The Brief

My father’s side of the family spoke Mandarin, but my father did not. So, my sister and I never learned.

We spent a lifetime clumsily sounding out the 谢谢 and 再见 of our heritage language, while relatives smiled sympathetically. I always felt a little less Chinese American for it, always resented my dad a tiny bit for quashing what felt like a cornerstone of our identity.

But when anti-Asian hate crimes rose to an all time high in 2021, I chose to look more deeply at my family history – and realized how misguided my resentment was.

The process of interviewing my own relatives about our family history inspired “Inheriting,” co-created with Anjuli Sastry Krbechek and an entire team at LAist Studios. Set in California, this multi-part, narrative podcast about Asian American and Pacific Islander families explores how one event rippled through the generations that followed.

On “Inheriting,” the past is personal. Families are acknowledged and celebrated as actors in history. Our team wanted to know: What would happen if we talked about the past beyond facts and figures? What if history became a means for bridging intergenerational gaps, tending to our mental health, and processing the world we live in today?

Ultimately, we want “Inheriting” to inspire others to interview their own family members (however you define family), and to use our show and digital resource guide as a model for navigating conversations about the past.

"Inheriting" co-creator and senior producer Anjuli Sastry Krbechek interviews Reginald Jackson, a Compton resident, alongside Carol Kwang Park.

(

Emily Kwong

/

LAist

)

Learning history to connect 

The past became personal to me when I stumbled upon a single date, 1943. That was the year the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed, just as my grandmother, Hui Chen, was preparing to immigrate to the U.S. When I stitched these two timelines together – my family history and sociopolitical history – my perspective of my own family shifted.

I imagined the long shadow of that xenophobic law across my grandmother’s 17-year-old face, a Chinese college student fleeing war with Japan and determined to survive in New York City. I got curious about how languages and traditions die within families, and how historical and collective trauma shapes a family for generations.

"Inheriting" host Emily Kwong with her grandparents, Hui and Edgar Kwong.

(

Courtesy Emily Kwong

)

My first real attempt to answer those questions was in 2021, when I interviewed her son – my father, Christopher Kwong – for almost two hours for the NPR series "Where We Come From." He told me a story I had never heard before: about speaking Mandarin as a kid, his kindergarten teacher’s belief that bilingualism would hold him back academically (a now unproven idea), and his parents’ overnight decision to become an English-only household.

I pictured my five-year-old father in khaki shorts on summer vacation, doing vocabulary drills with my grandmother. He softly told me it was “a decision for (his) own emotional and social survival.” The more I learned about my father’s determination to adopt English, the more my resentment dissipated.

In that two-hour interview, I opened up to him too. I shared how disconnected I’d felt from our culture, our extended family, and why I decided to learn basic Mandarin as an adult. After we wrapped, the distance between us felt shorter. I asked him, “How does it feel to talk about all of this?”

“It’s very therapeutic,” he said. “For people who need to unburden themselves, I think it’s very necessary.”

Learning history to heal 

After that conversation with my father, I interviewed my Auntie Linda and Uncle Dick with my microphone and tucked those audio files somewhere safe. I began snapping pictures of sepia-toned family photographs and memorizing the names of those long gone.

Through these conversations, I’ve come to understand how war, racism, and assimilation have shaped our family, and how it runs down the family tree like an inkblot all the way to me.

I was a very depressed and anxious teenager. High-achieving, but unable to get out of bed for stretches of time. No one in my suburban Connecticut hometown had a family history like ours. Therapy and medication have been life-saving, but the real healing has come from talking to other Asian Americans. Other people’s stories have kept me alive. Stories were the proof I needed that life is flexible, and survivable.

A 2019 study from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) found that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders were the least likely of any racial or ethnic group to seek out mental health services. The barriers for affordable, culturally-competent care are numerous, but there is a generational change afoot.

The list of therapist directories, in-language conversation starters, and recognition of non-Western care practices is growing. Podcasts and new books devoted to intergenerational trauma are flourishing. Our show wants to be a part of that change.

Throughout production, our entire team learned so much from Sherry C. Wang, our consulting psychologist on the show, about the intersections between family history, community dialogue, and mental health. “Just talking about it is a big deal,” she’d constantly reassure me. On “Inheriting,” we explore intergenerational trauma most deeply in Episode 5 of the show, with Leah Bash. Both sides of her Japanese American family were incarcerated during World War II.

