COMMENTARY : Trump Holds Intelligence Hostage to Force a SAVE Act Vote

Introduction: The Day Washington Ate Its Own

A pre-dawn announcement that changed everything

On June 17, 2026, before the sun had even risen over Washington, Donald Trump posted a message on Truth Social that instantly plunged the U.S. Senate into chaos. In a few lines written from France — where he was attending the G7 in Biarritz — the U.S. president unilaterally cancelled the confirmation hearing of Jay Clayton, his own nominee for the post of Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The stated reason: to force Congress to vote on the SAVE America Act, an electoral law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, and to renew Section 702 of FISA, the foreign surveillance law. Within hours, a carefully constructed mechanism assembled by Senate Republicans had collapsed.

What happened that Wednesday morning is no ordinary political maneuver. It is the cold, calculated demonstration of a president using his own country's national security institutions as bargaining chips. Jay Clayton, former SEC chairman and federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, was universally regarded as a solid bipartisan candidate. Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, had called him a "capable public servant" whom he had "known and respected for years." Confirmation seemed assured. Then Trump blew it all up.

Three impossible conditions imposed simultaneously

Trump did not set one condition — he set three simultaneously. First, the Senate had to confirm James McDonald as federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York before moving forward with Clayton. Second, Congress had to renew FISA Section 702. Third, the SAVE America Act in its full and expanded version had to be adopted. None of these three conditions could be met within the given timeframes — the White House had not even officially submitted McDonald's nomination to the Senate.

According to Politico, citing sources close to the committee who requested anonymity, Trump cannot legally cancel a Senate hearing. The president can ask his nominee not to show up. He can threaten. He can post on Truth Social from Biarritz. But constitutionally, the confirmation power belongs to the Senate. Tom Cotton initially acknowledged this — before backing down two hours later.

The SAVE America Act: What Trump Really Wants

An electoral bill stuck in the Senate for months

The SAVE America Act — for "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility" — was passed by the House of Representatives on February 11, 2026, with 218 votes for and 213 against, with unanimous Republican support and a single Democrat, Texas representative Henry Cuellar. It requires any voter wishing to register to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship — a passport or birth certificate — and present photo identification on election day. It also restricts mail-in voting and prohibits states from automatically sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters.

In the Senate, the bill is blocked. It requires 60 votes to overcome the systematic Democratic filibuster. Republicans hold 53 seats. Even an attempt to attach it to a border patrol and customs funding bill failed with only 48 votes for and 50 against — four Republican senators voting no. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has repeatedly stated: "The votes are not there." Trump knows this. He demands it anyway.

The expanded version Trump actually wants

Trump doesn't just want the base version of the SAVE Act passed by the House. He wants the full and expanded version: the one that prohibits states from automatically sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters, blocks biological males from women's sports competitions, and prohibits transition procedures for minors. This expanded version does not have a simple majority in either chamber, even within the Republican caucus. Attaching this version to FISA, as Senator Thune himself noted, would inevitably kill the surveillance bill.

Constitutional law experts have also noted that the bill itself rests on shaky legal foundations. According to the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013), the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to define voter eligibility criteria for federal elections. More than 21 million Americans, according to independent analyses, lack easy access to the required documents. Election officials could face up to five years in prison for an administrative error.

FISA Section 702: A Vital Tool Left to Expire

What expiration actually means

To understand the scope of Trump's gambit, one must grasp what Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is. It is the legal tool that authorizes the NSA to surveil foreign targets abroad by collecting their communications transiting through American servers, without individual warrants. It is used to intercept communications from Chinese intelligence agents, Iranian officials, terrorist networks, and Russian proxies. In short, it is the backbone of American foreign surveillance. Section 702 had already expired once on April 20, 2026, before a ten-day extension was granted. It expired definitively on June 12, 2026 after the House rejected a new extension by 198 to 218 votes.

Technically, active surveillance can continue until March 2027 under existing FISA court certifications. But the NSA can no longer add new targets from the moment the statute expired. And without renewal before March 2027, the program gradually winds down. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy wrote on X: "By preventing Jay Clayton from appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, you are putting American lives at risk." This is not rhetoric. It is a factual assessment of the situation.

