Polls closed on Tuesday in South Carolina and Vermont, with the marquee contest being a special Republican Senate primary to choose a successor to the late senator Lindsey Graham. Darline Graham, who was appointed by Governor Henry McMaster to serve out the remainder of her brother's term, appeared on the ballot with the backing of Donald Trump. Because polling suggested no candidate would clear an outright majority among the ten-person field, the top two finishers are expected to advance to a runoff scheduled for 25 August.
The compressed nature of the contest reflects an unusual set of circumstances. Lindsey Graham had already won his party's primary for the seat before his death, meaning the Republican Party had to hold a fresh special election to place a nominee on the November general-election ballot. That timeline has forced candidates to condense what would normally be a year of campaigning into a matter of weeks. The eventual Republican nominee will face the Democratic nominee, a pediatrician by profession, in November.
Graham died suddenly last month, a development covered at the time in reporting on his death after a brief illness and in coverage describing the shock his passing caused in Washington. Following his death, McMaster appointed Graham's sister to the vacant seat, a move detailed in earlier coverage of her appointment as interim senator. She has spent decades as a public administrator and disability advocate, including a stint as commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind from 2019 to 2026, and she has drawn on her brother's political network and support in her own campaign.
What is at stake in South Carolina's special Senate primary?
Trump's endorsement carries weight in the race, but South Carolina Republicans caution that it is not decisive on its own. Frank Tiller, chair of the Spartanburg County Republican Party, said the president's judgment on state politics is being questioned by some voters.
"It's very important, but a lot of people are saying Donald Trump does not know politics," Tiller said. "South Carolina politics is different from a lot of places. Everybody here is fiercely independent."
Tiller added that the shortened primary calendar has made it harder for voters to get to know the candidates compared with a typical statewide race.
"There are not enough people that know the candidates. Everybody's calling around trying to find out who to vote for, because they don't know the candidates."
Who are the leading candidates competing for Graham's seat?
Beyond Darline Graham, two contenders bring substantial existing campaign operations to the race. Ralph Norman has represented a US House district covering the southern suburbs of Charlotte, North Carolina, since 2017. A wealthy real estate developer and prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus, Norman ran unsuccessfully for South Carolina governor earlier this year; although he did not reach that race's runoff, much of his campaign infrastructure remained intact when Graham died.
Russell Fry represents Myrtle Beach and South Carolina's conservative eastern border. An attorney, Fry rose through the state legislature before unseating then-congressman Tom Rice in the 2022 Republican primary. Rice was one of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the January 6 insurrection, and Trump repaid Fry's primary challenge with an endorsement and active campaigning against Rice. Both Fry and Norman have run as fiscal hawks who emphasize culture-war issues.
Mark Sanford, a former South Carolina governor with two separate stints in the US House, is also a well-known name in the race. Sanford briefly challenged Trump in the 2020 Republican presidential primaries and, as governor, drew national attention after disappearing from the state for roughly a week under the pretext of an Appalachian Trail hike, when he was in fact having an affair in Argentina.
On the campaign trail, Fry greeted voters on Friday at Savage Craft Ale Works in West Columbia, while another candidate shook hands on Monday morning at Lizard's Thicket, a breakfast restaurant roughly two miles away. Sanford and a congressional candidate were reported to be campaigning a few miles down the road in Aiken that same Friday, according to longtime South Carolina Republican activist Eaddy Roe Willard.
"You know, politics is very local," said Willard, a longtime Republican activist in Richland County. "Something one of our former chairmen used to say about presidential candidates: we don't decide whether or not we're going to vote for you until we've had a chance to shake your hand at least three times."
How did other South Carolina primary races conclude this year?
South Carolina's statewide primary calendar has already produced other results this year that offer context for Tuesday's Senate contest. Alan Wilson defeated Pamela Evette in the Republican gubernatorial runoff, according to NBC News, which reported that Wilson won with 218,506 votes, or 68.6%, to Evette's 100,208 votes, or 31.4%. That runoff had been triggered after neither candidate secured a majority in the initial June primary, with NBC News reporting that Wilson had led the field with 26.1% support while Evette had drawn 28.9%.
