Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

The other day, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons claimed he wanted to get his deportation system working like Amazon Prime does.

The leader of Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that his dream for the agency is squads of trucks rounding up immigrants for deportation the same way that Amazon trucks crisscross American cities delivering packages.

“We need to get better at treating this like a business,” Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said, explaining he wants to see a deportation process “like (Amazon) Prime, but with human beings.”

At first, I had a hard time even envisioning what he could mean by that. But then NYT described how Trump has starting setting the Social Security records of immigrants to dead as a way to debank them.

The goal is to cut those people off from using crucial financial services like bank accounts and credit cards, along with their access to government benefits.

The effort hinges on a surprising new tactic: repurposing Social Security’s “death master file,” which for years has been used to track dead people who should no longer receive benefits, to include the names of living people who the government believes should be treated as if they are dead. As a result of being added to the death database, they would be blacklisted from a coveted form of identity that allows them to make and more easily spend money.

Earlier this week, the names of more than 6,300 migrants whose legal status had just been revoked were added to the file, according to the documents.

The initial names are limited to people the administration says are convicted criminals and “suspected terrorists,” the documents show. But officials said the effort could broaden to include others in the country without authorization.

Their “financial lives,” Leland Dudek, the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner, wrote in an email to staff members, would be “terminated.”

[snip]

On Tuesday, Aram Moghaddassi, a software engineer working for DOGE, sent Mr. Dudek the first batch of names to be added: the list of more than 6,300 immigrants homeland security officials had identified as having temporary legal status but who were now either on what he described as “the terrorist watch list,” or had been flagged as having “F.B.I. criminal records,” the documents show. The people’s parole status had been revoked that same day, Mr. Moghaddassi wrote.

The list included a 13-year-old and seven other minors, raising fears inside the agency that it was overly broad, according to one person familiar with the list who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

This will likely work in tandem with DHS’ plan to enforce a registration system, starting today, that serves to turn undocumented presence in the US into a felony (ironically, DHS is formalizing this registration system after Pam Bondi announced she’ll shift away from prosecuting FARA crimes, meaning the foreigners trying to influence US politics get better treatment than the ones picking crops).

Meanwhile, the acting IRS Commissioner, Melanie Krause, has announced her resignation after losing the battle to prevent tax data from being repurposed to feed Trump’s migrant campaign.

Krause’s decision to accept the agency’s deferred resignation offer comes on the heels of the IRS and Department of Homeland Security finalizing an agreement Monday to provide sensitive taxpayer data to federal immigration authorities to help the Trump administration locate and deport undocumented immigrants.

The controversial data sharing agreement between the agencies was one factor that played a role in Krause’s decision to leave, according to one source with knowledge of the situation. The source said that the last draft of the agreement that Krause had been involved with, and had reviewed, was different than the final agreement. Krause learned about the details of the final agreement from the news, the source said.

The Social Security-driven debanking and the IRS data-sharing are both DOGE-led efforts to mine data collected for one purpose and use it for another purpose — to make the deportation system work like a modern supply chain does. You might think this effort has nothing to do with waste fraud and abuse, but as I noted, back on February 19, Trump added streamlining deportation to the mandate of DOGE.

Meanwhile, yesterday Elon Musk confessed DOGE only expects to find $150 billion in saving for FY26 (that is, starting in October), a fraction of a fraction of what he previously claimed.

• Musk said he anticipates the $150 billion savings in the next fiscal year at Trump’s cabinet meeting Thursday.
• Musk repeated his claim that fraud and waste were “very common” in the government, this time giving the example, without evidence, of “people getting unemployment insurance who haven’t been born yet.”
• As recently as last month, Musk told Fox’s Bret Baier he expected DOGE to reach $1 trillion in savings by the time his tenure as a government employee is up in a matter of months.

This means that Elon won’t manage the same level of savings that the Inspectors General that Trump fired were on course to find, all without cutting services like Elon has. We could still have cancer cures and achieve the same level of savings — and all that’s before you consider the $500 billion hole Elon created in revenue projections.

Trump brought in an alleged illegal immigrant in the guise of finding waste fraud and abuse.

And all he achieved was to dramatically cut services that Americans cherish and, in the guise of finding fraud, automate the deportation system.

Yesterday, Donald Trump targeted Susman Godfrey with his latest Executive Order targeting a law firm. That’s significant, because the firm both joined an amicus of 504 law firms and represents Former Senior Government officials with their own amicus (which among other things compares these EOs to McCarthy era blacklists). Trump’s “fact [sic] sheet” justifying the attack on Susman Godfrey is particularly thin, failing to lay out the specific things that have irked Trump, though undoubtedly the debunking of Trump’s false Dominion claims are among the grievances. It says, in part:

• Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.
• Susman funds groups that engage in dangerous efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the U.S. military through the injection of political and radical ideology, and it supports efforts to discriminate on the basis of race.

Given Susman Godfrey’s active involvement in attempts to combat the Perkins Coie attack, it’s certainly possible that Trump includes efforts to combat his attack on law firms among what he considers an “efforts to weaponize the American legal system.”

So in the spirit of solidarity, I thought it’d be an appropriate time to extract a list of all the entities — mostly but not exclusively other lawyers or legal organizations — who have come out in support of Perkins Coie. It took a while, and it has yet to include the white shoe firms who are being similarly targeted, but in recent weeks a slew of entities have filed amicus briefs in support of Perkins Coie. (There are more amicus briefs coming in; I’ll update this accordingly.)

I’ve bolded several, often briefs that make apt historical comparisons, that I found most helpful. Note too the amicus briefs that address the toughest issue before Perkins Coie: To explain why Trump abused the President’s expansive authority to decide security clearances.

Susman Godfrey issued the following statement yesterday after Trump targeted the firm:

Anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law, and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order.

By targeting a firm that stood up for Perkins Coie, Trump may well have escalated this issue.

---

Amicus briefs

Former DC Bar Presidents: On import of adversarial proceedings, providing history of lawyers — including Eleanor Holmes Norton — representing clients whose views they oppose.

363 Law Professors: On violations of First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. [A total of 676 signed the amicus filed in the Jenner and WilmerHale dockets.]

ACLU, EFF, CATO, and other legal advocacy groups: On retaliation and separation of powers.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy: Argues usurpation of judicial authority.

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: On import of pro bono bar.

NACDL and NYCDL: On violation of Sixth Amendment, citing John Roberts.

346 Former Judges: Argues order promotes hostility to adjudication and judicial offiers.

504 Law Firms (full list): Includes list of challenges to presidential initiatives, including Military Commissions, Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank

Solo Practitioner Kenneth Pickering: On climate of intimidation against all lawyers.

Litigation Firms: On zealous advocacy.

Former and Current General Counsel: Arguing the EO “hijacks a corporation’s relationship with outside counsel.”

Bar Associations: Describing that, “Undermining the bar’s independence has historically been a key step on the road to
authoritarianism.”