I want this show to find those that need it, perhaps a teenager in an all-white suburb like I once was, feeling lonely and disconnected from other people. And I want listeners to experience what it's like to bridge that gap, through intentional conversation, deep listening, and moments of real learning and sharing.

"Inheriting" is a co-production of LAist Studios and NPR. The team includes (from L to R), senior editor Sara Sarasohn, senior producer Anjuli Sastry Krbechek, producer Minju Park, executive producer Catherine Mailhouse, producer James Chow, host Emily Kwong, and LAist vice president of podcasts Shana Naomi Krochmal.

(

Anjuli Sastry Krbechek

/

LAist

)

Learning history in solidarity 

Seven families participated in the first season of “Inheriting,” from Cambodia, Guam, Japan, India, Korea, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. All of them processed a life-changing historical moment, across hours of conversation.

As the reporter facilitating those conversations, I was astonished how little I knew about other communities. In so many ways, this show is the history class I wish I took in college. By deconstructing the AAPI monolith, our team sought to tell a fuller story of these communities.

While making this show, I clung to Erika Lee’s The Making of Asian America and Renee Tajima-Peña’s 5-part PBS series Asian Americans. Social media has busted down doors in making learning more accessible. A growing list of states are requiring AAPI studies in their K-12 curriculum.

And yet, a growing number of states have restricted or banned teaching critical race theory. Last year, Florida banned an AP African American studies course, while approving an AAPI history bill for K-12 schools. This move prevents the next generation from understanding how different communities have historically affected one another.

“Inheriting” approaches history education differently, holding our stories alongside other immigrant and BIPOC groups. The first two episodes of the show focus on the 1992 Los Angeles Uprising for that reason, examining how decades of segregation, disinvestment, and police brutality led up to that one week in April. It ends with a call by professor Carol Kwang Park to her students: “What are you going to do to stop it?”

Asian Americans are the fastest-growing group of eligible voters and the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. When I think about that fact, Carol’s question rings in my ears. What are we going to do with our expanding political power?

This is a show meant to spark conversation within families– a starting point for those who want to engage deeply with the past. That’s why we built a digital resource guide to accompany each episode, alongside lesson plans from the The Asian American Education Project for K-12 instructors and students.

Listen to 'Inheriting'

My father has been one of the biggest supporters of me making “Inheriting.” Every plot beat, every historical deep dive. But he’s nervous.

Over the phone, he said, “I gotta be honest with you Emily, I’m not sure if anyone will want to listen to this.”

I get his concern. The people in “Inheriting” are neither celebrities, nor power brokers. But they are all actors in history, and that is compelling in every sense.

All across the Asian and Pacific Islander diaspora are people who took heroic leaps to keep their families together – whose choices made a difference – fleeing war, occupation, and social upheaval. Our families have shaped social movements, as activists and artists, and done good where they could: in gas stations and courtrooms, behind barbed wire and bullhorns, on the farm and on the picket line.

That inheritance is ours for the taking, if we’re willing to go back and reclaim it.

New episodes of “Inheriting” come out every Thursday. Listeners can subscribe on the NPR app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify and wherever podcasts are available.

Braddock Sandoval perused tables with wigs, a Darth Vader mask, a black tutu and other items and garments on an unusually sizzling day in Los Angeles. He found a Hawaiian flower necklace and a shark costume and tried them on.

The chemistry professor at Occidental College heard about a campus swap where he could pick out a free Halloween costume with the goal of keeping it from being thrown away. Curious and in need of one, he swung by to see what he could find.

“I think there’s too much cheap plastic waste in this world. So the idea that people are recycling costumes is fantastic, both for budgets, like me, but also just for the planet,” Sandoval said with a laugh. He planned to attend a Halloween dance party dressed as a great white shark eating a tourist — a costume inspired by the freebies he found at the swap.

Every Halloween, costumes get their big moment. But every year, millions end up in a landfill after a single use, and many are made from synthetic plastics that don’t easily break down, contributing to environmental pollution. In Southern California and across the country, Halloween costume swaps and thrift stores are keeping costumes from going to waste. People can donate clean costumes and pick a new one, reducing waste and the resources and emissions required to make new ones.

This year, the National Retail Federation estimates Americans will spend some $4.4 billion on Halloween costumes. In 2018 alone, they discarded about 11.3 million tons (10.25 million metric tons) of textiles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. When shopping sustainably, experts say, keep three principles in mind: Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

Shelie Miller, a University of Michigan professor who studies the environmental impacts of products, said Halloween costumes, like fast fashion, are often made cheaply from plastic materials. They tend to fall apart, she said, and are “not really intended to stick around for a very long time.”

