I’ve written a number of times about the central role of state sovereignty in resisting Trump’s growing tyranny and the critical fact that states control the administration of elections. With that in mind, I want to flag what I think is a key part of that equation. It’s not meant to be alarmist. It’s simply a matter of preparation.

As we’ve discussed, states control the administration of elections, subject to Congress setting standards for the administration of elections. This critical fact isn’t just a matter of law. It’s about the machinery of government. The states are there and the federal government isn’t. Trump can dash off a million executive orders but that doesn’t make them real or meaningful. More dangerous, he might try to use Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents or federal troops to create a climate of intimidation at the ballot box. That threat is real. But because of the structure of our elections, the key danger point likely comes later. Let’s assume the 2026 election or more likely the 2028 election goes more or less unmolested. Now in January 2027 the new representatives and senators show up for the new Congress. Are they seated? Or do congressional Republicans somehow refuse to seat them, arguing that their elections were somehow illegitimate, that they didn’t follow one of Trump’s legally meaningless executive orders?

I want to focus in on two news items today.

The first is the report that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) will soon announce she will not run for re-election. This isn’t a total surprise. There were signs this was coming. But it’s still an important development and one that signifies something larger. She’s now the second Republican senator up for reelection next year who has opted to retire. The first was Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina. Not long after this Ernst news was reported, we learned that conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley is also opting not to run for reelection next year. It’s hard for me to imagine that Ernst’s final decision wasn’t impacted by Tuesday’s blow out win by Catelin Drey in an Iowa state senate special election race, in what is normally a strongly pro-Trump district.

It goes without saying that both Ernst and Bradley likely realized that these were at least going to be difficult races — Democrats have won four of the last five Wisconsin court races. And quite possibly they’d lose. But this also reminds us that one of the usual factors in a blow out or wave election cycle is that a non-trivial number of incumbents see what’s coming and retire. That tends to magnify the wave party’s advantage because the in-party has an even harder time holding a seat without the power of incumbency.

Now I’m not predicting a wave election. Iowa certainly will still be a very challenging race even without Ernst in it. My point is simply that a lot of the building blocks of a wave get determined well before any votes get counted. The people who speak with the most credibility and authority about the political environment going into 2026 are Republican incumbents. And they’re starting to speak pretty clearly. It started with the Spring town halls, or the lack thereof.

I’m by no means the first one to note this. But it’s so important that I want to make sure it’s at the top of your mind. Have you noticed that out of the blue all of Donald Trump’s enemies seem to be getting investigated for mortgage fraud? Letitia James, Adam Schiff and now Fed Board member Lisa Cook; and it’s the pretext for her purported firing by President Trump?

Well, it turns out there’s a reason. Bill Pulte is Trump’s Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an agency created as part of the Global Financial Crisis reforms. From that post he finagled his way into being the head of Fannie Mae and Sallie Mae, the quasi public institutions which back a huge percentage of American home and student loans.

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.

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.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that we’re getting set to celebrate the 25th anniversary of TPM, what with all the site signage and so forth. I’m not going to get into the precise details because they’re still being ironed out. And our team is putting a lot of time into what we have planned and I don’t want to get ahead of their formal roll out. But we’ve got some fun things in the works for later in the year. There are two parts of it that I wanted to mention to you. First, this fall we’re going to host a two-day celebration of TPM’s anniversary in New York City. It won’t quite be a New Yorker Festival type thing, but it will be a lot more than a panel discussion or a live podcast. Think of it as maybe a micro-festival. The TPM 25th Anniversary micro-festival. So that’s coming up. As I said, details will be announced in the not-too-distant future, including how to by tickets and so forth.

There’s another part of it that I’m really excited about. As part of the 25th Anniversary celebration we’ve commissioned 25 essays on a range of topics tied to the evolution of digital news media since the year 2000, which is mostly, but not all, the history of the digital news. I’ve seen the list of contributors and it’s a really cool group of people, people who’ve been involved in that story in different ways over the years in all different parts of it. When I recently saw the finalized list, I was going through the names and topics and, with almost every one, I’d think, “wow, so cool we got that person to write a piece.”

Last night I got an email from TPM reader LE. She started by explaining that she’s been reading TPM for at least a couple decades, going back to earlier early adulthood phases of her life, and is now a state legislator in a midwestern state. So the idea that state governments are central to the current moment is of great interest and resonated with her. (A side note: this introduction warmed my heart on many levels.) But she asked, more as a rhetorical question, than as a question to me: what specifically? Yes, state power is clearly critical but just what elements of state power should we be focusing on, where are the specific resistance points?

I had perhaps an over-convenient answer: I’m focused on the big picture. The small picture, well, good question …

But it did make me start thinking: If the concept is right, operationally what’s first? If state officials are saying what should we be doing, what should people advise?

This got me to thinking and I thought of various ideas and various ways of answering the question. So let me share a few of those, not in any comprehensive way but as a way of starting a conversation.

Yesterday (in this post which didn’t go up as a BackChannel) I discussed the idea of “strategic depth” as a way of thinking about the sovereignty of the states in the battle against Trumpism. I want to expand on that. Because it’s become pretty central to my thinking about how the United States is going to survive the next three and a half years and begin the process of battling back. “Strategic depth” is primarily a concept for military studies. It refers to the shape and arrangement of the physical territory a country controls and how close its borders, which may be vulnerable to military attack, are to its concentrations of population, political and industrial centers. If all a country’s key stuff is right near a vulnerable border that’s a big problem. But in addition to where its key stuff is, does it have a lot of territory to fall back on if it suffers early defeats?

There’s a long way to go before November 2026. The pace of malign events just keeps increasing. But even with all that I want to mention some significant shifts on the 2026 Senate recruiting front. It’s an article of faith for very good reasons that regaining control of Senate is an almost impossible hill for Democrats to climb given the map in play. Democrats have two challenging holds in Georgia and Michigan. Their best pickup opportunities are in states that have repeatedly eluded them, Maine and North Carolina. Beyond that it’s all reliably red states. All that, alas, remains basically the same. But there are a series of shifts that make Democrats taking over the Senate look more plausible even though the odds remain against it.

Let’s run through some details.

I just belatedly read this piece by TPM alum and all around reasonably good fellow Brian Beutler wrote on the question of resistance to the Trump administration. Voting, organizing, protesting — those are all pretty straightforward. But what about when those aren’t enough? He starts from that saying we hear a lot now: No one’s going to save us. We’re going to have to save ourselves. Well, what does that mean exactly, Brian asks. How do people protect themselves from manifestly illegal, tyrannical government actions or the violent paramilitaries they are working to cultivate? When does opposition and resistance need to move into extra-constitutional or extra-legal actions? These are harrowing, frightening and perhaps quite literally perilous questions to ask.

Brian starts by discussing whether DC should loosen its fairly tight gun laws. He’s quite conflicted about it. He also discusses the possibility and difficulties tied to blue states withholding taxes from the federal government. Very much by design, the federal government collects taxes directly from individuals. But he suggests some creative ways to square that circle that are floating around. Read Brian’s piece if you can.