NAACP Legal Defense Fund: Recalling similar efforts under Jim Crow, arguing that Black Americans are particularly vulnerable when government ignores rule of law. Addresses Bill of Attainder.

International Academy of Trial Lawyers: Citing Principle 16 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

Former Senior Government Officials (full list): EO not authorized by Congress, nor by inherent powers, including justiciability of security clearances. Notes lack of historical precedent. Addresses Bill of Attainder.

Media and Press Freedom Organizations (full list): Argues that Trump will use similar tactics against the press.

Korematsu Center: Warns against deference to government claims of national security (also citing Gitmo). Cites precedent prohibiting government sanction of law firms to prevent challenges. 

Legal Ethics Professors: Raises concerns about informed consent for clients and bribery statutes.

---

Perkins Coie filings

[docket]

March 11: Complaint

March 11: Motion for TRO

March 12: AUSA Douglas Dreier files notice of appearance; AUSA Terry Henry files notice of appearance that includes CoS Chad Mizelle

March 12: Order granting TRO

March 14: DAAG Richard Lawson files notice of appearance

March 14: Status report on compliance

March 18: Douglas Dreier withdraws appearance

March 18: Follow-up status report on compliance (signed exclusively by political appointees)

March 18: Motion to clarify TRO (narcing out DOJ for limiting agencies that comply)

March 20: Status report (filed late)

March 20: Supplemental status report offering thin excuses for not fully complying at first

March 21: Motion to disqualify Beryl Howell

March 26: Order denying motion to disqualify

April 2: Motion for summary judgment

• Statement of facts (including Republicans from firm, range of federal business, description of pro bono work, details on Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann and decade of Trump’s animus, description of lawyers with clearance — including one granted Top Secret clearance under Trump
• David Burman Declaration
• Chris Manning Declaration
• Bruce Green Expert Report (on judicial regulation of lawyers)
• Robert Hirshorn Expert Report (on zealous advocacy)
• Roy Simon Expert Report (on Constitutional problems)
• Bill Leonard Expert Report (on security clearance)

April 2: Motion to dismiss (claiming, among other things, shotgun pleading that doomed Trump’s lawsuit against Perkins Coie in Florida, and including a short substance-free paragraph on the Steele dossier)

April 2: Motion to reconsider scope of injunction (leading other law firms to include each and every agency defendant)

WilmerHale filings

[docket]

March 28: Motion for TRO, Preliminary Injunction

• Bruce Berman Declaration

April 8: Motion to dismiss (which seems to include things from Perkins Coie filing inapplicable here)

April 8: Motion for summary judgement

• Summary of facts
• Bruce Berman Declaration
• Joseph DeMott Declaration

Jenner & Block filings

[docket]

March 28: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

• Declaration of Thomas Perelli

April 8: Motion for summary judgement

• Summary of facts
• Michael Attanasio Declaration

April 8: Motion to dismiss

Protesting Safer in America

It’s not looking good out there, and a lot of people in the coming months (and maybe years) will be taking the streets to show the government their displeasure. Protesting the Trump Administration is still legal, but there’s a lot you should know before you take your rights out for some exercise. You need a lot more than your funny sign ready before you head out for a protest.

First and foremost, you need to have a plan. Are you staying for the whole thing, even if it goes into the night? Are you there to show off your funny sign, take pictures, confront the police, or just vote with your body, to tell the Trump administration you don’t like what they’re doing? Do you want to keep people you care about safe while they attend? Or are you there to put your body on the line, come what may?

There’s a lot of different roles and ways to participate in a protest. I’ve been to dozens across three continent, usually in the role of journalist. But I’ve also protested, and even helped with organizing a few events. This will be a few lessons learned about attending and understanding protests. It is focused on American protests. In a practical sense what makes a protest American is American police and American laws. However, local laws on assemblies vary, as do local police cultures. If you don’t know how these factors work where you will be protesting, ask a local.

There are different roles for people at a protest, and they require different equipment and preparation.

Attendees

Bring with you:

•  water (not cola or sugary drink — really, just water in a refillable non-glass bottle)
• friend or lawyer’s number, preferably written on your body in marker
• snacks, for yourself and to give away
• USB batteries and cables for your cell phone, and better yet, bring enough to share charging with others
• saline eye wash
• earplugs
• if you wear contact lens, you should switch to glasses, or at least have them with you
• good shoes you can wear for days.

Maybe bring:

• a mask/respirator
• a camera
• goggles

These items can make you a target, but they can also be invaluable for dealing with violence or chemical agents. Masks can be useful for both not catching diseases and reducing the effects of less lethals like tear gas and pepperspray. This is one of the reasons they’re often illegal at protests, as well as making it marginally harder to identify protestors. I still bring one every time, but I try to keep them non-threatening. A cloth mask with a filter will not draw as much negative attention as a respirator or a gas mask, but will perform nearly as well.

Do not ever bring with you:

•  your only form of ID
• anything you can’t afford to lose
• prescription medications
• drugs, recreational or not.
• weapons or other illegal items (with the possible exception of masks)

Back up the data from any electronic devices you bring, and turn off face ID, fingerprint recognition, or anyway you could be physically compelled to hand over your data. Come up with a long passcode, and if you’re worried about forgetting it, write it down somewhere at home that only yourself and maybe your loved ones can access.

If you’re coordinating with people, make like the Houthi PC small group and create a Signal chat. (Don’t invite anyone from the Atlantic, they’re busy.)

 

 

 

Risky things to bring:

• spray paint
• canes, other assistive equipment
• anything an unreasonable police officer could construe as a weapon
• black clothing

Know where to find your people: pick a designated spot to meet up if you get separated. If phones fail or are lost or taken, make sure everyone knows where to go to meet up again.

A Few Observations for Organizers

I haven’t been a protest organizer myself, but I have talked to a lot of organizers over the years. Here’s a few novel things I’ve learned:

•  Have your messaging worked out and ready. When a journalist or a neighbor shows up, be ready to explain the plan and the goal of your protest. Don’t be cute or ambiguous, even if you’ve given your protest an extremely cute name. Everything should have times and dates, whether you’re posting to Facebook or flyering. Don’t use a relative date, like “Next Saturday.” Give a day, time, location, and if you’re really kind, the year. (I have seen people show up for a protest a year late.)
• Get to know your street medics. Many of them are medical professionals or volunteers in their normal life. Whether they think of themselves as there to protest or not, their first priority is to intervene before there’s serious injury, or in the worst case to administer first aid while waiting on an ambulance. They also might be handing out granola bars and water to tired or kettled protestors. These are the people you are most likely to be looking for, or are looking for you, by the time your protest is entering the turn from family gathering to unintended street battle.
• If it’s a large protest, designate a deescalation/intervention crew. Give them vests or something to ID them. This is especially true for long protests or particularly stressful circumstances. These are people who can intervene in conflicts or meltdowns, and potentially transfer cases to the medics or even standard emergency services if needed. Mostly though, they will be talking people down, getting them water, and potentially giving people who need it the permission to leave the protest.
• Learn how to use, and teach, the people’s mic. You may not think that you need this technique, and you may be right. But if things go sideways, it’s the last and most reliable way to coordinate with a crowd.
• Figure out a plan for how you either end your event, or let it transition to a rowdier protest after dark. You definitely know more about your local municipality than I do, and more about the crowd. You aren’t going to have as much control on the night crowd as you do on the day crowd, but you do have some power over the formal end of the event, and the character of that moment can effect how the wilder night protest goes. If you march people to the police headquarters at dusk and walk away, you’re communicating something very different to your people than if you end at a party in a commercial district with bars and restaurants.