And there are other environmental impacts.

Clothing accounts for 4% to 10% of global carbon emissions, she said, while textile dyeing contributes about 20% of wastewater emissions from industrial sources worldwide.

Synthetic fibers used in clothing, including many costumes, can shed microplastics during washing and end up in water sources, she said. Microplastics have been found in the ocean, air, food and water, as well as a range of human tissues. Growing evidence suggests they can pose risks to human health. Many of these materials are made from oil, which emits pollutants when burned, driving climate change and fueling extreme weather.

“The process of making these, the Halloween costumes, it’s incredible,” said Zack Bowersox, a senior lecturer in political science at Washington University in St. Louis who teaches a class on fast fashion and the environment.

Rather than being stitched together, costumes are often heat bonded, with the plastic melted at the edges to join pieces. “After the season, they’re not meant to even be thrifted or returned, they’re just meant to be thrown away. And that’s where most of them end up, it’s in the landfill. Something like 80% of those suits end up in the landfill,” Bowersox said.

Miller said there are many ways to enjoy Halloween without buying a one-off costume.

“Whenever we buy anything, we’re not just buying the one thing, we’re buying all of the environmental impacts of everything that went into making that product,” Miller said. “So whenever we’re using any sort of single-use product, whether we’re talking about single-use plastic or single-use costumes, we really have to be thinking about is this really how we want to spend our time, money, resources, and is there a better way?”

Braddock Sandoval, a chemistry professor at Occidental College, poses for photos with a costume he picked out during a Halloween costume swap on the campus in Los Angeles, Friday, Oct. 16, 2026

(

Jae C. Hong

/

Associated Press

)

How one fashion lover launched a Halloween costume swap

Sustainable fashion advocate Lexy Silverstein founded the Ultimate Halloween Swap last year after realizing how much money and material went into a costume that might be worn only a few hours before being dumped.

As an avid Halloween fan who loves donning costumes, she was forced to reflect on her own consumption and waste.

“That’s a lot of costumes that I’m buying and wearing once and getting rid of,” she told herself. And she began thinking of other seasons that encourage people to buy new things, like back-to-school time.

Last year, the swap collected hundreds of costume donations, including 10 boxes from the LA Clippers basketball team. It was such a success that she decided to do it again and has since expanded across Southern California, including at Occidental College where Sandoval found his shark suit.

Now, Silverstein is hoping to organize swaps for back-to-school, prom season, winter coats and other high-consumption, single-use times of year.

Washington University in St. Louis has its own version going. Its thrift store is stocked with clothes and items collected during student move-outs when many items get left behind, including Halloween costumes and accessories. For the second year, it organized an on-campus pop-up where the campus community could buy used Halloween costumes for a low price.

Cassie Hage, the university’s assistant director at the Office of Sustainability, said this year’s selections included Austin Powers and kiwi outfits, a demon from the hit TV show “Stranger Things” and matching platypus onesies that delighted a group of friends who stumbled upon them.

“They were kind of dancing around” in them, she said. “That was just a really fun moment to watch.”

How to reduce, reuse, recycle

Thrifting, attending clothing swaps and raiding friends’ and family members’ closets are all ways to avoid buying new costumes. You can assemble a Halloween costume from clothes and accessories you or a friend already own, or modify existing pieces to create a new look.

Silverstein also suggests renting costumes by looking through websites like Facebook Marketplace, Depop and Poshmark.

If you have to buy something, Bowersox suggests buying costumes or accessories made of plant-based materials such as cotton or linen. Licensed products can cost more, he said, but can offer greater transparency over how and where they’re made.

Alison Linder, assistant sustainability coordinator at Occidental College, which has a thrift store of its own with Halloween costumes in stock, encouraged people to organize their own swaps with neighbors, friends or school classmates.

“It’s just as easy as asking your friends for a loan and offering to share what you have,” she said. “And just by doing that simple thing, you save money and you’re helping the environment.”

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

In the increasingly bitter legal standoff between President Donald Trump and media outlets whose reporting he dislikes, a new and crucial third party has emerged: citizens who watch and read the news and need it to do their jobs.

A lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of six such citizens — essentially representing the wider public audience — argues that it’s not only the rights of news organizations that are violated when Trump bans them from White House premises. Even more fundamentally, the lawsuit argues, such bans violate the public’s right to independent reporting about its president and government.

