<....When Nikki Haley hopped in, that was an opportunity for the Republican Party to kind of right the ship. I do feel, going back and looking and talking to people, you did have a lot of Republicans there, but there were a lot of Democrat crossovers as well that crossed over to try to help stop Trump through that means. [But] I mean, this was a long time coming. Like I said, I decided I really wasn't a part of it. After 2021, feeling a bit politically homeless, I decided that, if we couldn't stop them in the primaries, then there was really no place for socially liberal Republicans, if that makes sense; Republicans that are maybe fiscally conservative, or a moderate version of that with strong foreign policy. There's really no place. … Some of the policies that Trump shifted to would be considered far left. And honestly, the truth behind it is, Kamala Harris, the way that she ran her campaign, hopping in there late was, I thought was excellent. She was more conservative than Trump on — as far as the principled conservative goes — on pretty much everything from her economic policy to her foreign policy, to her law-and-order stance and the Constitution.

If you look at Trump, and you look at his stance in those ways, he's not a conservative — he's a right-wing populist, which, unfortunately, these days, they've taken these terms and they kind of turn them on their head for political reasons. And so it really confuses people when you throw these terms out there, [but] a social conservative with no principles or values is not a conservative at all. But long story short, that was it. I mean, there was really no going back from that point. And I've been asked so many times, over and over and over again, to run as a Democrat in the state of Alabama. Alabama has huge issues. And yet, you look at our past couple races here, and the people at the top of the ticket lose by what, 20, 30 points.

To that point, do you feel like you're going on a noble suicide mission?

Well, no, I mean, this is something that has to be done. There is a grand opportunity. It’s sad how the state of Alabama has been left by the Republican Party, and it's a tragedy. But there is an opportunity here to install a two-party system again in our state. We've had one-party Republican rule for 15 years; 40% of our population lives in poverty, okay? Fifteen years of Republican rule: that's a supermajority Republican state House, Republican state senate, office of the governor. Not only do they have that — and they have most of the judges in the Supreme Court — now you have a Republican U.S. Senate, Republican U.S. House, Republican president. So they are literally the establishment. They've been the establishment here.

And you look at a lot of these guys, the chair of the Alabama Republican Party — he's registered to vote in Tennessee. … Then you have Tommy Tuberville, who lives in a $6 million mansion in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, spends most of his time there. … I mean, we are in bad shape down here. I'll be honest with you: We're in bad shape. I'm so proud of Alabama. I'm proud of the people that live here. But the bottom line is that 40% of our population lives in poverty, and we die quicker than everybody else in the United States, almost; we're 49th in life expectancy, and a lot of that is related to poverty. People don't have the access or the ability to get the health care that they need. We've got sky-high infant mortality rates here, likely due to poverty.

"If you don't draw a line and choose the fight that you can win, then you will continue to lose, and you will continue to lose your rights."

You've got sewage infrastructure that is falling apart and overflowing into our waterways and the Republican Party can't get it together. They can't use their political capital to rebuild this infrastructure. Just a few weeks ago, we had 4 million gallons of sewage during a storm, 4 million gallons, come out it and much of it ends up in our waterways, that then goes down to Mobile Bay; that affects our seafood industry; that affects Baldwin County; Alabama's multi-billion dollar tourism industry — we've got nice beaches down here; that affects recreational fishermen; that affects people swimming in the water. … And this stuff doesn't get reported on the way that it needs to. We just get left behind.

And a lot of that is what really spoke to people in the state of Alabama: just feeling left behind always. But they [the local GOP] were able to use this where it really should have been kind of focused in on the Republican Party here, and the failings of the Republican Party, and turn it onto the federal government. And it was effective. It worked for someone like me. And as I got into this stuff, I started understanding, I started learning a lot more, I started to change my mind about things....>

<....Right now, our state is not being served by somebody like Tommy Tuberville, and you can replace them with any other kind of guy, and they're just going to do the same thing. You look at his record, and specifically, I think, two years in, [Sen.] Katie Britt, [she] was at $200 million, bringing in $200 million to the state of Alabama, when Tommy Tuberville was at like $67 million — absolutely pathetic.

That's what you get when you got a guy that lives in a multi-million-dollar beach house in Florida. The state party fails to hold this guy accountable. And you know, you show up to vote and you've got an all Republican and all Democrat bubble on your ticket, and so people don't pay attention, but you look down that ticket and you see 50-60% or more are unopposed Republicans that win by default. So there is zero accountability. I would say they wouldn't have any kind of principles, because they don't have to.

So really, this is about rebuilding the Democratic Party and state of Alabama, bringing in the working class in the state of Alabama. I have a construction background. I have a small business background. I work in and out of people's houses. I talk to people where they're comfortable. I work in and out of chemical plants, manufacturing facilities, you name it. I've been in those places. I worked on an oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon, when it blew in the Gulf of Mexico. I worked on a boat as a small boat captain. I eventually was put on, as a civilian, a special task force with the Coast Guard. And I was the youngest captain on that task force by about 20 years. I put myself in danger to protect the environment, protect our beaches here, because it means a lot to me.

The Republicans, they failed here on the environment. … People love the outdoors, but Republicans have been failing us all the way across the board. But it has a lot to do with accountability. When you have zero accountability, then you end up with this.

As you well know, Alabama has had a long history of being a one-party state. Like 50 years ago, that one party was the Democrats. And you can get into the historical reasons there was the switch — you know, the Civil Rights Act and attempts by Republicans to explicitly appeal to white racial resentment, etc. — but my question is: How do you then break that one-party mentality? Because the only time it's been broken in my memory is when the Republican candidate was accused of being a literal pedophile. Then a Democrat got elected.

