This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes.
Last week, Minnesota’s top federal prosecutor appeared before two federal district court judges and asked them to not hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders. The judges, Biden appointee Jeffrey Bryan and Clinton appointee John Tunheim, had both directed the government to release dozens of unlawfully detained people and return their personal belongings. After learning that the administration released 28 detainees but kept their cash, phones, driver’s licenses, passports, work permits, and more, Bryan held a hearing on March 3 to give U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen a chance to explain himself. Tunheim similarly held a hearing on March 5 after finding that the government retained the possessions of at least six other detainees without any lawful basis.
During the hearing, Bryan said that ordering Rosen’s imprisonment “would be a historical low point for the office of the United States Attorney and for this District,” and that it was “very, very unlikely.” But Bryan was angry enough to tell Rosen that he hadn’t “ruled [it] out,” either.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, courts have been reluctant to impose consequences on the administration for its myriad violations of court orders. In recent weeks, however, some judges have started to recognize their power to compel compliance with their directives. A New York Timesanalysis published last month shows that since August, federal judges have issued at least 35 orders requiring the administration to explain why it shouldn’t be held in contempt. Twice since February, federal judges in Minnesota actually followed through, and briefly held the administration in civil contempt. And twice more in the past two weeks, federal judges in Minnesota and New Jersey threatened the administration with criminal contempt, too.
This story is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
In late February, the Wyoming House of Representatives passed a bill that would significantly change how schools, health departments and child welfare agencies interact with families. The measure would allow parents to sue municipalities and state agencies for financial damages if they believe officials have violated their parental rights. On the surface, this change may sound reasonable, but in practice, it could make public institutions far more cautious about supporting vulnerable children — especially LGBTQ+ students or children in unsafe homes — for fear of triggering costly lawsuits.
Wyoming already has a broad parental rights law, and conservative activists have used similar statutes across red states to challenge LGBTQ+ inclusion, racial equity initiatives, and policies that give minors some measure of privacy in schools or medical settings. Although framed as protections for families, these laws often end up shielding physical and emotional abuse from scrutiny and impeding efforts to address medical and educational neglect. Crucially, in Wyoming the statute requires that any government action seen as intruding into the parent-child relationship must satisfy strict scrutiny, the most demanding legal standard that courts apply. Under that test, the government must show that its action serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. In practice, that can make it very difficult for public officials to intervene in family matters, even when they believe a child needs support or protection.
Until now, however, the main legal remedy available under Wyoming’s parental rights law has been an injunction — a court order directing a government agency to stop unlawful actions. An injunction can halt a policy or practice, but it does not require the government to pay damages.
What makes Wyoming’s new move so consequential is that it would allow parents to sue for financial damages and attorney’s fees, adding significant financial stakes to every action that teachers, healthcare workers, and others take with children — not only to prevent harm to children but to avoid offending their parents’ political sensibilities.
The FBI has expanded its investigation into President Trump’s delusion that the 2020 election was stolen from him, with reports that it issued a grand jury subpoena for documents about the election results in Maricopa County, Arizona, a key battleground in a swing state that has become a hotbed for conspiracy theorists’ fever dreams about the 2020 election.
Yesterday UN Ambassador Mike Waltz announced that the US was moving ahead rapidly to achieve all its war objectives which he listed as 1) destroying Iran’s missiles, 2) eliminating its nuclear program and 3) ending its ability to do terrorism. So much for regime change, it seems and also unconditional surrender, both of which don’t seem remotely in the ballpark any time soon. That was the trial balloon. Then today President Trump followed up on this by declaring that the war is actually pretty much over already.
He told CBS News’s Weijia Jiang that “the war is very complete, pretty much” and that the US is “very far” ahead of the initial 4 to 5 week timeline. “The war is very complete,” he said in case there was any ambiguity about his words. Indeed, in his vaguely genocidal way Trump seemed to implicitly take regime change off the table by threatening either regime change or perhaps genocide if Iran got “cute.”
“They better not try anything cute,” he told Jiang, “or it’s going to be the end of that country.”
This is week two of this year’s Annual TPM Membership Drive. We started to get traction at the end of last week. Today we really need to keep that going. If you’re not a member, please consider joining today. This is our lifeblood. It’s what we need to keep doing this work and, if possible, expand our reach going forward. If you’re a new reader or maybe your membership lapsed, we need you back. Just click right here. If you’re on the fence, we’re even offering a 25% discount.
This week I’m going to be telling you some of our plans for the coming year and how you and our growing community figure into those plans.
During the year she spent leading the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, Kristi Noem faced a torrent of criticism. Lawmakers from both parties assailed her for lying about the shooting of protestors in Minneapolis and spending millions of dollars on television commercials. Government audits concluded that she “systematically obstructed” investigations and created security risks at airports.