The Folks You Meet at a Protest

The Protestors

These are people who probably on the whole agree with you. Most people at a protest are doing casual civic duty. They have made a funny sign, or knit a hat, and are dabbling in a bit of the democratic freedom to assemble. The US is a country that sadly enough ignores protests without paying much of a political price for that neglect. But there are times when protest can shake the political order of any nation, even our own. As a protestor or activist, you never know what kind of movement you’re in until years later, when it’s enshrined in the history books.

Some people just want to be where the action is at, or be part of an occasion. Some are doing a bit of what they consider their duty as a citizen. Some of the people in the crowd went out for a walk and ended up joining the crowd because it looked fun. A few are long time activists, people who have devoted their lives to moving the needle in the direction of justice, however they see it. A few are just the old guys who show up to everything.

Counterprotestors

Counterprotestors are usually a group of agitators who group together and harass or threaten the protestors. Usually they are best ignored, though they can become dangerously obnoxious. In some places, you can just point them out to the police if they get violent. In other places the group will take care of them, for better or worse. If local cops are trying to pull them out of a hostile crowd before they get beaten down, just steer clear of it. I have never seen a situation where sufficiently obnoxious counterprotestors didn’t eventually get sorted out by the natural order of things. But people can and do get hurt.

Legal Observers

The people in the florescent green hats are volunteers from the NLG – National Lawyers Guild. If someone has been pulled out of the crowd or detained by police, they’re the first people you can tell about it. Better yet if you can give them a photo of the arrest, and any other information you know about the detained person or persons. They can’t take action directly against police or counterprotestor violence, but they know some lawyers. If someone is being assaulted or arrested, it’s good to document it. Police can’t stop you from documenting it legally, but they might try to anyway. Usually backing up calms them down.

The Blackbloc/Antifa

A lot has been made of the terrifying evils of Antifa by Republicans. But “Antifa” is just short for Anti-fascist. I’ve never minded the idea of people being antifascist, but that’s become a more controversial position than I ever thought it would be.

The Antifa kids generally dress in black (hence Blackbloc) and stay together. They tend to be younger and whiter than most of the crowd. There’s good reasons for this — they are most likely to be involved in physical violence with the police, and being fit and white helps in not getting arrested or killed as much. Antifa may get into physical fights with the police. They will also be the people de-arresting other protestors the police are trying to take into custody.

Whether you agree with de-arresting or not, don’t get into the middle of it. Very few good things happen to you when you get between a 19-year-old with daddy issues and a baton, and a 35-year-old cop with daddy issues and a taser.

The Police

Law enforcement are nervous at protests. This is a universal, unless they outnumber the protestors. They are not used to being outnumbered or potentially outgunned, but they have to assume both at large protests. Ironically this is especially true in more gun friendly states. I recommend being polite and professional with them in person. Rarely is anything gained by being verbally confrontational, unless you’re a lawyer trying to get your client back from custody.

Police at a protest are never there to keep you safe. They are there mainly to protect property, and to disperse the crowd as soon as it is feasible to do so. If you need help, medical care, etc., don’t ask the police. They have neither the time nor inclination to help you. If someone is injured, find the protest’s medics. If the problem is severe enough, try to let an organizer know, or call 911 for an ambulance. It’s not impossible for the police at a protest to take care of an injured protestor, but it is exceedingly rare in my experience. A protestor is more likely to be arrested/detained than given treatment, even if the protestor is visibly injured or bleeding.

I’m going to repeat this, because people have a hard time understanding this: the remit of police at a protest is protect (mainly) commercial property, and to disperse the crowd as soon as it is feasible to do so. The police are not there for your health or safety. They will move in if they think someone is going to break the window of a Starbucks, but not if someone in the protest is injured.

The police will also have some terrible toys at their disposal. It’s likely that the speaker system the police are using at a protest is an LRAD or Long Range Acoustic Device. They both work as a speaker and as a weapon that can disperse a small crowd with painful noise. LRADs don’t work well to disperse large crowds, but they can drive away smaller crowds or groups that the police have divided up from the main protests. They will have chemical and less lethal munitions, as well as lethal weapons. They don’t want to use the lethal weapons — that’s a lot of paperwork. But they will use less lethals more quickly and indiscriminately than a normal person would find reasonable. Make your decisions about where to be and what to do in the protest with the understanding that the police are dangerous.

Police Kettling

Kettling is when the police block and surround a group of people, usually a smaller group within a larger protest, and don’t let them out. Sometimes they tighten in on the kettle to force people into a clump and either arrest or beat them. If you find yourself in a kettle, keep moving. I was once in a kettle for over five hours in New York, everyone in it walked around Zucotti Park for hours, because you don’t want to stop moving in a kettle. It makes you more vulnerable to arrest or beating.

The police will beat people, and the longer a protest goes on, the more tired and violent the police will become.

Protests After Nightfall

The kids and the pissed off old ladies tend to go home by sunset. Protests change character at that point, with more Black Bloc and sometimes running street battles with the police. This is generally a bit one sided, since some protestors may have brought some brass knuckles and spray paint, but the police have brought leftover gear from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s important to know the longer a protest goes on, the more likely the police will use less lethal weapons on everyone around them. There are good reasons to stay through the night and not cede ground to the police, like protecting someone or something, but it’s not easy.

You are always safer near a television news camera crew. It’s not perfect, but since Rodney King got beaten in Los Angeles, the police have been nervous about being filmed.

Once the mood has turned, and you’re in a kinetic situation with police and protestors clashing you have to think tactically:

– Know your egress points.. what does the map look like? Are the exiting streets blocked by police? Where are the police, where is their equipment? (What kind of gear they bring to the protest tells you what kind of protest they’re expecting and what they’re prepared to do about it.)

– For organizers or people shepherding a more kinetic protest, do you have eyes on the police? Do you have eyes on your the edge of your own protest? Will you know if arrests start? Will you be able to get to people if arrests or violence starts? What is your policy on dearresting?

When do you tell people who can’t afford to be arrested to leave the area? What is the is the trigger for that call to go out?

These are all things to think about as both an organizer or protestor before you’re in the situation.

The larger and more complex protests become, the larger and more complex managing the situation becomes. Police can set up rogue cell towers to intercept phones contacting the telecom infrastructure. Other people can detect those towers with a backpack of electronics and an antenna — but there’s not much you can do to stop official traffic sniffing.

If cell access is cut altogether, do you have some kind of back up?

