Hello it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️
There is a long list of famous and infamous people who can trace their roots to Albania including the pop singer Dua Lipa, Mother Theresa, dictator Enver Hoxha, and the late comedian John Belushi. And now, disgraced former New York City Mayor Eric Adams has joined the ranks of famous Albanians.
On Friday, the Albania Daily News reported that Adams was granted citizenship via a special decree from the country’s president, Bajrant Begaj. That news was later confirmed by other news outlets.
This actually all fits with the Adams brand. As mayor, he was fond of declaring that various cities around the world shared a kinship with New York. Since leaving office at the end of last year, Adams has popped up in Dubai and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Adams’ son, Jordan Coleman, has also had a fledgling reality TV and rap career based in Albania. And, even as he vied to lead the Big Apple, it was never entirely clear whether Adams actually lived in the city.
Furthermore, Adams is also a noted lover of international travel. In 2024, he was indicted for accepting bribes from foreign sources that included cheap plane tickets and hotel stays. The charges were controversially dismissed by President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, but the scandal helped tank Adams’ re-election bid.
As Adams pursues cryptocurrency tokens and other international business ventures, it should be noted that Albania has a robust extradition treaty with the United States. Adams did not respond to a text message from TPM so we have no idea what he’s doing in Albania or where he might wind up next. However, perhaps Ms. Lipa, that other famous Albanian summed up the situation best in her hit 2023 song “Houdini” wherein she noted, “I come and I go.”
“I’m not here for long,” Lipa sang. “Catch me or I go Houdini.”
It is something the star has in common with her (newly) fellow Albanian. Catch Adams while you can! Today, it’s Tirana. Tomorrow? Who knows!
— Hunter Walker
Should People Cool It With the Whole ‘TACO’ Thing?
The TACO debate reached new heights this week when President Trump threatened to rain destruction on Iran. The world collectively held its breath on Tuesday, waiting to see if Trump would go through with his warning about wiping out “a whole civilization,” possibly via nuclear war, or find some way to deescalate at the last minute. In what’s become somewhat predictable behavior for our very erratic president, he ultimately backed down, saying both sides had agreed to a two-week ceasefire. (Which has failed to hold in the days since).
Soon after the announcement, social media feeds filled with cheers of “TACO trump” and that disturbing AI image of the president’s head superimposed on a hardshell taco. But amid the celebration and mockery, plenty of critics asked if we could finally put the “TACO” nickname to rest. Joking about avoiding war crimes, focusing on the president instead of the Iranian people whose lives remain imperiled, and taunting Trump as a “chicken” for not going through with his most destructive, murderous impulses may not be the best tendency, they pointed out.
“Please stop saying TACO. We’re talking about an ungodly number of people who could die or maimed. It’s not time for cutesy little internet slang. We have to get away from this bizarre desensitization,” wrote Jared Yates Sexton, political analyst and writer of the Dispatches From a Collapsing State newsletter.
The nickname debate dates back to Trump’s first term. Many Trump haters embraced jokey names for him (insert your cheeto and Drumpf comments here); others on the left groaned in response, questioning whether it was a good idea to make Trump the permanent main character instead of talking about the harms his policies were causing and offering solutions, and eyerolling at what they viewed as the cornily online “blue MAGA” movement. Pro-nickname advocates countered that they were simply trying to maintain some levity in the face of an extraordinarily grim news cycle and to bring the larger-than-life president down to size — just as he does with all of his made-to-mortify monikers for political enemies.
The “TACO” epithet — or “Trump Always Chickens Out” — emerged this May, when a Financial Times columnist pointed out that the president would quickly back down from announcements of steep tariffs when the markets predictably freaked. That columnist, Robert Armstrong, has voiced concerns that the nickname could get to the famously thin-skinned president and cause him to act out.
“I have this slight worry that now he knows the phrase, and it’s banging around in his head, he’ll stop chickening out, which is exactly the outcome I don’t want,” he told CBC.
Certainly worth considering!
— Allegra Kirkland
Another Threat to Mifepristone Inches Closer to the Supreme Court
Judge David C. Joseph, a Trump-appointed district court judge in Louisiana, handed down a credulous opinion this week about the supposed dangers of mifepristone — but didn’t give Louisiana the abortion restrictions it wanted, at least yet.
The red state wants to reimpose restrictions on the drug, primarily the in-person dispensing requirement and a ban on dispensation through the mail. These restrictions were lifted temporarily during the COVID pandemic, and the FDA officially codified them in 2023.
