Mr. Trump’s goals by shaking the confidence of voters in the outcome of the race.

“This is part of the election takeover playbook that I’ve seen around the world and unfortunately in some other autocratic environments,” said Michael McNulty, a former senior elections adviser for the U.S. Agency for International Development who has studied election issues around the world, including in El Salvador, Hungary and Venezuela. “Trump has essentially undermined the independence of the D.O.J. and it’s been weaponized.”

The latest phase of Mr. Trump’s strategy centers on the Justice Department, which asked a federal court to block the certification of the election if the Republican incumbent, Senator Dan S. Sullivan, were to lose by a slim margin. The administration argued the presence of another candidate with a nearly identical name on the ballot has skewed the election toward Democrats.

The issue has already been litigated in the state: In June, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired elementary schoolteacher, could appear on the ballot.

Attorney General Toad Blanche appeared on CNN's STATE OF THE UNION where Dana Bash attempted to make some sort of sense out of Blanche's ridiculous law suit:

BASH: I want to start where I just left off, which is the question. What exactly is the crime that the president says is being committed in Alaska?

BLANCHE: Well, it's not the president -- it's not only the president that's saying that. It's the director of the Alaskan election process, who has said that the second Dan Sullivan is going to create confusion, is not a real candidate, and is on the ballot only to pull votes from the incumbent.

So the real question that Americans should be asking is not what you just opened on, but how, as a country, how, as Alaskans, are we allowing this to happen? How can it be that somebody that the director of the Alaskan election process has said is a fraud and should not be allowed to run because his only purpose is to pull votes away from the from another candidate who's running for the right reasons?

BASH: What's the crime?

BLANCHE: And so - yes, so the department -- what's the crime? Well, it depends. There could be a crime, but the real wrong here is that Alaskans are going to be confused and will not have their vote heard.

So, an Alaskan intends to vote for one candidate, but is confused because of the -- of a second candidate with exactly the same name who's voted Democrat his entire life, who donated money to the other Democrat opponent, is running. That's the real question.

BASH: Mr. Attorney General, I don't need to tell you that the Constitution says -- Article I in the Constitution, Article I, section 4, states that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state.

You mentioned the fact that people are upset in Alaska. It went all the way up to the Alaska State Supreme Court, and they ruled four months ago on this matter. They said that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. could remain on the ballot.

There is no crime. Alaska's Supreme Court already ruled on this. The ballot with the two Dan's notes which of the two is a Republican and which of the two is the incumbent.

Blanche is asking for a do-over in case he doesn't like the results. If he doesn't like the results, he insists, the voters were confused.

Voters are confused all the time. They get fake mailers all the time -- like in Texas where a 'trans organization' that doesn't exist attempted to rile voters in what is likely a Republican scam. The GOP is notorious for its misinformation and disinformation. It exists to confuse voters.

In the end, it's the role of the voter to educate themselves. That includes on proposals on the ballot as well as candidates on the ballot. Pat Paulsen ran in GOP primaries and that wasn't a problem. Pat was never a real candidate. He was a comedian. The whole thing was a lark but he was on the ballot. North Dakota's GOP primary found him coming in second to George H.W. Bush and this was 1992 after he'd been pulling this prank or joke since 1968.

Were some people in North Dakota in 1992 confused? I'm sure they were. That was their fault. They're supposed to educate themselves. And I'm also sure that some people found the run amusing and voted for Pat for that reason while others chose Pat because it was, to them, the ultimate screw you.

Blanche is predicting that people will be confused and insisting on a do over. How are people confused? In Alaska, this reached their state supreme court and now, thanks to Blanche, this candidate is yet again in the news. Anyone wanting to vote for the incumbent know there are two people on the ballot and they should know that the incumbent is a Republican and is labeled on the ballot as an incumbent and as a Republican. If they're not able to differentiate between the two Dan Sullivans -- with party and incumbent listed by the name of one -- then they honestly aren't informed enough to vote. But they chose to vote so that's on them.