Do you have a plan for jail support? Being there can mean the world for people in custody. Do you have a bail fund? Do you know lawyers willing to work pro bono for jailed protestors without any money?

The sad fact is this: if protest becomes effective, governments tend to react with extreme violence and rights abuses.

Protesting has Range

On one end of the spectrum, protests can be a fun walk in the park with witty signs and fun community. But they can go all the way to occupying government buildings, defending encampments from military, and deposing leaders who flee the country, like Viktor Yanukovych did in Ukraine in 2014.

I hope nothing like that is needed in America. We are not used to that kind of political fight, and I am not sure we are up for it. But it seems not beyond the realm of possibility in a country where people are already being disappeared for their speech.

My last piece of advice for a protest is simply to notice carefully what’s around you. What’s in the air? Where is this going? What might my political context ask of me, and what am I willing to give? No one can answer this but you, but when the time comes, you will know your answer.

Yesterday, Trump issued three more Executive Orders targeting people for their free speech:

• Miles Taylor
  • Executive Order
  • Fact [sic] Sheet
• Chris Krebs
  • Executive Order
  • Fact [sic] Sheet
• Lawfirm Susman Godfrey
  • Executive Order
  • Fact [sic] Sheet

It seems Trump has an unlimited appetite for stripping people of security clearances they don’t hold. Or perhaps Trump’s handlers have figured out these EOs will provide an endless supply of dopamine hits that make the care and feeding of a malignant narcissist easier.

I want to add something to the flood of commentary about this abuse of power.

Miles Taylor, recall, was the author of an anonymous column published in the NYT.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

He left the White House in June 2019, over five years ago, and identified himself as Anonymous in October 2020.

Chris Krebs was the eminently competent head of CISA whom Trump fired by Tweet in November 2020, 53 months ago, after Krebs affirmed the integrity of the 2020 election.

The fact [sic] sheet targeting Krebs describes this as an attempt to “end government censorship,” but then describes it as a part of “ensuring loyalty” (to the US; I guess Trump has lost track of where “C’est moi” ends and “l’État” begins).

ENDING GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP: President Trump is committed to ending government censorship of Americans and believes that those who engage in such conduct should not have access to our nation’s secrets.

[snip]

ENSURING LOYALTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: President Trump has made clear that loyalty to the United States must come before personal or partisan agendas, taking decisive action against those who misuse their undeserved influence to deceive the American public.

The fact [sic] sheet against Taylor fashions itself explicitly as an attempt to root out “betrayal.” and then asserts that one “drains the swamp” by “rooting out … disloyalty.”

ERADICATING GOVERNMENT BETRAYAL: President Trump is committed to ending the weaponization of government and believes that those who engage in such conduct should not have access to our nation’s secrets.

[snip]

DRAINING THE SWAMP: President Trump is delivering on his promise to drain the swamp by rooting out inefficiency, corruption, and disloyalty.

Both of these, then, explicitly make an example of past Trump appointees who “betrayed” Trump. They serve as an object lesson to the people leaking now.

But they are more than that. They also serve to order up an investigation into both men’s networks from their tenure under Trump.

Both EOs direct the Department of Homeland Security (for which both worked) to review their government activities to see whether they violated “suitability standards for Federal employees” or entailed dissemination of classified information; in Krebs’ case, Trump’s order explicitly incorporates Pam Bondi into the investigation as well, whereas the Taylor one only incorporates “any other relevant agency heads.”

Both deviate from earlier EOs in delivering the end report to the White House Counsel rather than Stephen Miller.

Here’s how that looks in the Krebs EO.

I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with any other agency head, to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA. This review should identify any instances where Krebs’ conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship). As part of that review, I direct a comprehensive evaluation of all of CISA’s activities over the last 6 years, focusing specifically on any instances where CISA’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149. Upon completing these reviews, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prepare a joint report to be submitted to the President, through the Counsel to the President, with recommendations for appropriate remedial or preventative actions to be taken to fulfill the purposes and policies of Executive Order 14149. [my emphasis]

But there’s one more item of interest.

The investigative language builds on the EO Trump signed on inauguration day, which is mentioned prominently in the Krebs EO.

(b) The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report.

But it expands the review by two years.

That is, the investigative language in both these EOs authorizes the investigation of actions — and people — from Trump’s first term. In the guise of leak investigations (18 USC 793 has a ten year statute of limitation, otherwise any investigation into the nearly or already expired statutes of limitation would be pointless).

And the investigation within Homeland Security would roll out without court review. (I expect some of these witch hunts will be stymied by judges who recognize the command influence and obvious fraudulent accusations behind them).

This effort doesn’t just target Krebs and Taylor for what Trump claims is “betrayal.” It also provides the excuse to map out their associates within government, including those who may still be around.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

** 8:30 PM ET — UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST. **

While the market and Americans’ college funds, 401Ks, and retirement accounts whipsawed today after their multi-day plummet, somebody had other priorities.

I don’t know at what time this was published by the White House, but this has Trump’s tiny grip all over it.

He’s obsessed with water pressure, confusing it with showerhead function; he’s been obsessed for years with this.

December 27, 2019 – Trump Vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers And Lightbulbs)

July 23, 2020 – With 137,000 U.S. Deaths, Trump Stays Focused on Shower Heads

August 13, 2020 – ‘My hair has to be perfect’: Trump prompts change in showerhead rule – video

August 21, 2020 – Trump talks shower heads, sharks, and more on DNC’s last day

December 17, 2020 – Trump Bemoaned Water Pressure. Now His Administration Has Eased Standards

August 6, 2023 – ‘I Want Water To Pour Down On Me’: Trump Has Cold Words For Showers At GOP Dinner

January 7, 2025 – Making Sense of Trump’s January 2025 Remarks About Showerheads and Rain Falling from Heaven

I’m sure if I dig harder I can find more instances where Trump whined about water pressure in the shower but you get the gist.

And like 2020 when Americans were dying by the thousands each week from COVID and Trump complained about showerheads, Trump once again leaned into his personal bête noire while Americans became increasingly panicked about their financial well being and the state of the nation’s economy under Trump’s tariff-tax.

It’s ridiculous that our country has allowed one exceedingly vain man spend so much of our tax dollars on something which will not result in the blast of water he wants for his “perfect” hair.

Musk and his Muskrats are taking a chainsaw to our entire government, creating enormous risks in the misbegotten effort to increase efficiency and cut government spending — and Trump pisses away any efficiencies with his obsessive, unnecessary change to water and energy saving regulations affecting showerheads.

When the next Articles of Impeachment are drafted, there should be an article for abuse of power for personal use with Trump’s fucking obsession with showerheads as an example. Especially since it’s a form of lawmaking by the executive branch to the detriment of the American public.

~ ~ ~

While Trump was dicking around with his bête noire, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing. Many of you have already read or heard about Rep. Steven Horsford’s (D, NV-02) questions to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer about the dramatic change in the Trump administration’s approach to tariffs — a change which was announced over social media by Trump while Greer was in front of the committee, without apparent advance notice to Greer.

