[Note: Because of No Kings Day 3.0 protests, I will not host my usual Saturday morning livestream. But I will record and release a brief video statement on Saturday morning—to join you in solidarity on No Kings Day 3.0.]
At this point, few of us need reminding why we will be in the streets defending the rule of law on Saturday. But if we needed any further motivation, we received plenty on Thursday. In normal times, several of the stories below would have prompted calls for immediate impeachment, conviction, and removal—or for a comprehensive cognitive exam with the results made public.
Part of what makes reporting on Trump so difficult is that developments that receive scant media attention are norm-shattering, Constitution-breaking, never-before-in-the-history-of-the-republic scandals.
Let’s take a look.
[Last-minute update: As I was putting the final touches on this newsletter, I received a news alert saying that the Senate had agreed to a deal to fund the DHS and TSA. Per Politico, “Senate Republicans accepted what Democrats have been offering for weeks — cash for all of DHS except for ICE and part of Customs and Border Protection.” See Politico.]
Per the Constitution, Congress appropriates money, and the president disburses it as instructed by Congress.
For 40 days, Congress has refused to appropriate money to the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of TSA. On Thursday, Trump said he would simply sign an executive order to pay TSA agents—despite the explicit refusal of Congress to do so.
Most of the media nodded their heads in agreement and credulous acceptance, dutifully reporting that Trump would pay TSA agents without bothering to discuss whether (a) he had the authority to do so; and (b) if so, what constitutional or statutory provision granted him that authority.
If Trump uses federal funds to pay TSA agents without a congressional appropriation, that would violate Article I of the Constitution and the Anti-Deficiency Act.
To its credit, the Wall Street Journal included a nod to the illegality of Trump’s actions in its story entitled “Trump Announces Plan to Pay TSA Agents.” The WSJ included the following paragraph at the very end of its lengthy article on Trump’s proposed executive order:
The planned effort by Trump to temporarily pay TSA employees could be challenged in court. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal spending without an appropriation by Congress.
Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, it is a felony to spend money not appropriated by Congress. See 31 U.S.C. § 1350.
Curiously, congressional Democrats have decided to take Trump at his word, arguing, “See? Trump used the long security lines at the airport as a negotiating tactic! He could have paid TSA agents any time he wanted!”
Democrats should insist that Trump follow the law, rather than arguing that he had the power to pay TSA agents all along. He did not; that is why the government has been shut down for 40 days. If he has the authority to declare an emergency to pay TSA, why can’t he just claim emergency powers to fund all of DHS, thereby circumventing Congress’s role in the appropriations process?
In short, Democrats must stick to the rule of law, even if it means giving up some political points in trolling Trump.
Trump claims he can fund TSA by executive order. But even as he claims the unilateral authority to do so, he is urging Senate Republicans to end the filibuster—to fund DHS and pass the SAVE Act. See Democracy Docket, Frustrated by filibuster, Trump and MAGA allies eye nuking it to pass SAVE America Act.
Trump said,
When is ‘enough, enough’ for our Republican Senators. There comes a time when you must do what should have been done a long time ago, and something which the Lunatic Democrats will do on day one, if they ever get the chance. TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER and get our airports, and everything else, moving again. Also, add the complete, all five items, SAVE AMERICA ACT items. Go for the Gold!
But as Democracy Docket noted,
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has repeatedly shot down proposals to gut the filibuster, saying the idea would be a GOP own goal. “Throughout history, it’s protected Republicans and conservative priorities and principles a lot more often than it’s protected Democrats.”
Senator Thune speaks the truth: Republicans have maintained minority control of Congress, in part, because of the filibuster. Republicans know that if they eliminate the filibuster, Democrats will pass voter protection legislation that will eliminate partisan gerrymandering—effectively ending their ability to lock in an unfair electoral advantage in state legislatures and the House of Representatives.
But—here’s the important point—when Democrats next control the Senate, they should abolish the filibuster, for the very reasons that John Thune is desperate to preserve it.
On Thursday, angry Republicans stormed out of a briefing by the administration regarding the war in Iran. Per reports, the administration discussed three options, all of which involved a dramatic escalation of the war. See Daily Mail Online, Furious Republicans storm out of secret Iran briefing as new objective sparks ground invasion panic.
Although the Daily Mail’s story was an “exclusive,” other media outlets confirmed much of the Daily Mail’s reporting. See, e.g., NBC, Tensions flare during Iran briefing for members of Congress, and CNN, GOP lawmakers vent frustration over Trump administration’s lack of info on Iran war.
Per the Daily Mail, the lawmakers were presented with shifting goals for the war:
Nancy Mace walked out early, venting that ‘we were misled,’ while pro-Trump committee chair Mike Rogers warned ‘we’re not getting answers’ as Pentagon chiefs briefed the House Armed Services Committee, sparking fireworks on Capitol Hill.
