Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
December 27, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/kennedy-center-name-change-generates-a-new-lawsuit-and-a-weird-new-defense
MaddowBlog-Kennedy Center name change generates a new lawsuit -- and a weird new defense
The White House said the Kennedy Center’s board “voted unanimously” to rename the Kennedy Center. One ex officio member is pushing back in court.
Kennedy Center name change generates a new lawsuit — and a weird new defense
— (@enuffsaysv.bsky.social) 2025-12-24T02:35:17.535Z
The WH said the Kennedy Center’s board “voted unanimously†to rename the Kennedy Center. One ex officio member is pushing back in court.
MS NOW: apple.news/Ah3HeAmqDRsq...
🔥lies, piggy's ego wants everything about him
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/kennedy-center-name-change-generates-a-new-lawsuit-and-a-weird-new-defense
In light of Donald Trump’s obsession with self-glorification, it wasn’t too surprising when the president’s handpicked allies claimed they had renamed the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts last week. But surprising or not, the absurdity got messy in a hurry.....
In fact, Rep. Joyce Beatty did not vote for the change, and as The New York Times reported, the Ohio Democrat filed suit on Monday, hoping to force the removal of the Republican president’s name.
The Times added that, by law, a handful of congressional lawmakers from both parties sit on the Kennedy Center’s board, and Beatty is an ex officio member who tried to participate in Thursday’s board meeting. When she tried to object to the process, the congresswoman found that she had been placed on mute.
Time will tell what becomes of the litigation, but in the meantime, the administration apparently has a new talking point on the burgeoning controversy......
Indeed, Daravi’s argument proves the opposite of the intended point: Biden and his team followed a law approved by Congress; Trump and his team ignored a law approved by Congress. It’s why the latter is controversial and the subject of litigation, while the former is not.
Beatty’s lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Watch this space.
In fact, Rep. Joyce Beatty did not vote for the change, and as The New York Times reported, the Ohio Democrat filed suit on Monday, hoping to force the removal of the Republican president’s name.
Ms. Beatty’s lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Trump and the loyalists he appointed to the center’s board. The suit contends that the board’s vote to change the name last week was illegal because an act of Congress is required to rename the building.
Ms. Beatty is represented by Norman Eisen, a White House ethics counsel in the Obama administration, along with Nathaniel Zelinsky, his co-counsel of the Washington Litigation Group.
The Times added that, by law, a handful of congressional lawmakers from both parties sit on the Kennedy Center’s board, and Beatty is an ex officio member who tried to participate in Thursday’s board meeting. When she tried to object to the process, the congresswoman found that she had been placed on mute.
Time will tell what becomes of the litigation, but in the meantime, the administration apparently has a new talking point on the burgeoning controversy......
Indeed, Daravi’s argument proves the opposite of the intended point: Biden and his team followed a law approved by Congress; Trump and his team ignored a law approved by Congress. It’s why the latter is controversial and the subject of litigation, while the former is not.
Beatty’s lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Watch this space.
December 27, 2025
A federal judge on Monday kept in place a temporary order prohibiting the Trump administration from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego García, saying she wants officials to tell her their intentions while she considers how to rule next because she doesn’t trust that he won’t again be deported illegally.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said she was concerned the administration might try to take Abrego back into custody “in the middle of the night” before she could take steps to ensure due process in his case, and she dressed down a Justice Department lawyer for repeated misrepresentations by the U.S. government.
“Once again, I’m making a finding that these representations, which are misrepresentations, are in bad faith,” she told Justice Department lawyer Ernesto H. Molina Jr., saying she was “beyond impatient” with government lawyers putting false information in their legal briefs.
Xinis said the bar against the longtime Maryland resident’s rearrest will remain in place until his lawyers and the government have each filed further legal briefs. Her rebuke marked another tense moment in a long-running legal showdown between the White House and the federal courts.
The trump DOJ had repeatedly lied to this judge. Lying to a federal judge is a bad idea
Judge extends prohibition on Kilmar Abrego Garca's re-detainment
Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered that Abrego be set free earlier this month, reprimanded a Trump administration lawyer over its handling of the case.
https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/2003220796622176545
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/12/22/kilmar-abrego-garcia-set-free/
A federal judge on Monday kept in place a temporary order prohibiting the Trump administration from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego García, saying she wants officials to tell her their intentions while she considers how to rule next because she doesn’t trust that he won’t again be deported illegally.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said she was concerned the administration might try to take Abrego back into custody “in the middle of the night” before she could take steps to ensure due process in his case, and she dressed down a Justice Department lawyer for repeated misrepresentations by the U.S. government.
