If you’re running for Congress or considering running for Congress or know someone who is doing either, this message is for you. Presidents have no power over tariffs. Full stop. It’s not like war powers or pardons. Trump can only do this because Congress gave Presidents this power, as I explained in the a post yesterday. Congress can take it back at any moment. Given the minuscule Republican hold in the House, that means that every GOP representative is literally and personally responsible for these tariffs and their consequences. Every single one. High prices? Rep. X is responsible. He or she could end this but they’re not. A 401k that might flatline before you do? Thank Rep. X. They could end this but they’re supporting it. It’s crystal clear and has the benefit of being true.

The 2026 midterm is already underway. It really is.

That’s the whole message. It’s malpractice for anyone challenging a Republican member of Congress not to be on this today.

So is Elon really out, as the White House is claiming to beltway news outlets? Don’t bet on it.

First of all, he’s almost certainly not leaving DOGE.

Second of all, it would hardly matter if he did. He’ll keep running DOGE even if he nominally steps aside. Remember that at least in terms of what his minions are telling federal judges he doesn’t even run it now. The entire entity is run by his deputies and powered by the fear of his money and his power. He couldn’t stop running it without dismantling it. And of course neither is going to happen.

Amid the chaos and cacophony of Donald Trump’s second term, we’re sucked into this new mini-debate over a potential Trump third term. NBC News got the ball rolling with a headline that read: “Trump won’t rule out seeking third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so.” They were roundly criticized for that framing and other news organizations did better by putting the matter more squarely in their headline. For instance, there was The Washington Post, whose headline ran “Trump suggests ‘methods’ exist for bid for unconstitutional third term.”

That’s better, certainly. But there’s only one proper response to all these comments: “No, you’re not.”

Full stop. That’s the whole response.

This post is a second part of a post from March 11th of the same name placing Elon Musk in the tradition of the “over-mighty subjects,” a more common phenomenon a half millennium ago. The historical analogues to Musk were those magnates that were so powerful, both in wealth and the capacity to make war, that they threatened the sovereignty of the king. In America we have no king, whatever a lawless president might think, but we do have a sovereign: the American people. The analogy applies. Musk has so much power that he threatens the sovereignty of the American people, not only their right to their sovereignty but their right to be free, both collectively and individually.

News just broke that President Trump has withdrawn the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to serve as ambassador to the UN. It’s a good reminder that though we should never take joy from the suffering of others, there are some occasions when it’s okay. Luckily for Stefanik, she has not yet resigned her House seat. But she has given up her position as House GOP conference chair. And you don’t get those back. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) now has that job. And I assure you she is not going to do Elise a solid and get out of the way. So now it’s time for Stefanik to crank up the campaign machinery again and for her upstate constituents to realize they were her second choice.

A few days ago a friend told me that Chuck Schumer thinks he’s a minority leader but he’s actually an opposition leader. Or rather that’s the position into which history has placed him — and he doesn’t realize it or he doesn’t grasp the difference or he’s simply not able to be the latter thing. There are lots of ways to explain the disconnect or incapacity. But I thought this was a pretty good one.

Last night, in this vein, I suddenly realized there’s a backed-up line of incapacity, a traffic jam of it.

I watched the reaction to President Trump’s latest salvo, an executive order purporting to upend key elements of election administration in the United States. People have to prove citizenship to register to vote, it says. No states can accept votes by mail after Election Day — and much more. The country’s most prestigious news organizations rushed to report these as fait accomplis. The Times announced that, henceforth, Americans would have to provide proof of citizenship to vote. The Post was more or less the same.

I wanted to take a moment to set out some thoughts about the outer bounds of constitutional government in the United States, just where and at what point the American Republic might come apart or temporarily unhinged and how, potentially, to navigate such a situation.

For starters, where does the break point come? It seems clear to me that Trump plans to coerce the states into operating under his direct control by cutting off their flows of federal money from the federal government. We have already seen this with private institutions like Columbia University and other institutions in the form of NIH and other grants. Maine is already a focus because of the verbal confrontation between the state’s Gov. Janet Mills (D) and Trump back in late February.

I don’t want to say I told you so. Because lots of people were saying similar things. But I think I was right when I said that Chuck Schumer didn’t grasp the magnitude or the intensity of the fissure he was opening up in the Democratic Party with his handling of the Musk/Trump continuing resolution. (I said he was like one of those Chernobyl victims who’s already been fatally irradiated but seems fine. Radiation poisoning takes a few days to get you.) They thought it was just the online resistance types acting up and wanting a fight. They didn’t understand the depth of it. I’m pretty certain Schumer didn’t think he’d still be making the rounds of the morning shows going on two weeks later trying to hold on to his job.

In my mind, the real failure wasn’t even so much the one people watched play out a week ago. The real failure was in the preceding six weeks. I still think they should have refused the continuing resolution for all the reasons we discussed at the time. But by that time the Democrats really were in a jam. By laying no groundwork for the coming confrontation, they’d made it a much harder choice. In the internal hand-wringing I picked up in the 24 hours before Schumer’s cave, people were saying, “Yeah, we should be fighting. But it’s basically too late.”

I got an email from TPM Reader DH this morning asking what people in their everyday lives, people who aren’t close to the levers of political power, can do to, for lack of better words, help to save their country. I took a moment to write down a few thoughts and I decided to share it with you not because there’s any particular wisdom in it or because the prose is very polished but just because I’ve gotten the same question a number of times recently.

That’s a good question. I’m not sure I always have in mind who I’m talking to. But I think it may be more “ordinary” people than you might think. What I learned from the last ten years is that one of the most potent things ordinary people do is become part of fairly normie organizing in their communities. In Trump’s first term Indivisible groups down at the town and county level were a big big deal. Not always visible. Not big performative demonstrations. But ground level organizing focused around electoral politics in people’s communities. I think at moments like this that can feel somehow inadequate to the moment. But it’s not. It’s some of the most important stuff. There’s contributing to political activity, whether or it’s campaigns or groups. There’s showing up at things like townhalls. Again those are big deals. And many things we’ll sort of know when we see them.

In the background over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been trying to find out about the purported activities of the U.S. Marshals Service working at the behest of DOGE. When DOGE operatives took over the Foundation for African Development a couple of weeks ago, they reportedly made forced entry with the assistance of the U.S. Marshals. That’s not really what the Marshals do. They are housed within the Justice Department. But their job is to protect the federal judiciary and execute its orders. Special statutes exist that also allow them to enforce certain laws. But there was no court order here. So it didn’t really make sense.

When I poked around, it seemed like people just assumed they were Marshals. Or perhaps they identified themselves as such. But the more questions I asked, the less clear it was who they really were, notwithstanding the press reports that simply stated it as a fact. I put in a press request with the Marshals Service press office to confirm that these were in fact U.S. Marshalls. But I never heard back. Then yesterday there was a similar standoff at the U.S. Institute for Peace which ended with the Marshals again helping DOGE make forcible entry into the disputed premises. Or that’s what the initial reports in the Times said.