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

President Trump’s attempt to unilaterally withhold foreign aid. That’s $2 billion that had not only already been allocated by Congress, but the work for which had already been completed; the plaintiffs were literally asking the government to pay its bills. 

It was an easy case, but a big test nonetheless; if the Supreme Court greenlit that hokum, what wouldn’t they allow? Justice Samuel Alito wrote a furious dissent, reframing the payment for work done as a sudden $2 billion tax levied on the unsuspecting public by a tyrannical district court judge. 

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberals — prompting a particularly gruesome and predictable backlash to the latter from the MAGA online. 

That shaky coalition, a sporadically institution-preserving Roberts and a sporadically independent Barrett plus the liberals, seems increasingly likely to be the only potential check on the Trump administration. But the Court’s biggest tests are still to come — and are heading its way quickly. 

In the lower courts this week, unlawfully fired members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board were reinstated by federal judges. Both decisions have already been appealed to the circuit court. Judge Beryl Howell, the presiding judge in the NLRB case, acknowledged during oral arguments that she’s merely a “speed bump” en route to the Supreme Court. 

Those cases will determine whether independent agencies will be allowed to keep existing at all, or whether the entire executive branch will come under Trump’s direct power. Those decisions could bring the unitary executive theory to life, a conception of an all-powerful presidency that the right has been pushing since the Reagan administration. Roberts, who has led the charge in weakening agency protections, will likely have to recreate the federal funding coalition for the agencies to have a chance at survival. 

“Thank you again, I won’t forget it,” Trump told Roberts, captured on a hot mic at his address to Congress this week. But the Court isn’t willing to greenlight all of the most extreme expressions of his lawless agenda — at least not yet.

— Kate Riga

Here’s what else TPM has on tap this weekend:

• Khaya Himmelman reports on House Democrats’ efforts to pin NYC Mayor Eric Adams down on specifics about the Trump Justice Department’s attempts to dismiss the criminal case against Adams and a reported agreement between Adams and the Trump administration.
• Kate Riga outlines what we’re watching as the nation careens toward a government shutdown: both on the degree to which Democrats are willing to exercise what little power they have to rein in Musk and Trump, and in just how much of their power congressional Republicans allow the co-presidents to hoard for themselves.
• Emine Yücel outlines President Trump’s swift reversal this week when it appeared, at least momentarily, that he was publicly putting new limits on Elon Musk.

Let’s dig in.

Eric Adams Refused To Answer Dems’ Questions About Reported Convos With Trump

Testifying before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday alongside other sanctuary city mayors, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was grilled by fellow Democrats about his criminal indictment and an ongoing effort by the Justice Department to drop federal corruption charges against him.

Adams, expectedly, refused to engage with questions about his case or a reported agreement with the Trump administration while the case is ongoing. As it stands now, the Department of Justice’s effort to dismiss the case is still pending. 

But throughout this week’s hearing, Democrats pressed Adams on whether he had entered into a quid pro quo with the Trump administration to have his case dismissed in exchange for his cooperation in carrying out the administration’s immigration agenda in New York City. 

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) was the first to bring up a possible quid pro quo on Wednesday, asking Adams outright if he was “selling out New Yorkers to save yourself from prosecution?” Adams responded by saying: “there is no deal, no quid pro quo, and I did nothing wrong.” Adams has said that before, including in court. 

Adams repeatedly responded to Democrats’ questions about the case by saying that out “of deference” to U.S. District Judge Dale Ho, who is presiding over Adams’s corruption case, he would not answer questions about the matter. 

“And anything dealing with this case out of deference to Judge Ho, who’s now addressing it, I’m going to refer to his actions,” Adams told Garcia. 

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) similarly asked Adams if he had ever discussed his case with anyone in the Trump administration. Adams, again, refusing to address the question specifically, simply said he would not talk about the case, out of “deference to Judge Ho.”

Later in the hearing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asked Adams if he knew if his attorneys had met with anyone in the Trump administration in a January 31 meeting to discuss dropping criminal charges against him. In response, Adams said, again: “this case is in front of Judge Ho and out of deference to the criminal justice process” that he would defer to him. 

In response to the questions from Democrats, Trump administration border czar Tom Homan, in a post on X attempted to defend Adams, saying the mayor is “trying to protect New Yorkers from violent illegal aliens,” and calling some of the questioning from Democrats “simply disgusting.”

