President Donald Trump and top surrogates of his 2024 campaign — people like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard — said “America First” means sidestepping the quicksand of foreign intervention and stanching the flow of Americans’ blood and money to faraway conflicts in which they have no obvious stake. Or did it actually signify a Great Power willing to exert influence for itself and its ally Israel by dispensing with all-but-imaginary international law and the pearl clutching of academics and middle powers about a rules-based international order?

Prescribing what to think about the U.S.-Israel mission would violate our own. But you should have all the facts.

Some may dispute the choice to begin this timeline in February 2025, rather than in 2024 when the Department of Justice revealed a plot by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to assassinate Trump; or in 2018, when the first Trump administration ripped up the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); or in 490 BC, when the Persians battled the Athenians. But every timeline must have some discrete start date, and ours was chosen for simple practicality. Trump’s announcement of the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei provides the other bookend. - Emily Kopp, Editor-In-Chief

MAXIMUM PRESSURE: February 5, 2025 - June 12, 2025

February 5, 2025

President Donald Trump signs a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) to put “maximum pressure on Iran” by imposing sanctions without exception and aiming to choke off its oil exports to zero. Iran’s oil exports had reached $53 billion in 2023.

The U.S. articulated its terms, which reached beyond nuclear ambitions: “Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles; Iran’s terrorist network should be neutralized; and Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered.”

March 2025

Israeli intelligence teams begin working to create an Iranian target bank based on “centers of gravity,” including Iranian firepower, air superiority, nuclear developments, personnel buildup, economy, governance, and the military industry. The preparations were compartmentalized, and some top generals reportedly were unaware of it. IDF officials had previously accelerated plans for a campaign against the Islamic Republic in Oct. 2024.

March 26, 2025

Gabbard, newly confirmed as director of the U.S. intelligence community, briefs Congress on an annual threat assessment mostly informed by intelligence products authored by the Biden administration.

“The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,” she said, while adding that, “in the past year, we’ve seen an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus.”

“Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons,” she said.

April 12, 2025 - May 11, 2025

Weakened by “maximum pressure” sanctions, Iran meets with the U.S. five times throughout the spring of 2025 for indirect negotiations led by U.S. Mideast Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and conducted through an Omani mediator. Iran, seeking relief from sanctions and to avoid attacks on its nuclear bases, broke with the country’s usual policy of avoiding both direct conflict and diplomatic engagement.

June 12, 2025

A United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution put forward by the U.S. and European nations — passed with a vote of 19 for, three against and 11 abstentions — declares Iran non-compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for the first time in twenty years.

According to IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, Tehran had a stockpile of 400 kg of highly enriched uranium.

“Given the potential proliferation implications, the agency cannot ignore [this],” he said.

Iran reacts by announcing a new enrichment site.

It also accuses the IAEA of an “entirely political and biased” report in light of Israel’s nuclear program.

Israel maintains strategic ambiguity about nuclear weapons but is widely assessed to possess them. It has never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus has never been subject to IAEA rules.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution,” the statement read. “Accordingly, the President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has issued necessary directives for launching a new enrichment facility in a secure location, and replacing first-generation centrifuges at the Martyr Ali Mohammadi (Fordo) enrichment center with advanced sixth-generation machines.”

“The same countries remain silent on the Zionist regime’s exclusion from the NPT and its development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons,” the statement continues. “Moreover, they have taken no action against the regime’s threats to attack the peaceful nuclear facilities of NPT member states.”

THE TWELVE DAY WAR: June 13, 2025 - June 24, 2025

June 13, 2025

Israel launches attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and other military sites, targeting military leaders and nuclear scientists. Tehran counter-attacks, striking Israeli targets with ballistic missiles. Strikes continue for the duration of the war.

“We struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear-enrichment program,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program. We targeted Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz. We targeted Iran’s leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran’s ballistic-missile program.”

The IAEA was due to inspect a new enrichment facility at Isfahan on this date.

June 15, 2025

A sixth round of planned negotiations between Iran and the U.S. originally scheduled for this day are scuttled by the Israeli strikes. Energy targets, military infrastructure, and residential areas in Tehran are hit.

June 16, 2025

Trump writes on Truth Social: “Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!”

The prospect of war in Iran rattles some in the MAGA base. Influential Republicans, including commentator Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, object to intervention in Iran.

June 17, 2025

Several new areas are added to the list of strike zones; 21 provinces have been affected thus far.

June 21, 2025

America strikes Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfaham. The strikes are dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” and combine airstrikes and submarine-launched missiles.

“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Trump said following the strikes.

The administration doubles down on that assessment — pushing back on stories about a Defense Intelligence Agency after-action report that concluded the sites had not been destroyed — with several statements on the White House website under the headline: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News.

Iran responded to the strikes by firing missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar, which were successfully intercepted after Iran gave the U.S. advanced notice of the attacks.

Notably, the U.S. deployed 100 to 250 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors during the conflict, representing some 20-50 percent of the Pentagon’s total inventory and raising concerns about munitions inventory for future conflict.

June 22, 2025

“It's not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!” Trump posts on Truth Social.

June 24, 2025

A ceasefire between Iran and Israel goes into effect, ending the Twelve-Day War, but not before President Trump accuses both countries of violating it in the early hours of the deal, with particular ire toward Israel.

“I’m not happy with Israel. You know, when when I say, ‘Okay, now you have 12 hours,’ you don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them ... We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he said.

June 25, 2025

Seymour Hersh reports that Iran’s enriched uranium has been sealed at Fordow because the entrances were bombed, an idea inspired by Heinrich Schliemann, an amateur archeologist who, in trying to find the ruins of Troy, dug a trench that destroyed them.

“The solution that became policy—blockading any entrance to the nuclear site—arose because one member of the secret group remembered what he had learned, perhaps in college, about Schliemann’s Trench in Turkey,” he said. “Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium may be intact, but it will be impossible to reach for many years, if ever.”