“The ultimate injury here … is to the democratic public,” says the suit, filed in federal district court in New York against Trump and three key aides, including the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

“The First Amendment protects the public’s right to know what its government is doing,” said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, along with the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School.

“The White House cannot decide what information Americans receive by punishing critical reporting,” Fallow said in a statement. “When the White House expels reporters because of their coverage and threatens others with expulsion, it isn’t just the press that suffers — the public loses access to independent reporting and gets something closer to government propaganda.”

The Trump administration, asked for comment on the lawsuit, responded in a statement that it attributed to an unidentified White House official: “No person may demand access to the Oval Office.” It said media that peddle “misinformation and defamation are completely capable of reporting their manufactured stories from directly outside.”

The plaintiffs all rely on White House news for their work

The six plaintiffs are all people who say they rely on independent and diverse White House reporting for their teaching, journalism or advocacy. They include a noted human rights advocate, a political journalist, a Yale history professor, a high school civics teacher, a legal journalist, and a student journalist at the University of Pennsylvania.

The complaint filed Monday recounts how various news organizations that have been targeted by Trump are already battling the administration in the courts. These cases include the current lawsuit by CNN, MS NOW and Politico, whose journalists were banished from the White House in September.

A federal judge recently extended an order preventing the White House from enforcing the ban while the case makes its way through the legal system. Still affected, though, is CNN’s pool coverage of Trump. The White House has been denying the network its usual slots in the video pool covering the president’s activities and travel, and CNN has threatened further action.

Also continuing is the legal case involving The Associated Press, whose reporters were barred last year from the Oval Office, Air Force One and some events in retaliation for the outlet’s decision not to follow Trump’s lead in changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, which lies partially in Mexican and other waters, to the Gulf of America.

The New York Times is also involved in litigation, over a Pentagon policy requiring escorts for journalists on its grounds. And ABC is fighting back against the Trump administration in a dispute over renewal of its broadcast licenses.

This lawsuit seeks more wide-ranging relief

The new lawsuit filed Monday, though, is different from previous legal action against the president — first, in that the plaintiffs are ordinary citizens, shifting the focus from news gatherers to news consumers, and thus implying a much larger pool of stakeholders. In addition, it seeks more wide-ranging relief.

The suit, which names Trump as defendant along with Wiles, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, and Secret Service Director Sean M. Curran, calls not merely for reinstatement of access that has already been impacted, but for a broad injunction that would protect from retaliation every news outlet that covers the White House —- now, and in the future.

“Defendants’ policy of restricting the access of disfavored news organizations deprives the public of the reporting of those organizations,” the complaint says. It also “inevitably deprives them of the independent reporting of other news organizations as well, since every journalist who reports from the White House must now account for the possibility that a critical or ill-advised word about the president may result in their access being summarily restricted or revoked.”

“Plaintiffs ... seek a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional because it imposes restrictions on a limited public forum that are viewpoint-based and unreasonable,” the complaint adds. “They also seek an injunction barring defendants from enforcing the policy.”

Plaintiffs include a human rights advocate, a teacher and a student journalist

The plaintiffs are:

—Kenneth Roth, former longtime executive director of Human Rights Watch and a lecturer at Yale’s law school and school of global affairs. Roth “relies on newsgathering and reporting from members of the White House press corps to inform his public writing and commentary,” the suit says.

—Daniel Froomkin, media and political journalist and editor of Press Watch, a nonprofit that encourages political journalists to “fulfill their essential mission of creating an informed electorate and holding the powerful accountable.”

—Beverly Gage, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and professor at Yale University who “relies on newsgathering and reporting from the White House press corps to inform her scholarship, public writing and commentary.”

—Peter Schmidt-Nowara, a social studies teacher at a New York City high school, who teaches civics courses and considers White House reporting “essential to his work as an educator.”

—Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, whose publication is “especially reliant on the White House press corps to provide accurate and timely coverage of the president.”

—Ethan Young, a student at the University of Pennsylvania and editor-in-chief of The Daily Pennsylvanian, who, as a student journalist, “relies on a diverse, independent and trustworthy cohort of White House reporters to serve as his proxy.”

Schmidt-Nowara, who teaches at Brooklyn Technical High School, is quoted in the lawsuit as saying: “As a social studies teacher, I want my students to have access to accurate, independent reporting about their government.” He adds he is “gravely concerned that the Trump administration’s restrictions on White House reporters are cutting off access to crucial information.

“I joined this lawsuit because my students deserve to know what’s happening in their government and to hear from a free and independent press,” he says.

