No Kings, No Occupations — Toward a Democratic Opposition Politics

We’re seeing lots of news today about the occupation of Washington, D.C. and the president’s takeover of the Metropolitan (D.C.) Police Department, as well as clear signals that he plans to expand this program to other big blue-state cities. I want to step back from the particulars to try to see the situation as a whole and consider the political ways to react to it. This builds on the point that grew out of my conservation with a TPM Reader a week and a half ago which is that the narrow issues of legality are mostly beside the point — not irrelevant, but at best secondary. The president views states and municipalities controlled by political opponents as something akin to conquered territories which must be bent to his will by force. This includes budgetary coercion and as close as he can get to military occupation. This is un-American, outside the constitutional order and, not least in importance, unpopular.

He has done this by exploiting various loopholes, taking advantage of a compliant and corrupt Supreme Court and resorting to expedients in which his power is most un-reviewable despite his actions clearly violating the plain intention of the laws in question. None of these technicalities change the fact that these are all violations of the liberties Americans are entitled to.

Continue reading “No Kings, No Occupations — Toward a Democratic Opposition Politics”

Trump’s Problematic Pick to Lead BLS Expected to Face Senate Hearing After All

E.J. Antoni, President Donald Trump’s problematic pick to lead the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, is expected to face a hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, or the HELP Committee, according to two people familiar with committee proceedings.

Continue reading “Trump’s Problematic Pick to Lead BLS Expected to Face Senate Hearing After All”

Trump’s Brutalization Of Abrego Garcia Now Involves Uganda

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

Lawless Retaliation and Abuse

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s dark journey through the lawless Trump immigration system took another grievous turn Monday morning when he was detained by ICE in Baltimore only three days after being freed from criminal custody in Nashville.

After his unlawful removal to El Salvador, his imprisonment there for months, a White House-led smear campaign targeting him, and the Trump administration’s retaliatory criminal case against him, Abrego Garcia now faces the threat of removal to a third country: Uganda.

In a filing Saturday, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys alerted the federal court overseeing the criminal case in Tennessee that the administration had tried to leverage him Thursday into pleading guilty to the trumped-up human smuggling charges against him by offering to send him to Costa Rica after he served his U.S. jail sentence on the smuggling charges. But after Abrego Garcia was released on bail Friday without agreeing to plead guilty, the administration notified his lawyers that it would deport him to Uganda and ordered him to report to the ICE office in Baltimore this morning.

“[T]he government took further coercive actions that leave little doubt that the entire federal government is engaged in a coordinated effort to punish Mr. Abrego for fighting back against its unlawful conduct,” his attorneys wrote in the filing.

The rapid series of events over the weekend is exactly the scenario his lawyers have been warning about for weeks and which U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland had tried to forestall long enough to allow the judicial branch to weigh in before Abrego Garcia was spirited abroad again, outside of the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

Trump’s brutalization of Abrego Garcia for having the temerity to challenge his wrongful removal to El Salvador — which the administration has conceded was a mistake — is a cruel face-saving move and a grotesque flex of executive power. Abrego Garica initial removal in March was in violation of an immigration judge’s order that specifically barred him from being deported to El Salvador. Since then the administration has done everything in and even beyond its power to avoid correcting its error; instead, it has piled on Abrego Garcia with more indignities and ever-greater punitive measures.

From the outset, the case was a measure of whether the federal judiciary would hold the line against Trump’s executive excesses. Time and again, the administration defied court orders, slow-rolled the case, acted in bad faith, and set the courts up to look like chumps. Judge Xinis was the target of most of the administration’s misconduct, and after being initially wrong-footed, rallied and stopped giving the administration or its lawyers the benefit of any doubt.

Ultimately, Xinis barred Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country without notice and chance for his lawyers to challenge it. Xinis took that step only after the administration spent three days in court across a week in July making the preposterous argument that it had no idea what it would do with Abrego Garcia if he was released from criminal custody.