Another report by Hersh states that while critics of Midnight Hammer said the strikes may have failed to completely destroy centrifuges and left highly enriched uranium unaccounted for, the destruction of enrichment and conversion facilities at Isfahan meant Iran could no longer turn it into a usable bomb.

Subscribe now

THE AFTERMATH: August 22, 2025 - December 4, 2025

July 2, 2025

The Pentagon claims U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities degraded Iran’s nuclear program by up to two years.

August 22, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi agrees to resume negotiations on nuclear and sanctions issues.

August 28, 2025

Britain, France, and Germany trigger a “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, reinstating the full suite of United Nations sanctions against Iran lifted over a decade previous.

Jcpoa

135KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

September 9, 2025

Iran and the IAEA reach a deal to resume inspections of nuclear sites, include those bombed as part of Operation Midnight Hammer.

October 29, 2025

Grossi, director general of the IAEA, says in an interview with the Associated Press that inspectors using satellite imagery had not detected production of uranium but had seen movement around the sites where the stockpiles were buried.

November 2025

The 2025 White House National Security Strategy outlines a “predisposition to non-interventionism,” with a “high bar for what constitutes a justified intervention.”

The strategy also outlines “flexible realism”: a policy of “[seeking] good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.”

2025 National Security Strategy

500KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

November 6, 2025

President Donald Trump reveals that Iran had requested Washington remove sanctions, and that he was “open to hearing” Iran’s requests.

November 12, 2025

The IAEA issues a report that says Iran is not letting its inspectors visit sites that the U.S. and Israel bombed during the 12-Day War.

Iaea Report

223KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

THE PROTESTS: December 29, 2025 - January 21, 2026

December 29, 2025

Protests erupt after shopkeepers rally in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar following a crash of the Iranian rial currency. Governor of the Central Bank of Iran Mohammad Reza Farzin resigns. The protests quickly spread to cities and towns across the country.

December 31, 2025

The Iranian government orders a one-day shutdown of 21 of Iran’s 31 provinces. President Masoud Pezeshkian appoints a new central bank chief. Arrests total 148. Seven fatalities have been reported since the start of protests.

January 3, 2026

Security forces kill at least 11 protesters. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei labels protesters “rioters” who “must be put in their place.” The IRGC declares that the period of “tolerance” is over, pledging to target “rioters, organizers and leaders of anti-security movements … without leniency.”

January 5, 2026

The U.S. State Department condemns Iranian security forces storming a hospital housing injured protesters, calling it a “brutal attack” and a “crime against humanity.”

January 8-10, 2026

The apex of Iran’s deadly crackdown on protests arrives.

Exiled crown prince and opposition leader Reza Pahlavi calls for nationwide protests, catalyzing a surge in activity.

Internet access is cut off in Iran. Iranian security forces launch an “unprecedented deadly crackdown,” with forces positioned on streets and rooftops “repeatedly [firing] rifles and shotguns loaded with metal pellets at protesters.”

Two senior officials of the Iranian Ministry of Health tell Time that as many as 30,000 people could have been killed on Jan. 8 and 9 alone. Amnesty International describes a “coordinated nationwide escalation in the security forces’ unlawful use of lethal force against mostly peaceful protesters and bystanders since the evening of 8 January.”

Senator Lindsey Graham directs a message to Khamenei on TV: “If you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life, Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you.”

January 13, 2026

Trump writes on Truth Social, “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

January 21, 2026

Iran’s prosecutor general declares “the sedition is over now,” as protests are largely suppressed. “This isn’t a threat, but a reality I feel I need to convey explicitly...The violence on our streets has subsided and normal life has returned nationwide.”

THE MARCH TO WAR: January 23, 2026 - February 28, 2026

January 23, 2026

President Trump announces an “armada” of U.S. warships is sailing to the Middle East, including the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its escort ships, squadrons of fighter jets and other aircraft, and some 5,000 personnel.

January 29, 2026

The European Union formally designates the IRGC as a terrorist organization in response to the mass killing of protesters. The EU simultaneously levies new sanctions against individuals and entities associated with the Iranian regime.

February 5, 2026

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent describes economic levers used to catalyze Iranian protests during a congressional hearing.

“What we [have done] at Treasury is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said, describing a “grand culmination in December, when one of the largest banks in Iran went under … the Iranian currency went into freefall, inflation exploded, and hence, we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.”

February 6, 2026

Iran and the U.S. hold nuclear negotiations mediated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, the first round of talks since the January protests. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the meetings as a “good start,” and Trump called them “very good,” but warned “If they don’t make a deal, the consequences are very steep.”

February 12, 2026

IAEA chief Grossi tells a news organization associated with Iranian dissidents that “Western powers” have voiced concern about the fate of Iran’s nuclear material, but said the IAEA has a “firm impression” it remains buried underground.

February 13, 2026

The USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier and its escort ships deploy to the Middle East, escalating a broader buildup of military assets in the region — the largest force in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

February 17, 2026

Iran and the U.S. hold a second round of nuclear talks in Geneva, Switzerland, again mediated by Oman, reportedly yielding agreement on “guiding principles,” according to Iran’s Araghchi. An American official said that “progress was made, but there are still a lot of details to discuss.”

February 19, 2026

Trump hosts the inaugural meeting of the “Board of Peace,” where he says of Iran, “They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region, and they must make a deal… bad things will happen if it doesn’t ... You’re going to be finding out probably over the next ten days.”

February 24, 2026

Trump delivers his fourth State of the Union address.

“We haven’t heard those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” he said. “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can’t let that happen.”

“After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, and in a particular, nuclear weapons, yet they continue starting it all over,” Trump said. “We wiped it out and they want to start all over again. And are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi writes the following: “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people.”

February 26, 2026

A third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations takes place in Geneva, described as “most intense so far” by Araghchi. Omani Mediator al-Busaidi wrote following the session that “discussions on a technical level will take place next week in Vienna.”

February 27, 2026

Omani Foreign Minister al-Busaidi says that Iran will agree to the downgrading of highly enriched uranium for fuel, but that negotiators need more time. He clinched a promise from Iran for “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA.”

“If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem,” he said. “This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama's time.”