An essential tool for Western alliance security

Section 702 does not serve only the United States. It is one of the pillars of intelligence sharing between Washington and its Five Eyes allies — the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Signals collected under 702 feed threat assessments shared with NATO. In a context where Russia continues its war of aggression in Ukraine, where China intensifies its industrial espionage operations, and where Iran continues financing regional proxies, the paralysis of American intelligence is not a domestic matter. It is a crack in the Western shield.

Senator Thom Tillis, who is not seeking re-election, was direct in his assessment: "Jay was on the verge of having a very successful hearing and winning some Democratic votes, and now we find ourselves in a situation that could hinder the renewal of 702." This is a Republican criticizing his own president on a national security issue. That signal deserves to be heard.

Jay Clayton: A Man Sacrificed on the Altar of Political Calculation

A bipartisan profile extraordinarily rare in 2026 America

Jay Clayton is no ordinary figure. A former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Trump's first term, he was subsequently named federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York — the most symbolically important post in American justice. His reputation transcends partisan lines. In the Senate, even Democrats acknowledged his competence. Trump himself called him "our great patriot Jay Clayton" in Truth Social posts. The confirmation hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, June 17 at 2:00 p.m. before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton, the committee's GOP chairman, had initially confirmed the hearing would proceed "unless the president asks Clayton not to appear or withdraws the nomination." Two hours later, Cotton backed down. "It is regrettable that the president has asked Jay Clayton not to attend his confirmation hearing today," he posted on X. "Mr. Clayton is a patriot and highly qualified nominee, as the president has repeatedly said. Although the hearing is unfortunately postponed, I hope to be able to proceed with his confirmation in the near future."

The logic of taking a qualified man hostage

What makes the Clayton case particularly outrageous is the absurdity of the sacrifice. Clayton had been nominated precisely to defuse the crisis. Democrats had refused to vote for FISA as long as Bill Pulte was serving as acting DNI. Trump had responded by nominating Clayton — a credible man respected on both sides. The deal seemed in place. Then, without warning, Trump sabotaged his own solution by adding insurmountable conditions.

According to NBC News, a source close to the matter indicated that the White House had not yet officially submitted James McDonald's nomination to the Senate as Clayton's successor at that prosecutor's post. His confirmation, under normal circumstances, could take months. Requiring McDonald's confirmation before Clayton's is, therefore, legally and logistically, demanding something impossible within the timeframes set.

Bill Pulte: The Choice That Triggered Everything

A loyalist without experience heading 18 intelligence agencies

To understand why Democrats refused to vote for FISA renewal, one must go back to the beginning. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's first Director of National Intelligence, resigned in May 2026 to accompany her husband through cancer treatment. Trump then appointed William Pulte as acting director. Pulte is the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — the body that regulates mortgage markets. He has no intelligence background whatsoever. Yet the DNI office oversees 18 distinct intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and DIA.

Senator Mark Warner called Pulte a "national security threat." He said Trump was "treating national security as a political token" and added: "This isn't Democrats versus Republicans; it's rational members of both parties in the Senate trying to prevent a catastrophe, while Donald Trump pulls the pin on a grenade." Those words, coming from the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, deserve to be taken seriously.

Pulte active since June 19: the concrete result of the maneuver

According to CNBC, Bill Pulte took office as acting DNI on Friday, June 19, 2026. He is now the one receiving the Presidential Daily Brief — the daily summary of America's most sensitive intelligence. He oversees coordination among the CIA, NSA, DIA, and fifteen other agencies. The irony is complete: Trump torpedoed the confirmation of his own qualified candidate in order to keep in post a man whom his own Republican allies consider unqualified.

Trump at the G7, asked about it, said: "They were trying to rush things, and we got nothing in return." Vice President JD Vance, during a White House press briefing on Thursday June 18, offered remarks that sum up the strategic ambiguity: "Why not at least force them to vote against it? Let's see what we can get." It is a logic of permanent confrontation, applied to national security. The result, for now, is that Pulte is in post and FISA has expired.