As Lawfare’s Anna Bower reminds us, the administration kept insisting to Xinis in court that it would handle the Abrego Garcia case like any other detention case and wouldn’t even begin to make decisions until he was detained. And even then, it would be handled by a lowly case officer. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a judge or courthouse onlookers more unconvinced by an argument.

The events of the past few days have confirmed what Xinis and everyone else expected. The administration would find a way to retaliate against Abrego Garcia again and it would be anything but a normal case. After Abrego Garcia was detained this morning, the Department of Homeland Security renewed the smear campaign against him, recycling venomous allegations against him, some of which courts have already rejected.

Thread of the Day

It's worth reiterating that the administration has never wavered from the position that it sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador prison by accident. Everything they've done since is calculated to obscure that and punish him for existing as an example of their own stupidity and callousness.

Evan Bernick, a finite mode with a smol hooman and a scary floof (@evanbernick.bsky.social) 2025-08-23T19:50:39.546Z

Good Point

Former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer observes that Trump’s wild ambitions to end mail-in voting and replace voting machines in favor of paper ballots may exceed his power as president but seem to be a new litmus test of party loyalty for GOP election administrators:

What is especially striking is Trump’s statements in his tweet and again at the Oval Office press conference that he is working toward these goals along with the “Republican party.” This is almost certainly a move to make participation in this plan for “honest elections,” at his direction, a test of party loyalty. Republicans at all levels of election administration will have the choice to be either with him or against him in defending against losing control of the House in 2026.

Hegseth’s Pentagon Purge Continues

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse as head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and removed two other generals as part of an ongoing political purge of the Pentagon. No reasons were given for their terminations.

Only the Best People

President Trump is nominating Sergio Gor, White House personnel chief who has overseen the purges of government workers, to be U.S. ambassador to India.

Trump’s Brain Broke Sometime Around 1989

New York, N.Y.: Donald Trump looks up from a podium where he discusses the Trump Shuttle at his hotel, the Plaza Hotel in New York City on June 7,1989. (Photo by Ari Mintz/Newsday RM via Getty Images)

John Ganz, on the out-of-date luxury of Donald Trump:

As Trump redecorates the White House in faux rococo style, perhaps something like what Balzac is talking about accounts for the continued public fascination with the dated ’80s glitz and glamor that Trump represents. And it’s back, baby! This new generation seems intent on recapitulating the crass materialism, as well as the casual homophobia, misogyny, and racism of the 1980s.

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

Finding God in a Cracker Barrel

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

One of the major features of the modern MAGA movement — along with blind loyalty to President Trump and unbridled glee at the prospect of crackdowns led by masked federal troops — is constantly feeling aggrieved and angry about change. 

Targets of this ire have included museums and colleges that are seen as supposed bastions of “woke” culture, but also brands. The latest business to inspire a right wing meltdown is the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel — and no one freaked out harder than Republican Florida congressman and gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds. 

You see, Donalds, whose statehouse bid has Trump’s signature “Complete and Total Endorsement,” claims he found God in the homestyle restaurant’s parking lot. That righteous experience meant Donalds was extra angry when the chain changed their logo to remove the image of a seated man and barrel. 

On (of course) X.com, Donalds alluded to his religious experience as he blasted the redesign.

“In college, I worked at @CrackerBarrel in Tallahassee. I even gave my life to Christ in their parking lot,” Donalds wrote. “Their logo was iconic and their unique restaurants were a fixture of American culture. No one asked for this woke rebrand. It’s time to Make Cracker Barrel Great Again.”

Donalds and the other right wingers who are raging about the logo haven’t exactly explained what is remotely political about the change. The restaurant has actually updated its branding multiple times in its history. However, in past interviews, Donalds has actually explained the other part of his outburst and revealed how Cracker Barrel brought him to Jesus in 2001.

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network that aired in May, Donalds said the epiphany came as he was arranging silverware after serving a church group.