Young, the student journalist, contends that since he can’t personally access White House press spaces, he relies on “a diverse, independent and trustworthy cohort” of White House reporters to serve as his proxy.

The effect of federal policy changes has been “acutely felt on college campuses, Penn’s included,” Young is quoted as saying. “As a student journalist, I rely on reporting from the White House press corps to understand the decisions made in Washington, their consequences, and how they impact my college community. A vibrant free press allows me to do just that.”

A panel of federal appellate judges on Sunday questioned the timing, constitutionality and authority of the Justice Department’s demand that California election officials set aside thousands of mail ballots from people the federal government suspects may not be citizens.

During rare weekend arguments, two of the three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared skeptical of a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump’s administration in mid-October. The lawsuit accuses California officials of failing to meet a 48-hour deadline to review 20,000 names the administration flagged as likely noncitizens on the state’s voter rolls.

The administration asked a federal judge to require the state to withhold counting those ballots until the voters’ immigration status could be verified. The district judge scheduled a hearing for Oct. 27, days after the case was assigned, but the federal government appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an expedited decision.

Justice Department attorney Matthew Donnelly told the panel that California is causing irreparable harm “by allowing noncitizens to vote in violation of their own state laws. The damage is irreversible and irrevocable.”

The Trump administration has made efforts to identify noncitizen voters a priority this year, even though noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare.

Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the appellate court even has jurisdiction to hear the case even before a ruling by the lower court.

Donnelly argued that the schedule set by the lower court judge was too slow and effectively a denial of the government’s request, as state elections officials process thousands of mail ballots every day.

Judge Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by former President Joe Biden, questioned whether the federal government was violating the Tenth Amendment, essentially commandeering the state to enforce a federal law that makes it a misdemeanor for a noncitizen to vote.

The federal government is simply asking California to enforce its own law, which also bans noncitizens from voting, Donnelly said. He argued the state’s refusal to comply with the federal request to set aside the ballots for review was “frustrating the purpose” of the federal law against noncitizen voting.

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time, place and manner of congressional elections, Bennett said. The executive branch may be “unhappy with what they’re doing, and doesn’t like the manner,” Bennett said, but under the Election Clause the state has the right to determine those issues — including how it sorts out any noncitizen voters.

Attorney Seth Waxman, representing Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan, said the federal government’s list was unreliable and that segregating the ballots for a review process would effectively disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

Even if election staffers spent just three minutes checking each of the expected 2.75 million mail ballots against the government’s list, the process would take 140,000 man-hours, Waxman said — or about 16 years of working time.

Waxman cited a review of 200 records from the Trump administration’s list conducted by Los Angeles County staffers. Assistant Registrar-Recorder Monica Flores said in a court filing that the sample included canceled or inactive registrations, individuals with no voting history and voters who appeared to have been born in the United States, which the filing notes “is strong evidence of citizenship.”

If the administration disagrees with how California runs its elections, it can ask Congress to change that process, said attorney Sam Siegel, representing California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The federal government has provided no credible evidence to support its suspicions, said Siegel.

“It has no basis in law or in fact,” he told the panel. “We just dispute the premise that noncitizens are voting.”

But Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, said everyone has an interest in ensuring that only eligible citizens vote. He suggested that granting the administration’s request for an emergency order could provide clarity.

“Without an injunction, you will never know” if that is happening, Bumatay told Siegel.

Bennett said the panel would try to issue a ruling as quickly as possible.

Democrats and outside watchdogs are planning a massive presence at the polls on Election Day driven by concerns that President Donald Trump will further leverage the vast resources of the federal government to interfere with a midterm that could hobble his final two years in office.

They won’t be the only ones there. A sprawling election protection effort on the left that is expected to deploy tens of thousands of monitors will be met by the largest-ever monitoring program by the Justice Department and still more observers from Republican-aligned groups. The result could be unlike anything seen at the polls in modern times.

The effort among Democratic and nonprofit groups includes training volunteers to stand watch outside polling places and report activities they consider concerning. The network includes traditional government watchdogs such as Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union plus a flood of volunteers assembled by state Democratic parties, congressional leaders, national activist groups and organizations focused on protecting democracy.

The Democratic National Committee’s Association of State Democratic Committees created a first-of-its-kind cybersecurity unit staffed by former CIA and FBI officials to monitor and report online misinformation, including artificial intelligence deepfakes, said Jane Kleeb, vice chair of the DNC.

