Former Virginia Attorney General and acting Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli recently announced he was bringing his Election Transparency Initiative (ETI) into the Heritage Foundation. ETI helps conservatives fight election fraud before it happens.Cuccinelli spoke this week with Daily Signal Virginia correspondent Joe Thomas about the initiative and the new partnership with Heritage. This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity. Joe Thomas: Welcome to Heritage. Did you ever think that you guys would be part of the Heritage Foundation? Ken Cuccinelli: Certainly not until this year. You know, we pushed along really independently. And in terms of raw manpower, we’re relatively small shop. So, one of the huge benefits of merging in under the Heritage umbrella is we bring an awful lot of election expertise and manpower to that issue. For example, at Heritage Action, they have the whole Sentinel program already set up where they have a grassroots network of local leaders who already care about this issue, who we can help move the needle where they live. So this is definitely a synergistic opportunity, which means that the sum is greater than the parts. And we look forward to having even more impact as time goes on. JT: I know you’ve done some work with my friends at the Virginia Institute for Public Policy and other organizations like that across the country. Talk about where you’ve been up to this point and what you’ve been able to manifest. KC: Well, and the Virginia Institute was a key player in starting the Election Integrity Network, which is nationwide and who we partner with all the time. And we have had a longstanding practice of coming into states to support state leadership in pursuing good policies or blocking bad ones, rather than coming in and assuming leadership.  And that’s a big difference I won’t name organizations that do it, but there are organizations that have a Washington focus, let’s just say, who come into states and act like they’re the whole ballgame and claim credit for everything. I will name one of them, the RNC. One of the things that we have done at the Election Transparency Initiative is we have encouraged people to become election officials, not partisan poll watchers, but election officials. Go get trained. The Election Integrity Network does a lot of this. Again, one of the coalition partners we work with. And there are others in states. You want to trust an election? Run it yourself. And there are more people on the Left inside the polling places than on the Right. But in the last five years, we have helped close that gap substantially. Drives the Left crazy, because they used to own inside the polls, and now they predominate, but they don’t own it. And that has been very, very effective without changing a single law at securing elections all over the country. JT: Now, I know in Virginia, there’s requirements that election officials have balance in terms of their affiliations or whatever. But often we’ve found that election officials will be pulled from the Democrat side to backfill where Republicans are not available. I don’t know if that’s every state that has laws like that, Ken. KC: Not every state, but most states have something similar. But those fairness requirements do tend to exist everywhere, but they are also abused in many places. And that means that they’re skewed to the Left. JT: Has it gotten easier to find folks who are already putting down the newspaper with a picture of John Thune on the cover and the SAVE Act in the headline, grasping what it is that the Election Transparency Initiative does? KC: So, as you noted with our name, it isn’t hard to explain to people what we do, whether they want clean, crisp, clear elections, i.e. easy to vote, hard to cheat, or whether they want it all muddy and messy, which the Left tends to. And there’s really only one reason you might want insecure elections, and that’s because you want people to cheat because you think you’re going to benefit from it. And look, election cheating is as old as elections. I put up a post this morning on an article that literally two paragraphs, one after the other, about the California June primary. They rejected more mail-in ballots than ever before. Well, of the 150,000 rejected, 44,000 were rejected for signature mismatches. Well, why do signature mismatches happen? Well, maybe you’re getting old and your signature is trailing off, or maybe someone else is signing the ballot. And so, the next paragraph said, and election experts say, that mail-in ballot fraud is very rare. I mean, with a straight face, those things literally sat next to each other. And I can tell you, as a former prosecutor, that’s not one case of 44,000 signature falsifications, because of course, they are potential signature falsifications, but it’s awfully good starting evidence if you’re a prosecutor. But every single one of them has to be investigated independently. So, these election experts who’ve never spent a day in their life managing prosecutorial resources, it never occurs to any of them the incredible weight of manpower and resources that it would take just to investigate, forget prosecuting, just to investigate those 44,000 rather obvious instances of potential voter fraud, and then prosecuting whichever ones are appropriate to prosecute, however many that might be. And by the way, it’s cost efficient to secure elections on the front end. That’s why requiring voter ID, it isn’t just good for secure elections, it’s also efficient. It’s so much more efficient to stop fraud than to investigate and prosecute it. And frankly, much easier to do. JT: And that’s why the SAVE Act is so important to confirm citizenship on the front end, not wonder about it on the back end. KC: Yeah, because then you need a bunch of investigators