“The Lord spoke to me and was like, ‘Stop running from me.’ And so, like, it just it knocked me back,” Donalds said. Donalds ran out into the parking lot where the churchgoers were piling into their van. One asked if he was all right.

“No ma’am,” Donalds said. “I’m not OK.”

He went on to explain that “the Lord’s telling me to stop running” and the group prayed with him right there on the asphalt. “I still get emotional about it,” Donalds said. 

CBN broadcaster David Brody was moved by the story.  “You got saved in a Cracker Barrel!” he exclaimed to Donalds. 

Now, with the light in his life, Donalds has the strength, courage and platform to absolutely lose it for no discernible reason over a chain restaurant’s advertising campaign. 

Praise God (and pass the country combos and classics)! 

— Hunter Walker

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

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom trolls President Trump in a way that is sure to get under his skin like nothing else can: he’s stealing Trump’s grift game.
  • With a government shutdown on the horizon, some Democrats are demanding that Republicans’ sweeping Medicaid cuts be rescinded in exchange for their support in keeping the government open.
  • Opponents of “Alligator Alcatraz” scored a win in court on Thursday when Miami federal district court Judge Kathleen M. Williams issued an order that no more immigrants should be sent to the detention camp in the Everglades.

Let’s dig in.

Enter: Newsom the Troll

Newsom is making it clearer by the second that he is likely to launch a 2028 bid, as evidenced by his justifiably aggressive response to Trump’s nationwide gerrymandering bid to rig the midterms and the new online persona he’s rolled out to publicize his plans.

Some of it is cringe, like the all caps Trump Truth style tweets where Newsom — “YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR” — copied Trump’s voice in announcing his plans to redraw some congressional maps in California. Some of it is effective (Trump and his toadies make it easy). Some of it will get under Trump’s skin in a way that little else can: he’s stealing Trump’s grift. On Friday Newsom tweeted an image of new merchandise he supposedly intends to sell (more than likely its just another layer of his ongoing troll).

In some sense, whatever, go off. In another sense, beyond all the silly attention-grabbing pranks, Newsom is taking concrete steps to counter this White House. In moving quickly to redraw California’s maps and push back against Republicans’ redistricting power grab, he’s doing something that Democrats have struggled to do in fighting Trump for the past decade. He’s abandoning the higher ground and joining the no-holds-barred fight to stop Trump’s midterms ratfuckery.

—Nicole Lafond

Medicaid Cuts May Become a Sticking Point in Looming Gov’t Funding Fight

When congressional lawmakers return from their lengthy August recess, the talk of the town will be focused on how and if Congress will be able to pass a measure — either a continuing resolution or appropriations bills — to fund the government and avoid a government shutdown. The fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

Republicans will need Senate Democrats’ help in order to do that since legislation to fund the government is subject to the filibuster and requires 60 votes.

Some Senate Democrats are already demanding their caucus do nothing to help Republicans unless there are guarantees in place that President Donald Trump will use funds as appropriated — without illegally clawing back funds or attempting to send Congress constitutionally backwards rescissions packages.

Meanwhile others, especially appropriators, are pushing for a bipartisan appropriations process in order to fund the government. Though there are differing views among the Democratic caucus on how to proceed, healthcare is also becoming an issue Dems may leverage in their negotiations.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is already drawing a line in the sand, per Punchbowl, saying that Dems shouldn’t vote for any funding bills unless the Medicaid cuts Republicans stuffed into the so-called “big, beautiful” bill are rescinded.

“If Republicans want Senate Democrats to provide votes to fund the Trump administration, they can start by restoring the health care that they ripped away to finance more tax handouts for billionaires,” Warren told Punchbowl. “This government funding fight is about saving health care and lowering costs for millions of Americans.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has also said that it’ll be “tough” to get her vote on budget-related issues without action on Medicaid.

— Emine Yücel

Florida Judge Orders Temporary Shutdown of ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Detention Camp

Opponents of “Alligator Alcatraz” scored a win in court on Thursday when Miami federal district court Judge Kathleen M. Williams issued an order that no more immigrants should be sent to the detention camp in the Everglades.