There are no do overs nor should there be.

Chump has admitted that Blanche is acting on his directive but Toad refused to confirm that in his conversation with Dana Bash. Speaking on FACE THE NATION, he refused to even believe that Chump had said publicly that he ordered the lawsuit:

MARGARET BRENNAN: He said: "I told them to do it."

Did he tell that to you?

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: No, that wasn't your question. No. No, he didn't say it on camera.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he did.

Brennan is correct, Chump said it and said it publicly.

On NBC's MEET THE PRESS, Senator Adam Schiff weighed in on DoJ's Alaskan lawsuit:

KRISTEN WELKER:

Let me ask you about this big news out of the Justice Department. President Trump says he told DOJ to sue to block Alaska’s Senate race certification if Republicans lose. And just to explain to our viewers, the issue here is that the incumbent is named Senator Daniel S. Sullivan. There is another candidate who is on the ballot named Daniel Sullivan. And I think we have a look at the ballot right here. The argument is this could confuse voters. Does DOJ have a point here? What’s your reaction to the lawsuit, Senator?

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:

No, they don’t have a point. And what’s more, they don’t have standing to bring this kind of a suit. It’s not the federal government’s business to run Alaskan elections. It’s Alaska’s business to do that. And they’ve already adjudicated this question. And the Justice Department knows this. But it just shows how complicit they are now in the Trump campaign to try to subvert the elections. Back in 2020 when the president was likewise trying to challenge an election he lost, he tried to enlist the support of the Justice Department. He told top DOJ lawyers, “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to the Republican Congressmen and to him.” Well, they refused. Bill Barr crossed a lot of ethical lines, but there was one he refused to cross, which was trying to overturn a legitimate election. This time with Blanche, they’re all in on this disgraceful campaign. So this suit has no chance of succeeding. But the fact that Todd Blanche and the Justice Department are willing to go along with it, they’re willing to put their name on it, is an indication of how far they will go after this election is over to try to challenge the results. And the best remedy for the American people is make sure this isn’t close anywhere. Turn out in overwhelming numbers. Use every effort to intimidate as further reason to turn out and vote.

Victor Blackwell raised this issue on CNN THIS MORNING with Richard Pildes:

Blackwell: With me now is Richard Pildes, constitutional law professor at NYU School of Law. Professor, good to have you.

So, let's start with Alaska. The incumbent is Republican Daniel S. Sullivan. There's the independent Daniel J. Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola on the ballot.

When you look at this case in Alaska, this has already been adjudicated on the state level all the way through the Alaskan Supreme Court. Are the feds trying to make a different case? Basically, what are they claiming here that would be different than what the state's already decided?

RICHARD PILDES, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, NYU SCHOOL OF LAW: Well,
they are trying to re-litigate under a different theory what the Alaska Supreme Court has already decided. So the concern here, as you described, is that there are two candidates on the ballot with fairly similar names.

The incumbent senator is Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., and he's actually listed on the ballot as Republican incumbent. And then, I'm sorry, the incumbent is Dan S. Sullivan, who's listed as the Republican incumbent. And there's gadfly candidate Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. So, the concern is voters could be confused about who they're voting for.

But as you say, the issue was taken to the Alaska Supreme Court. The Alaska Supreme Court said the candidates have a right to run under their names, and the federal government is now trying to come in. And it's actually quite puzzling what they're trying to accomplish here. I've said this is the weakest election lawsuit I can recall seeing.

For one thing, the only basis the federal government asserts for coming in here is a federal voter registration statute. And that statute has nothing to do with the qualifications of candidates.

And then, in addition, even if one goes down this path, how in the world would the courts determine which people voted for the wrong candidate inadvertently? How do we even know which of those people are who voted for this candidate, let alone how would we probe the reasons for doing it? And the suit also comes way too late in the day, in the middle of the voting process. There's so many problems with this lawsuit.

[06:45:02]

So, I think this lawsuit has no chance whatsoever of being accepted.