As Horsford noted, the Republicans on the committee weren’t in attendance. It’d be nice to know if those weasels left because they didn’t want to be on the spot on camera during the hearing, or if they were daytrading to capitalize on the announcement.

What isn’t being discussed is that the Senate had a similar hearing the day before during which Greer also testified about the tariffs. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) didn’t sound too happy with the Trump tariff-tax strategy, asking, “Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?”

Greer does a weaselly tap dance in response.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto also grilled Greer more pointedly about the Trump tariff-tax upending the trade agreements including the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) the Trump administration spent two years working on during Trump’s first term.

She asked, “Why would any country want to do business with us, much less negotiate a trade deal if we don’t even honor our ongoing our ongoing agreements?”

Greer did his weaselly tap dance again and she called him out on this because she and Greer had had a one-on-one discussion in her office about trade matters and the USMCA including a blanket tariff strategy.

It’s hard not to watch these video segments from two days of hearings and not come away thinking Greer’s job has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with providing a punching bag between the Trump tariff-tax and our elected representatives.

He does little in these excerpts to make one feel any better about the Trump tariff-tax, mostly because Trump himself appears to ignore Greer, doing anything he wants on a whim to screw with trade and the entire global market without accountability.

Not to mention dicking around with showerheads.

One might wonder when the GOP members of Congress will organize and get a collective spine and consider impeaching and convicting a president who thinks government is just his personal chew toy, treating Congress like they’re irrelevant.

How many angry constituents will it take before they catch a clue? Are they really more afraid of a guy obsessed with showerheads than their own voters?

~ ~ ~

Speaking of angry constituents, please recruit others to help combat H.R. 22, the voter suppression bill Republicans call the SAVE Act. Contact every person you know and ask them to contact their representatives and ask them to vote down this bill.

See: https://indivisible.org/campaign/trumps-new-executive-order-eo-silence-americans-what-you-need-know

As our team member Peterr wrote in comments yesterday,

While it is critical to call your GOP representatives to let them know how much you are opposed to this un-American bill, it is at least as important to call your Democratic reps to tell them to stand up to this, and thank them for doing so.

As a pastor, I am quite familiar with getting phone calls from folks who dislike something I believe needs to be done. Getting the “thank you” calls makes it a lot easier to do what I believe needs to be done. This is how you help Dems grow a stronger spine.

Call your representative no matter their party affiliation. This is too important, leave no stone unturned. When you’re done, call your senators and ask them not to support the SAVE Act just as you did your representative.

If you’re a member of a women’s group, recruit them all because women are the largest single bloc likely to be disenfranchised by this bill.

Don’t wait, make this a priority because a vote could happen as early as today.

~ ~ ~

UPDATE – 8:30 PM ET —

H.R. 22 passed the House nearly along party lines, 220-208.

Four Democrats voted along with the GOP to disenfranchise a substantive portion of their own constituents let alone their own voters. Apparently they don’t care if they ever win election again.

Indivisible emailed an update; if you’re on their mailing list you may also have been told how your representative voted. Of course those of you who are represented by these four Democrats have been betrayed:

Ed Case (HI-01)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03)
Jared Golden (ME-02)

Our next step is to contact your senators and ask them to vote down the SAVE Act.

The Senate only is in session tomorrow (H.R. 22 was one of the last pieces of business on which the House GOP scheduled a vote before fleeing Washington DC). Congress will be on holiday break and in a state work session from April 12 through April 27.

Contact your senators’ closest local office and find out if they are having town halls or will be at other events where you can ask them in person to vote against the SAVE Act.

VoteVets has also sent out an email about the damage this bill poses to the rights of military personnel:

Trump and Elon’s agenda is overwhelmingly unpopular. We’ve got the GOP on their heels.

And now — like clockwork — Republicans are desperate to make it harder for people to vote.

Republicans in the House passed the SAVE Act today, under the guise of election security. It’s a blatant effort to make it harder for people to register to vote and cast their ballot. And if it becomes law, it’s going to impact Veterans, Military Families, and Active Duty.

SAVE would require all voters, including Military voters, to present very specific proof of US citizenship — either a passport or a birth certificate — in person at a government office in the United States to register or update their voter registration. Military IDs and service records are not enough proof to register. It would ban automatic, online, and mail in registration.

How might all of that impact Troops deployed overseas, their spouses, or disabled Veterans who can’t get to an office? It could effectively ban them from registering.

This bill is terrible. It’s an effort to suppress Military votes. If it passes the Senate, it’s going to undermine our elections. And today, we need you to speak out against it.

I hope VoteVets has a chat with veteran Jared Golden over his betrayal of veterans, military families, and active duty service members.

There’s one more important reason this bill needs to be defeated, besides the fact it will disenfranchise a massive number of American voters.

We voters can’t save Republicans from themselves and their leader if we can’t vote. Some of the GOP senators *know* everything is going to hell in a handbasket. They own it if there isn’t a brake applied. This is one of those brakes — they can vote to preserve their constituents’ right to vote by voting against the SAVE Act.

If you can’t find your senators’ local office numbers, you can always contact them through the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or use Resist.bot to contact them.

Don’t sit this one out, it’s far too big, far too important. It’s especially important to contact these Democratic senators if you live in their states because their track record isn’t good based on their previous votes related to immigration:

Catherine Cortez Masto (NV)
John Fetterman (PA)
Ruben Gallego (AZ)
Maggie Hassan (NH)
Mark Kelly (AZ)
John Ossoff (GA)
Gary Peters (MI)
Jacky Rosen (NV)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Elissa Slotkin (MI)
Mark Warner (VA)
Raphael Warnock (GA)

I’m embarrassed to say two of them are my senators. I will be contacting them, though. I can’t afford not to. And I will recruit others to do so, too.

Get them on the record as soon as you can, too. Where do they stand? Let’s keep track.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

Where to begin:

“Damn! You over here like, damn, Kamala, come back to me!” Akademiks joked, speculating that Ross may regret his enthusiastic endorsement of Trump on the campaign trail, now that the president’s economic policy has cost him at least $10 million.

In August 2024, Trump appeared on Ross’s livestream, where the young influencer gifted Trump a $100,000+ custom Cybertruck, Rolex, and his endorsement. While he was visibly morose over the financial hit, he didn’t have anything negative to say about Trump.

Source: Latin Times

Nothing bad to say about the man who cost him eight figures — so far.

This influencer is among many who are why Harris-Walz made no inroads with white and Latino men. They feel a need to belong to a tribe and it’s one which pulls up the tree house ladder to prevent women especially those of color from joining.

Harris warned them and they still can’t fully acknowledge she warned them and they were wrong, let alone admit that really is a leopard sitting on their chests gnawing on their cheekbones.

I’d like to laugh but my investment portfolio is down by a lot and unlike 2008 there was no safe haven I could trust thanks to DOGE Muskrats mucking about in Treasury.