Williams’ order came after a suit was filed by environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe, whose members have a reservation and a traditional camp located next to the facility. Along with stopping further migrants from being held there, Williams called for state and federal officials to remove current detainees within 60 days. The judge also ordered the dismantling of parts of the facility and a stop to new construction.

However, the fight over the detention camp, which has been spearheaded by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as part of his efforts to support President Trump’s mass deportation agenda, will not be over. Attorneys for the state immediately filed a notice indicating they plan to appeal.

“Alligator Alcatraz” has been mired in controversy since DeSantis and his allies announced it in late June. Attorneys and advocates have raised concerns about humanitarian conditions at the camp as well as legal issues, including detainees’ access to lawyers. Political opponents have also raised alarms about the nine-figure annual cost of the facility, which Florida is initially paying ahead of a supposed federal reimbursement. 

TPM has been chronicling the story with reports on the rushed construction, which included diverted disaster resources, and on the legal battle, which has been focused on environmental concerns. While the state has insisted the camp will have no environmental impact on the protected wetlands, evidence from environmental groups and the contracts analyzed by TPM indicated there were plans for paving at the site. We also talked with a tribal leader who described the Miccosukee’s concerns and called the project “an abomination to the whole concept of sovereignty.”

Both the Miccosukee and the environmental groups argued in court that the camp was built without environmental assessments and impact statements that are required for projects involving federal action. Government lawyers countered that the facility is not subject to federal law since it is being built and run by the state. 

Williams was evidently not swayed by that rationale. Along with declaring that the project would do “irreparable harm” to the surrounding environment, Williams described federal immigration enforcement as the “key driver” of the camp. Because of that, she found it was subject to federal regulations and standards. 

“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it’s a duck,” the judge wrote. 

— Hunter Walker

Some Trump Supporters Regret Their 2024 Votes Over Trump’s Handling of Epstein Files, Per New Poll   

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

Has President Donald Trump survived the latest and most serious firestorm of controversy over the Epstein scandal? Or has the Trump administration’s handling of the release of information concerning the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted child sex trafficker and Trump’s former friend, hurt the president?

A number of journalists, pointing to recent public opinion polls, have claimed that the scandal has hurt TrumpOthers have argued that the public has largely moved on and the Epstein controversy no longer presents a political liability for Trump.

But both of these conclusions are based on limited polling about the Epstein controversy and thus may be premature.

Our recent University of Massachusetts Amherst national poll includes particularly detailed questions about the Epstein controversy and attitudes toward Trump, and thus provides fresh insights on how the controversy has affected public support for Trump.

We find that Trump’s handling of the Epstein controversy has done significant damage to his standing, particularly among his core supporters.

Trump ‘fumbling the matter’

Americans are paying close attention to the prolonged Epstein controversy. Our polling finds that 3 in 4 respondents have heard, read or seen “a lot” or “some” about Epstein.

Moreover, most believe that Trump is fumbling the matter.

Seven in 10 Americans believe that Trump is handling the matter “not well.” This includes pluralities of Trump’s most loyal supporters, 43% of Republicans, 43% of conservatives, and 47% of those who voted for him in 2024.

When we drill down on the 47% of 2024 Trump voters who disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Epstein controversy, we find significant cracks in the MAGA facade. Among members of this group, 28% now disapprove of Trump as president.

When we take demographics, ideology, partisanship and assessments of the economy into account, disapproval of Trump’s handling of the release of the Epstein files is still associated with an increase in disapproval of Trump.

Voter regret

Even more significantly, we find that among 2024 Trump voters, negative views of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files are associated with an increased desire to make a different choice if the 2024 election could be rerun.

More specifically, among Trump voters who believe that the president has mishandled the release of the Epstein files, more than one quarter – 26% – indicate that they would not vote for Trump if they had the opportunity to vote again in the 2024 election.

While there are no election do-overs, it is clear that the Epstein scandal has hurt Trump among his base of voters.