“Once again, I’m making a finding that these representations, which are misrepresentations, are in bad faith,” she told Justice Department lawyer Ernesto H. Molina Jr., saying she was “beyond impatient” with government lawyers putting false information in their legal briefs.
Xinis said the bar against the longtime Maryland resident’s rearrest will remain in place until his lawyers and the government have each filed further legal briefs. Her rebuke marked another tense moment in a long-running legal showdown between the White House and the federal courts.
The trump DOJ had repeatedly lied to this judge. Lying to a federal judge is a bad idea
December 26, 2025
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2674831288
'No more!' Raging Trump threatens Dems in meltdown after 1M more Epstein docs found
trump wants the DOJ only to release material that names Democrats and to withhold all other Epstein material
'No more!' Raging Trump threatens Dems in meltdown after 1M more Epstein docs found
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2025-12-26T23:50:18Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2674831288
President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social account on Friday evening to rage against the latest release of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case files — and claim the whole controversy is a fabrication by Democrats.
"Now 1,000,000 more pages on Epstein are found. DOJ is being forced to spend all of its time on this Democrat inspired Hoax," wrote Trump. "When do they say NO MORE, and work on Election Fraud etc."
Trump's "election fraud" remark may be a reference to a conspiracy theory emerging on the far right, and amplified by Trump himself earlier this week, that over 300,000 ballots in Georgia were "counted twice" — a falsehood based on a misunderstanding of new reporting about ballot tabulators.
"The Dems are the ones who worked with Epstein, not the Republicans. Release all of their names, embarrass them, and get back to helping our Country!" Trump continued. "The Radical Left doesn’t want people talking about TRUMP & REPUBLICAN SUCCESS, only a long ago dead Jeffrey Epstein - Just another Witch Hunt!!!"
Trump's move to blame Democrats for the Epstein files releases comes even though the Epstein Files Transparency Act had bipartisan sponsors, that every Republican except one voted for the bill across both the House and Senate, and that Trump himself signed the bill into law — albeit after spending months fruitlessly trying to persuade Republicans to stand down.
"Now 1,000,000 more pages on Epstein are found. DOJ is being forced to spend all of its time on this Democrat inspired Hoax," wrote Trump. "When do they say NO MORE, and work on Election Fraud etc."
Trump's "election fraud" remark may be a reference to a conspiracy theory emerging on the far right, and amplified by Trump himself earlier this week, that over 300,000 ballots in Georgia were "counted twice" — a falsehood based on a misunderstanding of new reporting about ballot tabulators.
"The Dems are the ones who worked with Epstein, not the Republicans. Release all of their names, embarrass them, and get back to helping our Country!" Trump continued. "The Radical Left doesn’t want people talking about TRUMP & REPUBLICAN SUCCESS, only a long ago dead Jeffrey Epstein - Just another Witch Hunt!!!"
Trump's move to blame Democrats for the Epstein files releases comes even though the Epstein Files Transparency Act had bipartisan sponsors, that every Republican except one voted for the bill across both the House and Senate, and that Trump himself signed the bill into law — albeit after spending months fruitlessly trying to persuade Republicans to stand down.
December 26, 2025
https://www.rawstory.com/alternet-posts/trump-battleship/
New battleships named after Trump are 'bomb magnets' -- and will never sail: expert
This battleship makes no sense and will never be built
New battleships named after Trump are 'bomb magnets' — and will never sail: expert
— (@bobshaw-28.bsky.social) 2025-12-26T21:50:29.523Z
www.rawstory.com/alternet-pos...
https://www.rawstory.com/alternet-posts/trump-battleship/
Donald Trump's much-hyped new battleship fleet, named after himself, "will never sail," a group of experts told CNBC in a new report, owing to the outdated design that will make them a "bomb magnet" in a real conflict.
