Let’s Go Branding

Hello, it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️

The DOJ is trying to stack the immigration court system with new hires that it’s calling “deportation judges,” a branding exercise revealed in a recruitment ad and website that the Department posted on Thursday.

The ad is full MAGA. It reads “YOU BE THE JUDGE,” exhorting applicants to “help write the next chapter of America” and, again in all caps, “DEFINE AMERICA FOR GENERATIONS.”

What this partly advertises is the position of immigration judge. They’re administrative law judges who are empowered to decide deportation, asylum, and other immigration-related cases. They issue final orders of removal allowing DHS to deport someone from the country; the Trump administration focused on cowing them early on this year through mass firings, tightened regulations, and the broader assault on the concept that an employee of the executive branch — even if they’re an administrative law judge — might be empowered to disagree with the words of the President.

But the branding goes deeper. “DEFINE AMERICA FOR GENERATIONS,” “help write the next chapter” — these pose a few obvious questions: How might being a “deportation judge” accomplish that? Why would removing people from the country help “define America for generations”?

The answers are equally blunt, and go to the ugly demographic thinking and nods to white nationalist symbolism that pervade current DHS leadership.

But, names will only get you so far. If you want to apply, the vacancy is listed under “immigration judge.”

— Josh Kovensky

DC Gets National Guard Win While Cases Nationwide Remain in Limbo 

When a federal judge ruled Thursday that the National Guard had been deployed in Washington, D.C. illegally, the Supreme Court was already in possession of all the documents it needed to rule on a motion that will affect every case challenging the incursions. 

The win for the district, a bucking of conventional wisdom that saw D.C.’s case as weaker than those of the full-fledged states challenging the deployments, echoed in the vacuum of the Court’s inaction. 

The Court had prolonged the proceedings last month, after the justices seemingly seized on an amicus brief arguing that the term “regular forces” in the statute President Trump is using to activate the Guard refers to the military, not to civilian law enforcement. Such a distinction is key, as Trump argues that the Guard’s deployment is necessary to bolster overwhelmed federal officers and local law enforcement. If the amicus brief is correct, he’d first need to call in active duty troops — likely under the conditions that permit invocation of the Insurrection Act — who the Guard could backstop if they were overrun. The justices asked for a supplemental briefing on the question in late October.

The briefs were both filed Monday. The administration maintains that “regular forces” refers to civilian law enforcement, and thwacks Chicago for “flip-flopping” to a “newfound position” after previously agreeing with the government’s definition of the phrase. Chicago embraces the amicus brief’s position, criticizing the administration for spending most of its argument on the supposed unreviewability of the president’s decision to deploy the Guard. 

A ruling could come down any day.

— Kate Riga

Let the Censure Wars Begin (Or End)

The House came back to Capitol Hill for their first full work week this week, following more than a month of absence during the government shutdown. But Republican leadership’s hopes for a productive, legislative week was short-lived when censure wars took over the lower chamber.

Here is a quick rundown of what happened: 

• Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) moved to formally reprimand Rep. Chuy García (D-IL), saying the Illinois Democrat purposefully announced his retirement after the filing deadline to make sure his chief of staff was the only Dem on the ballot. 
• Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) moved to censure U.S. Virgin Islands Del. Stacey Plaskett and remove her from the Intelligence Committee for a series of text message exchanges with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a past congressional hearing. 
• Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) moved to censure her colleague Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) and remove him from committee assignments for a list of accusations including allegations that he broke campaign finance laws, engaged in sexual misconduct and dating violence.
• And Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) filed a motion to censure — saying he could go as far as trying to expel — Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) for allegedly using stolen federal emergency grants to fund her election campaign.

Following a week of seemingly non-stop censure votes, a bipartisan bill is now gaining traction to try to discourage House members from taking advantage of the once-rare tactic at every turn. That proposal, from Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE) and Don Beyer (D-VA), would require 60 percent of the House — rather than the current simple majority — to censure a member or remove them from committee assignments.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he’d be “open to having that conversation” when asked about a possible censure reform. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said he is “open-minded about what the possibilities are in terms of getting the Congress out of this repeated effort by Republicans to censure members.”

— Emine Yücel

CBO: Trump’s Tariffs Will Reduce Deficit By $1 Trillion Less Than Expected

Things are looking worse and worse for Trump’s tariffs. 

On Thursday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised down its estimate of how much the tariffs put in place since January 2025 will decrease the U.S. deficit over the next decade. In August, the taxes applied to international imports were projected to decrease the national deficit by $4 trillion. As of mid-November, the CBO now projects the deficit will be reduced by $3 trillion.

The downward revision comes in part because the administration has backed off of some of its tariff rates for items from China, the EU and Japan since August, and changes in tariff estimates on goods from Canada and Mexico. Most recently, Trump removed tariffs from a number of grocery imports, including tea, beef and tropical fruits and juices, purportedly thanks to new “trade deals.” More likely, the president is reacting to post-shutdown economic data showing overall inflation, and inflation for food at home, is up compared to last year and rising. Affordability is down. And voters are taking notice.

Trump is also facing pushback from his party, as the president’s been leaning heavily on his renewed proposal to send out $2,000 tariff checks to Americans. Senate Republicans shut down the idea, saying the deficit is supposed to be used to pay down debt. All of this is against the backdrop of a looming SCOTUS decision to determine whether Trump’s tariffs can even stay in place. Justices of both parties showed skepticism about the legality of the tariffs during oral arguments earlier this month.

— Layla A. Jones