Much can happen between now and the midterm elections in November 2026, of course.

But if Trump fails to satisfy his political base, perceptions among Trump voters that he has mishandled the controversy could reduce enthusiasm and participation in the elections. Even if the share of Republicans alienated by the Epstein controversy is relatively small, this could hurt Republicans in close contests.

With over a year to go, the facts on the ground will likely change. But as of today, the controversy over the release of the Epstein files remains relevant. Whether the president responds in a manner that satisfies his voters is a question that could have important political consequences.

Let the Race Begin!

California Governor Gavin Newsom is plowing ahead with plans to gerrymander California’s congressional map to match the partisan gerrymander speeding to passage in Texas. He’s also been on a nonstop crusade going back a couple weeks — one half elaborate parody, one half frontal assault — using memes, all-caps, and boffo trash talk to attack Donald Trump. Not everyone likes Gavin Newsom. Personally, I’ve never been strongly in the fan or hater camp. But Newsom is doing exactly what we should be expecting of every Democratic politician today, especially those in executive office at the state level and especially those looking for promotions or to remain in office.

Continue reading “Let the Race Begin!”

John Roberts Is Responsible For America’s Embarrassing Gerrymandering Mess

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes

At the behest of President Donald Trump, Texas Republicans are in the midst of making their state even more of a mockery of the concept of representative democracy than it already was. In an attempt to preserve the GOP’s narrow House majority in the 2026 midterms, lawmakers are tinkering with the boundaries of the state’s 38 congressional districts to create five more safe Republican seats, forcing several Democratic incumbents to seek re-election next year in districts that are suddenly, alarmingly red. Scrambling the map in this manner would ensure that in a state in which Trump earned 56 percent of the vote in 2024, Republicans would lock up 80 percent of the state’s representation in Congress for the rest of the decade.

In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has asked lawmakers in his state to create a new map that would eke out five additional safe Democratic seats until 2030. Ambitious elected officials elsewhere are exploring similar retaliatory options, eager both to make the national electoral landscape friendlier for their parties and also to publicly take credit for doing so. In Texas, Republicans grew so desperate to maintain the quorum necessary to move forward that they had a handful of Democrats physically confined to the chamber overnight—generally speaking, not a sign that democracy is “in a good place.”

As is so often the case in American politics, you can draw a straight line between this frantic gerrymandering arms race and a mind-bendingly stupid decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, the five Republican justices held that court challenges to partisan gerrymanders could not go forward in federal courts because such cases present a “political question”—basically, a question that judges (ostensibly) cannot answer using legal principles. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the Constitution yields no workable standard for determining when a given gerrymander goes too far to be legal. Citing the line in Marbury v. Madison about the Court’s duty to “say what the law is”—always a good sign that a conservative justice is about to bullshit you—Roberts concluded that this time, the Court’s “duty is to say, ‘This is not law.’” (Do you see what he did there?)

It is of course true that the Supreme Court did not invent partisan gerrymandering, let alone force Texas Governor Greg Abbott to speed-run fascism by issuing civil arrest warrants for Democratic lawmakers who had the temerity to oppose his redistricting gambit. But the Court is responsible for its choice to tie its own hands six years ago, thus enabling these lawmakers to cement themselves in power without fear of interference from pesky, meddling federal courts. 

In what is, in my view, still one of the most embarrassing paragraphs to appear in the pages of the United States Reporter, Roberts wraps in Rucho by noting that the holding constrains only federal courts; Congress, he says, would remain free to enact anti-gerrymandering legislation, as would lawmakers at the state level. The argument here is that voters who are dissatisfied with corruption in the political process don’t actually need John Roberts’s help, because they can always seek redress of their grievances via the aforementioned corrupt political process. This is roughly analogous to the fire department pulling up to a burning house, attaching the hoses to fire hydrants, and then politely informing the owner that it could rain any minute.