The Senate Republican Reaction: Between Stupefaction and Resignation

Thune and Cotton caught in a vise

The reaction of Republican Senate leaders says much about the institutional paralysis that has settled over Washington. John Thune, the Republican majority leader, was questioned by journalists on June 17. His response: "I guess we'll have to take it day by day until we have more clarity on the White House's position." From the mouth of the Senate majority leader, facing a self-inflicted national security crisis, this is both honest and catastrophic. Thune had warned Trump multiple times that attaching the SAVE Act to FISA would kill both bills — Trump paid no heed.

Senator Kevin Cramer expressed a certain unease: "No, those don't go together naturally," he said in reference to linking the SAVE Act to FISA. "I think the logic is he wants to attach it to something that will pass." But Cramer himself acknowledged the absurdity of the logic: if Pulte as acting DNI provokes a bipartisan revolt, the SAVE Act will meet the same fate. "That's why I think John Thune is wise to resist that," he concluded — which amounts to criticizing Trump in veiled terms.

Dissenting Republican voices, but not enough

Senator Bill Cassidy publicly wrote on X that Democrats had made good-faith efforts on FISA and asked Trump not to block Clayton. Senator Thom Tillis expressed regret at the postponement. And John Cornyn, Texas senator, offered a remark of unusual candor: "I think part of the problem isn't President Trump; it's us making unrealistic promises, and then when they're not kept, we blame each other." It is a courageous self-criticism. But it didn't change the outcome.

Ultimately, not a single Republican senator formally defied Trump on this matter. Cotton backed down. Thune opted for caution. Cassidy and Tillis criticized, but without acting. The result is eloquent: Republican institutions yielded to presidential pressure, not because they were constitutionally compelled to, but because party cohesion prevailed over institutional requirements.

The Democratic Reaction: Between Legitimate Opposition and Political Opportunism

Schumer and Warner: right criticisms for the wrong reasons?

Democrats reacted with a vigor that deserves nuance. Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said: "Trump is tying himself in knots and creating his own obstacles to make FISA renewal impossible." He publicly asked: "What does Trump want Pulte to do? Expose intelligence sources, manipulate analysis, target political opponents, interfere in elections?" Mark Warner said Trump "seems determined to turn American national security into a political bargaining chip" and accused him of acting "with complete disregard for the safety of Americans."

These criticisms are well-founded. But honesty requires acknowledgment: Democrats also played this game. Their categorical refusal to vote for FISA as long as Pulte was active contributed to the initial paralysis. Without their collective blockage, the crisis would not have reached this point. And their absolute opposition to the SAVE Act — legitimate on substance — is also a weapon of systematic obstruction. Schumer himself declared: "We will never vote for the SAVE Act, never. It is so harmful to our democracy."

Senator Warner points to a troubling hypothesis

Mark Warner advanced a hypothesis that the mainstream press largely underreported: Trump may be trying to distract from an Iran peace deal that falls short of his campaign promises. This hypothesis, if proven, would radically change the reading of the event. The sacrifice of Clayton would then be not only about the SAVE Act, but about a broader smokescreen. I do not assert this is the reality — it is a hypothesis advanced by Warner himself. But it deserves serious examination.

What Democrats are right to highlight is that the institutional credibility of American intelligence is a precious and not quickly renewable resource. Each time a president instrumentalizes the DNI for political ends — regardless of party — he erodes the trust of foreign partners in the reliability of shared American intelligence. Allied chancelleries take note. And those notes have real consequences for the years that follow.

The Mechanics of Institutional Hostage-Taking: Three Simultaneous Levers

The system of chained conditions

What is remarkable in Trump's strategy is the sophistication of the hostage-taking. It is not a single condition but three simultaneous and chained conditions. First: the Senate must confirm James McDonald as federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York — Clayton's successor. Problem: the White House has not yet officially submitted this nomination to the Senate, making his confirmation impossible within a few days. Second: Congress must renew FISA. Third: the SAVE America Act in full version must be adopted — a version that doesn't even have a simple majority in both Republican chambers.