According to The State, more than 350,800 ballots were cast in that runoff, reflecting turnout of roughly 10.2%, and all precincts had reported unofficial results before 10pm on election night. Separately, Nancy Lacore and Jenny Costa Honeycutt won their respective party runoffs in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District and are set to face each other in November, according to ABC News 4. In the agriculture commissioner's race, Cody Simpson won the Republican runoff over Danny Ford II, according to WSPA.
What happens next in the Senate race and other South Carolina contests?
Results from those earlier runoffs remain unofficial pending certification by the South Carolina State Election Commission, according to The State, with certified figures to be posted by the state elections office once finalized. The winners of those runoffs will go on to face their general-election opponents in November, alongside whichever Republican and Democratic nominees emerge from Tuesday's Senate contest, according to ABC News 4.
Why is ICE purchasing gloves that deliver electric shocks?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to spend up to $20m to buy thousands of gloves capable of delivering painful electric shocks to officers and agents by March, according to a notice from the Department of Homeland Security. The devices, called GLOVE (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter), are made by Compliant Technologies LLC of Lexington, Kentucky.
The manufacturer describes the product's effect in stark terms.
"The discomfort associated with the stimulation is usually effective in bringing individuals into compliance in less than three seconds and leaves no burns, marks or scars."
The company has marketed the device as a "humane, low-optics, de-escalation solution for many situations facing our men and women in uniform." The gloves have previously been used in settings such as US jails, but their planned use in civil immigration enforcement has drawn criticism. Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy project director on policing at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Associated Press she was troubled by the prospect.
"ICE spent the last year showing this country they are too quick to use force. Now they will be able to deploy electric shocks with the slight push of a button that maybe nobody else can see them do," she said. "Introducing gloves that can so easily be used to deliver terrible pain in encounters is a recipe for harm to the public."
How is the administration restricting gender-affirming care for transgender youth?
The Trump administration has issued a rule barring Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, from funding gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Donald Trump announced the new restrictions on his Truth Social platform. The programs, which serve low-income children and youth, will no longer cover puberty blockers, hormones or surgical procedures, the last of which are rare among minors.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, criticized the move as political interference in personal medical decisions.
"Every young person is entitled to the healthcare that they, their parents and their medical providers agree that they need, without politicians interfering with these important and highly personal decisions. And yet, rather than working to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, the administration continues to obsess over the healthcare needs of trans youth, this time by cutting off health insurance coverage for those who rely on Medicaid and Chip to access that care," said Robinson. "The Trump administration is terrorizing trans youth and their families with these kinds of actions, and it has to stop."
The restrictions are scheduled to take effect on 12 October, though minors already receiving gender-affirming care through Medicaid and CHIP will be permitted to continue treatment for an additional six months. Children and youth currently can access such care under Medicaid and CHIP in 17 states. The administration's new rule cites a 2025 Department of Health and Human Services report finding weak evidence for pediatric gender-affirming medical interventions, as well as a review from the United Kingdom, though medical experts including those at the American Academy of Pediatrics have said the HHS report misrepresents the medical consensus.
Why are human rights groups suing over sanctions on the International Criminal Court?
Four prominent US human rights organizations have accused the Trump administration of using its sanctions regime against the International Criminal Court to undermine global efforts to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. In a lawsuit filed in federal court on Tuesday, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute argued that the administration's targeting of the ICC and affiliated groups and individuals amounts to a "blatantly illegal attack on international justice," the groups said.
The suit challenges an executive order Trump signed in February 2025 that authorized sanctions on ICC officials, judges and others supporting the court's investigation into alleged Israeli crimes in Palestine, one of eighteen investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity the Netherlands-based tribunal is overseeing. The State Department and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The US, which is not a party to the ICC, has long opposed the court's work, but tensions escalated after the ICC prosecutor issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes in Gaza. Washington responded by sanctioning ICC prosecutors and judges, three leading Palestinian human rights groups, and a UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestinian territory. Earlier this summer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio further escalated pressure on the court, announcing a campaign aimed at undermining it by pressuring member states to withdraw.
What is Chuck Schumer demanding about Trump's secret flight from Turkey?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called on the Trump administration to immediately brief lawmakers after reports emerged that the president was concealed in a catering container to board a secret flight out of Turkey amid an assassination threat from Iran.