Roberts’s premise is, to put it generously, dubious: As Steve Vladeck points out, there are standards the Court could have decided to prescribe for use in partisan gerrymandering cases, if it were so inclined. The problem, of course, is that the conservative justices do not give a shit about partisan gerrymandering, because they understand basic facts about how politics in this country works: Nationwide, Republicans control 59 of 99 state legislative chambers, and hold both the legislature and the governorship in 24 states, compared to just 15 for Democrats. In other words, Republicans have more power over the line-drawing process in more places than their Democratic counterparts, who are always scrambling to catch up.

As Newsom has demonstrated, Democrats are as capable as Republicans of drawing maps that ruthlessly squeeze their opponents out of power. But the bet Roberts made in Rucho is that, on balance, the existence of unchecked partisan gerrymandering is better for his fellow Republicans than the absence of unchecked partisan gerrymandering. Appealing to the supposed difficulties of crafting “politically neutral” standards for solving problems is a time-honored maneuver among judges seeking to wash their hands of problems they do not want to solve. At one point, Roberts carefully notes that the justices in the majority do not “condone” partisan gerrymandering, but if they did, I am not sure how they would have decided the case any differently.

What is happening in Texas and California and elsewhere right now demonstrates just how vapid and hollow the reasoning in Rucho always was. You do not have to have a law degree to understand that a Texas map that transforms a 56-42 advantage into a 79-21 blowout is not, in any meaningful sense, fair. You do not need to be a Supreme Court justice to understand that a California map that would turn Kamala Harris’s 58 percent vote share in 2024 into 94 percent of power in the House does not allow for equal participation in the political process. 

But this is the price that Rucho is forcing millions of voters to pay: Roberts borrowed the language of judicial humility, warning of the potential dangers of cavalierly empowering federal courts to answer hypothetical questions that might be difficult. All he did is prevent federal courts from answering very real questions that are not.

Cities Are Getting a Preview

One benefit of what is happening in DC is that Donald Trump is giving every major city a preview of the plan, the model they want to pursue. Only in the every other major city in the country, he’ll lack a key tool: the takeover of the local police force. The courts will likely still allow deployment of National Guard and federal police organizations: ICE, CBP, DEA, FBI etc. That’s a lot. But local governments control over their police organizations and the apparatus of local government is a major difference. Every state and major municipal government needs to be stepping forward now with what their plan is. There’s no excuse for being caught off guard or unprepared.

Retribution Alert: FBI Raids Home of Trump Nemesis John Bolton

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

DOJ Weaponization in Overdrive

The FBI showed up early Friday morning at the Bethesda, Maryland home of former Trump I national security adviser John Bolton, apparently executing a court-authorized search warrant in what is reportedly a classified materials case — in yet another example of President Trump abusing the powers of his office to target his critics … and Bolton in particular.

Bolton, whose D.C. office was also reportedly searched this morning, became a strident critic of Trump after leaving the White House in 2019. The first big clash with Trump occurred over allegedly classified information Bolton used in his 2020 memoir. That led to an extended legal battle and a criminal investigation by the Trump I Justice Department. Bolton claimed at the time, with compelling evidence, that he was being singled out and retaliated against by the Trump White House for his Trump criticism.

After failing to stop the book’s publication ahead of the 2020 election, the Trump I DOJ opened a grand jury investigation into whether Bolton unlawfully disclosed classified information in the book. It subpoenaed Bolton’s publisher and agency, the NYT reported then. The following summer, under President Biden, the investigation of Bolton was closed and the government dropped its lawsuit seeking to recoup profits from the book, the NYT reported contemporaneously.

It’s unclear whether the trumped-up investigation of Bolton now is a result of the original book investigation being reopened — probably the easiest path to targeting Bolton — or is related to other matters. Regardless of the pretext, Bolton has already been targeted by Trump abusing the powers of his office during his second term.