Each condition is designed to be nearly insurmountable. This is what a specialized analyst from IC Brief summarized as follows: "Trump has created mutually reinforcing blockages that didn't exist in the previous cycle. Clayton's confirmation, assessed last cycle as likely before August 15, is now unlikely by mid-September 2026." In other words: Trump intentionally built a maze with no exit. And he presents this maze as "good governance for the Nation and the People."

The constitutional precedent nobody wants to name

What is happening here must be named clearly: this is what political scientists call a "hostage strategy" — an institutional hostage strategy. The principle is simple: hold an essential state function for ransom to force a vote on an unrelated issue. It differs from normal political horse-trading by one precise criterion: what is held for ransom is a national security function, not an ordinary political advantage. This is not the first time American presidents have done legislative bundling — attaching conditions to nominations. But attaching it to a DNI nomination and an expired surveillance law goes beyond usual practice.

Majority Leader Thune had warned Trump multiple times this strategy was a losing one. Trump ignored him. And according to the Washington Times, Trump even told journalists at the G7: "Republicans fell into a trap." That "trap" — he set it himself. This formulation reveals something important: for Trump, there is no difference between an adversary and an ally when it comes to getting what he wants.

What the U.S. Constitution Says About This Power

The Senate has the final word — in theory

A critical legal detail went under the radar in coverage of this affair: Trump cannot legally cancel a Senate hearing. According to Politico, citing three sources within the committee who requested anonymity, Tom Cotton had not yet officially informed panel members that the hearing was cancelled. The president can ask his nominee not to show up. He can threaten. He can post on Truth Social. But constitutionally, the confirmation power belongs to the Senate. The Intelligence Committee sets its own calendar. Cotton acknowledged this himself initially, before backing down two hours later.

This voluntary retreat perhaps best illustrates the crisis: institutions yield not because they are legally compelled, but because no one wants to be the Republican senator who publicly defies Trump. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence oversees 18 intelligence agencies. It produces the Presidential Daily Brief. It coordinates the response to threats from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Leaving it in the hands of an inexperienced acting director for months, while the Senate submits to a demand formulated from a hotel in France, is a real and documented endangerment.

The constitutional impossibility of confirming McDonald before Clayton

There is another legal dimension that media largely overlooked. Trump requires McDonald to be confirmed before Clayton leaves his post as Southern District of New York prosecutor. But as the Washington Times noted: "The Senate cannot confirm someone for an active position that has not yet been vacated." As long as Clayton is in post in New York, McDonald technically cannot be confirmed to replace him. This is a logically self-referential condition — Clayton must leave for McDonald to be confirmed, but Trump requires McDonald to be confirmed before Clayton leaves.

This is either legal incompetence or deliberate bad faith. In either case, the result is the same: a perfectly designed institutional blockage. American constitutionalists who analyzed this episode speak of a "self-locking trap." And the most troubling part is that the U.S. president seems to delight in it rather than be troubled by it.

Trump's Posture: Necessary Evil or Internal Threat?

The ambivalence of an uncomfortable ally for the West

We must do here what many refuse to do: acknowledge the kernel of truth in Trump's posture. On the SAVE Act itself, the idea of requiring proof of citizenship to vote in American federal elections is not inherently absurd. Dozens of democracies worldwide — including several EU members — require photo identification to vote. The stated objective — ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections — is defensible in principle. Trump also has a valid reason to want a qualified candidate at the SDNY prosecutor's post before releasing Clayton.

But here is the central problem: Trump is not advocating for necessary reforms through normal channels. He is instrumentalizing national security to force a vote on unrelated issues. This is what Warner called "treating national security as a political token." And this is what Thune himself implicitly admitted when he said that attaching the SAVE Act to FISA would kill FISA. In this framework, the electoral security argument becomes a cover for a power game that paradoxically endangers security itself.

When the necessary evil becomes a danger to itself

Trump remains an asset for the West on several strategic fronts: his firmness toward China, his pressure on NATO allies for equitable financial contributions, his refusal to allow the United States to retreat from global responsibilities. These postures serve the Western alliance, even if they create friction. But there is a limit to the "necessary evil" argument. When the evil begins gnawing at the institutional foundations on which American power itself rests, the calculation changes.