Earlier this week, the president unveiled a new "Trump-class" of US Navy battleships, which he touted as "some of the most lethal surface warfare ships" and "the fastest, the biggest, and by far, 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built." Despite his enthusiasm from Trump about maintaining "American military supremacy," CNBC on Friday noted the "glaring problem" putting them at odds with reality: "battleships have been obsolete for decades."
"The last was built more than 80 years ago, and the U.S. Navy retired the last Iowa-class ships nearly 30 years ago," CNBC explained. "Once symbols of naval might with their massive guns, battleships have long since been eclipsed by aircraft carriers and modern destroyers armed with long-range missiles."
The outlet conceded that Trump's labeling of these new ships with the outdated model name could be a "misnomer," and the actual ships might be more in line with modern sensibilities. Speaking to several experts about the ships, however, CNBC found that the "Trump-class" fleet is still out of step with naval realities, with Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, arguing that they "would take too long to design, cost far too much and run counter to the Navy’s current strategy of distributed firepower."
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," Cancian said, also adding that "there is little need for said discussion because this ship will never sail."
Earlier this week, the president unveiled a new "Trump-class" of US Navy battleships, which he touted as "some of the most lethal surface warfare ships" and "the fastest, the biggest, and by far, 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built." Despite his enthusiasm from Trump about maintaining "American military supremacy," CNBC on Friday noted the "glaring problem" putting them at odds with reality: "battleships have been obsolete for decades."
"The last was built more than 80 years ago, and the U.S. Navy retired the last Iowa-class ships nearly 30 years ago," CNBC explained. "Once symbols of naval might with their massive guns, battleships have long since been eclipsed by aircraft carriers and modern destroyers armed with long-range missiles."
The outlet conceded that Trump's labeling of these new ships with the outdated model name could be a "misnomer," and the actual ships might be more in line with modern sensibilities. Speaking to several experts about the ships, however, CNBC found that the "Trump-class" fleet is still out of step with naval realities, with Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, arguing that they "would take too long to design, cost far too much and run counter to the Navy’s current strategy of distributed firepower."
"A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water," Cancian said, also adding that "there is little need for said discussion because this ship will never sail."
December 26, 2025
Alina Habba in her brief stay as US Attorney had a very sad Challenge Coin minted
Here is Habba's challenge coin
.
December 26, 2025
Congress set records in 2025, some more dubious than others
Republican lawmakers reflect on a year that continued legislative atrophy while ceding more power to the White House.
https://x.com/washingtonpost/status/2003865785723212255
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/24/congress-republicans-legislation-trump-2025
The Republican-led Congress managed to land quite a few achievements in 2025, but not necessarily the ones that lawmakers consider commendable.
With fewer than 40 bills signed into law as of Monday, the House and Senate set a modern record for lowest legislative output in the first year of a new presidency, according to data maintained by C-SPAN and Purdue University.
Despite that lack of productivity, the Senate held more roll-call votes (659) than any odd-numbered year of this century, with almost 60 percent of them focused on advancing President Donald Trump’s nominations to the executive and judicial branches.
The House, meanwhile, set a 21st-century record for fewest votes cast (362) in the first session of a two-year Congress. It held barely half as many votes as in 2017, which was Trump’s first year in office and when Republicans held the majority.
Perhaps not surprisingly, an unusually large number of House members — 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats — have decided to leave the chamber either to retire or run for other office. That places the chamber on pace to set a 21st-century record for retirements in one Congress, according to C-SPAN and Purdue.
With fewer than 40 bills signed into law as of Monday, the House and Senate set a modern record for lowest legislative output in the first year of a new presidency, according to data maintained by C-SPAN and Purdue University.
Despite that lack of productivity, the Senate held more roll-call votes (659) than any odd-numbered year of this century, with almost 60 percent of them focused on advancing President Donald Trump’s nominations to the executive and judicial branches.
The House, meanwhile, set a 21st-century record for fewest votes cast (362) in the first session of a two-year Congress. It held barely half as many votes as in 2017, which was Trump’s first year in office and when Republicans held the majority.
Perhaps not surprisingly, an unusually large number of House members — 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats — have decided to leave the chamber either to retire or run for other office. That places the chamber on pace to set a 21st-century record for retirements in one Congress, according to C-SPAN and Purdue.