As soon as he took office in January, Trump revoked the Secret Service protection for Bolton that Biden had restored, despite an ongoing threat to Bolton from Iran. At the same time, one of Trump’s very first executive orders on Jan. 20 revoked the security clearance for Bolton, specifically citing the book dispute:

National security is also damaged by the publication of classified information.  Former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton published a memoir for monetary gain after he was terminated from his White House position in 2019.  The book was rife with sensitive information drawn from his time in government.  The memoir’s reckless treatment of sensitive information undermined the ability of future presidents to request and obtain candid advice on matters of national security from their staff.  Publication also created a grave risk that classified material was publicly exposed.

This is almost too fine of a distinction to make, but it’s worth noting that unlike some of the bogus investigations the Trump White House and DOJ have pursued, where the threat of criminal prosecution is the cudgel, a search warrant requires a judge’s signoff. Judicial oversight is the one of the remaining safeguards against a fully weaponized federal law enforcement apparatus, but that alone doesn’t render the entire investigation legitimate.

The politicization of this investigation was further confirmed by curiously timed social media posts from FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi this morning that didn’t mention Bolton by name but seemed to revel in the FBI raid. In his own book in 2023, Patel included Bolton in a list of “members of the Executive Branch Deep State.”

The Latest Injustice of Ed Martin

Trump DOJ weaponization chieftain took the bogus investigation of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook to a new level yesterday when he sent a letter to Fed Chair Jerome Powell urging him to fire her: “At this time, I encourage you to remove Ms. Cook from your Board. Do it today before it is too late! After all, no American thinks it is appropriate that she serve during this time with a cloud hanging over her.”

Judge: Alina Habba Not Lawfully Appointed

An outside judge brought in after President Trump rejected the U.S. attorney picked by federal judges in New Jersey and purported to reinstall Alina Habba has ruled that she has been acting unlawfully in the role since July 1.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, the chief judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, took a long, meandering stroll through the byzantine appointment laws and concluded that indictments handed down during Habba’s unlawful tenure were still valid but agreed with the criminal defendants who challenged Habba’s appointment and disqualified her from participating in their prosecutions.

Brann won’t have the last word on this issue, and one of the leading experts on appointment laws has doubts that his decision will hold up on appeal.

For Your Radar …

The Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia abruptly resigned this week after just barely a month on the job. Todd Gilbert, who was Trump’s nominee for the position and was serving as interim U.S. attorney while the Senate considered his nomination, had stepped down in June from his seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in order to join the Trump administration.

Neither Gilbert nor the Justice Department is commenting on why he resigned. Gilbert posted a wry tweet on his last day in the office:

NY Appeals Court: No Penalty at all for Trump’s Fraud

In a convoluted 300-plus-page clusterfuck of opinions, a split New York state appeals court panel upheld the civil fraud verdict that Attorney General Letitia James won against Donald Trump but voided the $500 million in penalties as “excessive.” If I read the opinions right, the court left no penalties intact for the fraud most of the judges agreed occurred. The case is all but certain to go now to the highest court in New York.

SCOTUS Lets Rogue Trump Run Rampant … With Caveats

In a deeply troubling emergency decision that cements a pernicious Trump II pattern, a 5-4 Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to cancel some $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants for research on DEI, transgender issues, and COVID while the case proceeds. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent. Justice Amy Coney Barrett signaled her concerns with the underlying merits of Trump’s funding cuts, but by the time the court gets the case back on full appeal the damage to research and research institutions will have been done.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson summoned all the indignation and despair that the historical moment demands in calling out the Supreme Court for failing to defend the judiciary’s role and rolling over for Trump: “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”

Cult of Personality Alert

Alina Habba says the federal judges should "just be doing their job — respecting the president"

Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-08-22T01:37:15.303Z

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

Trump, As Always, Is Sharing His Election Stealing Plans Publicly

Since directing Texas Republicans to help him steal the House in the midterms, President Trump has been pretty forthcoming about his belief that Republicans are “entitled” to five more seats in Texas, simply because he is popular there.

Continue reading “Trump, As Always, Is Sharing His Election Stealing Plans Publicly”