Analyst Mark Jones, political scientist at Rice University, was quoted in multiple outlets with a precise formulation: "The base wants to see the SAVE Act passed, because the president has made it an absolute priority. But there's no way for the Senate to actually pass it, and attaching it to specific legislation would only ensure that legislation, even though it is a Republican priority, also doesn't pass." This is the diagnosis of a complete political impasse, created from scratch by the very person who should be resolving it.

The Impact on the Western Alliance and Shared Intelligence

When allies watch Washington with growing unease

This affair cannot be understood without broadening the lens beyond the Beltway. The signals collected under 702 feed threat assessments shared with NATO. In a context where Russia pursues its war of aggression in Ukraine, where China intensifies its industrial espionage and influence operations, and where Iran continues financing regional proxies, the paralysis of American intelligence is not a domestic matter. Our European allies are watching. The chancelleries of Berlin, Paris, and London say nothing publicly — diplomacy doesn't work that way — but they take note. They calculate. They update their assessments of American reliability.

The idea that the U.S. president might decide to let his most precious surveillance tool expire in order to force a vote on a domestic electoral bill is, for these capitals, a confirmation of something they have suspected since 2025: that Washington's unpredictability is structural, not circumstantial. And that one must prepare to govern with an ally whose institutions are at war with themselves. This is not a marginal opinion. It is the strategic recalibration underway in several allied capitals.

North Korea, Iran, and China as discreet beneficiaries

In this crisis, there are beneficiaries that American media coverage tends to overlook: Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang. Every week without FISA 702 renewal, every week with an inexperienced acting DNI, every week of institutional paralysis in Washington is a week when the West's strategic adversaries can operate with less surveillance and more room to maneuver. China invests massively in its intelligence and influence capabilities. Russia seeks to exploit every crack in alliance cohesion. Iran quietly advances its nuclear agenda.

These actors view events in Washington not with sympathy, but with calculated opportunism. Every American dysfunction is a window of opportunity. And the week of June 17, 2026, offered them a large one: an unqualified acting DNI, an expired FISA, a paralyzed Senate, and a president more concerned with his electoral base than with the collective security of the West.

The Dangerous Precedent: Institutions as Negotiating Levers

When hostage-taking becomes a governing practice

What is happening with Clayton and FISA fits into a broader trend: the transformation of institutional nominations into instruments of legislative blackmail. Trump has already conditioned diplomatic nominations on budget votes, delayed military confirmations to secure immigration concessions, and threatened not to renew critical authorizations to force votes on his agenda priorities. The logic is always the same: "Give me X or I deprive America of Y." The problem is not the end goal — X can sometimes be legitimate — it is the method.

Democratic institutions function on the basis of a minimum trust that actors in the system will not deliberately sabotage essential functions to gain political advantages. When that trust erodes, institutions become paralyzed. Senator John Cornyn put his finger on it: the problem comes partly from the right itself, which made unrealistic promises to its electoral base about the SAVE Act, and now finds itself unable to keep them. Trump exploits this vacuum. But the vacuum existed before him.

What weakened democracies have taught us

Political scientists who study what they call "democratic backsliding" — the gradual retreat of democracy — have documented a recurring pattern. It never begins with a coup or a brutal rupture. It begins with a series of small institutional capitulations, each justified by pragmatic arguments, each seeming acceptable in isolation. Hungary under Orbán, Turkey under Erdogan, Poland before Tusk's return all followed this pattern. We are not saying the United States is there. We are saying that the ingredients that led to these trajectories are recognizable in the June 2026 sequence.

What this pattern ultimately produces is a cumulative weakening of checks and balances — exactly what the West's adversaries need to advance their agendas. A less capable NSA, an unqualified DNI, a Senate that capitulates to presidential demands: this is the portrait of a security apparatus corroding from within. And when a system weakens from within, it is not bullets that destroy it. It is the silence of institutions that yield one by one.