“If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way you can actually create a bomb,” he said. “There is agreement now that [existing stockpiles] will be downblended to the lowest level possible and converted into fuel and that fuel will be irreversible.”

Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi says on a phone call with an Egyptian diplomat that the U.S. needs to drop its “excessive demands.”

An email sent to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells embassy personnel who wish to leave Israel to “do so TODAY”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio informs seven of the “Gang of Eight” — the top leaders in Congress overseeing intelligence issues — about impending strikes.

OPERATION EPIC FURY: February 28, 2026

The United States and Israel launch a joint operation targeting Iran.

2:16 AM EST - Explosions are heard in Tehran.

2:36 AM EST - President Trump releases a video announcing the operation, deemed “Operation Epic Fury” by the Americans. He recounts historical transgressions, including the 1981 hostage crisis and Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, asserts that Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and urges the Iranian people to “take over” the government.

2:47 AM EST - Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi releases a statement calling the operation a “humanitarian intervention,” and asserts that “even with the arrival of this aid, the final victory will still be forged by our hands.”

3:05 AM EST - AP - A connection blackout falls over Iran.

3:15 AM EST - AP - Explosions are heard in northern Israel.

3:28 AM EST - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu releases a video announcing the operation, deemed “Operation Lion’s Roar,” by the Israelis. He says the aim of the operation is “to put an end to the threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran,” cites an “unprecedented mass slaughter of its own citizens,” and claims Iran is rebuilding nuclear and missile capabilities.

Netanyahu claims the ongoing negotiations were a delay tactic, but that “the United States is not buying their lies.”

4:00-4:31 AM EST - AP - Explosions and missile attacks arrive in Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar. The headquarters of US Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain is attacked.

4:40 AM EST - Iran’s Foreign Ministry releases statement dubbing the operation “criminal military aggression,” states the United States and Israel attacked “a series of targets, defense infrastructures, and civilian sites in various cities,” and notes the attacks came in “the midst of a diplomatic process.”

5:42 AM EST - AP - The Iranian state-run IRNA news agency claims 40 were killed in a strike at girls’ school in southern Iran.

5:49-6:47 AM EST - AP - Qatar says it has repelled multiple rounds of Iranian missiles.

6:56 AM EST - AP - Interceptions seen from Tel Aviv.

7:24 AM EST - Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney releases statement in support of U.S.-Israeli strikes.

7:30 AM EST - AP - Jordan says it has repelled two ballistic missiles.

8:59 AM EST - UK, France and Germany release joint statement calling for resumption of nuclear negotiations, noting non-participation in the strikes, and condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region.

9:15 AM EST - Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi calls the regime change operation “Mission Impossible” in an interview with NBC News, citing supposed popular support for the “so-called regime.” He said there were no communications between Iran and the U.S. He said that Iran is interested in deescalation, yet also stressed that the U.S. will “pay.”

The president of a country, no matter how powerful, has no right to determine another country’s leadership, he said.

9:35 AM EST - China calls on for an “immediate stop of the military actions” and resumption of negotiations.

9:43 AM EST - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer releases a statement calling Iranian response “indiscriminate,” notes the United Kingdom had “no role” in the operation, describes the regime in Iran as “utterly abhorrent” which “poses a direct threat to dissidents and to the Jewish community,” and says “it is clear they must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” Also notes British planes are “in the sky today, as part of coordinated, regional, defensive operations.”

9:45 AM EST - AP - The Saudi capital is targeted by Iran.

10:56 AM EST - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy releases statement condemning Iranian support for Russia in its war against Ukraine, and says “it is only fair to give the people of Iran the opportunity to rid themselves of the terrorist regime.”

11:07 AM EST - AP - The Israeli military says that “dozens” of missiles have been fired by Iran at Israel.

12:59 PM EST - AP - The Israeli military says some 200 fighter jets participated in the initial attack on Iran. The attack struck some 500 targets that included air defenses and missile launchers.

1:00 PM EST - AP - Iranian state TV reports more than 200 people killed.

3:05 PM EST - AP - Iraqi protesters take to streets of Baghdad in support of Iran.

3:36 PM EST - AP - Israeli officials tell AP that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead. Neither Iran nor the US have confirmed. Trump later tells NBC news, “We feel that that is a correct story.”

4:05 PM EST - AP - An Israeli military spokesperson claims strikes also killed other senior Iranian officials, including the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the defense minister, the head of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s military bureau and the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

4:37 PM EST - President Donald Trump announces the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead.

“[T]here was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do. This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country ... The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”

Nick Fuentes has been kicked off YouTube, Twitter/X, Stitch, TikTok, Dlive, Facebook, and even GETTR at one time or another. My apologies to those I’m leaving out. I can’t keep up.

Yet, Fuentes continues to expand his reach. There’s always a platform willing to host him, at least for the time being. For the past four years, it’s been Rumble. If Rumble ever grows tired of him, history suggests his next landing spot might benefit from his presence. One could argue he exemplifies the case against de-platforming. If you ban him, people will still come to see what he says. A sample includes:

This video is what Coleman Hughes calls “Rumble Nick,” who, in a recent piece in The Free Press, theorizes that Fuentes plays a “double game” to infiltrate American culture. Hughes writes that the other version of Fuentes is “Podcast Nick”:

Then there is the comparatively sane character that Fuentes plays on the podcast circuit. This version of Fuentes is a serious Catholic. He’s clearly read lots of books. He’s earnest; he doesn’t joke or curse much. His vision for the country has much more to do with preserving what he describes as a white suburban American way of life (think Little League baseball and hot dogs on the Fourth of July) than with a hostile theocratic takeover of the federal government.

Subscribe now

February 2017

Fuentes, while a freshman at Boston University, hosts “America First with Nick Fuentes” for the streaming Right Side Broadcasting Network. In the clip above, Fuentes says the First Amendment was “written for Calvinists. It was written for Lutherans and Catholics,” not Muslims and the Saudi royal family. He complains that globalists run the media, calls for the murder of people who run CNN.