At some point we’ll have to rescue these guys like Bluebeard’s last wife because we’ll be rescuing ourselves at the same time.

~ ~ ~

And now for something critically important — an urgent call to action.

Go to Indivisible.org and read the explanation about H.R. 22, a bill which will disenfranchise a massive number of voters. This is one of the methods by which Trump will attempt to hang onto the White House as well as a stranglehold over executive functions. If voters are deprived of their right to vote, they won’t be able to remove bad representation at mid-terms let alone the general election.

https://indivisible.org/campaign/trumps-new-executive-order-eo-silence-americans-what-you-need-know

While all eligible voters will be affected, those most likely to be disenfranchised are married and divorced women because they will be assessed a poll tax in the form of additional identity documentation in the form of a marriage license. Trans persons and adoptees will also be affected negatively.

The bill also has a hole in it, and I’ll tell you right now it affects me, my father, and my sibling as an example. The word “territory” never appears in this bill, and my father is an American citizen born in what was then a territory, now a state.

Bill text at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr22/text

This legislation needs to die and the 107 Republican House members who co-sponsored it need to hear from their constituents that they are failing their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution.

Don’t let this slip by you, take action. We can’t trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing and protect Americans’ right to vote.

Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121

 

The Supreme Court intervened in two cases pertaining to Kristi Noem’s March 15 botched deportation effort yesterday.

First, John Roberts paused review of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case. And, shortly thereafter, the entire court ended James Boasberg’s Temporary Restraining Order on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (captioned as JGG v. Trump), while holding that detainees must have access to habeas review before being deported.

Contrary to what you’re seeing from the Administration (and, frankly, many Trump critics), neither of these rulings settles Trump’s deportation regime, though the JGG opinion extends SCOTUS’ real corruption of rule of law in very ominous fashion (see Steve Vladeck on that, including his observation that just weeks after Trump called to impeach Boasberg, “Roberts has overruled Boasberg, in a move that Trump will view as sweet vindication”).

I’d like to consider them instead as means to help Kristi Noem clean up after her own incompetence. From a legal standpoint, there’s nothing (yet) unusual about the pause in Abrego Garcia’s case. Indeed, the timing of it may undermine the newly confirmed John Sauer’s efforts to win the case, as I’ll lay out below. As such it may interact in interesting way with the JGG opinion.

The JGG opinion intervenes in a TRO (which shouldn’t be reviewable at all) to take the case out of Judge James Boasberg’s hands the day before he was set to hear arguments on a preliminary injunction. That’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson laid out in her dissent: this was a naked intervention to prevent Boasberg from looking more closely.

I write separately to question the majority’s choice to intervene on the eve of the District Court’s preliminary-injunction hearing without scheduling argument or receiving merits briefing. This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.

The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning. Surely, the question whether such Government action is consistent with our Constitution and laws warrants considerable thought and attention from the Judiciary. That was why the District Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent immediate harm to the targeted individuals while the court considered the lawfulness of the Government’s conduct. But this Court now sees fit to intervene, hastily dashing off a four-paragraph per curiam opinion discarding the District Court’s order based solely on a new legal pronouncement that, one might have thought, would require significant deliberation.

Jackson notes that, as a result, key parts of this legal dispute will not be fully briefed, as Korematsu was.

At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.

The JGG opinion is silent about what happens to Boasberg’s contempt inquiry. While there are people, such as gay hair stylist Andry José Hernández Romero, whose deportation to El Salvador may have violated Judge Boasberg’s TRO and who — since he’s no longer in US custody — may not be stuck challenging their deportation in South Texas, it’s not clear whether any of the men who’ve been deported will be able to sustain the inquiry.

As for everyone else, the per curium opinion rebukes Trump’s original legal stance, which argued that Trump could declare a war and Marco Rubio could declare a bunch of people to be terrorists based on little more than tattoos and via that process deport them to slavery in El Salvador (though you wouldn’t know that from the Xitter posts of virtually everyone involved).

AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.

So courts, including SCOTUS, might yet find that Trump was totally unjustified in declaring his own little war. Courts, including SCOTUS, might yet rule Trump’s use of the AEA beyond the pale. But the legal review of that decision will take place in the Fifth Circuit, where such an outcome is far less likely than in DC.

Indeed, this decision might will be an effort to outsource the really awful work of sanctioning egregious constitutional violations to the circuit most likely to do so.

This was an entirely tactical decision, in my opinion. A gimmick. An unprecedented intervention in a TRO to prevent Boasberg from issuing a really damaging ruling in DC, yet one that affirmed thin due process along the way.

Meanwhile, consider how Abrego Garcia’s fate might complicate all this. As noted above, Roberts’ intervention, thus far, is not unusual. Indeed, by pausing the decision, Roberts made way for Abrego Garcia to submit a response, which corrected some of the false claims that John Sauer made in his filing, his first after being sworn in as Solicitor General. (Erwin Chemerinsky also submitted an amicus.)

Having held that detainees should have access to habeas before deportation, one would think that would extend to Abrego Garcia, who was not given time to challenge his deportation to El Salvador.

The government’s concession that the AEA detainees should get habeas review provided a place for SCOTUS to backtrack to without directly confronting Trump’s power grab. But consider how AUSA Erez Reuveni’s concessions, his admission that DHS knew there was an order prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador, limit SCOTUS’ ability to do the same. That’s one of two key points the Fourth Circuit — a panel of Obama appointee Stephanie Thacker, Clinton appointee Robert King, and Reagan appointee Harvie Wilkinson — made in its opinion, issued at about the same time as Roberts halted the order. Just as the government ultimately conceded that the AEA detainees were entitled to due process, the government conceded that Abrego Garcia should not have been deported to El Salvador.

As the Government readily admits, Abrego Garcia was granted withholding of removal — “It is true that an immigration judge concluded six years ago that Abrego Garcia should not be returned to El Salvador.” Mot. for Stay at 16; see also Cerna Declaration at 53 (“ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time [of] AbregoGarcia’s removal from the United States.”).3 And “the Government had available a procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order, and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17. But, “the Government did not avail itself of that procedure in this case.” Id.; see Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (Mr. Reuveni: “There’s no dispute that the order [of removal] could not be used to send Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.” (quoting Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 25:6–7)); see also Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. at 531 (explaining that a non-citizen who has been granted withholding of removal may not be removed “to the country designated in the removal order unless the order of withholding is terminated”). Based on those facts, the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts — we concede the facts. This person should — the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.” S.A. 98 (emphasis supplied).4

3 Consistent with this reality, the Government attorney appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr’g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that “the removal order” from 2019 “cannot be executed” and is not part of the record)).

