Will Putin Meddle in the Midterms?

Delegates at the Republican convention held in Dallas on Wednesday. Tony Gutierrez/AP

The below article, which first appeared in Mother Jones, is based on my forthcoming book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America, which is being published on September 15. Our Land readers still have a chance to pre-order a signed copy here. I am highly grateful that so many subscribers have done so. It’s a crowded book market these days and an overloaded (and overwhelming) news cycle, all of which makes it tough to garner attention for any book. And I expect this one will receive plenty of pushback from Trumpers and the MAGA media. So I appreciate all the support I’ve received from Our Landers. Thank you.

In July 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, then–­director of national intelligence, strode into the White House briefing room to press the case that Barack Obama had mounted a “treasonous conspiracy.”

Days earlier, she had brazenly misrepresented declassified documents to challenge a damning 2017 intelligence assessment: Russia covertly assaulted the 2016 election—by hacking Democratic emails and pushing online disinformation—to sow discord, hinder Hillary Clinton, and assist Donald Trump. Now, Gabbard falsely claimed that Obama had cooked up the Moscow-­aided-Trump finding as a “coup” to “undermine” Trump. She asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into ex–Obama aides; it quickly did.

Trump and his allies embraced her lies, even though they were easy to debunk. Russia’s interference had been exhaustively documented by special counsel Robert Mueller—and by the Senate’s intelligence committee, then led by Republican Marco Rubio, which concluded that Vladimir Putin “ordered” attacks to “harm the Clinton campaign...help the Trump campaign...and undermine” US democracy.

Gabbard was providing Trump yet another chance to falsely claim the Deep State had conspired to delegitimize him. But Russian interference was very real—and it didn’t just happen in 2016. It’s occurred in every major election since, and Trump has abetted Putin’s decadelong assault, not only by denying this “gray-zone warfare” is taking place, but also by neutering the federal government’s ability to thwart it.

During the 2020 contest, the Kremlin colluded—yes, colluded—with Rudy Giuliani to smear Joe Biden. Trump’s personal attorney assembled a team of operatives who zeroed in on Hunter Biden’s board seat at Ukrainian energy company Burisma. To portray Biden as corrupt, they falsely claimed that as vice president, he had forced the firing of a prosecutor because the official had investigated Burisma.

This charge was readily disproved, but as the MAGA ecosystem kept hawking it, Giuliani hooked up with Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia Ukrainian legislator who claimed to have documents showing Biden got $900,000 from Burisma. (No such evidence ever emerged.) Derkach had not yet been officially fingered as a covert agent, but it was known he had attended the KGB’s spy academy and had pushed the Moscow-generated conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in 2016. (Giuliani claimed he had “no reason to believe [Derkach] is a Russian agent.”) Nonetheless, in December 2019, Giuliani, joined by a One America News crew, interviewed him for hours at a luxury hotel outside Kyiv. OAN claimed the legislator “confirmed Burisma’s money laundering, Hunter and Joe Biden’s direct involvement, and [Ukraine’s 2016] interference.”

In May 2020, Derkach again boosted Giuliani’s get-Biden operation by releasing audio of calls between Biden and a former Ukrainian president, claiming they showed “international corruption and state treason.” While the fragments revealed no wrongdoing, for MAGA they were ammo. Fox News reported there were “new questions” about the Bidens. OAN aired “Biden’s Bribe Tapes,” a three-part series, and Trump retweeted a post pushing the clips.

Three weeks after that tweet, Trump’s Treasury Department sanctioned Derkach, declaring he had been “an active Russian agent for over a decade” who was running a “covert influence campaign...cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives” to “discredit U.S. officials” ahead of the 2020 election. To sum up: According to the Trump administration itself, the president’s personal lawyer had collaborated with a Russian agent mounting a covert action to help Trump win.

The Derkach plot failed to keep Biden from booting Trump out of the presidency. But for Trump’s 2024 comeback, the Kremlin again launched a massive disinformation campaign, this time through covert networks researchers assigned names such as Storm-1516 and Doppelganger. With Russia now waging a barbaric war against Ukraine, these groups initially concentrated on discrediting its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as corrupt and criticizing Biden’s support of him. On sites designed to look like the Washington Post, Fox News, and other media outlets, Doppelganger also disseminated false stories about the election to US voters: Fraud was widely expected, bribed judges would impede Trump, Biden was close to “losing his mind.” In one instance, Russian operators created a video that supposedly disclosed a secret anti-Trump CIA–Ukrainian operation. Citing this video, DNI Avril Haines testified that Russia remained “the most active foreign threat to our elections.”