December 26, 2025
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5662776-arizona-fema-denies-flood-aid
FEMA denies aid to Arizona counties after disastrous monsoon floods
trump is punishing states with Democratic governors
FEMA denies aid to Arizona counties after disastrous monsoon floods
— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2025-12-24T22:04:52.000Z
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5662776-arizona-fema-denies-flood-aid
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Wednesday denied aid to Arizona counties after September flooding.
Local officials estimate there was more than $30 million in damage to public infrastructure and homes.
“The people of Gila and Mohave County were devastated by flooding from severe monsoon storms this September. Now, they’ve been denied support from the federal government with little explanation,” Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) said in a statement.
“By denying much-needed relief, this administration is leaving Arizonans out on their own after their homes, businesses, roads, and bridges were decimated by historic storms,” she added.
Hobbs said the state would appeal FEMA’s denial for disaster relief. The Department of Homeland Security, which houses FEMA, did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment on the matter.
Local officials estimate there was more than $30 million in damage to public infrastructure and homes.
“The people of Gila and Mohave County were devastated by flooding from severe monsoon storms this September. Now, they’ve been denied support from the federal government with little explanation,” Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) said in a statement.
“By denying much-needed relief, this administration is leaving Arizonans out on their own after their homes, businesses, roads, and bridges were decimated by historic storms,” she added.
Hobbs said the state would appeal FEMA’s denial for disaster relief. The Department of Homeland Security, which houses FEMA, did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment on the matter.
December 26, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/jack-smith-isnt-done-pressing-jim-jordan-for-the-transparency-the-gop-doesnt-want
At some point Jack Smith will get to present his evidence against trump
MaddowBlog-Jack Smith isn't done pressing Jim Jordan for the transparency the GOP doesn't want
In theory, the special counsel is eager to give Republicans what they're looking for. In practice, it's not that simple.
Jack Smith isn’t done pressing Jim Jordan for the transparency the GOP doesn’t want
— (@enuffsaysv.bsky.social) 2025-12-25T05:17:12.229Z
In theory, the special counsel is eager to give Republicans what they're looking for. In practice, it's not that simple.
MS NOW: apple.news/A2sVXndrDSPW...
🔥protecting the pedo piggy fuhrer is all jim thinks about🔥
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/jack-smith-isnt-done-pressing-jim-jordan-for-the-transparency-the-gop-doesnt-want
Former special counsel Jack Smith invested time and effort into advocating for the public to see his testimony last week before the House Judiciary Committee, but to no avail: The panel’s far-right chair, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, rejected calls for transparency, preferring secrecy to sunlight.
The prosecutor isn’t letting this go. Politico reported:
.....Except that we know the answer, just as we also know why Jordan is so reluctant to say it out loud. The New York Times reported earlier this month that House Republicans were “reluctant to give [Smith] a prime public platform out of concern that he could embarrass Trump by making a compelling case for the indictments over the president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified documents.”
That is, the point of the GOP hearing was to try to trip up the former special counsel, not to offer him a legitimate opportunity to present evidence and tell inconvenient truths that the party prefers to keep from the public.
After the committee heard directly from Smith and saw him testify as to the seriousness of the evidence he’d compiled against the president, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, joked that Jordan “made an excellent decision in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly, because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president’s men involved in the insurrectionary activities of Jan. 6.”
The former special counsel and his attorneys can keep asking, but at this point, it’s likely that Jordan and his Republican colleagues will never allow Americans to see Smith to testify. I wouldn’t be too surprised if some in the party are regretting having asked the prosecutor to answer their questions in the first place.
The prosecutor isn’t letting this go. Politico reported:
After appearing in a closed-door deposition with the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week, Jack Smith, the former special counsel who led the criminal cases against President Donald Trump, still wants the chance to defend his work in a public hearing — and defend himself against continued Republican attacks.
Attorneys for Smith are pressing for their client to be allowed to testify in an open forum in a new letter to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, obtained first by POLITICO.
.....Except that we know the answer, just as we also know why Jordan is so reluctant to say it out loud. The New York Times reported earlier this month that House Republicans were “reluctant to give [Smith] a prime public platform out of concern that he could embarrass Trump by making a compelling case for the indictments over the president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified documents.”
That is, the point of the GOP hearing was to try to trip up the former special counsel, not to offer him a legitimate opportunity to present evidence and tell inconvenient truths that the party prefers to keep from the public.