digging around and looking for and following trails. JT: Do states need to devote more resources to elections as a grand scheme of things? Or they could just be more efficient? KC: To your question about putting more money in, they’re working people to death. Sure. And there is simply no reasonable basis for a 45-day election. It doesn’t exist. If you want people to have lots of opportunities to arrive and vote, etc. I mean, the most you could possibly defend is two weeks. As we saw in 2020, when in some places, they said, well, we’re done counting, everybody go home, and then they close doors, and they kept counting without oversight. So that that kind of consolidation and simplification saves money. It keeps people, Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, vegetarians from getting worn out in this process. JT: The mere suggestion of shortening the early voting windows is met with a chorus of “vote suppression, poll tax, Jim Crow,” And yet, if you look statistically, since we began in COVID, trying to find ways to keep people from all gathering together and voting in person, we’ve watched voter turnout decline across the country, even in presidential elections. KC: You’ll recall HR 1, the Democrats, Washington takeover of elections they tried to do in 2021 and 2022. An important person who testified was a guy named Bill Gardner. Bill Gardner was the longest serving secretary of state. And I believe in American history, he was New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, he was a Democrat. He testified to the exact point and he brought the data on voter turnout. New Hampshire is extremely limited in mail voting. They have a history of in person voting. And he compared it, for example, to Oregon, one of the first states to go all mail voting. And the turnout levels in Oregon compared to New Hampshire went down. And so, mail voting, the longer period of time is not increasing voter turnout. It might be easier in the sense that you don’t have to leave your house. But it’s more complicated in terms of the election system. Now, I will say, some states like Wisconsin don’t even open the envelopes, they don’t even begin the processing until election day. And it takes a long time to process each mail ballot, relative to just counting a vote of someone who shows up in person. This is why Florida, the third most populous state, can throw six million votes up on the board an hour after their polls close. Because they’ve done all their processing beforehand. And by the way, when you process beforehand, if you’re going to do mail in voting listeners, and you find a mistake, you can notify the voter, right, instead of their ballot going in the trash can. So, you actually get a curing opportunity that you don’t get in those states that don’t process before election day. That’s an interesting point on that. I agree with the president on mail and voting, it should be the old Virginia rule of if you can’t get to the polls on election day, or you’re too handicapped or aged or invalid or convalescent to get to the polls, you get to vote by mail. Otherwise, you vote in person. It’s also simpler, it’s cheaper, it’s more secure. Even Jimmy Carter in the Carter Baker Commission of 2005 identified mail in voting as the most insecure, mistake and fraud prone part of our elections. And that was 20 years ago on a bipartisan basis. JT: This is the expertise that is coming to bear now through the Heritage Foundation and their association with the Election Transparency Initiative. Is there a plan already in place for what’s next? Or is it just getting in touch with all the state networks that are already out there and saying, how can we help? KC: Well, we’re always doing that. And we’re always canvassing states, we do try to do quick turnaround support in state legislatures. Issues can arise, have legislation drafted, be voted on in days or weeks, things can happen very quickly. And we have always at ETI been nimble enough to jump in and support the local election integrity efforts very aggressively and very effectively. We can bring firepower and air cover that they just don’t have on their own. And with Heritage, we can do even more of that. And we can do it bigger and faster. And so that’s something that people should keep in mind and look for from the Election Transparency Initiative. Heritage Sentinels are going to be a tremendous relationship opportunity for us at ETI that give us essentially ears and eyes on the ground in every state because the Heritage Action Sentinel Program is already so substantial and developed. And, you know, that’s not a new exercise for them. They’ve been effective on a whole range of issues. But now we’re going to we’re going to bring a lot more manpower and experience to the election integrity issue. And with the help of Heritage Action, we’re going to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

On Tuesday, three Republican candidates—Kim Farington, Bert Mizusawa, and David Williams—will be facing off to see who will earn the nomination to run against three-term incumbent Sen. Mark Warner in the race for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Warner is unopposed on the Democratic side after potential challenger Mark Moran decided to run as an independent. Moran was barred this year from using the wagering platform Kalshi after he placed a bet on his own candidacy. He said that he “wanted to get caught.” Primary day in the commonwealth is Aug. 4. Joe Thomas of the Daily Signal spoke with two of the GOP contenders recently. “I truly believe that this is going to be a referendum, not only on Mark Warner, but also on [Gov. Abigail] Spanberger, who is one of the lowest-ranking governors at this time in her term,” Williams told the Daily Signal. He added that lawmakers aren’t working hard enough to