What the Affair Reveals About American System Fragilities

The guardrails that held — and those that gave way

There is an optimistic reading of this sequence: the guardrails partially worked. Tom Cotton initially refused to cancel the hearing, invoking separation of powers. Republican senators like Bill Cassidy, Thom Tillis, and Kevin Cramer publicly expressed disagreement with the presidential strategy. The American press covered the event in real time with remarkable precision. Institutions did not immediately capitulate. Cotton ultimately backed down — but carefully characterizing the decision as "regrettable" and publicly blaming Trump. These are faint signals of institutional resistance.

The pessimistic reading is more convincing: the Senate yielded anyway. Clayton did not appear. Pulte became active on June 19, 2026. FISA remains expired. The SAVE Act remains blocked. Everything Trump wanted in terms of delay materialized. And the precedent is set: a president can, by posting a social media message from France, block the hearing of his own nominee and force an institutional crisis, without any immediate measurable legal or political consequence.

The question that remains open: how far will this precedent go?

The IC Brief analyst offered a bleak but documented prognosis: "Clayton's confirmation as DNI is now unlikely before mid-September 2026, leaving Pulte as acting chief and Section 702 renewal held hostage to an electoral bill that doesn't have Senate votes." This means several additional months with underperforming American intelligence and a paralyzed institutional apparatus. Senator Adam Schiff wrote on X: "Once again, Donald Trump chooses chaos over national security." It is partisan. But it is not inaccurate.

What this crisis reveals at its core is that the fragilities of the American system are not theoretical. They are activatable. A determined president can use constitutional junction points — nominations, authorizations, confirmation hearings — as pressure levers. He can do it legally. And he can succeed, at least in the short term. This is a lesson that other actors, in other democracies, are integrating as they watch Washington this week.

Conclusion: Institutions Held for Ransom, and Security Paying the Price

The toll of a week that leaves lasting marks

At the end of this sequence, here is what can be established with certainty. Jay Clayton, a qualified bipartisan candidate, is still awaiting his confirmation. Bill Pulte, with no intelligence experience, has been directing by interim the office supervising 18 American intelligence agencies since June 19, 2026. FISA Section 702 has been expired since June 12 — existing certifications hold until March 2027, but no new targets can be added, and the program is slowly winding down. The SAVE America Act does not have the Senate votes. And Donald Trump was at the G7 in Biarritz, smiling for cameras alongside European allies watching Washington with growing unease.

What this means for the future of the Western alliance

The West needs a strong, coherent, and reliable America. An America whose institutions function, whose intelligence is led by competent professionals, whose foreign surveillance laws are renewed in an orderly manner. The week of June 17, 2026 showed that these conditions are not guaranteed. Trump may be a necessary evil — his firmness toward China, his pressure on NATO for equitable budget contributions, his refusal to let America retreat from the world have real value for the Western alliance. But a necessary evil remains an evil. And when that evil begins gnawing at the institutional foundations on which American power rests, it no longer serves Western interests. It undermines them. Jay Clayton deserves his confirmation. FISA deserves its renewal. Congress deserves to be able to do its work without being held hostage by the very person who should be its partner. This is not a partisan question. It is a question of institutional survival for the world's greatest democracy.

Sources

Primary Sources

Politico — "Trump kills plan to quickly confirm new intelligence chief" — June 17, 2026

NBC News (Sahil Kapur) — "Trump delays Jay Clayton's nomination for intel director in bid to push Congress on voting bill" — June 17, 2026

The Washington Times (Lindsey McPherson) — "Senate confirmation hearing for DNI nominee Clayton postponed as Trump seeks leverage" — June 17, 2026

Secondary Sources

Reuters via US News & World Report — "Trump Says He Is Against FISA Extension if Voting Bill Not Attached" — June 14, 2026

CNBC (Justin Papp) — "Trump DNI pick Pulte poised to get access to U.S. intelligence despite congressional bid to thwart" — June 18, 2026

The New York Times (Michael Gold) — "Trump Seeks to Delay Hearing for National Intelligence Pick to Pressure Congress on Elections Bill" — June 17, 2026

Axios (Andrew Pantazi) — "Trump won't back FISA renewal without his SAVE America Act voting bill" — June 14, 2026

The Hill via Yahoo News — "Senate tees up Clayton DNI nomination as FISA talks stall" — June 15, 2026