In July 2024, the Justice Department announced it had seized US domains and taken down 968 X accounts that were part of a Russian AI bot farm. Intelligence officials told reporters that Moscow was engaged in a “whole-of-government approach to influence the election.” A DNI fact sheet noted Russia was working to “target specific voter demographics, promote divisive narratives, and denigrate specific politicians” and aimed to “covertly use social media to amplify narratives to sway...swing states.” Biden officials did not explicitly state Putin was interfering to assist Trump—they didn’t want to be accused of influencing the election themselves—but that was clearly Moscow’s intent. And hard evidence soon emerged.

Two months later, the Justice Department revealed it had seized 32 domains used by Doppelganger to “covertly spread Russian government propaganda” smearing Ukraine and “influencing voters.” An internal memo from the operation disclosed by prosecutors said it “makes sense for Russia to put a maximum effort” into backing Republicans and Trump voters.

In another case, employees of Kremlin propaganda outlet RT were charged with funneling millions via a US media company to prominent right-­wingers such as Benny Johnson, who produced videos and podcasts bolstering pro-Trump themes. These MAGA influencers insisted that they knew nothing about Russian funding. But Margarita Simonyan, RT’s editor-in-chief, later boasted that the project had “created a large network” with “electorally significant influence.”

After Biden withdrew and Kamala Harris stepped in, the Kremlin’s information war fixed on the new nominee and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. A network dubbed Storm-1679 created posts and videos to look like mainstream media reports: Harris had an abortion as a teen, was concealing family wealth, and was exhibiting early Alzheimer’s. It stoked fears of civil war, postelection violence, and a US–Russia conflict that could end in nuclear catastrophe.

One Storm-1516 video viewed by millions purportedly showed Harris supporters assaulting a Trump rallygoer. Another presented an actor sharing a fake story that Harris once paralyzed a girl in a hit-and-run. A deepfake depicted Harris joking about the assassination attempts on Trump. A month before Election Day, Storm-1516’s fake sites smeared Walz, a former high school teacher, saying he inappropriately touched a student—a false story seen by tens of millions. Storm-1516 also circulated a deepfake video of Pennsylvania mail ballots being destroyed. Another claimed Harris was linked to a small packet of cocaine found in the White House.

Neither the Biden White House nor Harris’ campaign raised a major fuss, and there’s no telling the disinformation’s impact. But clearly, Putin remained on Trump’s side. After Trump’s victory, the Treasury Department sanctioned a Russian think tank for collaborating with the Russian military on “various influence operations,” including manipulating video to “produce baseless accusations concerning a 2024 vice presidential candidate.”

So Russian meddling in the 2016 election was no anomaly, and Gabbard’s attempt to undermine and criminalize the intelligence community’s 2017 conclusion was nothing but a con job. But the Trump gang’s refusal to acknowledge what happened in the past is more than a lie; it is a clear and present danger.

Since Trump reentered the White House, he and his aides, striving to wipe the Russia stain from his 2016 victory, have sought retribution against officials who investigated Putin’s information warfare. Even worse, they have eviscerated the government’s ability to counter it—or similar actions by other adversaries. FBI agents and intelligence officials involved in past inquiries into Russian interference were canned or forced out. The FBI’s foreign influence task force was dismantled, as was the DNI’s Foreign Malign Influence Center. Staffing at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which helps protect election systems, was slashed. Rubio, now secretary of state, shut down the department office tracking foreign disinformation.

The Department of Justice and the intelligence services are now run by lackeys who’ve shown they are more dedicated to helping Trump rewrite history and preserve his power—perhaps even by undermining elections—than to national security. “It’s astounding,” former FBI counterintelligence chief Frank Figliuzzi told NBC. “It’s now a free-for-all for foreign intel services seeking influence.”

November’s elections present Putin another opportunity. “One hundred percent: The Russians will want to screw around,” says a former top CIA official. Trump’s administration is not only unprepared to counter any such assault—it appears unwilling. “Trump wants them to mess around in his favor,” this official adds. A past beneficiary of Putin skullduggery, Trump has unilaterally disarmed and, in a way, surrendered to Putin, placing his own interests over those of the nation.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

It was a highly competitive week. Then again, every week is. Donald Trump pulled his usual BS when he gave a speech about 9/11 and claimed that “right after” the attack he was on the site in NYC and had to be saved by two firemen from a building that appeared close to collapse. Guess what: This was a bogus tale, as CNN’s Daniel Dale explained. Trump has lied so much about 9/11—he falsely claimed that he saw "thousands and thousands" of people in Jersey City, which has a large Arab American population, cheer as the World Trade Center towers came down—that this remark didn’t earn him a nomination.

But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) received one for his foolish effort to explain away Trump’s comment about being rescued from the rubble. He defended Trump’s remark by saying, “September 11th was 25 years ago.”

In other words, it’s okay to have a commander-in-chief who either makes shit up or has a fuzzy memory.