You're well aware of partisanship. I’ve had the same conversations with my family: that today's Republican Party is not really conservative, but it falls back to, “Well, we don't like liberals, and the liberals want to abort babies and make kids trans” and all this stuff. It's about what they're against, not what they're for. How do you counter that mentality where it's, like, you don't have to love every Republican, but you know the Democrats, your whole life, you've been told that they are the enemy.

We pick a new fight. We pick new fights and new battles. We don't fall into the same battles where Democrats lose over and over again. And we can fight on these same issues, especially in the state of Alabama. For instance, the supposed pro-life stance of the Republican Party, which is bogus, by the way, in our state — what direction do they go from this point? … Because they have to keep going somewhere, it has to keep rolling or it shuts down. So the direction, as far as I can tell, that they're going is: they want to track women across state lines, like cattle. … I mean, it would be an egregious step…. They especially talked about this a lot last year, going after people, legally, for going to clinics out of the state or whatever. Well, how do you do that? Now you have to track people. That's how you do it. My point is that this is the battle that we need to fight, because you will find probably a good majority of Republicans here will not agree with that. The government does not need to be tracking law-abiding citizens based on pregnancy. I mean, that's just the bottom line.

Sure, so maybe you don't refight the whole abortion battle, but you can point out that the government tracking women's periods and movements around the state, that's just — from a constitutional conservative perspective, that's a little bit much....>

<....Yeah, it's too much. And to other Democrats, look: If you don't draw a line and choose the fight that you can win, then you will continue to lose, and you will continue to lose your rights. So right now, that is the line. And another thing: We got to play like Republicans here, or the MAGA Republicans here, but we can use the truth instead of lies. Look at [Tennessee]. A state elected official in [Tennessee], a year or two ago, was trying to put a bill up for banning interracial marriages. I mean, could you imagine if a Democrat did something like that? It would be blown up all over the news, nonstop. It doesn't matter what state it’s in: they would make the Democratic Party own that.

We need to make the Republican Party own that stuff. Because, to be completely honest, from talking to people in their houses, people believe that stuff [about Democrats]. We do not need to let that catch fire; we need to put that fire out. And the way to put that fire out is to put it out there and make them own. And guess what? We will all be better for if we make the Republican Party own policies like that, because then they'll have to come out as a whole, and they will have to say they don't agree with that, and then the people in their base that think that they are being served by this rhetoric, or whatever it is, will have to come to terms with that.

A lot of that is why we're here today. There hasn't been the pushback that we need, really, in our state. Like I was pointing to Tommy Tuberville living in Florida, and the vice chair of the RNC living in or having a driver's license and registered to vote in Tennessee. I mean, come on, we have to start swinging. We have to start swinging hard against them — metaphorically, of course — and taking the fight to these people. And look, I get it: Doing all the activism that I've done over the past two years in trying to break through to people, I get it — when you get on their radar, you get hundreds, maybe thousands of threats. They threaten to destroy your business, they threaten to kill your family, they threaten to kill you. They threaten to end you forever, basically. And I get that people are scared, but I'm not scared, and I'm gonna take it to them.

Is there anyone in the Democratic Party who you see as a model for the kind of campaign you would like to run or politician you would like to be? I'm thinking maybe even outside the Democratic Party, like Dan Osborn in the last cycle.

I look at everybody, and I try to take the best of what I can take, and that's what we're going with right now. … I'll be honest though: Kamala Harris' platform in 2024 was a surprise, and it was excellent. Obviously, you're not going to agree with everything, but I think that was a definite movement in the right direction. And I just think that that's something good to look at. And really how she spoke and did things and carried herself. She did excellent. I really appreciate what she did. And so hopefully we can stay in that direction, and we can focus on winning some of these voters over that have been kind of turned off by the whole system.

The state of Alabama, for instance, 2024: as big a motivated Trump country as we are, you look at the voter turnout. Out of all the people that registered, only 57% turned out for that. So we got 43% that were completely turned off. Then on top of that, you've got Trump isn't going to be on the ballot in ‘26, so that's going to chop into some of his people. So the goal is: One, to, like I said, target some of these socially liberal Republicans and win them over and move them over to the Democratic Party, because honestly, they're better represented. And there's going to be a lot of people there, they’re in a rock and a hard place, even if it's 51% to 49%, what represents their interests, or what represents what they believe, a lot of these people, I don't think they understand that the Democratic Party represents them better than the Republican Party. Looking at the economy, looking at the failures of the GOP in our state and how it's led to these issues where we've got rural hospitals that are being closed, over 80% operate in the red. That's rural Alabama — it’s going to get shut down by the new GOP policies trying to cut Medicaid.

You’ve mentioned a couple times now how Kamala Harris' 2024 campaign, you thought her platform was pretty solid and in some ways even conservative in the traditional sense. But at the end of the day, she lost. And some people take the lesson from that, especially for someone like you running in a state like Alabama, that the lesson is “we just gotta lean into being kind of Trump-lite; we gotta be a little harsher to immigrants; we gotta be a little bit harsher to trans people; we gotta be a little bit harsher to X, Y and Z; maybe give the police a lot more money." Kind of be Trump, but competent....>

<....What do you think of that whole debate, like the idea that the way to win in a state like yours is to be a more professional, intelligent MAGA Republican?

