Saved! Pete Hegseth Gives the Pope Leeway to ‘Do His Thing’

Posted on by Josh Kovensky

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

Finally, Pope Leo XIV has permission.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Friday conceded some authority to the pope. “The pope’s gonna do his thing, that’s fine,” Hegseth said, answering a question about the pontiff’s criticism of the administration’s war on Iran. As far as temporal authority goes, Hegseth added, “We know what our mission is, we know what authority we have. The orders of the president — we’ve got lawyers all over the place.”

Of course, Hegseth has spent past several weeks justifying the war in divine terms. He cited “the providence of our almighty God” in an interview with 60 Minutes. At a monthly prayer service at the Pentagon in March, he called on God to “grant this task force clear and righteous targets for violence.”

“Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans and break the teeth of the ungodly. By the blast of your anger, let the evil perish,” Hegseth added. For Hegseth, this is as much theatrics as it is a product of the church to which he belongs. His pastor, Doug Wilson, runs a Christian sect that uses military language to describe its plans to convert as many people as possible. The church was founded by Wilson’s father, a Navy veteran who wrote a book that sought to apply military principles towards establishing a Christian America, calling it “strategic evangelism.”

Leo, who Trump famously dismissed as “weak on crime,” has denounced all of this. Hegseth, a Protestant, at least has a way to ignore the Vatican. That has been harder for Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert who urged his spiritual leader earlier this month to be “careful” if he was “going to opine on matters of theology.”

For Leo, it’s one of a few ways in which he’s distanced himself from the Trump administration. Last year, one pontiff-watcher noted, he likened our own era to that of the industrial revolution with Big Tech playing the role of 19th century robber barons. As far as Iran goes, there seems to be something of a truce: Leo denied last week that there were tensions between him and the administration. Vance, for his part, conceded as well that the pope is the pope.

—Josh Kovensky

Kash Incentives

In just over a year as FBI director, Kash Patel hasn’t had many wins. He reportedly bungled key aspects of the Charlie Kirk and Brown University shooter investigations and has mostly made headlines for things like using a private jet to watch his country music singer girlfriend perform and chugging Corona with the U.S. men’s hockey team. An article published last week in the Atlantic paints Patel as someone who drinks excessively, is frequently absent, makes impulsive decisions and is paranoid about losing his job. (Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the magazine and writer over the story, calling the reporting “all false.”) While he appears committed to seeing out Trump’s retribution agenda under the guise of reform, so far he’s failed to produce the type of high-profile arrests that would please his boss. In other words, he’s on the kind of losing streak that makes you disposable in the Trump administration. 

On the day the Atlantic article was published, the prediction market Kalshi responded with a dramatic increase in the probability that Patel would be fired before June 1. If you’re unfamiliar with Kalshi or prediction markets, they are effectively gambling sites that have lobbied their way to a classification as commodities trading platforms where users can bet/trade on whether they think some future event will happen by purchasing a yes or no position. They are mainstream enough now that Planet Money and John Oliver both dedicated shows to them last week, and they are routinely in the headlines for offering seemingly gruesome markets — such as the ability to put money on when Ayatollah Khamenei will be “out as Supreme Leader?” — as well as ridiculous markets like “Will Jesus Christ return before 2027?” (4% chance). But mostly they are used for sports prop betting, which brings us back to Kash Patel.

Last October, Patel announced the arrest of current and former NBA players for alleged insider trading on NBA player prop bets. Without getting too into the weeds, the gist is that former NBA players and a current coach were, according to prosecutors, sharing non-public information about players with their associates (some of whom apparently had mafia ties) who would use that information to bet on props like how many points a player would score or how many minutes he would play. At the time of the arrest, Patel stated: “Using private information and positions of power to rig sports gambling outcomes is not only illegal, but destroys the integrity of the game and will never be tolerated. We will continue following the money to ensure gambling operations of all kinds stay within the law and bring to justice those who take advantage of innocent victims.” The innocent victims in this case appear to be the sports betting books and other gamblers.