“I want people that run CNN to be arrested and deported or hanged,” he says.

August 12-22, 2017

Fuentes attends the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., where a woman died after a vehicle plowed through a crowd. Still, Fuentes posts on Facebook that the event was “incredible” and that “the rootless transnational elite knows that a tidal wave of white identity is coming.”

He then tells the Boston Globe that he won’t return to BU because of death threats he’s received, and that his attendance at the rally doesn’t mean he endorses the white supremacist symbols that were there.

He proclaims: “I have never advocated violence, never taken part in violence.”

In the Time video below, Fuentes explains his decision to drop out: “It’s disturbing to me the level of hate that people have been able to express, been able to feel, against people they’ve never met, never saw, never had a conversation with.”

On August 22, Media Matters reports that Fuentes is no longer working for RSBN. The network’s CEO said the decision was “mutual.”

“We brought the issue up of Charlottesville being a huge distraction and not falling in line with some of our core beliefs- and ultimately all of us decided it was best we ended the show. We believe Nick is very talented and wish him well.”

Nov. 10, 2019

Fuentes takes credit for hecklers shutting down a Turning Point USA event at UCLA that included Donald Trump Jr. Ironically, Trump Jr. was promoting his book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us.” From the Washington Post:

The chaotic scene contradicted Trump Jr.’s central thesis that liberals have grown so intolerant of dissenting voices, conservative politicians can no longer engage in civil discourse. It also exposed an increasingly hostile fissure between conservative student groups like Turning Point USA and a hard-right faction of young Trump devotees who have flocked to self-professed “American Nationalist” Nicholas Fuentes and his “America First” movement.

The Post and other outlets report that Fuentes posts on Twitter (link no longer available), “Our problem is not with @DonaldJTrumpJr who is a patriot — We are supporters of his father! Our problem is with Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA organization that SHUTS DOWN and SMEARS socially conservative Christians and supporters of President Trump’s agenda. We are AMERICA FIRST!”

The Bulwark describes Fuentes’ “Groyper” movement in its story on the event:

Fuentes and his allies are portraying themselves as “true conservatives” who are fighting against a corrupt and secular GOP elite that cares more about billionaires and Israel than the millions of white Christians who voted for them. Even Pepe, who once served as the alt-right’s amphibian mascot, has been replaced with Groyper, an obese cartoon frog that has also become the term by which Fuentes fans refer to themselves.

February 14, 2020

Fuentes announces on Twitter that YouTube terminated his channel.

He says he will start streaming on a blockchain streamer called DLive, which kicks him off about a year later. He lands on Rumble in 2021, where he now has 580,000 followers.

May 13, 2020

Fuentes forms the America First Foundation, which organizes the annual America First Political Action Conference, whose speakers have included Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. The first conference was held Feb. 28, 2020, in Washington, D.C. America First is a tax-exempt 501c4 organization. In its most recent IRS filing, America First reports receiving $561,822 in contributions between July 2023 and June 2024.

America First Foundation 070123 063024

1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Tax Exempt Approval Letter

548KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

November 22, 2022

Fuentes has supper with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. The rapper Ye, formerly Kanye West, brought Fuentes as a guest. Trump posts on social media that it was a surprise when West brought guests.

Fuentes discussed the dinner during an interview with Tucker Carlson.

November 27, 2024

Fuentes is charged with misdemeanor battery for pepper-spraying a woman who confronted him Nov. 10 at his suburban Chicago home over a social media post. The Chicago Sun-Times reports she was upset over a post that said “Your body, my choice. Forever.” The Sun-Times reports that, according to the woman, he pepper-sprayed her from his doorway before she could ring the doorbell and then took her phone. Here’s the video:

Fuentes reached a deal with prosecutors in October. The Sun-Times reports his charges will be dismissed if he completes an anger management class and 75 hours of community service, pays $635 to the victim and apologizes to her in court.”

December 2024

A man with a crossbow and handgun shows up at Fuentes’ house, yelling “Yo Nick” when he doesn’t answer the door. Fuentes said he was livestreaming at the time.

The man is later shot and killed by an officer responding to reports of someone in the neighborhood with a gun; police believe he killed three people earlier that evening.

October 27, 2025

Fuentes appears as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s program, prompting intense criticism from both conservatives and liberals for Carlson’s decision to interview him and for failing to challenge any of his views. The reactions spur a series of media coverage similar to this piece from the Washington Post under the headline: Far-Right provocateur Nick Fuentes is triggering a MAGA civil war.

December 8, 2025

Piers Morgan has Fuentes on his program and challenges his statements. In the video above, Morgan plays a clip of Fuentes saying that Hitler is “really fucking cool.” He then asks Fuentes if he regrets saying that.

Fuentes responds: “Saying a fact? No, no. That’s absolutely true.”

He claimed victory afterwards, posting on X:

Piers Morgan tried his best, but his “hardball” interrogation made me look even better than Tucker’s widely-criticized softball interview.

The regime can acquiesce like Tucker or it can try to resist like Piers, but the result is inevitably the same:

TOTAL GROYPER VICTORY.

The House Oversight Committee’s report, “The Biden Autopen Presidency,” can be broken down into two basic parts:

1. Biden’s inner circle — or “politburo,” as the report characterizes it — worked like the two guys in Weekend at Bernie’s, constantly propping up the president to hide his declining cognitive condition from the public.

2. As a result, Biden was often not in charge, thus the need for the administration to use the autopen multiple times.

The report reaches a conclusion that reads like a judicial ruling: Absent evidence that Biden made executive decisions, “the Committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void.” The report continues:

Barring evidence of executive actions taken during the Biden presidency showing that President Biden indeed took a particular executive action, the Committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void. The validity of the executive actions allegedly approved and signed (largely by autopen) by President Biden must be reviewed to determine whether legal action is necessary to ameliorate consequences of any illegitimate pardons granted, or executive actions implemented, throughout the Biden Autopen Presidency. The Committee finds numerous executive actions—particularly clemency actions—taken during the Biden Administration were illegitimate.