BLACKWELL: Yes. I mean the question of can voters keep the Daniel Sullivan straight. We have an issue of doing it. I heard you have to fix it in your answer.

The way I do it is Daniel S. Sullivan. The S is the one who's already a senator. So that's how when I'm just having a conversation. I keep it straight.

Speaking of late in the day, let's talk about California. Because California says that this now requests to set aside ballots from about 20,000 voters. There comes after voting is already started.

So how does that influence the ability to even comply and the merits of this effort from DOJ?

PILDES: Yes, I mean, this is one of the several problems with both of these lawsuits. The government could have brought either of these suits many months ago and courts in general are extremely reluctant to allow lawsuits late in the day in the election process, particularly when they could have been brought earlier.

So here in California, the government is claiming that it's looked at the voter rolls in California and found 20,000 people that it claims are likely to be non-citizens and what it wants the courts to do because most people in California vote by mail is to set aside those ballots from those 20,000 individuals. So that disputes over whether they are in fact citizens could be litigated after the vote takes place.

In the midterms, just nine days away, Democrats are predicted to take back the House. Some even think they'll take back the Senate. Fareed Zakaria (CNN's FAREED ZAKARIA GPS) noted this morning, "Early voting is underway across the United States in this year's midterm elections. There's a growing sense Democrats will not only retake the House, but could win the Senate, too." Margaret Brennan (CBS' FACE THE NTION) offered, "With just nine days until the final voting day of the midterm elections, our CBS News Battleground Tracker estimates Democrats are on pace to take control of the House with 229 seats. The Senate remains a toss-up." If they do take back one or both houses, what are the voters asking them to do? Kristen Welker (MEET THE PRESS) raised that question to Senator Adam Schiff:

KRISTEN WELKER:

Well, Senator, let me ask you. Because if Democrats do take back control of the Congress, I think a lot of voters want to know how you see your mandate? What do you believe the top issue should be for Democrats? What’s the top issue they should tackle?

SEN. ADAM SCHIFF:

Cost of living. We should do exactly what we are campaigning on, and that is focus singularly on how do we bring the cost of life, the cost of food and medicine and rent and more — how do we bring it down? How do we make it possible that if you’re working hard in America, you can provide for yourself and your family? That should be the focus of our positive legislative agenda, ending things like the tariff wars, the Iran war, and other things that are just driving costs higher. But also it should be the focus of our oversight to look into the rampant corruption. Because the cost of that corruption is higher prices for the American people. If the administration is approving mergers that reduce competition and raise costs for consumers, not because it’s in the country’s interest, but because someone’s making a buck. Companies are paying the president’s family or they’re paying to have their name on a ballroom, then the American people need to know. And what’s more it’s going to be important to find out to bring costs down.

Last week, Vivek Ramaswamy began running an add where he allowed a woman who enabled her daughter's rape for nearly two years to show up decades later and call the daughter "a liar." The ad is repulsive and most Americans feel that way. ABC's THIS WEEK addressed it in their roundtable:

KARL: The roundtable is here. Former DNC chair Donna Brazile, “New York Times” opinion political correspondent Michelle Cottle, former North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry, and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Okay. So, Donna, I want to get right to the Vivek Ramaswamy ad against Amy Acton featuring her mother, but not so much just what the ad and the controversy. I want to ask you about this that J.D. Vance said about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have to admit that I'm a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Okay. So, J.D. Vance is disgusted, but not by the ad, but by Republicans criticizing the ad.

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER DNC CHAIR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, J.D. Vance, who calls himself a man of faith, should really think twice before saying that. This is a woman who survived childhood trauma, raped repeatedly by her stepfather. He was convicted in July of 1978. The only reason why he didn't serve time is because he ran as a fugitive.

And to use someone's mother in that way --

KARL: Ran with Amy Acton's mother.

BRAZILE: Thank you.