That ship has sailed. That's something that I don't think we're going to see come back. And those guys are better off making a few concessions and coming over to the Democratic Party. Look at the economy: I'm running to represent the state, and the state's interests, as a U.S. senator, and so I'm going to run based on, one, I lived in Alabama pretty much my whole life and I know people here. I know how our economy works. I've bled and sweat and helped build Alabama — personally, with my hands. Look, some of these other guys — all pretty much suits — they've taken that approach. This is a different approach that I'm taking and that we're taking, and it's going to be effective at winning people over. I don't hope, I know it's going to be effective at winning people over.

The Trump-lite thing to me is still disgusting. Because, as I said before, I've watched what his rhetoric is doing to people here. It's teaching people to hate gay people, the LGBTQ community. It's teaching people to hate immigrants. And there's many cases that I could point to. … There was the whole Haitian immigrant thing. Well, they freaked out over in Baldwin County, and the local politicians, Republicans, held a town hall and acted like there were 1,000 people there. “Oh, the Haitians are coming here!” And they weren't. They weren't coming there. But what happened was, is because of that, people in Mobile — where I live, on the other side of the bay — started commenting and saying, “Oh, I saw some Haitian immigrants here today.” And then you realize now they're just targeting people because of the color of their skin. We didn’t have any Haitian immigrants at the time, you what I'm saying?

I mean, this is horrible. And I don't have a problem going toe to toe with these people and telling them they're wrong and what they're doing is wrong, because somebody's got to do it. And you've got to do it loud, but you do have to do it right. In Tommy Tuberville’s case and the Republican Party's case, you look at the whole LGBTQ, trans athletes stuff. I think there's zero of these NCAA athletes that are in the state of Alabama; there's like eight or something out of 175,000 NCAA athletes. While 40% of our state is in poverty, and we die quicker than everyone else. That is an absolute insult to the people of Alabama. People need to know it. It needs to be repeated, just like they repeat lies over and over and over again. The truth needs to be repeated over and over and over and over again. They are teaching people to hate — they are dividing people so they can literally steal from us. I mean, that's the way I look at it, with these tariffs, which are regressive taxes, which hurt states like Alabama, where we have so many people in poverty because regressive taxes hurt lower-income individuals the most. It's just like I said, I'm gonna bring it to them....>

<....You talked about the tariffs right there, and you've talked about how Trump won't be on the ballot in 2026. Without having you divulge all of your campaign strategy, I'm just curious how much you try to tie your opponent to Donald Trump, knowing that he has a kind of cult-like fan base that boosts the GOP turnout numbers during presidential years. Is it smart to run against Trump in 2026, you think? And I mean, obviously, a lot will happen between now and then; it might make having to run against Trump inevitable. But I'm just curious, tying Tommy Tuberville to Trump's unpopular tariffs, to corruption with Qatar, all that kind of stuff — is that the way you think you win?

Well, you know, it's going to be a day-to-day thing as things develop. But the way I win is by representing Alabama. That's the way I win: by representing people here, by pointing to the issues that are the problem and making the Republican Party as a whole own these problems, because they are their problems. They are the establishment. They have been in the establishment. And this whole charade that they're pulling, it can't last. So what do they do? It's more about, what are they going to do? I don't think they can continue to run the social conservative campaign, because, like I said, they're kind of like, where does it go from here? They keep going, right? So where is it going to go? Are they going to turn Alabama into a theocracy, like Iran, where women don't have rights? I mean, what are they going to do? They're there. They're on the ledge. They went that direction. So now, what are they going to do? They can't win on the economy. They sure can't win on the economy, so we'll see. But more than likely, what they're going to do is they're going to pick a minority group, and they're going to blame that minority group, and they're going to go across the media, they're going to go use their social media influencers, and they're going to villainize some minority group so they can divide people in Alabama. So that's what I'm watching for: for them to do something like that, because that's their playbook and that's all they got while they steal from us.>

By the bye, <fredeejit>, no need to play <stalker>: stay away!

<Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 In one of the many immigration cases currently in the courts as a result of Trump’s deportation of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members without any due process. In A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court enjoined the government from summarily deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act while litigation over the constitutionality of those deportations works its way through the courts.

The decision is a per curiam opinion, which means no single justice signed it, but it represents the view of seven of them. You can read the full decision here. It runs to 24 pages, and is worth spending some time with, if only to get the Court’s tone. Suffice it to say, the majority is displeased with the government.

This was not a full decision on the merits of the case, which, when it happens, will determine whether Trump can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members. This decision was another of the type we’ve seen frequently since Trump retook office, an effort to prevent him from going ahead with a scheme of dubious legality while the courts determine whether that scheme is legal. The Court wrote, “To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18, and we grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated.”

There are a couple of threads to pull there. First, the Supreme Court didn’t tell the government what it would have to do before deporting people in order to satisfy due process requirements. Second, they emphasized that they are granting the injunction because if they didn’t, the government would deport these people and then claim, as they have in the Abrego Garcia case, that once someone is out of the United States, even when our government is responsible for that, the courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear their cases. That’s as close as the Supreme Court ever comes to accusing the government of perfidy.

So, if the Supreme Court isn’t saying what the government must do to satisfy the requirement that aliens receive due process before being deported, who will?

The Court held that because it is “far removed from the circumstances on the ground” it is better for the Fifth Circuit to “determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case,” and they remand (send the case back to) that court to do so. That’s interesting because the Court is sharply critical of both the district judge and the Court of Appeals—almost to the point of suggesting they wouldn’t recognize due process if it slapped them in the face. But here, they do as they normally do; they are asking the lower courts to do their jobs, giving them the opportunity after the Supreme Court has reversed their prior decision to come into compliance with the law. That’s how the court system works.