Sometimes I write a post where I don’t know the topic well enough to discuss it expertly but I understand it enough to point to the outlines of the debate and where to find more information. This is one of those posts. Here, I want to discuss drones and missiles deployed by Iran and the expensive, high-tech weapons the U.S. and its allies use to shoot them down. This applies right now in the Persian Gulf where Iran is using a strategy of “asymmetric attrition.” But it would apply in even more complicated and hard-to-address ways if and when the U.S. got into a major conflict with, say, China over Taiwan. It’s that basic challenge of asymmetric warfare for a Great Power like the United States: the U.S. relies on often quite effective but very expensive and hard to replace weaponry. Iran’s clunky but effective drones cost in the low five-figures to produce, while U.S. missile defense tech can costs millions for a single shot.
The Wall Street Journal over the weekend published an extensive new analysis of what it candidly called the “aggressive public-relations tactic” that the Trump administration is using against opponents of its mass deportation operation.
“Protesters, observers and passersby taken into custody by federal agents were declared terrorists and attackers in hundreds of social-media posts by U.S. officials and departments since the start of the immigration sweeps in cities,” according to the WSJ, which proceeded to analyze the social media posts and track the underlying individual cases.
It was a substantial undertaking, as the newspaper describes it: After reviewing more than 100,000 posts on X from 66 government and senior official accounts, it “identified 1,456 posts in which the government alleged an assault, impediment, attack or conspiracy or attempt to harm a federal officer.”
The bottom line: “Of the 279 people accused by officials on X of attacking federal officers in the past year, 181 were U.S. citizens, the Journal found. Close to half of those Americans were never charged with assault. None have been convicted at trial.” Ten of those accused have pleaded guilty to lesser charges, the newspaper’s analysis found. Two of those accused — Renee Good and Alex Pretti — were shot dead by federal agents.
Rinse and Repeat
Texas: Newly released video of the fatal ICE shooting of U.S. citizen Ruben Ray Martinez raises questions about the government’s claim that he “intentionally ran over” a federal agent.
Minnesota: Federal agents lied about why they shot a Venezuelan man in Minneapolis. Their story quickly fell apart, as the Tribune reports.
Xinis Resumes Contempt of Court Inquiry
I just listened in on a conference call that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis convened this morning in the original Abrego Garcia case where she picked back up the contempt of court inquiry that has been on a back-burner for months.
It was a mostly a housekeeping exercise about setting a briefing schedule and cleaning up some long-pending motions, but make no mistake: She is returning to the issue of whether to find the Trump administration, including Trump DOJ lawyers, in contempt of court for violating her orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. (She’s also considering a motion for discovery sanctions against the administration.)
One bit of news: In addition to contempt under the federal rules and under her own inherent power, Xinis specifically wants briefing on the applicability of one federal law that could potentially put Trump DOJ attorneys personally on the hook for financial penalties for their alleged misconduct: “Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”
Stay tuned.
Mass Deportation Watch
Internal government documents reviewed by the NYT show that federal agents had been tracking Nashville reporter Estefany Maria Rodriguez Florez all morning before detaining her last week, raising fears that she was targeted because she’s a journalist who had reported on immigration arrests as recently as the day before her own.
Federal judges keep ordering immigration hearings but say the results are often a sham, Politico reports.
In Minnesota, DHS has pulled back from indiscriminate street sweeps and focused on conducting more targeted enforcement operations.
ICE awards untested firms hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts to oversee new warehouse detention centers.
A New Low Even for Trump
With new evidence emerging that the United States was responsible for the strike on a school in southern Iran than killed scores of children, President Trump baselessly blamed Iran for the attack:
Reporter: Did the US bomb an elementary school and kill 175 people?Trump: Based on what I’ve seen, it was done by Iran. Reporter: Is that true Mr. Hegseth?Hegseth: We’re investigating.Trump: They are very inaccurate with their munitions. It was done by Iran.
The abrupt cancellation of a planned training exercise for the 82nd Airborne Division’s headquarters element fueled internal Pentagon speculation that the division’s Immediate Response Force may be deployed to the Middle East
A classified National Intelligence Council report warned that even a large-scale U.S. assault on Iran would be unlikely to oust its entrenched military and clerical establishment.
Latest from the Middle East …
Iran selected Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as its new leader, and oil jumped to more than $100 a barrel as the flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a virtual stop. Plus:
Donning a white baseball cap emblazoned with “USA” in gold, President Trump attended the ceremony in Dover for the returning remains of six U.S. service members killed in an Iranian drone strike in Kuwait. A seventh American service member died in Saudi Arabia after being injured in a March 1 retaliatory strike by Iran.
The State Department ordered American employees of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia to leave the country.
In its first reported combat deaths in the Middle Eastern conflict, Israel announced that two soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon. The overall death toll in Lebanon has risen to nearly 400 people.
Our government is treating the suffering of the Iranian people as a backdrop for our own entertainment, as if it’s just another piece of content to be swiped through while we’re waiting in line at the grocery store. But, in the end, we lose our humanity when we are thrilled by the destructive power of our military. We become addicted to the “spectacle” of explosions. And the price of this habit is almost unnoticeable, as we become desensitized to the true costs of war.