solve important problems. “Sen. Warner voted 13 times to shut down the government and then went on vacation, and those are the type of things that Virginians are frustrated with.” Farington also targeted Warner. “I don’t have to prove he’s out of touch. He is proving to Virginians himself that he is so out of touch with his constituents,” she told Thomas. “He cannot relate to the government employees. He shut down the government, using them as a political pawn—the government contractors as well, the small businesses. He is so out of touch with reality, with the real issues that Virginians are facing.” Farington promised to provide accountability and transparency if elected, including making changes to the budget process. Mizusawa, a retired Army major general, spoke recently to Charlottesville Tomorrow, where he focused on what he would do to put America first and defend constitutional principles. “Congress has a responsibility to fulfill its constitutional duties regardless of which party controls the White House,” he told the news outlet. “The Constitution and existing federal law clearly define the scope and limits of presidential authority, and each branch of government should remain within those boundaries. My focus will be on working with President Trump to advance an America First agenda that strengthens our country and delivers results for Virginians.” There are also House primaries in a few of the state’s 11 districts. There are Republican primaries in the 10th, 7th, and 5th districts and Democratic primaries in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 9th districts. Democrats currently hold both U.S. Senate seats and six of Virginia’s 11 House seats. Congressional district lines remain unchanged from the 2024 election, although this year’s primaries were delayed for several months by a Democrat-led proposal to redistrict this year. The Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the results of April’s constitutional amendment redistricting referendum, which passed with 52% of the vote. While early voting wraps up on Saturday, voters aren’t showing up as they have in recent elections. Through Sunday, fewer than 40,000 people had cast ballots in the Republican primary, far fewer than at this point in 2024, according to the Virginia Public Access Project. It found that early turnout is also down on the Democrat side, with roughly 68,000 votes cast compared to 120,000 two years ago.

Joe Biden shared candid thoughts about some of his fellow Democrat politicians years before his presidency, according to recently released recordings of interviews with his ghostwriter. Biden’s discussions from October 2016 through April 2017 with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer were published by the Oversight Project, a watchdog group, through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The discussions touched on a range of topics including fellow politicians Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. In a discussion on Nov. 3, 2016, Zwonitzer asked Biden, then serving as vice president, “Were you kind of a lonely voice on Ukraine at this point of the administration?” Biden said, “I’ve been a lonely voice the whole f—ing time.” He said, “I kept making the [case], we pay now or pay later.” Biden said he was the “lonely voice” on domestic policy issues and said he pushed to be more aggressive. “I was a lonely voice on the middle class. I mean, I thought we should be much more aggressive than putting these guys in jail and the bankers,” Biden said, likely referring to the 2008 financial crisis. Biden added on Obama, “I mean, for real. It wasn’t idle. I mean, he used to really get pissed at me.” As a sitting vice president, Biden did not seek the presidency in 2016. However, he said he considered it. “You have the ability to be a unifier, a reassuring skill,” Biden recalled his advisers telling him; he shared those recollections in a Feb. 16, 2017 interview, less than a month after leaving office as vice president. Biden was discussing the two leading Democratic primary candidates from 2016: Clinton, a former secretary of state, and Sanders, an Independent Vermont senator. “Hillary is divisive and, and Bernie is too angry,” Biden recalled the advisers telling him. “You’d be brought into focus as the depth of your character, and understanding just how tough life can be, and your connection to those people.” Biden said that President Obama discouraged a run for the White House. “I think it was all about him trying to talk me into not running,” Biden said. “He was worried that if I got started with this, this, this draft Biden thing, I let it get out of hand, couldn’t go anywhere. … It would tarnish my image, tarnish my legacy.” He recalled Obama said, “Just make sure it’s something that you can actually, actually get done, you know. Is it doable?” “The fact is that he didn’t think it was doable at that time, that I could, that I could actually go out and get the nomination,” Biden told the writer. Biden also mentioned classified materials in the interviews. The recordings were part of special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified information after he was vice president and before he was president. Hur opted not to prosecute, although he found that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials” upon leaving the administration. Biden_Zwonitzer_Interview_TranscriptsDownload