To ensure that the Fifth Circuit gets the message, the Court offered some caveats, concluding that “The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty” because the government didn’t refute the plaintiffs claim it was previously prepared to whisk them out of the country quickly and with no chance to go to court while also arguing in another case that “it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador.” The Court directs the Fifth Circuit that “Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.” Now it’s up to the Fifth Circuit to set the bar the government must clear to provide due process, knowing it will be subject to review by the Court again after they do and that seven of the justices are testy about it. If they read the opinion, they’ll find a lot of guidance in it.

In its decision, The Court concluded that the government didn’t give enough notice, and the Fifth Circuit erred in refusing to provide relief. (Justice Alito, joined by Thomas in dissent, suggested that neither the district judge nor the Court of Appeals was wrong.)....>

<....The Court also clarified what it’s talking about when it says due process is required:

“‘[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.’”

“‘Procedural due process rules are meant to protect’ against ‘the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.’”

“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.’”

“Due process requires notice that is ‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties’ and that ‘afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.’”

The Court underscored the fact that previously, all nine of the Justices unanimously agreed that aliens are entitled to due process. That came in the in the course of considering the government’s efforts to deport these people faster than the courts could intervene. The Court made it as clear as one has to when talking to a four-year-old, that “In order to ‘actually seek habeas relief,’ a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.” The government can’t deport people unless they have that opportunity. End of story.

The Court also directs the lower courts to move “expeditiously,” no lollygagging, pointing out that they have yet to rule on the merits issue—whether the government is entitled to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to conduct these deportations in the first place. Although Justice Kavanaugh, writing a concurring opinion, where he joined the majority, noted he would have jumped straight to that substantive issue (interesting in light of his willingness to play delay games and vote against jumping straight to the ultimate issue when Trump’s immunity from prosecution claim was going up and down on appeal). As it stands now, the Supreme Court can’t rule on that issue until the lower courts do their job and rule, and the Justices are making it clear they don’t want to see a lot of delay.

Trump had a reaction, of course.

If, as it appears, the Supreme Court is biding its time, giving Trump every opportunity to comply with the law while preparing to strike if he doesn’t, then Trump is making the case against himself. Just as his solicitor general told Justice Barrett during oral argument in the birthright citizenship case, this is an administration that doesn’t think it always has to comply with court orders. Instead of contenting itself with appealing them, it engages in this extreme form of rhetoric designed to turn people against the courts. And although the Supreme Court hasn’t always come to the defense of other aspects of democracy, it does seem to understand the stakes when its authority is being contested.

In closing, the Supreme Court wrote that if the government had other “lawful authorities,” presumably lawful deportation orders by immigration judges, that permitted it to remove plaintiffs from the United States, they could carry out those orders. But the Court remained firm on the key point the plaintiffs argued: due process isn't optional. In its low-key way, the Supreme Court has now joined the public protests and the sign they are holding up says, “Due Process.” It’s shocking that only seven of the Justices would stand for that proposition, but here we are, in (Project) 2025.>

No, <fredwuckfad>: you do not belong here.

Ever.

Capisce?

<A federal judge told the Trump administration Friday that its explanation for invoking the state secrets privilege in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is inadequate, describing the government’s reasoning for withholding information as “take my word for it.”

Trump administration attorneys have argued that releasing details in open court — or even to the judge in private – about returning Abrego Garcia to the United States would jeopardize national security. For example, they said it would reveal confidential negotiations with foreign countries.

But U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said she was at a loss for how she could independently determine the nature of the government’s concerns with the information it provided.

“There’s simply no details," she said. "This is basically ‘take my word for it.’”

Jonathan Guynn, a Justice Department attorney, disagreed that the explanation was inadequate.

“We think we’ve provided significant information," he said.

The focus of Friday’s hearing was primarily on the Trump administration's desire to invoke the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that is more often used in cases involving the military and spy agencies. But how Xinis ultimately rules could impact the central question looming over the case: Has the Trump administration followed her order to bring back Abrego Garcia?

Abrego Garcia's attorneys argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him to El Salvador and refusing to bring him back.

“The government is delaying for delay’s sake at the expense of someone who was wrongly removed from this country,” said Andrew Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia.

Rossman said he isn’t arguing that there are no conceivable state secrets at play.

“The question is: ‘What have you actually done?’” Rossman said. “I suspect there are no steps, and nothing has happened.”

He urged Xinis to reject the notion that the government “can throw a shroud of state secrets” over her order and not comply with it, adding that “simply saying, ‘national security,’ is not sufficient.”

Xinis appeared skeptical of the government's position, particularly after Guynn said there was no need for the judge to review the information the Trump administration deems secret.

“He has been wrongly removed,” Xinis responded. “How is it not central to understand what, if anything, you’ve done to return him? How is it not a need?”

Abrego Garcia's attorneys have also cited recent pronouncements by President Donald Trump and others that Abrego Garcia isn't coming back. For example, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said “there is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again.”

Guynn, the Justice Department attorney, told the judge that such statements are not inconsistent with the government’s legal arguments when “read with the appropriate nuance.”

Guynn suggested the meaning was that, “He’ll never walk free in the United States.”....>

<....Xinis said she reads Noem’s comments as a sign that the government won’t take steps to facilitate his return.

“That’s about as clear as it can get,” the judge said.

“I disagree,” Guynn said, eliciting laughter in the courtroom.

Guynn also denied any wrongdoing by the administration.

“The removal of Mr. Abrego Garcia was inadvertent error,” he said. “We don’t concede that is misconduct by the government.”

A portion of Friday's hearing was closed to the public, during which Xinis gave the government a week to provide more information for its state secrets claim, according to Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia.

The Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March. The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he faced likely persecution by a local gang that had terrorized his family.

Abrego Garcia’s American wife sued, and Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back.

Xinis later lambasted the administration for failing to explain what it has done to retrieve him and instructed the government to provide documents and testimony showing what it has done, if anything, to comply. The Trump administration appealed, but the appeals court backed Xinis in a blistering order.

The debate over state secrets privilege is the latest development in the case.

Trump administration officials have said Abrego Garcia was deported based on a 2019 accusation from Maryland police that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said.

The Trump administration later acknowledged that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was " an administrative error ” because of the immigration judge's 2019 order. But Trump and others have continued to insist that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.>

<Early in Donald Trump’s first term, the president received what he now views as bad advice: Don’t worry about the midterms, some advisers whispered back then.

If Democrats won majorities in 2018, their thinking went, it would only help him politically — giving him a political foil down Pennsylvania Avenue and opportunity to triangulate in a gridlocked Washington ahead of a tough reelection — a la Bill Clinton.

That failed to pan out, spectacularly: Trump’s agenda ground to a halt as he instead dealt with two years of nonstop investigations and a pair of impeachments. He lost to Joe Biden anyway.

This time, Trump is taking a different approach.

Not even three months into his second term, the president is already hyper-engaged in the fight to keep the GOP’s majorities in Congress. Far from writing off the House or Senate, he’s bullish about defying history and keeping Democrats away from committee gavels and subpoena powers, according to five Republicans I’ve spoken to, including several close Trump confidants.

He’s rolling out early endorsements in hopes of forestalling messy primary fights that could divert precious resources from the general election campaigns. He’s making recruitment calls and buttonholing other Republicans about how he can best use his political muscle. And he’s continuing to raise boatloads of money to shell out in 2026.

Trump’s midterm obsession is also hovering over Capitol Hill as GOP lawmakers try to write his sprawling domestic policy agenda into law. On issue after issue, Trump appears to sympathize with swing-district moderates — the “majority makers” whose races will decide the majority.

Trump and his aides have pushed back on steep cuts to Medicaid in part because the politics stink. They’ve given a wide berth to blue-state Republicans who are pushing to raise the cap on the deduction for state and local taxes — a policy Trump signed in 2017 that helped sink him in suburban districts a year later.

He’s even toyed with the idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans — something he believes would parry Democrats’ certain political attacks on a bill they say benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. (Faced with massive conservative backlash, Trump on Friday backed off, saying “Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!)

“We think we can have four years,” one Trump adviser told me, summing up the attitude inside the presidential political shop. “We reject the defeatist attitude of operating from the perspective that this is our only shot and we only got two years.”

Part of Trump’s midterm infatuation is his love of the game — reading polls, making endorsements, playing kingmaker and otherwise moving pieces around on the political chess board. He ticks off his won-loss record in congressional races and loves to go deep on the details of his own campaigns.

But Trump is also deeply motivated by his desire to avoid suffering through dozens of new investigations and a third potential impeachment: “He knows what happens if we lose the House,” added the adviser, noting that there’s already several impeachment resolutions filed in the chamber.

Historically, of course, even the king of the political comeback would seem to have the odds stacked against him — particularly in the House, where parties in trifecta governments have tended to lose dozens of seats during the midterms of the modern era. Trump’s GOP lost 40 in 2018.

“For some reason, the president — whoever the president is — the midterms are tough,” Trump himself mused at an NRCC dinner last month. “Why would they be tough? If we’re doing great, they should be easy.”

But there are in fact reasons for Trump to be optimistic: Predecessor Joe Biden managed to keep his own midterm bleeding to a relative minimum in 2022. The congressional battlefield has shrunk in recent years, leaving only a couple of dozen seats truly competitive in the eyes of most political analysts. And voter opinions of Trump might have slipped in recent months, but Democrats aren’t gaining — in fact, their own voters are furious with the party.

Some of the early efforts Trump’s political team have undertaken in coordination with the congressional campaign committees have fizzled. One GOP official told me Trump’s political team told Rep. John James (R-Mich.) that the president wanted him to forgo a bid for governor and instead run for reelection in his swingy suburban Detroit seat. James didn’t listen, and now Republicans have a costly open seat to defend.

Trump also made personal calls to onetime adversaries Chris Sununu and Brian Kemp in an effort to get the popular former GOP governors to run for Senate in New Hampshire and Georgia, respectively. Neither bit, though Trump’s team remains closely engaged in vetting other alternatives for those key Democratic-held seats.....>

<....He might have more success in New York, where he intervened last week with a preemptive endorsement for GOP Rep. Mike Lawler, who has spent months telegraphing a potential challenge to Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul. Trump’s endorsement, coming after MAGA favorite Elise Stefanik announced her own gubernatorial explorations, was meant to send a clear signal: We want you to defend your precious House seat instead.

Trump on Thursday rolled out a host of additional primary endorsements, backing several vulnerable Republicans in swing seats — even some he’s not particularly close with — in a bid to ward off would-be primary challengers. Last cycle, for instance, Illinois Rep. Mike Bost faced a tough GOP primary — winning a Trump endorsement only after he’d been forced to burn cash to ward off a far-right challenger.

On Thursday, roughly 18 months from the general election, the president threw his support behind Bost, effectively shutting down a potential primary.

“This makes sure they can focus on their general from now on — not wasting money fending off a primary,” one GOP political operative texted me. “Big win.”

Republicans are hoping that Trump decides to do much the same in the Senate — with a major effort underway to convince him to back Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is facing a fearsome primary challenge from Attorney General Ken Paxton.