I mean, it's a sign of desperation that the gubernatorial candidate cannot campaign on what Donald Trump wants the Republicans on his record, because you can't campaign on a record of broken promises. It's a disgusting, despicable ad, and I agree with the governor. It should be removed from there.

KARL: But, Patrick, is there any -- I mean, the way Trump and Vance have continued to talk about it. And Ramaswamy, of course, do they think it's going to work? I mean, is there a chance that it works?

PATRICK MCHENRY, (R) FORMER NORTH CAROLINA CONGRESSMAN: No. There's an old axiom, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

KARL: Yeah.

MCHENRY: And in this circumstance, what Vivek is trying to do is go to the heart of his opponent's campaign and do it in such a way that breaks through the noise of the media. I get that.

But you have to have judgment on whether or not that is going to bring ill repute on you for making such a crazy accusation using somebody who's so -- has such an unsavory background.

This only highlights his opponent's strength. It shows a complete lack of judgment. And what you need in a governor is judgment.

And that is one of the qualities where you see Jon Husted, who is not at the top of the ticket. He's actually second on the ticket in Ohio, saying, “This is not sound judgment.” That's actually the smart answer here.

KARL: Governor, you had some words for Ramaswamy when you debated him, if I recall.

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I did.

Look, it goes to a bigger issue than just the fact that this is a horrible ad and one that should never have been run. This goes to the rotten moral core that Donald Trump has created for my party. And you then take the two, probably two of the most prominent Trump wannabes in our party, J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy, and what they're showing America is, we want to be just as morally bankrupt as Trump, but we don't have any of the charm or charisma that people might like.

This is the future of our party if we don't get our act together, is to have charmless people with no charisma and the lack of moral clarity and center that Donald Trump has.

I think this ad showed much more about J.D. Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy and the cautionary tale for the future of our party than anything else that's happened in this election because if Ramaswamy wins in Ohio, we're going to see the exact same stuff in 2028. If he loses, I think it's going to be a real wake-up call for this type of conduct in our party.

KARL: I mean, Michelle, they've kind of been alone among Republicans, I mean prominent Republicans on this.

MICHELLE COTTLE, NEW YORK TIMES OPINION POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean you had Governor DeWine come out and say that this needs to be taken off the air. We've seen Ashley Henson in Iowa talk about this, former Governor Kasich. Basically, if you can't look at this ad and just say this is wrong, we should not be going in this direction, you need to rethink your basic life choices because I do think it's incredibly clarifying to Governor Christie's point.

This is a moment where you are watching the soul of the party just kind of turn into this Trumpian nasty bile.

Dana Bash (STATE OF THE UNION) addressed the ad with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro:

BASH: We are less than 20 miles from Ohio. We're so far up north and west here in Pennsylvania. The Republican candidate for governor, Vivek Ramaswamy, is under fire for putting the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent in a TV ad, despite claims that she had and some issues went through the courts about childhood sexual abuse.

President Trump and Vice President Vance have defended it. The vice president even admonished Republicans for calling Ramaswamy out on it. You're shaking your head.

SHAPIRO: You know, I have prosecuted dozens of people for sexual abuse.

And the cases where they are familial, you have a parent, a stepparent, abusing their own child are maybe the ones that upset me the most, the ones that would keep me up at night as we were going through those cases. Those are so unbelievably painful.

The idea that a guy who wants to run for governor would weaponize that, that the vice president of the United States, who does this phony preacher nonsense about morality every day, would double down and say, not only is it an acceptable ad, keep running it and admonish Republicans like Mike DeWine who actually had the courage to speak out and call it out, I think it just speaks to how profoundly and pathetically weak of a human being J.D. Vance is.

And it speaks to the character, frankly, lack thereof, of Ramaswamy to attack a victim like that, to attack a victim and take the side of the perpetrator, the enabler of that abuse. It's disgusting.

And what I'm hearing more and more from Republicans, along with Democrats, independents, is they're just tired of this. They're tired of the politics that Trump and Vance practice. And remember, Ramaswamy, he really is just a product of that Trump/Vance politics of the lowest common denominator.