Now, a Daily Mail source inside the room has revealed stark new details, including a shifting set of objectives separate from those publicly touted by the administration.
‘We were told nukes were not a military objective,’ they said, noting how the Pentagon has repeatedly stated they were. [¶]
The lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, urged the White House to answer questions about Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial oil export hub; its nuclear material; and regime change.
The lawmaker said that the White House must answer for its plans, particularly regarding Kharg Island and troops on the ground.
The alarm raised by congressional Republicans was validated late Thursday as the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is considering sending an additional 10,000 ground troops to the Middle East. A supplemental deployment of 10,000 troops would bring the total number of US troops in the Middle East to approximately 60,000 (a total that includes crews on ships). See WSJ, Pentagon Weighs Sending 10,000 More Ground Troops to the Middle East and Al Jazeera, US-Israel war on Iran, (“CENTCOM confirmed there are now more than 50,000 US troops in the Middle East, a deployment that includes two aircraft carriers, 200 combat aircraft, and thousands of arriving forces such as the 82nd Airborne and Marine Expeditionary Units.”)
So, as Republicans are angry and alarmed by Pentagon briefings and Trump considers sending another 10,000 troops, Trump claims that Tehran is “begging for a deal.” Meanwhile, Trump extended his “deadline” for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by 10 days, to April 6, 2026. Trump claimed that Iran asked for the extension, a claim that Iran repudiated immediately. See CBS News, Trump calls off Strait of Hormuz ultimatum as Iran receives U.S. message from mediators. (“Trump “retreated” from his deadline “out of fear of Iran’s response.”)
It is difficult to know where Trump’s war against Iran is headed—in large part because he seems to be making it up as he goes along. That is the most dangerous place for the U.S. to be.
For the record, five ships transited the Strait of Hormuz on March 26—as compared to a historical daily average of 100. See Strait of Hormuz Live Tracker — Real-Time Shipping & Oil Crisis Monitor. War risk insurance is available at 50 times the normal premium. (For comparison, imagine if your auto insurer raised your annual premium by a factor of 50.)
The AI company Anthropic refused to license its products to the Department of Defense unless the DOD agreed not to use the AI for mass surveillance of US citizens or for autonomous guidance of missiles. Trump and Pete Hegseth attacked Anthropic and its CEO, claiming that they were disloyal for refusing to bend to the will of the Defense Department. They then designated Anthropic as a “supply chain risk,” which prohibits companies that do business with the DOD from doing business with Antropic. That order was the effective equivalent of a “corporate death sentence.”
On Thursday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOD from designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk. The opinion is here: Anthropic v. U.S. Department of War.
United States District Judge Rita F. Lin wrote,
The record supports an inference that Anthropic is being punished for criticizing the government’s contracting position in the press. In their announcements, the President and Secretary Hegseth called Anthropic “out of control” and “arrogant,” describing its “sanctimonious rhetoric” as an attempt to “strong-arm” the government. The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.
In determining that the DOD and Trump sought to punish Anthropic, the court relied on public statements by Trump and Hegseth, proving—once again—that they are complete idiots who lack any sense of self-awareness.
Nine months ago, I received an email out of the blue from screenwriter and producer Bobby Roth asking if I would sit for an interview for a documentary about the resistance. (A reader who is a friend of Bobby’s suggested he interview me.) Without knowing anything more, I said, “Yes.” A week later, we met at my home and talked for about ninety minutes. And that, as they say, was that.
Today, I received a note from Bobby with a trailer for the documentary, which is called Lightworkers. The trailer is here: Lightworkers. To say the least, I was blown away by the trailer. It is a powerful, timely reminder of why we are members of the resistance—and why we are protesting on No Kings Day 3.0. (Full disclosures, I am humbled and a little embarrassed to be included in a documentary featuring so many leading politicians, political activists, and thought leaders.)
Although the documentary hasn’t been officially released, I asked Bobby if I could share the trailer in tonight’s newsletter—in advance of No Kings Day. The trailer includes video of difficult subjects (including the ICE/CBP killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti), but is ultimately uplifting and affirming. It may give you the boost you need as you prepare for No Kings Day 3.0.
The documentary will be released soon and promoted to help the resistance preserve democracy and defend the Constitution. Details to follow!
As noted above, Senate Republicans agreed to the deal Democrats have offered for weeks: fund DHS, except for ICE and Border Patrol. See Politico. Senate Democrats stood firm and refused to fund ICE and CBP without meaningful reforms. That battle over ICE and CBP reforms must be fought and won, but Democrats have successfully maneuvered the battle lines in a way that favors them.
Of course, Trump could refuse to sign the deal, but then every minute of every hour standing in a TSA security line would belong to him.
There will be wrangling to come, but this is a significant moral and political victory for Democrats on the eve of No Kings Day 3.0!
We have the momentum! Let’s carry it into Saturday to create the largest single-day political protest in American history!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