Attorney General Pam Bondi responded the morning the report was released, saying her team was reviewing Biden’s use of the autopen for pardons.

The Oversight Committee’s report focuses on “executive actions,” particularly Biden’s last-minute pre-emptive pardons of family members and characters such as Anthony Fauci.

A federal appeals court said in a 2024 ruling that a pardon or commutation doesn’t require a president’s signature as long as it can be demonstrated that the president made the decision. The Oversight Committee’s report tries to make the case that proof of Biden’s executive actions is missing.

The Biden White House’s executive decision-making procedures were so lax that the chain of custody for a given decision is difficult or impossible to establish. Documents that were used to predicate executive actions should be sufficiently traceable to ensure they reflect the will of the president. Instead, the Biden White House’s flimsy procedure appears to have been extremely vulnerable to abuse.

Interestingly, the committee’s report does not address legislation that was signed by autopen, even though the U.S. Constitution says presidents “shall” sign bills they approve. Still, courts have not ruled whether it’s legal to sign legislation with an autopen. In 2011, President Obama became the first president to “sign” legislation by autopen. The administration relied on a 2005 Justice Department opinion for its legal justification.

You can read more about that opinion below as part of Racket News’ timeline of events, controversies and key documents concerning the autopen.

Subscribe now

March 27, 1929

Acting Solicitor General Alfred Wheat writes a memorandum that says presidential pardons do not require an “autograph,” but that “custom and propriety require that the pardoned man be given some token to show that he has been pardoned.”

1929 Acting Solicitor General Memo

4.44MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 7, 2005

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issue an opinion that concludes:

The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President’s signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.”

Although the Justice Department researched the topic at the request of the White House, President Bush never signed legislation with the autopen.

Memorandum 2005 Bush DoJ

371KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 26, 2011

President Obama becomes the first president to sign legislation with the autopen. The president was in Deauville, France, for the G8 Summit while Congress voted to extend provisions in the Patriot Act. They would have expired without his immediate signature.

May 27, 2011

Georgia Congressman Tom Graves expresses concerns about the autopen in a letter to Obama. Graves notes the U.S. Constitution says the president “shall” sign legislation he approves, and seeks clarity that Obama was fully informed of what he had the autopen sign.

Mr. President, I write to request your confirmation that S. 990, as passed by Congress, was presented to you prior to the autopen signing, as well as a detailed, written explanation of your Constitutional authority to assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed by Congress into law.

Tom Graves Letter

35.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Graves follows up in a June 17, 2011 letter to Obama that asks him to re-sign the legislation with his real signature. This time, 20 Republican colleagues also sign the letter.

Autopenletter061711

128KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 2, 2013

The Obama administration for the second time uses an autopen to sign legislation while the president is on vacation in Hawaii. The autopen was used to sign high-profile “fiscal cliff” legislation to avoid spending cuts that would have taken effect if tax breaks were not extended.

February 13, 2024

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals references the 1929 Wheat memo in a ruling that says pardons don’t require a president’s signature as long as it’s clear the president made the clemency decision.

“…nothing in the Constitution restricts the President’s exercise of the clemency power to commutations that have been rendered through a documented writing…But such a clemency warrant or, indeed, any writing, is not required for the President to exercise this authority under the Constitution. Hypothetically, the President could proclaim at a press conference in the Rose Garden that he has pardoned a particular individual, and that would be a valid act…even absent a writing.”

021324 Rosemond Decision

204KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 14-17, 2025

President Trump posts on Truth Social that whoever controlled the autopen was the real president during the Biden Administration. He also declares the Biden’s pardons are “VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT” because they were signed by an autopen.

March 17, 2025

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” determines that 32 of Biden’s 51 clemency warrants (affecting 4,245 people) were signed by two different autopen signatures. This finding was cited in the House Oversight Committee’s report.

The Oversight Project also argues the 2005 legal opinion on the autopen was wrong, and “the Biden Administration’s apparent rampant use of the autopen reveals the very reason that OLC’s 2005 Opinion is erroneous at its core. Once the requirement for a wet signature is dispensed with, an important safeguard against fraud is removed, and an historical lawless Administration combined with a cognitively impaired President leads to the exact situation we are in—no one can be sure what actions President Biden actually authorized.”

Oversight Project Heritage Foundation Memorandum

2.44MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

June 4, 2025

Trump writes a memo that directs his White House counsel to work with the Attorney General to investigate Biden’s use of the autopen. From the memo:

Given clear indications that President Biden lacked the capacity to exercise his Presidential authority, if his advisors secretly used the mechanical signature pen to conceal this incapacity, while taking radical executive actions all in his name, that would constitute an unconstitutional wielding of the power of the Presidency, a circumstance that would have implications for the legality and validity of numerous executive actions undertaken in Biden’s name.

A formal report in response to this directive has not been released.

July 13, 2025

Biden defends his administration’s use of the autopen, telling the New York Times that “I made every decision” in regard to the pardons and commutations he made at the end of his term. The Times also posted excerpts of its 10-minute phone interview with him.

September 24, 2025

A new display of presidential portraits debuts outside the West Wing, but in place of Biden’s face is a framed picture of an autopen signing Biden’s name.

October 28, 2025

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee release a 91-page report that alleges Biden’s “loyal senior staff” engaged in a cover-up of his declining health and “numerous instances in which the president’s approval for an executive action or the chief of staff’s approval of signature by autopen was not memorialized.”

The report includes testimony of a Biden administration official, Anthony Bernal, who served as an assistant to the president and as chief of staff to first lady Jill Biden.

In the video above, Bernal is asked if “any unelected official or family member of President Joe Biden execute[d] the duties of the Presidency?”

Bernal answers by exercising his Fifth Amendment rights.

Meanwhile Democrats on the Oversight Committee release a 14-page rebuttal. That report gives examples of Biden Administration officials testifying that Biden “managed complex policy discussions.”