U.S. Conducts 45th Boat Strike
Six people were killed Sunday in another lawless U.S. strike against a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific, raising the campaign’s death toll to at least 156.
Cuba Next?
With President Trump openly touting regime change in Cuba, the Trump DOJ has established a working group led by Miami U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones to drum up possible federal charges against officials or entities within Cuba’s government.
Kari Lake’s Appointment Unlawful
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled over the weekend that Kari Lake’s appointment as chief executive of the U.S. Agency for Global Media violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. As a result, Lamberth voided many of Lake’s actions while purporting to be in the position, including mass layoffs at Voice of America.
2026 Ephemera
TX-23: Brandon Herrera, the default GOP nominee after incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales (R) dropped his bid for re-election, can be seen bragging about his copy of “Mein Kampf” and shooting Nazi-era weapons in clips that began circulating widely late last week. Check out Josh Kovensky’s piece for more on Herrera.
CA-48: After serving in Congress for all but one term since 2001, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is retiring rather than running for re-election in a newly drawn district more favorable to Democrats.
Sign of the Times
NYT analysis: “300 billionaires and their immediate family members donated more than $3 billion — 19 percent of all contributions — in federal elections in 2024, either directly or through political action committees.”
Florida Bar: Never Mind on Halligan
In a weird, poorly explained reversal, the Florida Bar said in statement Friday that there is no pending investigation of former U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan.
Jan. 6 Never Ends
Early Saturday morning, while it was still dark, the long-delayed bronze plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 was bolted into place near an entrance on the west front of the building.
Former Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio, convicted of sedition for his role in the Jan. 6 attack before being pardoned by President Trump, pals around with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the future viceroy of Cuba (both share Cuban ancestry):
With @SecRubio at the Shield of the Americas summit. By far the President Trumps choices for his cabinet.
This story is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
The most enduring conspiracy theories often contain kernels of truth, though it is debatable whether any popularly theorized conspiracy has later been proven as real by unassailable facts. But if one popular conspiracy theory seems to have been promoted from “theory” to fact, it would appear to be QAnon. What started as a far-right prophecy scam using codes and ciphers on 4chan to “reveal” the horrors of a pedophile cabal ruling the world has taken on a distinct tinge of truth thanks to millions of newly-released files involving fixer and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s easy to look at Epstein’s communications with billionaires and royals, famous directors and scions of old money, and see the dealings of a cabal. In those countless emails, we seem to have a notorious sex offender and lover of “young women” exchanging messages with some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people. Some of them appear innocuous, and some of them are deeply weird and extremely disturbing.
Like QAnon’s accusations, at least some of these messages are written in what many researchers have theorized is a code for truly unspeakable things, such as powerful people trafficking their own children, or hunting and eating human beings. And just like with QAnon, it’s fallen to “citizen researchers” to dig through the “drops” from the Department of Justice, as unpaid truth crusaders churn through millions of messages full of noise to find the bits of signal that “they” were hiding from us.
Naturally, the Epstein revelations have resulted in some QAnon believers claiming that the Epstein releases validate their years of hard work and research into the “pedo elite” running the west. It’s also resulted in a number of stories, podcasts, and social media threads essentially saying that QAnon was right this whole time. Essentially, we all thought these Q people were crazy, but there really was a pedophile cabal running things, and the Q believers knew the whole time.
Except QAnon has not been “proven true,” and it was not right. This is not because of anything to do with Epstein, but because that’s not really what QAnon was about. The idea of a dark cabal running world events and doing horrible things in the shadows is only part of QAnon — and it’s the least original part, at that.
In discussions of modern wars, Americans obsess about “exit strategies”. How do you avoid getting “bogged down?” How do you know when the mission is finished? How do you avoid “mission creep?” These are very much Great Power questions. They’re all questions you ask about what are fundamentally wars of choice. They’re framed as questions of duration and sustainability, questions a Great Power asks when there are likely multiple draws on blood or treasure in various parts of the world, fears of over-extension and over-commitment. Other countries don’t have the luxury of these kinds of questions; it’s built into the Great Power equation. Ukraine has no “exit strategy.” They’re being invaded. They’re fighting to control their own territory and sovereignty. In a way, at least if you place yourself in the world of Greater Russian nationalism where Vladimir Putin and his entourage live, Russia doesn’t have one either. They’re trying to reclaim “their” territory or something between a national and imperial possession. They’ll fight until they get it.
But talk of “exit strategies” is really a way of asking what the goals are that led you to start a war in the first place. If the goal of your military action is clear, your exit strategies should be straightforward. Indeed, you shouldn’t need a “strategy” at all. When your goals are met, you’re done and you leave. Or at least you stop using military force. If you know what your goal is, you fight until you’ve a) achieved your goal or b) realized through battlefield reverses that your goal is unattainable. If your goal is unclear, all the inherent forward momentum of superior military force drives you forward.