After the committee heard directly from Smith and saw him testify as to the seriousness of the evidence he’d compiled against the president, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, joked that Jordan “made an excellent decision in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly, because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president’s men involved in the insurrectionary activities of Jan. 6.”
The former special counsel and his attorneys can keep asking, but at this point, it’s likely that Jordan and his Republican colleagues will never allow Americans to see Smith to testify. I wouldn’t be too surprised if some in the party are regretting having asked the prosecutor to answer their questions in the first place.
At some point Jack Smith will get to present his evidence against trump
December 26, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/us/politics/georgetown-scholar-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1._k8.vc9P.EHaUTNZ4QxmF&smid=nytcore-android-share
I am sorry but the law geek in me was amused by the fact that this law professor pointed out a key argument that resulted in the SCOTUS ruling. I will be looking forward to the briefs in this case to be filed later.
NYT-How a Scholar Nudged the Supreme Court Toward Its Troop Deployment Ruling (gift article)
Accepting an argument from a law professor that no party to the case had made, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a stinging loss that could lead to more aggressive tactics.
Liptak on @martylederman.bsky.social:
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen.bsky.social) 2025-12-24T19:01:57.935Z
How a Scholar Nudged the Supreme Court Toward Its Troop Deployment Ruling www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/u...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/us/politics/georgetown-scholar-supreme-court.html?unlocked_article_code=1._k8.vc9P.EHaUTNZ4QxmF&smid=nytcore-android-share
The Supreme Court’s refusal on Tuesday to let the Trump administration deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area was in large part the result of a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by a Georgetown University law professor named Martin S. Lederman.
The argument Professor Lederman set out, and the court’s embrace of it, could help shape future rulings on any further efforts by President Trump to use the military to carry out his orders inside the United States.
Professor Lederman’s brief said that the government had misunderstood a key phrase in the law it had relied on, which allows deployment of the National Guard if “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”.....
A veteran of the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department unit that advises the executive branch on the law, Professor Lederman identified what he called a glaring flaw in the administration’s argument. “None of the parties were paying attention to it,” he said.
But the justices were. A week after Professor Lederman filed his brief, the court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs on the issue he had spotted. They did, and almost two months passed.
In the end, the majority adopted the professor’s argument, over the dissents of the three most conservative justices. It was the Trump administration’s first major loss at the court in many months. During that time, the court granted about 20 emergency requests claiming broad presidential power in all sorts of other settings.
The administration said “the regular forces” referred to civilian law enforcement like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Professor Lederman argued that the great weight of historical evidence was to the contrary.
The argument Professor Lederman set out, and the court’s embrace of it, could help shape future rulings on any further efforts by President Trump to use the military to carry out his orders inside the United States.
Professor Lederman’s brief said that the government had misunderstood a key phrase in the law it had relied on, which allows deployment of the National Guard if “the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”.....
A veteran of the Office of Legal Counsel, the elite Justice Department unit that advises the executive branch on the law, Professor Lederman identified what he called a glaring flaw in the administration’s argument. “None of the parties were paying attention to it,” he said.
But the justices were. A week after Professor Lederman filed his brief, the court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs on the issue he had spotted. They did, and almost two months passed.
In the end, the majority adopted the professor’s argument, over the dissents of the three most conservative justices. It was the Trump administration’s first major loss at the court in many months. During that time, the court granted about 20 emergency requests claiming broad presidential power in all sorts of other settings.
The administration said “the regular forces” referred to civilian law enforcement like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Professor Lederman argued that the great weight of historical evidence was to the contrary.
I am sorry but the law geek in me was amused by the fact that this law professor pointed out a key argument that resulted in the SCOTUS ruling. I will be looking forward to the briefs in this case to be filed later.
December 26, 2025
Trump Is Suddenly Looking a Lot Smaller (gift subscription)
The president is no longer dominating his party or the country in the way he once did.
https://x.com/JonLemire/status/2004226594060050538
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/12/president-donald-trump-diminished/685427/?gift=SCYx-5scVta3-cr_IlgTyVA9ZXFDRuuBgb9F1hhzJXU
When President Donald Trump marked his 100th day in office at the end of that month, he was on a seemingly unstoppable roll. After taking four years out of office to prepare, he and his team returned to power with a blitz of more than 140 executive orders. He bent the Republican-controlled Congress to his will and dismantled much of the federal bureaucracy. He brought powerful institutions, including prestigious universities and law firms, to heel, demanding that his ring be kissed and his wallet fattened. He upended the nation’s economic and diplomatic relations with the world. He hijacked Americans’ attention—he was everywhere!—while openly musing about tearing up the Constitution and serving a third term. Moreover, Democrats were in disarray—truly—and their party’s future seemed in doubt. Trump stared out from the cover of this very magazine with the accompanying quote “I run the country and the world.” Honestly, it was hard to argue with him.