"The Senate should be immediately briefed on the Iranian threats against the President, the extraordinary measures taken to get him out of Turkey, any risks posed to US personnel, and any threat to the homeland. It is unacceptable that Congress was kept in the dark and instead learned about this serious threat through press reports. Trump has put America's sons and daughters in harm's way by getting into an unnecessary and reckless war, and this administration has repeatedly refused to provide Congress and the public with the transparency they deserve. This is exactly why Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and bring this conflict to an end. Republicans cannot keep prioritizing Trump's luxury and vanity over America's security."
Why is the White House pushing for new charges against a former Olympian?
The White House has asked the Department of Justice to consider new charges against a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, according to a person familiar with the matter. The push aims to revive a case Trump has fumed about since an ally within his own administration dropped it, citing insufficient evidence.
Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, had dropped charges against David Hearn, instead blaming a contractor for a flawed installation. In a 20-page filing dismissing the case, Pirro's office said it had received evidence that damage to the pool occurred before Hearn's visit, adding it was "difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt." Hearn has claimed he merely reached into the water to touch a piece of already-detached lining while on a bike ride in June.
The White House directed its request to officials at the Justice Department's Washington headquarters, though it remains unclear what basis would support new charges. The request was first reported by a separate news outlet before the Justice Department responded to inquiries. A department spokesperson said in an email:
"The Department of Justice follows the evidence when determining if crimes have been committed. We always evaluate any case based on the facts and the law."
The request itself is notable because it underscores how directly the White House has sought to steer a department that traditionally operates at arm's length from the president to preserve its independence and avoid the appearance of political interference.
How are federal election monitors being handled in Minnesota?
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said at a press conference on Monday that state officials will themselves observe federal election monitors deployed to the state's primary. Simon said both Hennepin and Ramsey counties, home to Minneapolis and St Paul respectively, declined to allow federal observers inside polling sites, a decision permitted under state law. The Justice Department said it would respect that decision and would instead station a small number of observers outside a 100-foot boundary at some polling sites, a zone open to any member of the public.
Simon characterized the deployment of federal monitors as a routine process that has occurred without incident elsewhere, including recently in Michigan. He said the monitors have a narrow mandate to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, including asking voters specific questions that voters may decline to answer. Even so, he said his office and the Minnesota attorney general's office would be watching the monitors themselves.
"I think that's a reasonable thing to do, given the record of the last several months and the very real concerns and even anxieties that people have about the justice department in particular, and about the federal government in general when it comes to activity near a polling place or in communities," Simon said.
Simon added that federal officials had been transparent with his office about where observers intended to go and that he had "every reason to believe that this will go smoothly."
Does the data support claims that Washington DC is safer under federal control?
In the year since the Trump administration began a federal intervention in Washington DC, including deployment of the National Guard and a temporary takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, officials have repeatedly cited falling crime figures. Newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche claimed on social media that "in just one year" the capital "is safer than it has been in years."
Data from the Metropolitan Police Department tells a more mixed story. While certain offenses, such as homicide, have fallen compared with the same period last year, others have risen sharply: assault with a dangerous weapon is up 40% in 2026, and total violent crime is up 3% compared with the same point in 2025. The administration has repeatedly claimed record-breaking drops in crime, but the actual decline in violent crime between 2024, when Joe Biden left office, and 2025 was 29%, and the city saw a consistent 32% year-on-year decrease in homicides between 2023 and 2025.
What else is developing across today's primaries and Washington news?
The Justice Department said roughly 20 staff from its Civil Rights Division's Voting Section and Minnesota's US attorney's office were monitoring polling sites in Hennepin and Ramsey counties throughout Tuesday's primaries as part of what it described as a nationwide effort to ensure free and fair elections. Beyond South Carolina, closely watched primaries were also underway in Minnesota, where voters chose Democratic and Republican nominees for governor, and where state lieutenant governor Peggy Flanagan, a progressive, faced congresswoman Angie Craig in the Democratic Senate primary.
Separately, reports emerged that Trump left Turkey last month aboard a secret military flight to Britain amid the Iranian assassination threat. ABC News reporter Michelle Stoddart, who traveled with the president and senior officials from Ankara in July, said the press corps was given no additional guidance about the president's movements or flight plans beyond what he posted publicly on Truth Social.
The State Department released a list of foreign nationals officials say violated the terms of their visas, committed crimes, or called for violence against US citizens, including individuals accused of celebrating the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Officials pointed to online comments including one stating "when fascists die, democrats don't complain" and another suggesting Kirk "died too late."