But the GOP has a bigger advantage in the Senate, and so far Trump, who is close with Paxton, has remained on the sidelines — though one prominent member of his operation has not: Trump consultant Tony Fabrizio is now polling for Team Cornyn, POLITICO reported this week.

Something else has changed for Trump since his first term: his willingness to play team ball. In 2018 and 2020, Hill Republicans privately griped to me that he was stockpiling cash and fundraising resources for his own reelection and not doing enough to help the rest of the party.

Kevin McCarthy, then serving as House minority leader, went so far as to beg Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was controlling the political pursestrings, for help. It didn’t materialize.

But now that Trump is free from the burden of reelection (something he finally admitted this week), he’s ready to pile his massive resources into the party. Trump-related committees are expecting to have as much as a half-billion dollars in their collective war chests by this summer, and two Trump allies said the president plans to be generous.

“I’ll put it like this: It’s not like he’s directing people to just give to his presidential library, you know what I mean?” one of them said. “He’s not doing that. I don’t think he would be actively fundraising into the political entities the way he is unless he planned on playing in the midterms.”>

<For nearly 30 years, “Arthur” has taught young children about problem-solving and appreciating their peers’ differences. The show's bespectacled title character is a gentle 8-year-old aardvark who spreads the joy of getting along with others. So if you haven’t been keeping up with current events, his militant stance in a recent social media post might have surprised you.

Shortly after President Donald Trump released his executive order calling on Congress to rescind $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an image of Arthur’s curled fist appeared on the show’s Instagram account under the heading, “When they come for PBS.”

An animated clip of Arthur’s friend D.W. on her bike followed a week later, exclaiming, “We ride at dawn for PBS . . . Who’s riding with us?”

To paraphrase one of the account’s followers, you know the situation is bad when Arthur is resorting to violence.

That commenter posted that in jest, but the underlying sentiment is accurate. This is as severe an existential crisis for the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio as anyone raised on a children’s programming diet of “Arthur,” “Sesame Street” and other public TV shows has seen in our lifetimes.

You know the situation is bad when Arthur is resorting to violence.

Among the certainties of American life beyond death and taxes is the guarantee that any Republican administration will reopen hunting season on gentle PBS Kids characters. When former Utah senator Mitt Romney led the charge in 2012, he placed Big Bird in his sights. In 2005, Congress threatened to cut $100 million out of the CPB budget after an episode of “Postcards from Buster,” Arthur’s forebear, featured the child of a same-sex couple in Vermont.

Conservatives have been gunning for PBS since it began broadcasting in 1970, but they haven't had the political means to succeed until now.

Trump’s executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” on May 1 followed March’s House Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency hearing, chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. In that televised sideshow, Greene accused PBS of “sexualizing and grooming children.” As alleged proof, she held up a large glamour shot of a drag performer, Lil Miss Hot Mess, who was featured in an April 2021 segment for “Let’s Learn,” an educational show produced by the WNET group and the New York City Department of Education.

That segment only aired locally, but the photo made for an effective prop in this anti-inclusion political environment targeting the queer community, especially transgender people. Most of the hearing involved Greene and her GOP allies on the subcommittee denouncing PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger and NPR’s president and CEO Katherine Maher for allegedly peddling political bias.

The subcommittee’s Democrats countered with jokes about Elmo and other “Sesame Street” characters. Only Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., referenced the popular PBS Kids series “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood,” with a purpose that laid bare the hypocrisy of his colleagues' allegations.

In questioning Mike Gonzalez, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow supporting the far-right’s defunding calls, it became obvious that he has no idea what type of programming airs on PBS Kids or, for that matter, PBS in general.

Gonzalez couldn’t tell Khanna, for example, that “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood” is a spinoff of “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” This is an odd detail to forget from the man who made the case for defunding public media in “Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” After calling defunding public media “good policy and good politics” in that document, Gonzalez declares that the content that runs on NPR and PBS is “noneducational.”

Anyone watching this travesty play out on Capitol Hill knows that these actions have nothing to do with protecting or nurturing kids. It's about punishing the poor to score political points with the wealthy. A ProPublica report titled “The Trump Administration’s War on Children” lists the many ways this administration is failing children. Among them: Federal employees working for Child Protective Services have been dismissed. Proposed Medicaid cuts would cut access to health care in schools and foster care for lower and middle-income families.

In April, the administration withheld nearly $1 billion in federal grants to Head Start centers nationwide, a year-over-year decline of 37%, resulting in layoffs and regional office closures.

The MAGA attacks on public media are part of this assault. Public radio and TV level the informational playing field, and to an administration devoted to controlling what Americans learn and think, that is a problem....>

<....As Kerger has said many times, including in an interview the New York Times published Friday, half of the content PBS provides is for kids under the age of 5. That includes early learning material available for parents and educators on the PBS Kids website, which has been shown in studies to help children between 2 and 8 years of age make measurable progress in literacy and math. (Salon has also reached out to PBS to request an interview with Kerger.)

Conservatives have accused PBS and NPR of liberal bias in their news and documentary coverage since Richard Nixon was in office.

Since PBS reaches an estimated 99% of the country’s broadcast viewers, that gives every child free access to high-quality educational content. That accessibility may be one of the reasons that 43% of respondents to a recent Pew Research survey said NPR and PBS should continue to receive federal funding. This includes Democrats and Republicans. (33% say they are not sure.)

The conservative argument for cutting taxpayer funds to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting hasn’t changed much over the years, even down to the scapegoats. There is always the question of what public media is doing that isn’t being accomplished on cable and, now, streaming services and podcasts. Usually, the Heritage Foundation has led the chorus asking some version of this query.

