I’ve been talking over the last few weeks about critical reforms that are necessary to make any kind of civic democratic revival in the U.S. even possible. The ending the filibuster and reforming the Supreme Court are high on that list. I want to talk about related topic today that we can only see if we take few steps back from the immediacy of day to day events over the last year and a half. These are tied to the over-mighty nature of the American presidency — or rather, the over-mighty potential of the American presidency, which a mix of Donald Trump’s degenerate personality and the theories of the conservative legal movement have brought to the fore.

The difference I want to note is between administration and ownership. We talk a lot these days about how Donald Trump seems to think he owns the United States – he puts his brand, his likeness, his signature on everything. He talks about his generals, his military, etc. But there’s a more concrete and specific way this is true and it goes to the heart of what needs to be fixed about the American presidency and the whole constitutional system.

We’re talking a lot today about gerrymandering and Court reform. I want to note one among many ways the two issues intersect. Democrats are consistent on redistricting. They have and continue to support a national gerrymandering law to outlaw the practice. They restated that commitment today even as they prepare to counter new GOP demands to eliminate Black legislative representation across the South.

We’ve been wondering for a few days now how the White House would seek to convince Congress that the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution, which requires the executive branch to obtain authorization for hostilities from the legislative branch within 60 days, should not apply.

It emerged yesterday, in Hegseth’s assertion to senators that the April 7 ceasefire “pauses” that 60-day clock, and it was formalized by Trump in a letter sent to Congress this afternoon, which we published a copy of here.

The argument, you will not be surprised to learn, is farcical. Emine Yücel and Josh Kovensky ran it by some experts.

The question of who would have standing to challenge the administration’s war is a thornier one, which Emine and Josh get into here.

Here’s a brief follow up on yesterday’s post about the corrupt Supreme Court. Yesterday I noticed law professor Steve Vladeck arguing on Bluesky that civic democrats are making a mistake by seeking to “fix” the Court by, as he puts it, “permanently weakening it as an institution.” The gist of his argument is that you constrain the Court by “forcing it to look over its shoulder” as it decides case. In a post on the topic, he writes, “as compared to a time when Congress controlled things like when the Court sits; where it sits; which cases it hears; the Court’s budget; and what the justices must do when not hearing cases (i.e., ride their circuits), today’s Court can do just about whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and all without realistically having to look over its shoulder.”

I told him that I actually agree with the concept of having the court “look over its shoulder” — that you have a series of teeth in place to react to overreach. I’m not sure about the best method of applying that pressure. But I agree with the general principle. Or, rather, I did agree with it — but I think we’ve missed the window for that kind of intervention from Congress. (You can see our brief exchange here.)

Kate Riga and I will discuss today’s Supreme Court ruling, the ominous oral arguments that followed, and, if we’ve had enough coffee, what hope there is for the future of multiracial democracy in a Substack Live tomorrow at 10 a.m. ET.

Join here.

We’re about 90% of the way to our goal in our annual TPM Membership Drive. If you’ve somehow missed the theme of the drive, it’s that we here at TPM are chronicling the national crisis. The national crisis we’re talking about obviously includes Donald Trump, who is something akin to a great accelerator or catalyst. 

But if you’ve followed our Supreme Court coverage today, you know that the crisis neither began when Trump took office nor will it end when he leaves office. There is a lot of work to do. Much of that work cannot be done by journalists. But the documenting of abuse by public officials not only can be done by journalists but must be done by journalists. So, if you’ve been putting off joining for whatever reason, make today the day and help us hit our goal so we can do our part in return.

Click here to join for 25% off. Thanks in advance, from all of us.

There is a dimension to the latest developments in the redistricting wars that isn’t hidden precisely but isn’t getting the attention it should. Put simply, Donald Trump’s interests are rapidly diverging from those of his House Republicans.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just introduced a new Florida House map which purports to net Republicans an additional four seats in November. But Florida incumbents are more than a little spooked about it. They don’t like it. When you aggressively gerrymander a state, you do more than create more seats for your party. You also create some level of risk that that map will amplify a wave election into a true blowout. Thin the margin of your safe seats enough to create some more safe or favorable seats and all those existing seats become a bit more vulnerable. It’s only a real danger in a wave election. But that’s precisely what 2026 looks like.

This morning I was reading this Puck article about the public relations woes of the AI industry. In short, having the CEOs and industry leaders tell everyone for years that their product will lose jobs for half the population and quite possibly lead to the extinction of humanity led to some serious reputational challenges for AI. (The article is paywalled. But that and what follows includes the gist.) Author Ian Krietzberg correctly notes that this isn’t just blather or bad messaging. It’s an investment strategy. Silicon Valley venture investing is essentially a well-oiled FOMO machine. Getting people to invest means pumping up the disruptive, game-changing nature of the product. Disruptive dislocation is the basis of all Silicon Valley venture investing since it’s the basis of the stratospheric growth of a small percentage of bets which makes the whole economy make sense.

But that’s not the entirety of it. Or rather the mentality of the key players in the space is so bound up and shaped by the dynamics of the investment logic. In so many words, it breeds a feral mentality and personality type. It’s no accident that you have architects of that world having famous mottos like “move fast and break things.” It’s a culture based on hyperbole and valorizing transgressive attitudes and actions.

Straight off their hugely consequential ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which gave the Voting Rights Act of 1965 its final gutting, justices turned to the issue of temporary protected status for those fleeing turmoil in Haiti and Syria. Oral arguments began as soon as Justice Kagan finished reading aloud a portion of her dissent in Callais.

Success for the Trump administration in this case would set the stage for hundreds of thousands of immigrants to be ejected from the country, predominantly immigrants from a group that the MAGA movement has made a point of targeting. Vice President JD Vance and a cadre of MAGA aligned influencers infamously leapt on white nationalist talking points to stoke conspiracy theories about the large Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, which, they baselessly insisted, was eating pets. A lawyer for the Haitian TPS holders argued Wednesday that racial animus played a clear role in the administration’s decision to terminate the program for this group, a claim the conservative majority was ready to wave away.