Joseph stayed the case, pointing to the Trump FDA’s assertions that it’s in the process of reassessing mifepristone’s safety (an anti-abortion mainstay). Louisiana appealed to the ultra-conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case has echoes of FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, another attempt to ban or restrict mifepristone. A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the effort in 2024, finding that the anti-abortion doctors who brought the case lacked standing.
Louisiana v. FDA has similar standing issues; the state, with its virtually total abortion ban, is grasping for injuries on which to premise the challenge to the lifted restrictions.
Joseph swallowed the state’s tenuous and largely hypothetical arguments.
“In that post-Dobbs regulatory environment, there is evidence that the 2023 REMS was approved without adequate consideration, at least in part, as part of an effort to circumvent anti-abortion states’ ability to regulate abortion,” he wrote. “Likewise, there is evidence that the consequences of this action were predictable — out-of-state providers and related entities would expand access to mifepristone in ways designed to reach into jurisdictions like Louisiana. These actions cause concrete and ongoing injury to Louisiana, as further discussed below.”
It’s a total inversion of federalism, where a federal agency has to be responsive to state-level abortion regimes. Louisiana also tried some classic anti-abortion arguments, including that it might have to pay for mifepristone-induced emergency room visits for Medicaid recipients.
— Kate Riga
DOJ Faces Another Setback in Voter Data Crusade
On Thursday a federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Massachusetts — the latest legal setback in a series of similar actions against the DOJ’s ongoing crusade to seize sensitive voter data from the states.
Few states have complied with the department’s unprecedented demand for voter data, prompting the DOJ to take legal action against thirty states to try to force them to comply with the Trump administration’s overreach.
So far, the DOJ has demanded private voter data from at least 44 states and Washington, D.C. This data includes things like social security numbers and drivers license numbers. It’s not entirely clear what exactly the DOJ intends to with this information, but the entire campaign, as experts have told TPM, is undoubtedly a way to drum up fear about the safety and integrity of the country’s election system — and a way for Trump’s federal government to try to exert lawless control over states’ rights to administer election.
The DOJ demands for data heavily cite provisions in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) to justify their request. But none of these statutes give the DOJ the power to demand this type of protected data.
In his Thursday decision, former President Barack Obama-appointed District Court Judge Leo Sorokin, noted that the DOJ failed to offer a “basis” for its request.
“The United States’ complaint fails for the simple reason that the Attorney General’s demand did not comply with Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the statute on which it purports to rely,” Sorokin wrote in his ruling.
“The Attorney General’s demand for the Massachusetts statewide voter registration list was facially deficient. It failed to satisfy a simple requirement imposed by Congress as one precondition to obtaining documents under the authority of the Civil Rights Act of 1960,” the order says.
Thursday’s ruling is the fifth such loss for the DOJ’s voter data campaign thus far.
In recent months, federal courts have similarly dismissed cases in Oregon, California and Michigan. And a federal judge in Georgia dismissed a similar case in January because the lawsuit was filed in the wrong city.
— Khaya Himmelman
Today’s Heather and Paul;
Morning!
We cannot control what Trump does and does not do. But pointing out how he is a spinless braggart is one of the most effective tactics we have for breaking his hold on his cult or at least convincing them not to go vote for republicans in the future. The men of his base utterly despise what they call “weakness” and a huge reason they have been unwavering in their support of Trump is because of the very carefully created image of him as a very strong man. That image is so seductive to them. A man who never forgets a grudge, who gets revenge on people who slighted him, who never apologizes, and relentlessly belittles and attacks his enemies. Why do you think the "When someone punches Trump he punches back twice as hard” story is so repeated. Boys are taught from birth that backing down is cowardly and being a coward is literally the worst thing a man can be. Trump’s image feeds the desperation of many men extremely effectively. There are many arguments to be had whether that desperation is valid or not or is of their own doing, but nevertheless it is real for them, and Trump figured out exactly how to speak to it. So makine a joke out of how he actually never follows through on his threats if wall street doesn’t like it is absolutely making a big difference. And if you really want to engage in realpolitik - then maybe we should listen to the accerationists a bit and say - hey if Trump is susceptible into being goaded into doing something truly horrendous then maybe just maybe, that’s the only thing that will make the American Frog actually realized he’s sitting on a stove in a pot of water that has been getting hotter for a decade.
Thank you for not forcing me to mutter, “What’s good about it?” under my breath.
When it comes to doing something horrendous to U.S. persons I agree. They’re fond of saying “We elected him President” in an attempt to force our collaboration in their malfeasance. In this case he was threatening genocide in fact if not in name against an entire population, that’s a collaboration I want no part of. I prefer to simply call him Felon. It’s not jokey, it’s just the truth. If it enrages MAGA more than Felon, good.