— Khaya Himmelman

If You Like TPM’s The Weekender, Join Us

One of the ways you survive 25 years as a digital media organization is through evolving and adapting to meet the needs of your audience. This is quite a different endeavor than making changes as a company to appease advertisers or social media algorithms. TPM never pivoted to video, we never ditched our front page, and we aren’t laying off reporters and replacing them with AI. Other outlets can take a chance on every perceived silver bullet that comes along, but we’ll keep focusing on doing good journalism and being a good place to work.

The Weekender is one such evolution to better serve our readers. We’re a small shop and longtime readers will know that for many years, the site sort of just shut down on Saturday and Sunday as our staff was off. But, we knew that readers wanted something TPM-y to read while having a Saturday morning coffee. We also had an inkling that readers might want something a little lighter, that puts a bow on the week that was. Thus, The Weekender was born.

We’re able to offer The Weekender as a free product — like the Morning Memo and Where Things Stand — because of support from our members. We’ve tried to construct a journalism ecosystem at TPM that benefits the most people because, while we obviously need revenue to produce journalism, it’s in everyone’s best interest for that journalism to reach as many people as possible each and every day of the week.

Five years ago when I spoke with Josh Marshall for our 20th Anniversary celebration package, he said, “I can really say the company is in better shape than it’s ever been.”. Well I can really say we’re in even better shape now — thanks to our members. That’s why we’re in the market for another reporter. So, we hope you’ll join TPM. Our commitment to you is as that as we grow, so will our value to you.

— Joe Ragazzo

Guide To The Shutdown

As we head into next week, Friday’s shutdown deadline fast approaches. Much Hill coverage will have a familiar, horse-racey tone: Will the shutdown happen? How will Reps. X, Y or Z vote? Rep. Z just came out of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) office, and here’s what she said. 

We at TPM are going to be very focused on different elements of the shutdown. 

For one, it’s the first real chance Democrats will have to exert some leverage. Continuing resolutions are subject to the filibuster, so the government will shut down unless a handful of Senate Democrats join the Republicans. If Democrats help Republicans avert a shutdown — without iron-clad guarantees that Trump and Elon Musk will stop illegally dismantling the federal government, with enforcement mechanisms and short deadlines to ensure these famous liars keep their words — the many “we’re cooked” lamentations will take on real weight.

Second, there are reasons that Trump and Republicans are pushing so hard for a one-year continuing resolution — a stopgap that would prolong the levels established under the Biden administration. For one, they likely don’t want the fight of doing usual appropriations, which is arduous and hard and demands compromise. But for another, the White House is requesting “anomalies” or additions to a truly clean CR. Rather than going through Congress (the Pentagon gets $x — $x of that to this project, $x of that to this department, etc.), an unallocated pot of money just goes to the Pentagon — a slush fund for Musk and Pete Hegseth. 

Democrats are pushing for a much shorter continuing resolution to avert the shutdown, then getting back to work on the regular order of appropriations.  

Next week will be revelatory, both on the degree to which Democrats are willing to exercise what little power they have to rein in Musk and Trump, and in just how much of their power congressional Republicans allow the co-presidents to hoard for themselves.

— Kate Riga

Inside TPM: Nicole Lafond

If you want to understand the inner workings of TPM, there’s really no better person to seek out than Nicole.

In addition to overseeing and authoring Where Things Stand and The Weekender, Nicole is TPM’s deputy editor who works with all of our reporters. Nicole first came to TPM as an editorial intern back in 2014 and then returned in 2017. So, suffice to say, she has seen a lot. Did you know she once worked at the Daily Caller and I thought she might be some kind of plant infiltrating TPM? We discuss that (she wasn’t, obviously.) How has TPM evolved to cover Trump II? We talk about that. What’s the philosophy behind The Weekender and Where Things Stand? She explains. Do you watch Rings of Power? We do, and we talk about it. So check it out, it’s a good one!

— Joe Ragazzo

Words Of Wisdom

“We’re gonna be watching them. And Elon and the group are gonna be watching them. And if they can cut, it’s better. And if they don’t cut, then Elon will do the cutting.”

That’s President Donald Trump saying billionaire Elon Musk actually will make spending cuts to federal agencies if the heads of those agencies or Cabinet officials fail to do so themselves.

Just hours before this statement, Trump held a meeting with his Cabinet secretaries, telling them staffing decisions will be left up to them — not Musk and DOGE. He walked that back with the above remarks almost immediately. 

And this wasn’t even the first time this week a similar contradiction surfaced. 

During his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump introduced Musk as the leader of DOGE, crumbling weeks of White House efforts to convince the media, the public and the courts of the opposite. That mishap, of course, was the best part of that 100-minute long speech for plaintiffs and lawyers challenging the constitutionality of DOGE’s rampage through the executive branch.

— Emine Yücel