President Donald Trump held meetings Tuesday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the United States considers further military action in Iran and aid to Ukraine. “President Trump has concluded his meetings in the Oval Office with President Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Netanyahu,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X at 12:26 p.m. “Both meetings were positive and productive!” The two leaders are in Washington, D.C. for the funeral of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Neither meeting was open to the press. Ahead of the meeting, Trump addressed reports that Netanyahu would discuss Iran actively building at Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground facility near one of the country’s primary nuclear sites. Trump said Netanyahu wanted to ensure the United States remained engaged on the matter, but added he already was aware of the situation because U.S. Space Force surveillance is monitoring the site. “We have the greatest cameras in the world focused on it,” he told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Tuesday. “We took out their nuclear sites, and we’ll have to take out Pickaxe if we don’t make a deal,” Trump said. “If we don’t make a deal, we’ll take it out very easily.” Zelenskyy posted on X that he had a good meeting with Trump. Zelenskyy said he offered condolences on the passing of Lindsey Graham, whom he described as a “true friend to Ukraine.” A good meeting with President Trump @POTUS at the Oval Office. Thank you for everything we do together to protect the lives of Ukrainians and advance peace. First and foremost, I offered President Trump our condolences on the passing of Lindsey Graham. He was a true friend of… pic.twitter.com/56yoaeqb2B— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 28, 2026 “The President and I discussed licenses for Patriot interceptor production and several other ideas that could help,” Zelenskyy wrote on X. “We also spoke about diplomacy – it’s important that the diplomatic process be reinvigorated. Our teams will arrange the details of their further communication. I am grateful to the United States for its firm support.”

President Donald Trump announced during the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, this month that the United States will grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot missile interceptors domestically, saying to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that “We’ll show them how to do it. It’s very complex actually, but you’ll figure out the complexity quickly.” This decision marks a significant shift in U.S. support, allowing Ukraine to produce the advanced defense system on their own soil rather than relying on foreign supplies. The announcement came as part of broader discussions on bolstering Ukraine’s air defenses amid ongoing Russian missile attacks, and it reflects a new approach to long-term security assistance that emphasizes Ukrainian self-reliance. The move was welcomed by Ukrainian officials as a major boost to their defense capabilities as Russian missile and drone attacks continue daily against Ukrainian population centers. The only other country to receive this level of technology transfer from the U.S. and to also export it to the U.S. is Japan. The arrangement includes some U.S.-supplied components and expertise to help jump-start Ukrainian manufacturing. That said, production is not expected to happen overnight. Experts estimate it could take months or longer to establish facilities and supply chains, but the license gives Ukraine a long-term path to greater self-reliance in air defense. This step builds on previous U.S. deliveries of Patriot systems, which have already proven effective in intercepting Russian missiles and protecting key cities and infrastructure from devastating strikes. This authorization from the United States is a very positive development for Ukraine. It allows the country to strengthen its own defenses even as some question the level of ongoing international support. Trump emphasized the defensive nature of the system, noting it helps Ukrainian cities and infrastructure from missile strikes. “It’s a defensive weapon, which I like better than an offensive weapon,” the president explained. The ability to manufacture these systems at home reduces vulnerability to supply chains and gives Ukrainian forces more predictable access to critical ammunition. In a war where air defense has become one of the most important factors, this license offers a meaningful way for Ukraine to build resilience and reduce its dependence on external deliveries that can sometimes face delays due to production limits in the United States and other partner nations. The decision also eases the burden on the United States. Instead of solely supplying finished systems, Washington can support its allies by enabling them to produce advanced weapons themselves with some American assistance. This collaborative effort strengthens European and NATO partners by enhancing their air and missile defense capabilities. Countries facing similar threats gain more resilience, reducing dependence on U.S. stockpiles and fostering greater burden-sharing within the alliance. In the long run, allowing certain allies to manufacture advanced weapons promotes a more sustainable model for supporting partners while advancing collective security. Several European nations have already expressed interest in similar arrangements as they modernize their own defenses against potential future risks from both state and non-state actors in an increasingly uncertain security environment. Overall, the Patriot production license represents a practical step in a changing security environment. As the conflict continues, this kind of cooperation could help Ukraine maintain strong air defenses and contribute to a more balanced transatlantic framework. The development is worth watching as Ukraine looks to turn the license into actual production capability. The Trump Administration has been pushing for U.S. allies and partners across the globe to take more responsibility for their own defense, and licensing U.S. systems for local production is a great way for the U.S. to help others help themselves.