But as 2025 draws to a close, Trump seems a whole lot smaller. His party has been battered in recent elections. His poll numbers on even his signature issues—the economy, immigration—have tumbled. He’s seemingly lost touch with what got him elected, instead focusing on projects both petty and self-aggrandizing. As Americans worry about affordability, Trump and his family have profited wildly from his time in office. Republicans have begun to openly and repeatedly defy him. Democrats have started to outmaneuver him. Today, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal once more erupted with embarrassing revelations and unanswered questions. And every now and then, Trump seems to have a hard time even staying awake......
And he’s eager to show off the designs for the arch that will mark an entrance into Washington and the $400 million ballroom that will be built where the White House’s East Wing once stood. Yesterday, he boasted about a new “Trump class” of naval warships that military experts immediately denounced as unnecessary and expensive. He reveled in receiving a “peace prize” from FIFA, the soccer organization, and in hosting the Kennedy Center Honors ceremony. (Next year, he’ll surely insist that they be called the Trump-Kennedy Center Honors.) And he proudly showed off the “Walk of Fame” he constructed on the West Wing colonnade, which included insulting assessments of some former presidents (no word yet on what he wrote about Chester A. Arthur) that even some Fox News hosts panned as a childish desecration of a sacred national space.
Trump’s preoccupations have only reinforced the perception that he’s lost touch (as have the several recent moments in which the 79-year-old president appeared to fall asleep in public). None of this has reassured a Republican Party beginning to eye the midterms with dread. As Trump’s poll numbers continue to dip, more Republicans feel that a permission structure has been created for them to occasionally defy the president’s wishes. And for the first time, some in the GOP are beginning to consider life after Trump. There are deep divides in the MAGA base—many on full display at the Turning Point USA conference this week—but also a willingness by Vice President J. D. Vance and others to take some (quiet) steps toward inheriting Trump’s mantle.
But as 2025 draws to a close, Trump seems a whole lot smaller. His party has been battered in recent elections. His poll numbers on even his signature issues—the economy, immigration—have tumbled. He’s seemingly lost touch with what got him elected, instead focusing on projects both petty and self-aggrandizing. As Americans worry about affordability, Trump and his family have profited wildly from his time in office. Republicans have begun to openly and repeatedly defy him. Democrats have started to outmaneuver him. Today, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal once more erupted with embarrassing revelations and unanswered questions. And every now and then, Trump seems to have a hard time even staying awake......
And he’s eager to show off the designs for the arch that will mark an entrance into Washington and the $400 million ballroom that will be built where the White House’s East Wing once stood. Yesterday, he boasted about a new “Trump class” of naval warships that military experts immediately denounced as unnecessary and expensive. He reveled in receiving a “peace prize” from FIFA, the soccer organization, and in hosting the Kennedy Center Honors ceremony. (Next year, he’ll surely insist that they be called the Trump-Kennedy Center Honors.) And he proudly showed off the “Walk of Fame” he constructed on the West Wing colonnade, which included insulting assessments of some former presidents (no word yet on what he wrote about Chester A. Arthur) that even some Fox News hosts panned as a childish desecration of a sacred national space.
Trump’s preoccupations have only reinforced the perception that he’s lost touch (as have the several recent moments in which the 79-year-old president appeared to fall asleep in public). None of this has reassured a Republican Party beginning to eye the midterms with dread. As Trump’s poll numbers continue to dip, more Republicans feel that a permission structure has been created for them to occasionally defy the president’s wishes. And for the first time, some in the GOP are beginning to consider life after Trump. There are deep divides in the MAGA base—many on full display at the Turning Point USA conference this week—but also a willingness by Vice President J. D. Vance and others to take some (quiet) steps toward inheriting Trump’s mantle.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 174,469