Moreover, the autopen “scandal” manufactured by Chairman Comer and House Republicans proved to be nothing more than a feeble attempt to attack the legitimacy of President Biden’s policies—a pretext to invalidate executive actions by President Biden, including valid pardons issued pursuant to his constitutional authority. After extensive witness interviews and numerous media appearances, the Majority has produced no credible evidence to substantiate his assertions, demonstrating once again his preference for partisanship over genuine oversight.

Republican House Oversight Report 102825

8.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Democratic Rebuttal 102825

1020KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

John Bolton launched a plan to document and transmit classified information before he even started his job as President Trump’s national security advisor, according to the federal indictment against him.

Two weeks later, he made his first transmission using the encrypted messaging app to two people, a 25-page document “which described information” that Bolton learned in his first few days on the job, the indictment says. The indictment doesn’t identify those people, but the New York Times reports they were his wife and daughter.

For the next 17 months, Bolton regularly sent “diary-like” entries to them about what he saw and heard that included classified information. From the indictment:

BOLTON wrote many of these diary-like entries by transcribing his handwritten notes from his day’s activities into word processing documents, which he then electronically sent to Individuals 1 and 2 through a commercial non-governmental messaging application. On other occasions, BOLTON used his personal non-governmental email accounts, such as email accounts hosted by AOL and Google, to email information classified up to TOP SECRET/SCI level to Individuals 1 and/or 2 at their personal email accounts."

Some examples of that classified information, which was also found in his home:

• Revelations of a “liaison partner sharing sensitive information with the U.S. intelligence Community

• A foreign adversary’s plans for a missile launch and the sources and methods used to gain the intelligence.

• Covert action planned by the U.S. and a covert action that was conducted by the U.S. and another country.

• A foreign country’s intelligence describing an adversary’s planned attack on a facility

Why would Bolton do this? To write a book. The indictment includes excerpts of a letter from his agent stating that it was “with enthusiasm” that they were “again exploring a book” with Bolton while he was still National Security Advisor.

About three months after leaving the White House (Trump says he fired him, Bolton says he resigned), Bolton sent a manuscript to the National Security Council for review as required. He was told to remove “significant amounts of highly classified information,” the indictment says.

The book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” was published in June 2020. The indictment says none of the classified information cited in the indictment was included in the book.

Bolton pleaded not guilty on Friday, a day after his indictment. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, said the accusations were previously resolved.

Like many public officials throughout history, Amb. Bolton kept diaries — that is not a crime. We look forward to proving once again that Amb. Bolton did not unlawfully share or store any information.”

Lowell is also the attorney for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was indicted this month on charges of mortgage fraud. He was also Hunter Biden’s defense attorney and is representing Fed Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Subscribe now

Here’s a short video compilation of some of Bolton’s statements in which he criticized others for their handling of classified material. Some of the comments in the video were referenced in the indictment.

Below is a timeline of events leading up to the indictment.

June 16, 2020

The first Trump administration sues Bolton to stop the June 23 release of his book, arguing that he is violating non-disclosure agreements and that he abandoned an ongoing government review of the manuscript. That review resulted in revisions, but the administration, as of June 11, contended that the latest version it was reviewing still had classified information (as noted above, the Justice Department says none of the classified information cited in the indictment was disclosed in the book).

A federal judge ruled against the administration because so many copies were already distributed, but expressed concern that the book was published before the government’s review cleared it.

2020 Doj Lawsuit Against Bolton

210KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

June 21, 2020

In an interview with ABC News, Bolton says the book would have been 500 pages longer if it contained classified information, and that he wrote the book to “reveal a picture of the president that people can draw their own conclusions from.”

My conclusion is clear. I don’t think he should be president. But I didn’t wanna write a book that was argumentation or that was being an amateur psychoanalyst or coming up with pigeon holes or categories or put the president in.

I wanted people to see him as he operated. Now, there’re people who say that somehow, this is a breach of trust. I don’t see it that way at all. I think there’s an obligation to let the American people know what it’s like in the White House and what their leader is doing. I’m prepared to take the grief that this book will cause because I think the greater loyalty should be to the Constitution and the country.

The video above is a condensed version of the interview. Here’s a PDF of the transcript taken from ABC News’ website:

Transcript John Bolton Interview With ABC News' Martha Raddatz

6.39MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

September 23, 2020

An attorney for the White House staffer in charge of reviewing Bolton’s manuscript writes a letter to the court that says the Trump administration exerted political pressure on her to keep it from being cleared for publication. From the Associated Press:

[Ellen] Knight said that when she advised NSC lawyers on April 28 that she was prepared to clear the manuscript for publication, she was told to take no action. Knight said NSC lawyers told her to tell Bolton that the process was “ongoing.” She says she was once told that COVID-19 issues were delaying the process.

A Trump spokesperson said the letter confirms that Bolton never received the required approval.

June 16, 2021

The Biden administration drops the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Bolton, exactly one year after the Trump administration filed it. The Associated Press reports that the Justice Department also dropped a grand jury investigation.

July 6, 2021

The indictment reveals that Bolton’s emails were hacked. A representative for Bolton notified the FBI and said that it was believed a representative of Iran was responsible.

July 28, 2021

A representative for Bolton informs the FBI that both of them received an email from someone “associated with the hack of Bolton’s account,” according to the indictment. Another message was received on August 5, 2021

January 20, 2025

On his first day in office, Trump signs an executive order that revokes the security clearance of Bolton and 50 other former intelligence officials who signed a letter in 2020 that said Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

The executive order singles out Bolton and his book.

National security is also damaged by the publication of classified information. Former National Security Advisor John R. Bolton published a memoir for monetary gain after he was terminated from his White House position in 2019. The book was rife with sensitive information drawn from his time in government. The memoir’s reckless treatment of sensitive information undermined the ability of future presidents to request and obtain candid advice on matters of national security from their staff. Publication also created a grave risk that classified material was publicly exposed.

January 21, 2025

Trump cancels the Secret Service security detail that had been assigned to Bolton since late 2021 when the Justice Department learned that someone from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard tried to hire someone to kill him.

In charging the Revolutionary Guard official (who remains at large), the Justice Department said it believes Bolton was targeted in retaliation for the Trump-ordered killing of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Qods Force. That occurred in January 2020, nearly four months after Bolton left the White House.