Elon Musk continued his deep descent into racism with a one-word affirmation of two hideous tweets:

The richest man in the world—who has pledged to spend gazillions of dollars to help Trump and the GOP retain control of Congress in the midterms—is a paranoid white nationalist who endorsed the view that non-white people, if they gain power, will slaughter white men (like him). How apartheid-ish. In this election, Republicans have been trying to tarnish Democratic candidates by blasting far-left commentator Hasan Piker. Yet here we have a billionaire pouring $100 million or more into the midterms to bolster GOP candidates, and he’s essentially a white supremacist demonizing people of color. Is any Republican going to reject Musk’s support? Where’s the outrage about his extremism?

Our winner this week was, in a way, even more offensive than Musk. During another of his pointless visits to Moscow, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s unimpressive envoy, and Jared Kushner met with Vladimir Putin, the murderous Russian tyrant, supposedly in pursuit of ending the war in Ukraine. (Trump doesn’t really seem to care that much about peace in Ukraine. He spends far more time bellowing about his ballroom.) At the start of these talks, a smiling Witkoff declared, “First of all, President Putin, thank you so much for having us…When we retire, we'll have all these incredible stories and incredible memories, and yours will be right at the top of it all.”

WTF? Putin has launched an illegal war on a democratic nation, targeting and killing thousands of civilians and kidnapping thousands of Ukrainian children. He has been ostracized as a war criminal. Yet Witkoff was proclaiming that this thug would take away “incredible memories” of this episode. Or maybe he was saying that he himself would possess "incredible" reminiscences of Putin. In either event, this was odious.

A diplomat might have cause to flatter a dictator if that helps to end a war. But this visit to Moscow—like Witkoff’s seven previous trips to the Russian capital—drew no concessions from Putin and yielded no progress toward ending the conflict. Soon afterward, Putin was back to pummeling civilian sites in Kyiv. With his giddy reference to Putin’s "incredible stories" or to "incredible stories" about Putin, Witkoff normalized a vicious tyrant and bagged the trophy.

There was much mail about my farewell to Gloria Steinem, with many readers expressing their gratitude for her decades of activism. Susan Myerson wrote:

I went to the same college as Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, Smith College. The college now has the Ms. magazine archives. Gloria inspired me to keep my own name when I got married. I will miss her energy and activism.

Maya Sandoval emailed:

I've been a follower of Ms. Steinem since the get-go. She didn't change my mind; I was a born feminist. But she gave me a way to articulate feminism. Some 60 years later she had this to say about Trump 45: “Remember, the Constitution doesn’t begin with, ‘I, the president.’ It begins with, ‘We, the people.’” How much more fitting that has become for Trump 47.

There were some readers who expressed criticism of Gloria. Douglas Greenberg shared this:

I am going to be the zillionth reader to respond to your eloquent tribute to Gloria Steinem by citing the execrable remark she made during an interview with Bill Maher in 2016. When asked about the many young women who were working for the Bernie Sanders campaign, she said, “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’” In one careless comment she managed both to provide oxygen to the pseudo-feminist slander against male supporters of Sanders and to insult the many young women who backed Bernie. Ouch.

Yes, I know she backtracked and reportedly regretted the remark, but the truth remains that words, once uttered in a high-profile public context, are out there forever. What she said reflected the arrogance and entitlement of what turned out to be a disastrous Clinton campaign. It was hard to stomach this then and it is still painful to remember this today. 

Gloria Steinem was an important and courageous figure and may she rest in peace, but that utterance was truly galling.

Doug, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. That comment was a big mistake. Gloria said so herself. Not to excuse it, but anyone who's in the public limelight for over six decades is likely to commit errors. She owned up to it—which many prominent figures don't ever do when they mess up—and I don't believe that one remark eclipses all the good she did for so many.

Jai Boreen voiced another criticism:

No mention of her work for the CIA?

In the late 1950s, Gloria, when she was in her 20s, headed a group called the Independent Research Service that sent young Americans to international youth festivals supported by the Soviet Union where they could challenge communism. The group received financial support from the CIA, at a time when the agency was funding numerous cultural and political outfits engaged in ideological battle against the Soviets. Gloria maintained that her organization never spied on anyone or passed any information to the CIA. You can read more about all that here. As I see it, this was a footnote in the full Gloria story. 

Peter Naughton had a suggestion:

I think your book American Psychosis: A Historical Investigation of How the Republican Party Went Crazy should be updated because if you want to see Republican Party craziness, look at what’s happening now. I understand it's more of a historical profile, but perhaps modern history should be considered relevant.

Peter, these days, every week could be a new chapter in American Psychosis, a book of which I remain immensely proud.

“Moxie, you look quite heroic.”
“I smell something.”
“As if you’re a canine of action.”
“It’s fishy and it’s dead.”
“And you’re about to fulfill a grand destiny.”
“And I want to roll—”
“Stay! You stay! I said, ‘Stay!’”