4 Of note, in response to the candid responses by the Government attorney to the district court’s inquiry, that attorney has been put on administrative leave, ostensibly for lack of “zealous[] advocacy.” Evan Perez, Paula Reid and Katie Bo Lillis, DOJ attorney placed on leave after expressing frustration in court with government over mistakenly deported man, CNN (Apr. 5, 2025, 10:40 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/05/politics/doj-attorney-leave-maryland-father-deportation/index.html; see also Glenn Thrush, Justice Dept. Lawyer Who Criticized Administration in Court Is Put on Leave, New York Times (Apr. 5, 2025, 5:41 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/justice-dept-immigration-lawyer-leave.html. But, the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court, among other ethical obligations, and the duty to uphold the rule of law, particularly on the part of a Government attorney. United States Department of Justice, Home Page, https://www.justice.gov/ (last visited Apr. 6, 2025) (“Our employees adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior, mindful that, as public servants, we must work to earn the trust of, and inspire confidence in, the public we serve.”). [links added]

With footnote 4, the Fourth Circuit established that DOJ was attempting to retaliate against Erez Reuveni and his supervisor, August Flentje, because Reuvani told the truth. (See also Reuters, which was the first outlet I saw with the story, and ABC, the first to report that Flentje was placed on leave along with Reuveni.)

I was struck by the retaliation in real time, because in fact Reuveni did what a slew of other attorneys have had to do, confess he didn’t know the answers to obvious questions. But something — perhaps Sauer’s review that earlier fuckups may limit his ability to get relief at SCOTUS — led DOJ to overreact in this case.

That is, by retaliating against Reuveni so egregiously, Pam Bondi’s DOJ (Todd Blanche is reportedly the one who made the order, but it also happened after Sauer may have started reviewing the case), DOJ may have made it more difficult for SCOTUS to engage in similar gimmicks down the road.

The Fourth Circuit also anticipated that DOJ would lie about Abrego Garcia’s request to be returned.

5 To the extent the Government argues that the scope of the district court’s order was improper because Abrego Garcia never asked for an order facilitating his return to the United States, that is incorrect. See S.A. 88 (arguing that the district court has “jurisdiction to order [the Government] to facilitate his return, and what we would like is for the Court to enter that order”); see also S.A. 74–75; 85–87.

Indeed, Sauer did just that.

In opposing a stay of the injunction in the court of appeals, respondents insisted that they did “request[]” the injunction that the district court entered. Resp. C.A. Stay Opp. 9. But contrary to respondents’ characterization, the court did not merely order the United States to “facilitate” Abrego’s return, ibid.; it ordered the United States actually to “effectuate” it, App., infra, 79a. If there were any doubt on that score, the court’s memorandum opinion eliminated it, by reiterating that its injunction “order[s]” that “Defendants return Abrego Garcia to the United States.” Id. at 82a (emphasis added). Again, respondents clearly disclaimed such a request in repeatedly telling the court that it “has no jurisdiction over the Government of El Salvador and cannot force that sovereign nation to release Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from its prison.” Id. at 42a, 44

Ultimately, Sauer may get his proposed solution — that Abrego Garcia gets moved from El Salvador to someplace else. But before that happens, he’ll have to account for the Fourth Circuit ruling that there’s no convincing evidence that Abrego Garcia is the terrorist Kristi Noem claims he is and that DOJ itself laid out cause to return him to the US.

The Supreme Court exhibited a willingness to engage in a gimmick decision to bail Trump out of one fuckup Kristi Noem made the weekend of March 15, to ignore Judge Boasberg’s order and deport a bunch of men with tattoos into slavery. It has not yet bailed Trump out of the other fuckup, including Abrego Garcia on one of those planes. Thus far, Trump has made things worse by retaliating against Reuveni for refusing to lie.

Which just makes SCOTUS’ challenge — to invent a gimmick to bail Trump out — all the more challenging.

Update: Predictably, in his reply, Sauer blames Reuveni for not being told some unspecified sensitive information that might excuse the defiance of a judge’s order.

Respondents (Opp. 10-11) cite statements by the attorney who was formerly representing the government in this case, who told the district court that he “ask[ed] my clients” why they could not return Abrego Garcia and felt that he had not “received * * * an answer that I find satisfactory.” They likewise cite his statements that “the government made a choice here to produce no evidence” and that agencies “understand that the absence of evidence speaks for itself.” Opp. 12 (citing SA120, SA128). Those inappropriate statements did not and do not reflect the position of the United States. Whether a particular line attorney is privy to sensitive information or feels that whoever he spoke with at client agencies gave him sufficient answers to satisfy whatever personal standard he was applying cannot possibly be the yardstick for measuring the propriety of this extraordinary injunction.

Real judges would haul Sauer before them and insist he deliver that sensitive information withheld from the AUSA. Sadly, the Roberts court is well beyond that.

Posts in this series

The Beginnings Of Curtis Yarvin
Introduction To Yarvin’s Formalism
Yarvin On Democracy, Leftism, and Julius Evola
Yarvin Explains Why He’s Wrigint
Yarvin On Trump And His Henchmen

Trump acts on his stupid ideas, and on the foolish chatter of whatever loon has his ear. He and his courtiers and henchmen recite crackpot theories to justify working for their own ends, with no pretense of oversight by Trump or Republican legislators.

Some of these weirdo theories, like the tariff gibberish and Christian Nationalism, are well-known. They’ve been discussed in progressive circles for some time, and are occasionally acknowledged in the billionaire media. What I did not know, and what was rarely reported in the media I read, was the influence of a group of anti-democracy advocates.

Recently I began to read about Curtis Yarvin. Heather Cox Richardson mentioned him in one of her Letters To An American, and commenter TruthBtold linked to this substack reporting on Yarvin.  Here’s an article in Commonweal, Yarvin’s Case Against Democracy.

In 2012 Yarvin gave a speech titled How To Reboot The US Government. He gave more speeches and interviews on the subject and drew the attention of rich techbros and right-wing politicians like J.D. Vance. It looks like Elon Musk used Yarvin’s ideas first to remake Twitter as a hang-out for creeps, and then as a template for destroying our govenrment from the inside.

Yarvin claims that democracy has failed and that the only way forward is to get rid of it and replace it with a dictatorship, or a monarchy. It’s a view shared by a lot of people on the far right, and for different reasons by the same filthy rich thugs who’ve been wrecking our country out of hatred for the New Deal and all things that make life better for working people. I’ll be looking into Yarvin’s writings in my next series.

Background

This stuff is wild. To orient myself, I read a chapter written by Joshua Tait in a book, Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. The book is supposedly available through your library. Tait focuses on a blog Yarvin wrote under the name Mencius Moldbug, Unqualified Reservations.  He gives an introduction to Yarvin’s theory of neoreaction, and his rejection of democracy.

Neoreaction’s basic assumption is that humans desire power. Interpreting democracy through this framework, Moldbug claims that democracy’s appeal is that it disperses power widely, indulging the mass desire for useless fragments of power. Since power-seeking is pervasive, society trends toward greater division of power and a concomitant erosion of order. Democracy is a “dangerous, malignant form of government which tends to degenerate, sometimes slowly and sometimes with shocking, gut-wrenching speed, into tyranny and chaos.”