I think you're going to see Americans of all stripes, Democrat and Republican, come out in states all across our country and reject that.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) led a new push for answers from the White House on the recently announced gala dinner for top investors of the $TRUMP coin, the president’s latest scheme to continue using the office of the presidency to enrich himself.

“President Trump’s continued monetization of his name and likeness once again raises serious ethical concerns, necessitating this request for a robust inquiry into the President’s financial entanglements and personal profiteering while costs for the American people continue to climb,” the Senators wrote.

The upcoming November 22 event, marketed as “The Most Exclusive Dinner in the World,” invites the top 185 $TRUMP holders to a dinner and private meet and greet with the president, along with three to four undisclosed “legends.” This comes as Trump’s wealth associated with his meme coin and associated events earned him roughly $636 million in 2025 alone. Reporting also reveals that over half of Trump’s top 100 meme coin holders have utilized crypto exchanges that prohibit U.S. customer participation, indicating that many investors are based overseas, and raising potential conflicts of interest concerns associated with a high degree of foreign participation.

“With the President poised to grow his financial holdings as a direct result of the November 22, 2026, gala dinner – particularly as American families suffer rising costs – it is incumbent upon the administration to answer to the American people about the President’s involvement in and profits from the upcoming event,” the Senators continued.

The Senators are pressing the White House on whether the White House Counsel’s Office or a designated ethics official was consulted prior to the public announcement of President Trump’s participation in the November 22 gala dinner and VIP reception, whether there are specific guardrails in place to ensure that attendees who gain private access to the president do not use the event to solicit official executive actions, how the White House will verify that token purchases driving leaderboard rankings – including those originating from foreign wallet addresses or offshore exchanges – don’t violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and how much estimated revenue the president and his family stand to gain from trading activity leading up to November 22.

This inquiry is also signed by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Background:

On April 10, 2026, Senators Schiff, Warren, and Blumenthal led an oversight letter to Fight Fight Fight LLC investigating and requesting documents and information about a conference and gala luncheon on April 25, 2026, at Mar-a-Lago to better understand the extent of the President’s role in planning, promoting, and potentially profiting off of the conference.
On April 25, 2026, Senators Schiff and Warren demanded that a federal ethics agency investigate President Donald Trump’s scheme to enrich himself by offering access to the President and other perks to individuals who have made significant investment in his personal meme coin.
In June 2025, Schiff led Senate colleagues in introducing the Curbing Officials’ Income and Nondisclosure (COIN) Act, legislation to enact commonsense guardrails to prevent the financial exploitation of digital assets by public officials, including the president and their immediate family.

The full text of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear Ms. Wiles:

We write requesting answers regarding $TRUMP Coin Club’s recently announced gala dinner with President Trump scheduled for November 22, 2026, at TRUMP National D.C. As advertised, the event invites top investors in the President’s meme coin to a dinner and reception where attendees will receive gifts and hear directly from the President. Top $TRUMP coin holders will be determined via a formula described simply as “the more you hold and the longer you hold…the higher you climb.” This dinner and scoring mechanism appear carefully constructed to increase investment in $TRUMP, allowing the President to abuse the power of his office to personally enrich himself, as he has throughout this term. President Trump’s continued monetization of his name and likeness once again raises serious ethical concerns, necessitating this request for a robust inquiry into the President’s financial entanglements and personal profiteering while costs for the American people continue to climb.

The November 22 event, marketed as “The Most Exclusive Dinner in the World,” invites the top 185 $TRUMP holders to a dinner and private meet and greet with the President, along with three to four undisclosed “legends.” Event attendees are expected to receive a TRUMP Fragrance, a Commemorative Poster, a Commemorative Trading Card, and a Fight Fight Fight Watch. The Top 29 $TRUMP holders are separately invited to a VIP reception and will also be gifted a TRUMP 18k Gold Watch. No ticket price has been set for the event, but $TRUMP Coin Club’s online Gala Dinner Leaderboard indicates that the top investor has over $915,000 in holdings.