So when Gonzalez wrote in his Project 2025 entry, “Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options,” he wasn’t saying anything many others haven’t said before.

Conservatives have accused PBS and NPR of liberal bias in their news and documentary coverage since Richard Nixon was in office. But they seem to take a special pleasure in using PBS’ children’s programming as a political wedge.

If PBS were denied taxpayer money, wouldn’t cable programming on Nick Jr., Disney, and content streaming services like Netflix, Paramount+ and HBO Max fill their absence? Aren’t toddlers turning to influencers like Ms. Rachel on YouTube more than, say, “Alma’s Way” on PBS?

Besides, isn’t HBO producing “Sesame Street” these days? (In short, no.)

These presumptions are continuations of the decades-old insistence that public media should be privatized. They also reveal a general lack of knowledge about how public media works, to say nothing of the examples playing out in the news that illustrate why billionaire media owners cannot be trusted to refrain from interfering with their outlets’ editorial decisions.

The CPB is independent of the government, established by Congress in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 as a private, nonprofit corporation. It does not produce programming or own, operate, or control any public broadcasting stations, its mission states. This is to ensure the editorial independence of member stations and shield PBS, NPR, and local producing stations like WGBH and WNET from political pressure.

Federal dollars flowing to PBS through the CPB amount to around 15% of the broadcast service’s overall funding, most of which goes to its more than 330 member stations, which pay licensing fees for programming and dues to PBS. This, along with corporate sponsorships, comprises the bulk of its funding.

And while $1.1 billion is an eye-popping number, breaking down to $535 million per year through 2027, since the CPB is forward-funded, the cost per taxpayer breaks down to around $1.60 per year.

Streaming service subscriptions cost several times that amount per month, and they do not support your local market’s news and cultural programming. Nor do they contribute to local stations to help offset infrastructure costs. The CPB designates 6% of its funding for that purpose, most of which benefits rural stations.

The Trump administration and the Republican-dominated Congress aren’t the only entities threatening public media. Trump’s appointed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is investigating whether PBS and NPR violated government rules by identifying their programming underwriters on the air.

One day after Trump called for the CPB’s defunding, the U.S. Department of Education terminated its $23 million Ready To Learn grant. Historically, this grant has helped fund “Reading Rainbow,” "Clifford the Big Red Dog" and “Sesame Street.” The current grant contributed to producing shows like “Molly of Denali,” credited in two studies involving children from low-income households for improving their ability to solve problems using informational text....>

<....“Informational text is a fundamental part of literacy,” the Education Development Center (EDC) explains in a statement about the study’s findings. “Comprehending informational text paves the way for future learning, particularly in social studies and the sciences, and success in life.”

In a recent statement to the New York Times, a Department of Education spokesperson claimed the Ready To Learn grants were funding “racial justice educational programming.”

“The Trump Department of Education will prioritize funding that supports meaningful learning and improving student outcomes, not divisive ideologies and woke propaganda,” it said.

“Molly of Denali” is the first nationally distributed children’s TV show to feature Indigenous main characters. Earlier this month, its team announced that PBS Kids is not commissioning another season of the WGBH-produced show, making the next season its last for the time being, according to Alaska public TV station KTOO.

As for the myth that HBO owns “Sesame Street,” that was never the case. HBO struck a deal with Sesame Workshop in 2015 to bring first-run “Sesame Street” episodes to the channel and its streaming service, now retitled HBO Max, as of 2020. PBS then re-airs those episodes nine months later.

The current 55th season of “Sesame Street” is the final run of its HBO first-run partnership, which Warner Bros. Discovery decided not to renew last year. The streamer will continue to host its episodic catalogue through 2027.

Although production on the 56th season is underway, “Sesame Street” is still searching for a distributor. Quite a different reality than the one Gonzalez assures his readers of in Project 2025, where he quotes what fellow conservative George Will wrote in 2017. “If ‘Sesame Street’ programming were put up for auction,” Will opined in The Washington Post, “the danger would be of getting trampled by the stampede of potential bidders.”

There’s plenty of reason to trust what Sesame Workshop Vice President Sal Perez recently assured the Associated Press, that the home of Elmo, Oscar the Grouch and Big Bird will never go away. Conservatives have long reassured wavering politicians by saying the same of PBS and NPR if the CPB were to be hollowed out. And that is true, to a point. Stations in wealthier markets will continue to exist, but member stations in less populated areas – many of them in red states – will significantly diminish or close.

NPR reported that last week, around 190 officials from local stations nationwide headed to Washington, D.C. to strategize and meet with lawmakers. Meanwhile, the CPB sued the Trump administration in late April in response to his attempt to fire three of its five board members. (The corporation usually operates with a nine-member board; four of its seats currently sit vacant.)

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss slowed down Trump’s effort to assert his control over the CPB on Wednesday, informing its board to proceed with business as usual until he renders a decision.

Trump, meanwhile, has yet to submit his formal request to Congress to cancel the federal funds meant for public broadcasting. That means there’s still an opportunity for the public to lobby their representatives and contribute to their local stations.

At least one Republican Senator from the home state of “Molly of Denali” intends to continue supporting public media. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, shared a letter supporting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on her website and in a regional newspaper. Alaska’s local stations received $12 million from CPB last year, Murkowski said, accounting for anywhere from 30-70 percent of their overall budgets, and equating to roughly 0.00018 percent of all federal spending.

“Not only would a large portion of Alaska communities lose their local programming, but warning systems for natural disasters, power outages, boil water advisories, and other alerts would be severely hampered,” she wrote. “What may seem like a frivolous expense to some has proven to be an invaluable resource that saves lives in Alaska.”