While use of non-public information is illegal when gambling on sports, the legality of its use in prediction markets (which, remember, are theoretically not gambling sites, and are overseen by the CFCT) is a little less clear. In an interview with Axios last November, Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan explained, “What’s cool about Polymarket is that it creates this financial incentive for people to go and divulge the information to the market and the market to change.” Seeming to give away the game, Coplan goes on to suggest that insider information produces greater accuracy for certain markets. Recently, both Kalshi and Polymarket have assumed a more anti-insider trading stance and have warned that offenders could face DOJ action. On Thursday, in fact, we saw what may be the first prosecution of that type, when the DOJ charged a U.S. Army soldier with a set of crimes for a bet he made, allegedly using insider information, on Maduro’s ouster. He made $400,000, the DOJ said. 

Though this first case appears relatively clear-cut, the problem remains that when you create a platform where any kind of information can be a tradeable commodity, it can be hard to identify what makes someone an insider. For example, it would be hard not to draw a correlation between the Atlantic’s reporting and the fact that on Kalshi’s prediction market the probability of Patel being fired before June 1 jumped over 60% on the day it was published. With over $400,000 in volume currently trading, a jump of that kind could result in a reasonable financial gain. What seems significant here is not that anyone has been accused of illegally profiting off this reporting, but that the existence of these markets could, in theory, open up the possibility that any impactful reporting could be scrutinized by Trump’s DOJ on the basis of insider trading. Is the prospect of Patel floating an accusation of market manipulation against a publication that outrageous? Would you put the odds at greater than zero? Wanna bet?

— Derick Dirmaier

The Backlash Against AI Is Breaking Containment 

“It’s our home, and once we give it up, we won’t get it back,” a south Florida resident said at a recent town hall meeting opposing the construction of a proposed data center. 

The resident was talking specifically about the proposed Okee-One data center in Okeechobee, which is slated to be built near waterways connected to the Everglades and other environmentally sensitive sites. But the comment could be a slogan for the broader, accelerating anti-AI movement. A growing number of Americans are refusing to invite a technology that could be irreversibly destructive into our communities and government.

Brian Merchant, an indispensable voice on all things AI, has chronicled the mounting backlash against AI in his Blood in the Machine newsletter. In just the past weeks, Merchant notes, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s San Francisco mansion was hit by a molotov cocktail and gunfire in two separate instances; a councilman in Indianapolis said someone fired bullets at his home and left a note reading “No Data Centers”; Maine is slated to become the first state to ban the construction of new data centers and Monterey Park, California became the first California city to do the same. 

“If you take at face value what the AI executives themselves have been saying for the last decade, that an AI powerful enough to make humans go extinct is nascent, then acting with force to stop it would be a rational action,” Merchant explains. 

For months, the humming opposition to the technology has grown louder, cutting across partisan, regional and professional lines. Locals have staged protests against data centers from the Southwest to Northeast, in rural and urban areas alike. Journalists at ProPublica walked off the job in a one-day strike, partly because they want a say in how the company adopts AI. People are pissed about AI contributing to their soaring energy costs, taking their jobs, harming the environment, spreading misinformation, increasing surveillance, making us all dumber — you name it. A once abstract debate about how the technology could impact our lives has become very tangible, showing up in people’s literal backyards, and they’re not happy about it. 

Those responsible for ushering in our new AI era don’t seem to grasp this, though. That was evidenced in a much-derided X thread recently put out by Palantir, the intelligence and defense software firm that has multibillion-dollar contracts with the U.S. Army, DHS, ICE, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies. The thread summarizes CEO Alex Karp’s book “The Technological Republic,” which calls for resisting “a vacant and hollow pluralism” and encourages the development of AI weapons, among other points. Critics disparaged his worldview, in which a small group of elites wield great military and economic power with little accountability, as “technofascism.” 