Trump and his henchmen don’t acknowledge the anti-democratic aspect of Yarvin’s thought, at least not so far, unless you consider Trump’s third-term garbage. They just follow his plan for destroying the institutions that diffuse power; and work at concentrating power into the hands of Musk and Trump. Yarvin’s views  can be seen as justifying the unitary executive theory, and for presidential kingship, as contemplated by John Roberts and his anti-democratic colleagues in Trump v. US.

In his blog Yarvin traces out the development of his theories of history, economics and other matters. The blog ran from 2007 to 2014. He has a substack, Gray Mirror, which began in May 2020 (after Tait’s article) where he posted drafts of his book Gray Mirror: Fascicle I: Disturbance, published January 2025. The title is Yarvin trolling: fascicle is close to fascist, but means something else. I’m reluctant to buy the book so I plan to read from the two online sources first. He shows up on other social media sites, but I’m not going there.

I plan to focus on the anti-democracy material and his views of human nature. We’ll see how that holds up.

Defending Democracy

I won’t defend democracy here. I follow Americans like John Dewey and Richard Rorty. See, e.g. Rorty’s Achieving Our Country. My rationale for defending democracy is my understanding of human nature, which I discussed in my series on individuality.

But I also think that we as a nation have for a long time regarded democracy as background for our lives. We see it as a game we watch on TV. We yell at politicians as we would yell at referees. We don’t think of democracy as making any demands on us, much less as something that requires our constant maintenance and improvement.

Caveat

It’s very difficult to write about material with which you fundamentally disagree. There’s a strong tendency to minimize any good points, and to mock rather than try to understand.

I plan to be very careful about separating Yarvin’s words from my thoughts on how to understand what he’s saying, and to try to indicate where I’m having trouble following an argument, so that readers can check my thinking. That should help with the bias problem.

It’s important to note that Yarvin isn’t some Qanon weirdo cranking out conspiracies. I assume that he’s read the material he cites, and that he has tried to be intellectually honest. That distinguishes him from craven ideologues like the SCOTUS right-wingers and from lazy hacks like David Brooks.

Final thought

Yarvin and the filthy rich idiots he influences are dangerously wrong, wrong in a deeply fundamental way. They think they know what’s best. Not what’s best for you and your family and community. They think they know what’s best for the future of the human race.

I have always said — and reiterated, in some form, on Friday — that the most immediate way to reverse the damage Trump is doing is seizing opportunity out of a catastrophe he creates.

The most likely way you will get Republicans to start breaking from Trump, the most likely way you will get Republicans to actually take action against Trump rather than simply mewling weakly, is if a catastrophe threatens the world Republicans — as distinct from average Americans — care about.

The global crisis Trump has created is one such possible moment. But it will require keeping focus and wits in a moment of chaos.

Last week, Democrats had several moments of solidarity, first with the Cory Booker Senate speech, then with Saturday’s protests. Those twin events gave aging white liberals who, before this moment, often complained about fecklessness, a sense of direction.

Then there’s the opportunity created by chaos. Both Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson have warned against Trump’s tariffs. Last week the Senate passed a Tim Kaine bill reversing Trump’s claimed emergency on which he based his Canadian tariffs (with Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell voting in support). Chuck Grassley’s bill with Maria Cantwell to reclaim Congressional authority over tariffs has seven of the 13 GOP supporters it would need to pass so far (with Grassley, Collins, Murkowski, and McConnell, plus Thom Tillis, Jerry Moran, and Todd Young). Don Bacon is introducing a similar bill in the House (where it would need more supporters to bypass Mike Johnson’s control).

There’s more overt opposition from the banksters who foolishly believed that Trump would help business, with Bill Ackerman undergoing a moment of cognitive dissonance in real time.

Thus far Trump has doubled down in the face of whatever lobbying he’s getting privately.

But Trump is, in my opinion, wildly overestimating his leverage over foreign countries and probably even Wall Street. China immediately responded to Trump’s tariffs with retaliation. I expect China has a belief that it can cut the US out of global trade flows, and eventually undermine the US role as reserve currency — though to be sure, Trump has telegraphed plans to retaliate using using precisely those tools.

Not only have Trump’s attacks on Canada reversed the Liberal Party’s fortunes [corrected] in advance of an election this month. But Mark Carney’s hard line has quieted Trump’s taunts (at least until after the election). And his experience as a central banker of both Canada and England makes him a natural leader of efforts to make sense of this chaos.

The EU has not yet decided on a response, but among the tools under consideration are sanctions against US tech companies.

Which is to say, other countries may soon disabuse Trump’s fantasy that he wields absolute power.

But in the last several weeks, Trump has gotten several court rulings that will help him accelerate his assault on the Federal government. A week ago Friday, a conservative panel on the DC Circuit ruled that Trump has authority to fire commissioners on panels that Congress has mandated to operate independently, effectively overruling Humphrey’s Executor [corrected] in anticipation that SCOTUS may ultimately do so. The plaintiffs are asking for an en banc review, as of yet to no avail. In the wake of this and an earlier DC Circuit ruling, Trump has successfully argued that Trump has broader authority to dismantle agencies than District judges have initially recognized. And this ruling makes it more likely that Trump will go after the Fed. [Update: The full Circuit reversed and unfired the commissioners.]

Then on Friday SCOTUS overruled a Temporary Restraining Order, thereby permitting Trump to cancel grants to teachers involving DEI, suggesting that the court will eventually side with DOJ’s argument that existing grants must be litigated in Court of Federal Claims. This reflects Amy Coney Barrett switching positions from an earlier USAID lawsuit. This will lead District court judges to pause before granting similar TROs on an Administrative Procedures theory.

The courts have slowed Trump down and on some matters the courts will continue to be a brake, but the twin legal theory that Trump can fire anyone and after installing his own leader dismantle what is left will accelerate some kinds of attacks. It may also encourage him to fire Jerome Powell, which will really spook the markets.

The 2008 bank crash created an opportunity that Barack Obama largely squandered in his effort to save the big banks from their own foolishness. Here, the foolishness is all Trump’s, with banks and hedgies on the hook only for their arrogance that they would be better off with a racist nihilist. That presents a kind of opportunity, even if Trump’s personal appeal counsels indirect counterattacks (for example, on Elon rather than Trump) for the moment.

Here, the task remains the same as it was last week, and the week before, and the week before that. Hold DOGE accountable for dismantling the government. Warn about what DOGE (and Congress) are in the process of doing to Social Security and Medicaid. Make government visible, especially with stories of those fired and great government projects killed. Get non-political networks — PTAs and library reading groups and disease communities — involved in the fight. Tell the stories of the human beings stripped of their due process rights.

Do everything you can to peel off right wingers.

Help your neighbors.

To the extent you are able as you try to protect your retirement and pay the bills, though, try not to lose your head over Trump’s economic catrastrophe. Lots of people are losing their head right now and the people around Trump are stuck defending tariffs on penguins, badly (and inconsistently). It is absolutely horrible, and billions of people are being hurt by Trump’s attacks.

The economic calamity is of a piece with the constitutional one. And the economic calamity may present a path out of both that and the constitutional calamity.