Let's hope she and Arthur aren’t alone in that view.>

<After former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, Vice President JD Vance used the moment not just to offer prayers and support, but also to denigrate the 46th president of the United States.

"First of all of course, we wish the best for the former president's health. And it sounds pretty serious, but hopefully he makes the right recovery," Vance said. "I will say, whether the right time to have this conversation is now or some time in the future, we really do need to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job."

Vance's remarks were met with a wave of scorn and derision on social media. Former Rep. Barbara Comstock (D-Va.) called him a "graceless, soulless ghoul" and noted that his record-low job approval as vice president was well-earned. Author and journalist Jeff Nesbit opined that the vice president had "clearly learned from DJT Jr. [Donald Trump Jr.]."

Others responded to Vance's remarks by pointing out that President Donald Trump, who is 78 years old, should be the one whose health is under the microscope. Former Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said Trump should be the one who should be examined "for mental and physical conditions first." Former Florida state senator Paula Dockery expressed a similar sentiment, tweeting "let's be honest about the current President's health and mental state and stop trying to distract." And former Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter Tom Haudricourt piled on, saying that Trump's "ability to do the job" was "more important at this particular point in time."

"I would say now is definitely the right time to discuss whether the current president is capable of doing the job," tweeted Last Week Tonight with John Oliver producer Matt Passet. "Also, f--- JD Vance."

"These people are disgusting, sick human beings," journalist Noelle Devoe tweeted.

Author and emergency room physician Dr. Brian Goldman took a more direct approach, tweeting: "A reptile had more compassion than you.">

<House Democratic Leadership has strongly condemned interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba's decision to charge Rep. LaMonica Mclver (D-N.J.), calling it "an attack on the American people."

The Justice Department announced on Monday that it has filed charges against McIver, accusing her of assaulting law enforcement officers earlier this month at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Newark.

In a statement released Monday, House Democrats said the party "will respond vigorously in the days to come at a time, place and manner of our choosing."

"The criminal charge against Congresswoman LaMonica McIver is extreme, morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact," said the statement, shared by House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on the social platform X.

"Members of Congress have a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch wherever and whenever it is needed. We are lawfully permitted to show up at any federal facility unannounced to conduct an inspection on behalf of the American people," the Democratic lawmakers said.

"By visiting the detention center in Newark, Rep. McIver and two other Members of Congress were upholding their oath of office. They didn’t assault anyone, but were themselves aggressively mistreated by illegally masked individuals," the statement added.

"There is no credible evidence that Rep. McIver engaged in any criminal activity, and she would not have been permitted to tour the facility had she done anything wrong," the Democratic leadership said.

The statement further said that the proceeding launched "by the so-called U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch."

House Democrats vowed not to "be intimidated by the Trump administration."

Several Democratic lawmakers posted separate statements condemning Habba's move.

Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M) said in an X post: "Rep. LaMonica McIver walked into Delaney Hall to protect human rights and it is her lawful duty to conduct oversight. Now, the Trump Administration is throwing bogus charges at her for doing her job."

"They want to silence everyone. If they came for a sitting member of Congress, who will they come for next? I stand with @RepLaMonica—and for the Constitution. It is our sacred obligation as Americans to protect each other from tyranny," she added.

Rep Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) wrote: "A RED LINE has been crossed. Trump is prosecuting his political enemies in Congress. This is just the beginning. We must take whatever we’ve done before to show dissent and go ONE RUNG HIGHER. And save your bulls--- documents on this, Alina. You’ll need them when you testify."

Political commentators and attorneys also spoke out against the development.

Immigration attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnicksaid in a post: "Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, despite no relevant background. She just charged a Democratic congresswoman with assaulting a cop in an incident which occurred after DHS chose to arrest Newark’s mayor for trespassing."

Meanwhile, supporters of Make American Great Again (MAGA) movement welcomed Habba's action.

MAGA conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer wrote on X: "Democrat Congresswoman @RepLaMonica has been charged for assaulting an ICE agent in New Jersey! Thank you, @AlinaHabba. You may want to keep an eye on homeboy Hakeem who said you will 'find out' if his Sista faced 'trumped up charges'. Sounds like a threat.">

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Shapiro, Daniel E"]
[Black "Wygle, Steve"]
[ECO "E04"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.c4 e5 2.e3 Nf6 3.a3 Nc6 4.b4 Be7 5.Bb2 d6 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Qc2 Bg4 8.Rc1 Re8 9.Bd3 Bh5 10.Nge2 Bf8 11.Ng3 Bg6 12.h4 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Qd7 14.Nce4 Nxe4 15.Qxe4 Rab8 16.h5 Ne7 17.c5 Qe6 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.Qc4 d5 20.Qb3 Nc6 21.Ne2 Rbd8 22.d3 Bd6 23.e4 Bf8 24.Ng3 a6 25.O-O Be7 26.Nf5 Bg5 27.exd5 Qxf5 28.dxc6 Bxc1 29.Rxc1 0-1>

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 Nh5 10.Re1 Nf4 11.Bf1 h6 12.c5 g5 13.Nd2 a6 14.a4 a5 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.bxa5 f5 17.Nc4 Rf6 18.Ba3 Bf8 19.Rc1 g4 20.Nb5 Neg6 21.Nb6 Rb8 22.Qc2 Bd7 23.Qc7 Bxb5 24.Qxd8 Rxd8 25.axb5 Nh4 26.Re3 Nh5 27.a6 bxa6 28.bxa6 f4 29.Rec3 f3 30.g3 1-0>