For most of us, this isn’t a vision of the future that appeals. 

— Allegra Kirkland

Top 5 Pope Feuds

With President Trump and Pope Leo fighting over issues like who is toughest on crime, TPM publisher and noted Catholic Joe Ragazzo decided that the time was finally right to break out his ranking of the Top 5 pope feuds on this week’s episode of The Social Club. Here’s Joe’s list, and you can watch the clip below to get his explanations. Check out the full episode here. 

5. Henry VIII vs. Pope Clement VII

4. Martin Luther vs. Pope Leo X

3. Napoleon vs. Pope Pius VI

2. Pope Leo I vs. Attila the Hun

1. Popes vs. Popes (the Schism of 1378) 

Honorable Mention: Hitler vs. Pope Pius XII

— Joe Ragazzo

The Vast Conspiracy

Posted on by John Light

In a late-night Truth, Trump claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center was part of his grand, imagined conspiracy to steal the 2020 election, and writes that his DOJ’s politicized prosecution of the non-profit is a step toward overturning his electoral defeat.

(Hat tip to law professor and election expert Rick Hasen who, like us, is not really sure what Trump is going for here beyond a kind of bête noire word cloud.)

Trump DOJ Attempts Climb-Down on Powell Investigation

Posted on by John Light

Here’s U.S. Attorney for DC “Judge” Jeanine Pirro announcing that her office is dropping its investigation into the chair of the Federal Reserve:

Her attempt to save face here is accomplished by claiming the Fed Inspector General will take over her work. But, as various reporters have noted, Powell himself had already asked the IG to look into cost overruns. It’s not clear anything new is happening.

Continue reading “Trump DOJ Attempts Climb-Down on Powell Investigation” →

Why Italy’s Giorgia Meloni Broke With Donald Trump

Posted on by John Light

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published by The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

The Italian prime minister and leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy party, Giorgia Meloni, has made fostering ties with foreign leaders a central part of her political strategy. A few years before winning Italy’s 2022 general elections, she started cultivating ties with the U.S. and European conservative world as part of a broader political rebranding effort aimed at projecting a more moderate image at home and gaining legitimacy abroad.

She subsequently became a familiar face within Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. Meloni shares similar views to MAGA on migration, sovereignty and national identity. She also aligns with the movement on a constellation of other themes ranging from fighting against “wokeism” and defending the traditional family to the rejection of liberalism, globalism and environmentalism.

After Trump was elected as U.S. president for the second time in late 2024, Meloni’s ties with the American far-right suddenly became a matter of foreign policy. But her relationship with Trump has turned out to be a more demanding balancing act than Meloni may have anticipated. And now their alliance — at least for the time being — appears to be over.

On April 13 Meloni described Trump’s recent social media attack on Pope Leo, who had criticized the U.S. and Israel’s war on Iran, as “unacceptable”. This prompted a rebuke from Trump, who said Meloni “lacked courage” for not joining the war. The conditions for this breakdown have been in place for some time.

Trump and Meloni’s alliance

Trump and Meloni’s shared far-right traits should not hide some key differences between the two leaders. In foreign policy, Meloni has adopted a pro-NATO position and is a staunch supporter of Ukraine. These positions have aided Meloni in what has been called her quest for “respectability,” but they clash with Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine and belligerent position towards NATO.

Politically, Meloni has also faced constraints that have moderated her leadership. Externally, the EU’s institutional and financial straitjacket has required Meloni to work collaboratively with the bloc. This requirement has limited Meloni’s room for maneuver in her dealings with Trump and clashes with the U.S. president’s rejection of multilateralism.

Internally, the logic of coalition politics — in particular the moderating presence of the pro-European Forza Italia party in her government — and the fact that centrist voters represent a decisive constituency in Italy have both acted as a further centripetal force on Meloni’s agenda.

Despite these divergences, Meloni’s ideological closeness to Trump did initially translate into diplomatic gains that helped boost her profile with fellow EU leaders. She was the first EU leader to meet with Trump after the imposition of his global trade tariff regime in 2025.

Meloni also managed to organize a trilateral meeting in Rome with the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the U.S. vice-president, J.D. Vance. Following the meting, Vance called Meloni a “bridge” between the two sides of the Atlantic.

Still, beyond the legitimacy gains for Meloni and her party, the material advantages Italy has extracted from her relationship with Trump have been limited. Italy was not spared trade tariffs, for instance. Nor did it manage to obtain a discount on Trump’s demand for NATO members to raise military spending to 5% of their GDP.

The scarcity of tangible policy gains from her ties with Trump may be one reason for Meloni’s decision to distance herself from the U.S. president. But Italian domestic politics are another important factor.

The indirect effects of Trump’s policies are likely to have played a key role in the recent defeat Meloni suffered in a referendum on judicial reform. This referendum, which came one month into Trump’s war in Iran, morphed into a vote on the Meloni government.

The Iran war has caused energy prices across Europe to rise and has generated fears among Italians of possible security repercussions. With a recent survey indicating 79% of Italians now hold a negative opinion on Trump, it seems that voters used the referendum to signal their discontent to Meloni ahead of general elections in 2027.

Opposition parties, both on the left and right, hailed the result as a sign that voters are looking for change. And Roberto Vannacci, a former general turned politician, is capitalizing on voters’ increased unease with the impact of Trump’s policies. He has criticized Meloni for what he sees as her Washington-first alignment and soft approach to key far-right issues.

Trump’s attack on the Pope — indefensible for Meloni as someone who has defined herself as a Christian and whose party draws on a vast Catholic electorate — gave the Italian prime minister the exit she needed to signal her distance from Trump’s recent actions to voters.

Meloni’s agenda remains far-right in its orientation, aligning with Trump’s in many ways from identity politics and migration to his stance on the green transition. How these ideological similarities are received by Italian voters over the coming year is likely to play a crucial role in determining Meloni’s political future.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is Todd Blanche Simply Morally Obtuse and Ethically Tone Deaf?

Posted on by David Kurtz

A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma

Of all the charlatans, grifters, and ghouls in the Trump II playbill, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has always baffled me the most. I can’t figure out the motivations that drive him or the elaborate self-rationalizations that permit him to engage in wholesale misconduct and abuse of office.

I have been most confounded by his professional background. He spent more than a decade as a DOJ prosecutor in Manhattan, and another decade as a criminal defense attorney at major law firms in New York — which means that to spearhead DOJ politicization and weaponization, Blanche has had to set aside both the long-standing traditions of the Justice Department that he would have been immersed in and dispense with a criminal attorney’s instinctive revulsion at government overreach and prosecutorial abuse.

While I’ve encountered DOJers with little appreciation for DOJ tradition and defense attorneys who don’t fit the classic mold, it’s rare to find someone who embodies both of those departures from the norm. Add in that Blanche is 51, old enough to know better, that he had a solid previous career that wasn’t entirely dependent on Trump, and that nothing about his relatively modest past bears any obvious signs of a grasping ambition at the expense of all else, and I’m left to puzzle over his psychology, which I have neither the expertise nor access to meaningfully assess.

The inexplicable Blanche was on display at this week’s press conference announcing the shameful indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center. A seemingly nonplussed Blanche shrugged off the most pointed questions about what exactly the alleged fraud was, and made no attempt to offer assurances let alone solid evidence that this isn’t as political a prosecution as it appears on its face.

In a new story this morning, the NYT runs through a laundry list of bad acts Blanche has committed as acting attorney general. It’s framed in the context of Blanche shoring up his position against right-wing criticism in hopes of landing the permanent gig, or at least staying in the acting gig indefinitely, but let’s consider them on their own demerits:

  • planning to revive the politicized prosecution of former FBI director James Comey, though on what grounds remains unclear;
  • expecting to subpoena the bodyguards of Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis “possibly in connection with an investigation into her government-funded travel”;
  • pushing ahead with putative cases against left-wing groups like the SPLC and Act Blue;
  • green-lighting inquiries into Cassidy Hutchinson, the star witness of the House Jan. 6 committee;
  • whipping greater urgency into the retributive investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan, including removing the career prosecutor overseeing it and replacing her with Trump loyalist Joe diGenova.

The NYT story also contains evidence of the contradiction that Blanche presents, crediting him — if that’s not too generous — with sending goofball Ed Martin out to pasture; being overruled after telling the White House there was insufficient evidence to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James; opposing the appoint of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia to lead the James and Comey prosecutions; and cautioning against the immediate arrest of Comey for a social media post that was bizarrely trumped up into an assassination threat against the president.

It all leaves me with the unsatisfying conclusion that Blanche is simply morally obtuse and ethically tone deaf. Maybe that’s the simplest answer, but I’m left wanting a better explanation.

Digging Deeper on the Bogus SPLC Case

As the week as unfolded, I’m gratified that the public discourse has gradually moved toward greater recognition that the Trump DOJ’s indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center is a travesty:

  • Former Alabama U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance: “It’s a warning to anyone who might consider cooperating with anti-hate groups in the future: ‘Don’t do it!’ It’s a message of intimidation from the leadership of DOJ, delivered for the benefit of their audience of one—if you align yourself against us, we can take you down. In essence, this indictment is about protecting domestic terror groups from exposure, not about prosecuting a real crime that SPLC committed.”
  • Bloomberg: “The Justice Department relied on a lesser-known bank deception statute to indict the Southern Poverty Law Center while omitting an element needed to prove the crime: intent to influence a financial institution. The infirmities suggest federal prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama who brought the case may have improperly instructed grand jurors, which could lead a judge to dismiss the case or demand transcripts of the typically-secretive proceedings in which DOJ obtained the indictment, said several defense lawyers and former white-collar prosecutors.”

‘I Stand By Every Single Word’

The Atlantic’s Sarah Fitzpatrick talks about her exposé on FBI Director Kash Patel’s alleged drinking on the job and his subsequent defamation lawsuit against her and the publication: “One of the things that has most gratifying immediately after the story published was I have been inundated by additional sourcing, going up to the very highest levels of the government, thanking us for doing the work … providing us with additional corroborating information.”

The Purges: Trump DOJ Edition

Via a FOIA request, Reuters has tallied some of the staffing losses that DOJ and its components have suffered under Trump II:

  • DOJ National Security Division: -38%
  • ATF: -14%
  • FBI: -7%
  • DEA: -6%
  • Bureau of Prisons: -6%

In total, DOJ employees 11,200 fewer people than it did during the ​fiscal year that ended three months before Trump began his second term, according to Reuters.

Down the Memory Hole

Leaning on the flimsy OLC memo that declared the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional, the White House Counsel’s Office has issued a new policy watering down document retention requirements, the WaPo reports.

Sign of the Times

An Army Special Forces master sergeant involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was indicted in federal court in Manhattan for allegedly using classified information on the operation to make $400,000 placing bets on Polymarket.

Latest on the Middle East …

  • Hormuz Quagmire Alert: “He’s stuck with this, for as long as the strait remains closed,” an Iran expert tells the NYT, referring to Trump. “The speed with which this became a quagmire for the United States has been, also, quite stunning.”
  • The ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon will be extended for three weeks after a second round of talks at the White House, President Trump announced.
  • The Iran conflict has drained U.S. munitions to such a degree that some officials are warning that the United States can no longer fully defend Taiwan.

Pentagon Fires Ombudsman

The ombudsman for Stars & Stripes, charged by Congress with maintaining the independence of the military newspaper, was fired after speaking out against an overhaul of the storied publication that Trump officials accuse of being “woke,” the WaPo reports.

Thread of the Day

After his spectacular failure to push through a reauthorization of Section 702 in the dead of night last Thursday, Speaker Johnson is trying again—with a new proposal that’s almost identical to the one that failed last week. 1/18

— Liza Goitein (@lizagoitein.bsky.social) 2026-04-23T19:58:48.698Z

Mass Deportation Watch

  • NYT: Trump DOJ Targets Hundreds of Citizens in New Push for Denaturalization
  • WSJ: Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Has Continued Using a Waterfront Coast Guard House Since Ouster
  • Dropsite News: Two Iranian Women in ICE Detention Are Not, In Fact, Related to Qasem Soleimani, Documents Show

Quote of the Day

“First of all, I think it’s very important that the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that when the church is talking about morality that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality I believe there are greater and more important issues such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion that would all take priority before that particular issue.”—Pope Leo XIV

Hot tips? Juicy scuttlebutt? Keen insights? Let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.

Strong Horse, Weak Horse

Posted on by Josh Marshall

I mentioned this a bit earlier on Ari Melber’s show tonight when we were talking about the high-profile MAGA defections of Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Joe Rogan and others. I’ve seen various theories: It’s about the Iran War. It’s about AI Jesus. Yes, it’s about all those things, but as off-ramps more than causes or drivers. Trump looks like the weak horse and no one wants to bet on or be associated with the weak horse.

Continue reading “Strong Horse, Weak Horse” →

Johnson Pressures DeSantis to Gerrymander Maps After Virginia Win for Dems

Posted on by Nicole LaFond

They’re Begging You, Ron

Republicans in Congress are sweating after Viriginia voters approved a change to the state Constitution on Tuesday that allows for the use of new congressional maps this fall that would potentially flip four seats in Democrats’ favor (though, the state Supreme Court may still muck up matters for Dems).

Continue reading “Johnson Pressures DeSantis to Gerrymander Maps After Virginia Win for Dems” →

Trump Admin Election Deniers Set Their Sights on Detroit

Posted on by Khaya Himmelman

Hello, and welcome back to the Franchise!

The news of the week is, of course, the Virginia referendum, a setback for the Trump administration in its flailing plan to secure control of the U.S. House through a relentless months-long gerrymandering blitz. On Tuesday, Virginia voters approved a Democratic-led redistricting proposal, giving the party four additional congressional seats. 

Continue reading “Trump Admin Election Deniers Set Their Sights on Detroit” →

FAFO and Other Things We Learned in the 2025-26 Redistricting Wars

Posted on by Josh Marshall

We had an illustration Tuesday night of one of the most crucial questions in our current politics and the one that will determine whether civic democracy can have a rebirth in the U.S. Gerrymandering is a bane to civic democracy because it dilutes the expression of the popular will by building district lines around partisan advantage or to diminish the power of disempowered minorities. Democrats spent much of the 2010s and 2020s fighting a legal and legislative battle against gerrymandering. But the Roberts Court has chosen to legalize every manner of gerrymandering, making the current a destructive race to the bottom.

Democrats had a choice. They could express effete outrage and a meaningless devotion to broken norms and principles and agree to wage elections on a permanently tilted plane. Or they could decide to play by the rules Republicans had forced on everyone. They did just that and it was unquestionable the right decision by every measure. It really never seemed to occur to Trump Republicans that Democrats would fight on the playbook Republicans created. There’s a special comedy to this because anyone familiar with the facts on the ground knew that Republicans had already used gerrymandering much more aggressively than Democrats. So there was much more juice in the gerrymandering lemon for Democrats if and when they decided to employ tactics Republicans have been using for more than a decade. It’s worth Democrats considering how deeply Republicans had internalized the belief that Democrats would simply never respond in kind.

Continue reading “FAFO and Other Things We Learned in the 2025-26 Redistricting Wars” →