Notably, reporting reveals that over half of Trump’s top 100 meme coin holders have utilized crypto exchanges that prohibit U.S. customer participation, which indicates that many investors are based overseas – raising concerns about the potential conflicts of interest associated with a high degree of foreign participation at an event with the President.5 Overall, the competitive framework for the event, as indicated by the public leaderboard, appears to be a pay-to-play scheme designed to reward the President’s wealthy allies and con the President’s supporters while lining his pockets directly.

As indicated in an April 2026 letter to Fight Fight Fight LLC, there is no disputing that the President financially benefits from the market value and activity of the $TRUMP cryptocurrency. In 2025 alone, the President earned roughly $636 million from his meme coin and associated events. Concurrently, the cryptocurrency analytics firm Nansen reported in July 2026 that roughly 1 million individuals who purchased $TRUMP collectively lost $3.81 billion through the end of June 2026. Nansen’s report attributes these losses to over 988,905 $TRUMP meme coin buyers. With the President poised to grow his financial holdings as a direct result of the November 22, 2026, gala dinner – particularly as American families suffer rising costs – it is incumbent upon the administration to answer to the American people about the President’s involvement in and profits from the upcoming event.

The duty of a President is to serve the public interest, not to grow their or their family’s personal wealth or bolster their business relationships. The American public deserves transparency and assurance that the President is using the power of his office to solve our country’s most urgent issues, not to improve his own financial position. As such, we request a formal briefing by November 6, 2026, into the President’s financial involvement with the November 22, 2026, Gala Dinner and an accounting of his financial enrichment from growing investments in the $TRUMP meme coin that the dinner appears designed to spur.

Additionally, we request that you provide written responses to the following questions no later than October 30, 2026:

Was the White House Counsel’s Office or a designated ethics official consulted prior to the public announcement of President Trump’s participation in the November 22, 2026, $TRUMP gala dinner and VIP reception?
Did the White House Counsel’s Office or a designated ethics official provide formal legal or ethics guidance regarding standards of official conduct, public trust obligations, or the appearance of conflicts of interest?
What specific protocols and guardrails are in place to ensure that attendees of the November 22 event who gain private access to the President do not use the event to solicit official executive actions, policy changes, or regulatory reprieves?
Will White House officials or any Executive Branch personnel be present during the November 22 event, including the private meet-and-greet and VIP reception?
What specific security vetting will the Executive Office of the President and Secret Service perform on top leaderboard qualifiers before granting them entry to the November 22 event?
Are representatives from foreign corporations, foreign governments, or state-aligned entities permitted to attend the November 22 event if they qualify on the $TRUMP leaderboard? If so, what specific protocols exist to prevent foreign actors from using anonymous crypto accumulation to effectively purchase private access to the President?
How will the White House verify that token purchases driving leaderboard rankings, including those originating from foreign wallet addresses or offshore exchanges, do not violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
What is the total estimated revenue President Trump and his family-held entities stand to derive directly or indirectly from the trading activity generated by the leaderboard contest leading up to November 22?
Will the White House commit to publishing a complete, unredacted log of all event attendees, including corporate or foreign affiliations, within 10 business days following the November 22 event?

We further request that you preserve all records and communications relating to the topics addressed in this letter, from January 1, 2025, to the present and continue preserving past and future materials on an ongoing basis. This preservation hold applies to all relevant records within your possession and any person or entity representing or purporting to be acting on your behalf. This includes, but is not limited to, records and communications via email, whether official or personal; mobile devices; encrypted or disappearing messaging applications; social media; calendar entries; meeting notes; and voicemail and text messages. To the extent that you use any auto-delete functions, you should immediately suspend auto-delete functions and notify persons with control over potentially relevant records of similar preservation obligations.

We look forward to your response.

###

The following sites updated: