Trump’s speech to Congress on Tuesday continues to roil the American political landscape. The lead story in the NYTimes reflects a widespread anxiety that Trump will interfere with the 2026 midterms—a fear exacerbated by the warm reception congressional Republicans gave to Trump’s lies about the SAVE Act. See NYTimes, Trump’s Push for Election Power Raises Fears He Will ‘Subvert’ Midterms | The president appears to be undermining Americans’ faith in the outcome, at a moment when Republicans face an uphill climb to keep control of Congress. (Accessible to all.) The Times’ editorial decision to feature a story about election integrity following Trump’s speech reflects the mood of the electorate. Indeed, the most frequent topic of reader emails over the last two months has been the threat to the midterms. Will they occur? Will Trump rig the result? Will he use the FBI to seize ballots? Will Congress pass the SAVE Act? If so, will it disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters? Will ICE show up at the polls to intimidate voters? We must remain vigilant against voter suppression and election interference—and we must support those on the front lines of that effort, such as Marc Elias’s firm and his voter protection publication, Democracy Docket. On Wednesday, two reports suggest that some of our worst fears may not materialize. We can take nothing for granted, but we must also avoid fear-fueled repetition of threats to the midterms that normalize the very threats we seek to prevent. In his Tuesday speech, Trump called on Congress to pass the SAVE Act. His call to action was met by a standing ovation from Republicans. But under Senate rules, Republicans need 60 votes to cut off debate and bring the SAVE Act to the floor for a vote. Although the SAVE Act could become law with 51 votes on the Senate floor, Republicans need 60 votes to end debate (“cloture”) to bring the bill to the floor, a procedural requirement known as the “filibuster.” There are only two ways for the SAVE Act to pass in the Senate: convince seven Democrats to support the SAVE Act, or create a carve-out to the filibuster. Only one Democrat (John Fetterman) has said he will vote in favor of the SAVE Act. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has said she will vote against the Act, meaning that Republicans still need seven Democrats to pass the Act. Recognizing that Republicans don’t have the votes to overcome the filibuster, Trump used his speech to urge Republicans to create a carve-out to the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. For more than six months, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that he does not support modifying the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. Moreover, Senator Mitch McConnell is preventing the bill from being advanced out of committee, a necessary prerequisite for a floor vote, where the filibuster would block its passage. McConnell warned that creating a carve-out to the filibuster would “lay[] the groundwork for a leftwing election takeover” if Democrats retake the White House and Congress.” Here’s the important point: After Trump’s speech, GOP Leader John Thune reiterated his opposition to modifying the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. See Democracy Docket, Despite Trump’s SOTU and MAGA pressure, Sen. Maj. Leader Thune in no hurry to change filibuster, vote on SAVE America Act. Thune’s post-speech statement that he opposes modifying the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act is big news—and goes some distance to quelling fears that the Senate will pass the SAVE Act. But many readers have raised a proposal being promoted by Republican Senator Mike Lee to use a “talking filibuster” to cram the SAVE Act through the Senate. The use of a “talking filibuster” is just another way of saying that Republicans will create a carve-out to the filibuster, which John Thune and Mitch McConnell are blocking. The following details about the talking filibuster are “in the weeds,” but I have received enough emails from worried readers about this possibility that it warrants a mention in the newsletter. Skip this analysis if you want; it is just a specific case of carving out the filibuster. The standing rules of the Senate allow senators to exercise the filibuster (i.e., prevent cloture of debate) merely by indicating their intent to do so. Think of this as a “silent” filibuster. Senators invoking a silent filibuster are not required to “hold the floor” through marathon speeches as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In contrast, under the talking filibuster, when Democrats run out of steam, the “talking filibuster” would be over, and the bill could advance to a floor vote for passage by the Republican majority. How does Senator Lee propose to force a “talking filibuster? There are two paths to doing so. First, Senate rules could be amended to force a “talking filibuster” on the SAVE Act. But amending Senate rules for a talking filibuster would require 67 votes to make that change—more than the number of votes necessary to overcome the filibuster! See Senate Rule XXII and Congressional Research Service, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate Second, Republicans could use the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules by altering the “precedent” governing the applicability of the talking filibuster to the SAVE Act. Creating a new precedent requires only 51 votes and would circumvent the silent filibuster, substituting the talking filibuster, which ends when Democrats collapse from exhaustion or lose their political will to grind the Senate to a halt. See Wikipedia, Nuclear option. In other words, forcing a “talking filibuster” (which will eventually end) is the same thing as creating a carve out to the filibuster—which John Thune and Mitch McConnell oppose. So, saying that Republicans will use the “talking filibuster” to pass the SAVE Act is the same as saying that they will abolish the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. They might (anything is possible), but Republicans do not want to do so because the filibuster allows Republicans to maintain minority rule. If the GOP abolishes the filibuster, Democrats will pass the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act at the first possible moment. That bill will spell the doom of the Republican Party. In the words of Mitch McConnell, abolishing the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act will “lay the groundwork for a leftwing election takeover” by allowing passage of the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act, thereby eliminating partisan gerrymandering and restoring the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court dismantled in Shelby County v. Holder. I do not mean to suggest that people should relent in their pressure campaigns on their elected representatives in Congress. But neither should Democrats suffer under exaggerated fears that Republicans will pass the SAVE Act through a “talking filibuster.” John Thune and Mitch McConnell are using control over the Senate calendar to ensure that Republicans leave the filibuster intact. Separately, a DHS official told state election officials that ICE agents will not be at the polls in 2026. See HuffPo, DHS Official Says ICE Won’t Be At The Polls. Per HuffPo,
Sounds good, right? Well, there is one very significant caveat. The person who gave the assurance is an election denier who backed Trump’s assault on the 2020 election and is now in charge of election security for 2026. We have reason to be skeptical of the DHS representative’s assurance. Still, it could have been otherwise. The DHS official could have evaded the question or given an equivocal answer. It is doubtful that anyone in the Trump administration would give such a forceful denial unless it represented the administration’s current policy. Trump could change that policy for no reason or for a silly reason, like eating a Big Mac gone bad. But, for now, the administration is saying that ICE will not be at the polls. As I said, it could be otherwise. Update on missing interviews of 13-year-old victim who alleges that Trump abused her.Earlier in the week, NPR and MSNow reported that the Epstein files produced by the DOJ were missing three interviews of a 13-year-old who accused Trump of sexually abusing her. The DOJ initially responded that any documents withheld fell within permitted exceptions to the Epstein Files Transparency Act. On Tuesday, the DOJ said the files might be related to an ongoing federal investigation. On Wednesday, the DOJ said it would produce documents mistakenly withheld. Per NPR,
The evolving position of the DOJ in response to the omissions suggests that they know they have a problem and they are looking for a way out. The issue of omitted FBI interview notes is gaining steam. Cries of “cover-up” are emerging. (“Rep. Garcia stated on the record, “There is definitely, in my opinion, evidence of a cover-up happening. Why are these documents missing?”) Those cries will only grow until the DOJ relents and releases the documents related to accusations against Trump. Such disclosure will not be the end of the inquiry; rather, it will be just the beginning. Cuba fires on boat with 10 people aboard; rescues survivors.Cuba claims that a boat with ten American residents who were allegedly attempting to infiltrate Cuba was destroyed by the Cuban Border Guard Troops. Four people were killed; the six survivors were “evacuated and received medical assistance,” per a government statement. See AP, Cuba says boat from Florida opened fire at its soldiers, starting fight that killed 4. The difference in treatment of survivors at sea by the Cuban government and the US government is striking. Cuba offered the survivors medical assistance (although they are being detained), while the US unleashed two Reaper Drones at two men clinging to a shipwreck. Trump’s surgeon general nominee is evasive about stance on vaccines.Here we go again. Trump has nominated Casey Means to be US Surgeon General. Although Means graduated from Stanford Medical School, she did not finish her residency and is not a licensed physician. Her most relevant qualification appears to be that she is the “sister of White House senior adviser Calley Means, one of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s top advisers, and a prominent “Make America Healthy Again” influencer in her own right.” See The Hill, Trump’s atypical surgeon general pick faces Senate scrutiny: Key takeaways As to her stance on vaccines, in response to a question by Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, she “declined to say if she’d encourage other mothers to get their children vaccinated against measles.” No Democratic Senators should support Means, and the handful of Republicans who opposed Robert Kennedy should vote against Means. Last time around, Senator Cassidy was the deciding vote. Let’s hope he has learned his lesson. Concluding ThoughtsWhen I describe Trump’s declining favorability ratings, readers often respond, “Yes, but the Democratic Party’s ratings are abysmal, as well.” That is a classic case of a category error—comparing two things that are fundamentally different. Trump is a person with political positions and a known set of accomplishments and failures. In contrast, the “Democratic Party” is a collection of people with a wide range of viewpoints, experiences, and accomplishments. A better measure of the effect of Trump’s unfavorability ratings is the elections held over the last year between Trump acolytes and Democratic candidates. When voters compare two things in the same category—specific candidates—Democrats have been consistently winning by double digits. So, the generalized “abysmal ratings” of the Democratic Party writ large are not controlling in a contest between two flesh-and-blood candidates. Using Trump as a surrogate for dozens of Republican candidates in specific elections is logical because almost all Republicans defend Trump’s agenda and corruption without exception. Democrats, on the other hand, bring a variety of viewpoints to the table. There is a second way in which the alleged “abysmal ratings” for Democrats is not supported by the facts on the ground. A Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that Democratic voters are much more “enthusiastic” about voting in 2026. See WaPo, Republicans stare down epic voter enthusiasm gap ahead of 2026 midterms. Per WaPo,
The general finding in the WaPo/ABC poll is manifesting itself in the current Texas primaries, where voting is taking place as I write. See Mediaite, CNN’s Harry Enten Floored Dems Are Out-Voting GOP In Texas. Per Mediaite,
Of course, voting patterns can shift over the course of long voting windows, but as of now, the “enthusiasm” among Texas Democrats appears to be substantially higher than that of Texas Republicans. None of the above should cause you to relent in your efforts. But neither should we make the “category error” of comparing a generalized rating for the Democratic Party with enthusiasm for specific Democratic candidates running against Trump clones. We should not engage in self-delusion by telling “just so” stories, but neither should we increase our anxiety by comparing the popularity of “Granny Smith apples” to “fruit.” Talk to you tomorrow! |