August 22, 2025

The FBI searches Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Md., and his office in Washington, D.C. The search began at about 7:00 a.m. At 7:03, FBI Director Kash Patel posts on X:

Later that day, Trump says he wasn’t told that the searches would take place before calling Bolton a “low-life.”

August 25, 2025

Bolton makes his first comment about the searches in an op-ed in the Washington Examiner. He uses the searches as an analogy to describe Trump’s Ukraine policy:

President Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy is no more coherent today than it was last Friday when his administration executed search warrants against my home and office. Collapsing in confusion, haste, and the absence of any discernible meeting of the minds among Ukraine, Russia, several European countries, and America, Trump’s negotiations may be in their last throes, along with his Nobel Peace Prize campaign.

October 10, 2025

Several media outlets report that Bolton is expected to be charged the following week.

October 16, 2025

Bolton is indicted on 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information (NDI) and eight counts of transmission of NDI. In the video above, Trump is informed by a reporter that Bolton was indicted.

“I didn’t know that, you’re telling me for the first time, but I think he’s, you know, a bad person. I think he’s a bad guy. Yeah, he’s a bad guy, it’s too bad, but that’s the way it goes,” Trump says.

October 17, 2025

Bolton pleads not guilty. He makes no comment as he leaves the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Md.

Subscribe now

One of the big myths of political reporting is that Labor Day marks the traditional start of campaign season during election years. Maybe that was true decades ago, but it hasn’t been in my career. Campaigning is a year-round business.

However, I do remember when redistricting happened only once every 10 years, after the census. Those days are gone. Now it seems like it’s become a year-round thing. Technology is part of the problem. It’s so easy to draw district maps these days, as anyone who has visited the site Dave’s Redistricting can attest.

“What that’s meant is you don’t have to have GIS [Geographic Information Systems] skills anymore,” said Professor Chris Cooper, a redistricting expert at Western Carolina University and director of the school’s Haire Institute for Public Policy. “They’re not hard to draw.”

With the ease of highly partisan gerrymandering comes the near-certainty of lawsuits challenging those maps, which often inevitably means more tweaking of the maps. If I sound worn out, it’s because I am. I’m in North Carolina, where political and court battles over redistricting have been a regular occurrence since 2011, including this summer.

Of course, also occurring this summer was the Texas Legislature’s decision to change its maps mid-decade in an attempt to gain five congressional seats for 2026. The party that’s not in the White House usually makes gains in mid-term elections, so Democrats have a good chance at gaining control of the House if districts remain the same. Who knows if that will be the case in 2026, with California responding by drawing maps to favor Democrats and other states, Republican and Democratic, expected to respond in turn.

Representative democracy? Fuck that.

While we focus on political power in tit-for-tat gerrymanders, Cooper says something else is being lost.

“The relationships and knowledge from representing a district. We know when people are redistricted frequently, they don’t know as much about the people representing them. You’re throwing geographic interests out the window over and over again,” Cooper says.

One more thing: “It's expensive as hell” because of the lawsuits that result.

Here’s a timeline of the race to the redistricting bottom in the last three months:

June 9, 2025

The New York Times reports President Trump’s “political team” is pushing Texas Governor Greg Abbot and Republican state lawmakers to redraw congressional districts to help protect the small Republican majority in Congress.

However, incumbent Republicans worry that new maps could hurt them by putting some of their supporters in other districts.

“We need to think about what those impacts would be on the entire delegation,” Congressman Pete Sessions told the Times after congressional Republicans met to discuss the idea.

Any attempt to approve new maps would require Abbott to call a special session because the Legislature is not scheduled to meet again until 2027.

Republicans have a 25-12 advantage, with one seat vacant that’s expected to be won by a Democrat. The filing deadline for that seat is September 3.

July 7, 2025 - Texas

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department sends Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton a letter that expresses “serious” concerns that four congressional districts are “unconstitutional ‘coalition districts’ and we urge the State of Texas to rectify these race-based considerations from these districts.”

Coalition districts are when two minority groups make up the majority of a district’s population. They are drawn to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights Division contends that recent case law has found that coalition districts now “run afoul of the Voting Rights Act.” Here’s a different interpretation in case you’re interested.

ProPublica and the Texas Tribune report the letter provided political cover for Abbott and legislative leaders:

Despite its adversarial tone, the letter was hardly unwelcome. In fact, it was just the opposite.

It set in motion a chain of events that gave Abbott and Paxton the political cover needed to provide Trump with exactly what he wanted: a mid-decade redrawing of district lines designed to ease that path for his party to maintain control of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections.

070725 Doj Letter

1.19MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 9, 2025 - Texas

Governor Abbott calls for a special session. His agenda includes 18 items; redistricting is listed 15th. He calls for “legislation that provides a revised congressional redistricting plan in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

July 28, 2025 - California

Governor Gavin Newsom meets with Texas Democrats in Sacramento to discuss a potential California response to redistricting in Texas.

August 3, 2025 - Texas

Several dozen Democratic lawmakers head to Illinois so that the Texas House doesn’t have a required quorum to vote on the new congressional district map.

“We are very pleased to welcome you and to stand in solidarity with you, and send a clear message to all Americans, we will not let power go unchecked or let your voices or their voices go unheard,” said Illinois Governor JB Pritzker as he was surrounded by Texas Democrats.

Texas Republican lawmakers point out the irony of going to Illinois, a state whose congressional map “epically fails the fairness test,” according to RepresentUs.

Democrats have a 14-3 advantage in the state, which Pritzker said is the result of “outcomes.”

“The fact that we are very good in Illinois about delivering for the people of Illinois and people react to that and vote for our candidates, is very different than cheating mid-decade by rewriting the rules because their cult leader Donald Trump tells them to do it.”

That evening, Abbott releases a statement that begins:

Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that’s exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just did. Rather than doing their job and voting on urgent legislation affecting the lives of all Texans, they have fled Texas to deprive the House of the quorum necessary to meet and conduct business.