That’s as Democratic mayors, attorneys general and secretaries of state host tabletop exercises simulating worst-case scenarios, such as a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials at voting locations or the seizure of ballots and voting equipment.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have assembled a legal team that rivals that of any presidential campaign.

“We’ve never done this before,” Kleeb said of the party’s sweeping efforts. But “we’ve never had to deal with the president of the United States saying that he may seize ballots, put ICE agents outside polling locations and other kinds of very clear direct threats to the voting process.”

The Department of Justice has already filed lawsuits in California and Alaska that could affect ballot counting or certification.

While Trump continues to make baseless allegations of cheating in the election, administration and military officials have said they have no plans to deploy immigration agents or troops to polling sites.

White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis blamed “radical Democrats” for creating fears about election security by refusing to enact voter ID requirements and other Republican-backed measures.

“President Trump has done more than any other president to ensure we have free and fair elections,” Bis said.

Tens of thousands of volunteers trained to observe

State Democratic parties have trained an estimated 10,000 volunteers to observe polling places and report anything potentially concerning they might see from federal agents. Common Cause has trained roughly 16,000 more volunteers to stand watch at voting precincts, said Suzanne Almeida, vice president of states for the group

She said a broader Election Protection coalition involving 300 other groups has trained tens of thousands more.

Smaller pockets of volunteers from other groups also are preparing to show up, including roughly 100 organized by Senate Democrats and hundreds more from a Democratic-allied group called Save America, which is training clergy members, veterans, teachers and other local community members. National groups such as Indivisible and MoveOn are activating their own expansive networks.

There are so many organizations working to protect the voting process — including many that cannot legally coordinate with each other — that some officials involved worry about unintentionally creating chaos outside polling locations.

Almeida said Election Day confusion is possible in some precincts but the nature of the threat requires a collective effort.

“It will actually take all of us if some of the threats we are most worried about come to pass,” she said.

Trump administration sends its own team

Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” whether the Republican administration is planning to send ICE agents to polling places.

“There is no plan to do that,” she responded.

Still, the Justice Department is planning its largest-ever election monitoring effort, with about 1,000 department staff expected to observe voting and ensure federal laws are being followed, spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. That comes after a primary season in which the department said it deployed more than 100 election monitors across hundreds of polling locations.

At least one of those placements sparked tensions with local officials. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said the behavior of two monitors during that state’s primary was “a bit aggressive” and “irregular.” A Laramie County clerk said the Justice Department monitors arrived at the polls intending to interview voters, but her office didn’t allow it.

The department disagrees that the monitors did anything improper, Pels said. She added that the monitors are trained to comply with federal law governing conduct at polling places and won’t “interfere with the voting process.”

Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the Trump administration’s monitors could intimidate voters or abandon the duty they’ve had for decades to protect against civil rights violations.

The department plans to send them to every state, focusing on high-population areas, jurisdictions that have had problems in the past and districts with close elections, according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity under terms set by the department.

The Republican National Committee said its operation involves deploying “election integrity deputy state directors” in 22 states, among them Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.

Those workers are the “eyes and the ears of the RNC in the field” who recruit volunteers and organize trainings, said Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director. Their mission is to surface anything that seems unlawful.

At the same time, the RNC has enlisted nearly 22,000 poll workers and is recruiting poll-watching volunteers for competitive districts. The poll watchers will “observe the process and help ensure election rules are followed in accordance with the law,” Triolo said.

Local election officials prepare for increased attention

While federal monitors have quietly observed elections for decades, largely without incident, some election officials are taking precautions.

Chris Swope, the city clerk in Lansing, Michigan, said he preemptively contacted law enforcement and his attorney in case federal monitors violate election law, although he expects them to abide by the rules.

The Democratic Mayors Association issued guidance to local Democratic officials with detailed instructions about what to do if federal agents appear at polling locations.

It notes that federal law prohibits the presence of federal immigration agents, the FBI or other investigative personnel. It also issued a reminder that federal agents are not allowed to be armed at the polls, nor are they allowed to interact with voters or handle ballots or election equipment.

Justice Department officials have said their monitors won’t be armed and will not interfere with voting. Asked about department monitors being sent to Georgia, Trump told a reporter recently: “They’re not going to do anything other than watch.”

Some of the poll observations have already begun. Mary Corcoran, Save America’s executive director, said her group’s volunteers have been monitoring precincts during early voting in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio to help give voters a sense of security.

“The fear is the point, and we must do something about it,” she said. “Left unanswered, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”

— Associated Press writers Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Jessica Hill in Las Vegas contributed to this report.