The gravest threat to the next election is not a viral post or a partisan podcast. It is a white powdery substance arriving at an election office, forcing an evacuation and silencing the workers who administer the vote. Federal authorities are right to treat these mailings as a criminal assault on democratic integrity, and the proper remedy is swift prosecution—not a new government bureaucracy to police what people say.
The FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service are investigating suspicious packages sent to congressional offices and state election boards across the country.
At least five Democratic senators—Chuck Schumer, Alex Padilla, Chris Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Lisa Blunt Rochester—were among the intended targets, though many of the letters were intercepted before delivery. State election offices in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Ohio, and Delaware, along with state capitols in New York and Wyoming, have also been hit.
This comes just weeks before a critical election, following similar threats in 17 states in 2024 and previous fentanyl-laced envelopes sent to election offices. This is intimidation, plain and simple, and it strikes at the core of law and order.
Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama used a speech in Glasgow to argue that the rise of populism and polarization is the fault of the information people consume, and that governments must find a "critical balance" between free speech and regulation.
He invoked post-World War II propaganda rules as a model and suggested current institutions are insufficient to manage digital media and artificial intelligence. That is not a defense of liberty; it is an open invitation for the state to decide which ideas are acceptable.
The same voices that downplay actual violence against election workers now want to criminalize the climate of opinion.
The administration's entanglement in foreign communications infrastructure raises its own sovereignty questions. Elon Musk's Starlink network has become the backbone of Ukrainian military operations, guiding drones and sustaining defensive communications against Russian forces.
President Volodymyr Zelensky says any speed restriction costs lives on the front lines. Musk has suggested the U.S. government may be behind the throttling, leaving Washington's role in a foreign power's weapons systems shrouded in uncertainty. American private technology should not be subordinated to covert bureaucratic interference in another nation's war.
These three stories point to the same principle: government must enforce the law against real crimes, refrain from regulating speech, and respect the sovereignty of allies and American companies alike. The Justice Department and postal inspectors should identify and prosecute whoever is behind the election mailings.
Congress should reject any new speech-regulation mechanism born of Obama's Glasgow address. And the White House should answer whether it is interfering with a private satellite network that an allied army depends on for survival.
Liberty is not protected by government-approved facts, and elections are not secured by censoring the internet. They are secured by catching criminals who terrorize election administrators, by leaving the First Amendment alone, and by ensuring that American power and American technology serve American interests—not the whims of foreign capitals or domestic regulators.
Tags