In the before times, when a president wanted to make a change at the top of a department, he had a talk with that person or have an intermediary do so and explain it was time for a change. The secretary was allowed to make the decision on their own, even if it was usually known that it wasn’t really their choice. I was thinking about that this week as Pam Bondi’s ouster speedran from hint to certainty in … what? 24 hours? Why doesn’t she just step down on her own, I thought? But I quickly realized why, just on the basis of thinking about the pattern and about Trump. If Trump is getting ready to fire you and you quit, I strongly suspect this would enrage him. He’d see it as a major and perhaps unforgivable act of defiance. Trump gets to fire you. Period. I think he would see anything else the way others might see a subordinate announcing and claiming credit for a project the executive felt he owned.

Iran said today that after the war with the U.S. and Israel concludes that it will “oversee” transit through the Strait of Hormuz. It says it will do so in some kind of common arrangement with Oman. (Oman is the country on the other side of narrowest point of the Strait.) This was mixed with statements that this does not mean ships will be blocked. Basically Iran and Oman will try to make it a better cargo experience for everyone. The Times reports that Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs says that this oversight “will naturally not mean restrictions; rather, they are intended to facilitate and ensure safe passage and to provide better services to ships passing through this route.”

In less than a week, the TPM team is heading down to Austin to hang with our Texas readers and friends at the Observer. If you haven’t gotten your tickets yet, now is the time!

Remember, Inside members get free access to all events. And as Prime member, you get 33% off your tickets. Forgot or didn’t receive the discount code? Just email Joe Ragazzo at joe@talkingpointsmemo.com

As a reminder, the night will begin with a conversation between TPM founder and editor-in-chief Josh Marshall and Texas Observer’s politics editor, Justin Miller. They’ll be talking the Sen. John Cornyn vs. AG Ken Paxton runoff and the Trump endorsement that wasn’t; whether James Talarico can become the first Democratic senator in Texas in more than 30 years; and the state of the redistricting wars.

Then, D.C. reporter Kate Riga and Josh will record a live episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast featuring Kate Riga. After the pod, there will be an audience Q&A and then we’ll wrap up the night in the bar.

We’re excited to see you there!

News is breaking now that Trump has fired Pam Bondi from her job as attorney general. Some reports suggest he may replace her with EPA head Lee Zeldin.

But Fox News reports that she’s actually been out of the job for the better part of a day now:

Bondi met with Trump in the Oval Office Wednesday night ahead of his speech to the nation on the war in Iran, where she reportedly was informed of her ouster, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. 

One of those sources said that by the time Trump took his place behind the podium for the address, Bondi already lost her job and was on her way back to Florida.

Todd Blanche is now running DOJ as acting attorney general, NBC reports.

Airports in chaos, Senate Republicans caving to Senate Democrats, House Republicans caving to Senate Republicans, a huge bill for Iran, the sweeping, voter-suppressing SAVE Act: there’s a lot that Congress is (in theory) handling right now with (in practice) limited success. TPM reporter Emine Yücel and I will try to make sense of it all at noon. Watch here.

There were two revealing moments during Donald Trump’s speech to the nation last night on the war in Iran, and another in a luncheon speech he gave earlier that day. The first was his threat to bomb Iranians “back to the Stone Age where they belong.” Trump was echoing, whether consciously or not, a comment that Air Force General Curtis LeMay had made in a 1965 book. LeMay advised that if North Vietnam didn’t bow to American aims in South Vietnam, the United States “should bomb them back to the Stone Age.”

I want to reiterate all the points I made about Trump’s speech last night. Just for the sake of his own political standing, the whole idea was a mistake. It wasn’t a good speech. It wasn’t delivered well. And it didn’t either make favorable news or actually address the issues that have the public or energy markets upset. I didn’t realize as I was watching the speech that his vague “two to three weeks” prediction of when the war will end was really just a restatement of what we might call the Trumpian Constant, the prescribed duration after Trump will, purportedly, always have gotten things worked out and awesome. The time before the Obamacare replacement plan is released, when infrastructure week will finally arrive. I mean, two weeks is genuinely a cliche with Trump or, in more modern parlance, a meme. Trump just tacked on another week. As you might have seen there are lots of charts floating around showing how the price of oil and oil futures spiked pretty dramatically during his speech.

I think any press person who watched President Trump’s Iran cheer-up session speech on truth serum would have to concede that this was a speech he shouldn’t have given. He meandered. He looked bad and worn out. He had the requisite moments when his degenerate inner monologue creeps into the open: he said that free passage through the Strait of Hormuz is something for importer countries in Asia to deal with, that they should “grab and cherish” the strait, as though it were some underage beauty pageant contestant Trump was hungering to assault. What is important is that in political and public opinion terms, there was nothing new or newsworthy in this speech. They didn’t even manage to accomplish this in the narrow and cynical sense of saying anything new that could be a fresh point of public discussion. It was a rambling set of unconvincing excuses no one with any real concern or anxiety about this war (the only real audience) would find convincing. Why are you complaining, he asks? This war hasn’t gone on nearly as long as World War II! LOL.

Market watchers will note that the White House is now solidifying around the idea that free passage through the Strait of Hormuz is something importer countries will have to deal with, that it’s not America’s problem. That means that the economic fallout of the war will continue unabated. This is simply rebranding a massive strategic defeat as some kind of America First swagger. Of course, oil markets are global. It doesn’t really matter if the U.S. makes as much oil as it consumes. That’s not how prices work.

In Emine Yücel’s newly published piece about Republicans’ struggles to pass a slew of President Trump’s priorities ahead of the midterms, she digs in on a crucial point that isn’t getting much discussion.

Since Republican leadership doesn’t want to nuke the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE America Act, they’re doing a big performance for Trump to show that they’ll figure out a way to cram all of his needs — passing the voter suppression bill and funding for his war in Iran as well as the Department of Homeland Security — into another reconciliation package. Republicans are considering paying for the new spending for Trump’s latest fixations with more cuts to the social safety net, under the guise of rooting out rampant “fraud,” the admin’s favorite new word.

But in many cases, they won’t actually have to do that. The new spending is just a convenient excuse for more cuts.

I wanted to share a few thoughts on questions that are adjacent to or secondary to the question the Supreme Court is being asked to take up today. That is in part because there is no real question they are being asked to take up. Birthright citizenship is the clear, intended and unambiguous law of the federal constitution. One might as well try to complicate or question whether the document creates a federal senate. I have a source and correspondent deep in the federal bureaucracy who is a specialist in a specific area of federal law unrelated to citizenship questions. And even though I’ve written about this at length over the years, by going over developments in this person’s area of law with them it has helped me crystalize my own thinking on this topic.

Almost all of these cases are based on the premise, the working assumption of what can the U.S. Constitution mean if we decide that words or established phrases simply have no meaning and we can simply piece the individual words together based on their dictionary definitions? So what does the “law of the land” mean? Well, it turns out some guy who did a stint at the Claremont Institute and now teaches at some obscure law school has written a bracing new law review article about how it refers to agricultural policy, mineral and agricultural rights and the law of farming. That’s really where we are here.