Abbott demands that lawmakers return by 3 p.m. the following day or face removal from office. He says he can do that based on a 2021 Attorney General’s opinion, and appoint members to replace them.

In addition to abandoning their offices, these legislators may also have committed felonies. Many absentee Democrats are soliciting funds to evade the fines they will incur under House rules. Any Democrat who “solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept” such funds to assist in the violation of legislative duties or for purposes of skipping a vote may have violated bribery laws. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 36.02. The same could be true for any other person who “offers, confers, or agrees to confer” such funds to fleeing Democrat House members. I will use my full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons.

House rules allow for a fine of $500 a day.

Attorney General Opinion Kp 0382

202KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

08032025 Abbott Statement Letter

155KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 4, 2025 - New York

Joined by a half-dozen Democrats from Texas, New York Governor Kathy Hochul says she is “exploring with our leaders every option to redraw our state congressional lines as soon as possible.”

Democrats have a 19-7 advantage in New York’s congressional delegation. Trump won about 44% of the state’s vote in November.

August 7, 2025 - Texas

Attorney General Ken Paxton and House Speaker Dustin Burrows go to court in western Illinois, several hours away from where Democratic lawmakers are staying outside Chicago. Their petition asks the court to enforce civil arrest warrants that Burrows issued three days earlier.

August 7 - Indiana

Vice President JD Vance visits Indiana to push lawmakers and Governor Mike Braun to support redistricting. Lawmakers aren’t ready to support the idea, but Lt. Governor Michah is. He thanks Vance in an X post and adds:

Your bold leadership and unwavering support for President Trump’s mission to expand the conservative majority in Congress is exactly what America needs right now. Redistricting isn’t just politics — it’s about ensuring the voice of We the People is heard loud and clear. Indiana is proud to play a key role in shaping a stronger, freer future for our nation and as Lt Governor I fully support this effort!

Republicans already have seven of Indiana’s nine congressional seats in a state where Kamala Harris won about 40% of the vote.

August 11, 2025 - California

California Governor Gavin Newsom sends a letter to Trump that warns he will be “forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California” unless the president requests Texas and other red states to stop their redistricting efforts.

You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make. This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy.

This is not what the Founders envisioned, and California cannot stand idly by as this power grab unfolds. I do not do this lightly, as I believe legislative district maps should be drawn by independent, citizen-led efforts, as we have done in California for the last two decades.

Newsomletter

90.9KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 13-14, 2025 - Texas

An Illinois judge denies Paxton and Burrows’ request to enforce arrest warrants against Democratic lawmakers in the state. The next day, Democrats announce they will return on two conditions: that the special session ends and California moves forward with new congressional maps.

The Democrats announced they will return so long as Texas Republicans end a special session and California releases its own redrawn map proposal

August 14, 2025 - California

Newsom and other Democratic leaders in California formally kick off their effort to redraw the state’s congressional districts to flip five seats to Democrats. Democrats currently have 43 of the state’s 52 congressional seats.

California cannot override the state’s independent redistricting commission without voter approval, so Newsom wants lawmakers to approve a proposition to go before voters on November 4th. He says the proposition will include new congressional district maps and ask “voters for their consent to do mid-term redistricting” through 2030. The mapping process would then revert to the independent redistricting commission.

We're doing this in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said, find me five seats. We're doing it in reaction to that act. We're doing it mindful of our higher angels and better angels. We're doing it mindful that we want to model better behavior as we've been doing for 15 years in the state of California with our independent redistricting commission. But we cannot unilaterally disarm. We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear. We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear district by district all across this country, not just in Texas, but in Missouri, where JD Vance went just a week ago in Indiana, in places like Ohio, in places like Florida, we need to stand up, not just California. Other blue states need to stand up.

Also in the clip above, Newsom tells reporters after his speech that the maps will only take effect if changes to districts in other states “go forward”:

We anticipate these maps will completely neuter or neutralize what is happening in Texas. This does not go forward, I want to remind everybody, unless one of these other states go forward. There’s still an exit ramp.

August 15 - Texas

The special session ends, but Abbot immediately calls a second special session. The Democrats’ demands have been met.

Abbott references the absent Democratic lawmakers in a statement, but avoids any mention of redistricting.

Delinquent House Democrats ran away from their responsibility to pass crucial legislation to benefit the lives of Texans. Because of their dereliction of duty, Texas families and communities impacted by the catastrophic Fourth of July flooding have been delayed critical resources for relief and recovery. Numerous other bills to cut property taxes, support human trafficking survivors, eliminate the STAAR test, establish commonsense THC regulations, and many others have all been brought to a halt because Democrats refuse to show up for work. We will not back down from this fight. That's why I am calling them back today to finish the job. I will continue to use all necessary tools to ensure Texas delivers results for Texans.

August 18 - Texas

More than two dozen House Democratic lawmakers return to the Capitol, providing a quorum for the House to gavel back in session.

August 19, 2025 - California

Democratic leaders begin hearings on new congressional maps that legislation says were prepared by two legislative election committees. However, Julie Merz, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said it provided a map for “consideration.”

KCRA reporter Ashley Zavara tried to find out a basic question: Who drew the map? The DCCC and Zavara report that neither leaders of the election would confirm that people on those committees actually drew the maps. In the above clip, Zavara doggedly presses California Assembly Elections Chair Gail Pellerin for an answer.

“When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef. I just go to enjoy the food,” Pellerin says.

A spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas provided clarity the following day.

The development, creation and drawing of the maps were a partnership between the Legislature, Gov. Newsom, and our lawmakers in Congress. Everyone knows that, last week, the Senate and Assembly received a maps package via our Elections Committee portals from the DCCC, and those maps and associated data were posted on those sites, available for everyone to see. As the DCCC said publicly when they submitted the maps, we worked in collaboration with outside groups, which hired California based redistricting experts, who have worked on nonpartisan redistricting for more than 100 cities and counties across the state. The work they submitted became the basis for the redistricting plans that we are discussing this week. We’re proud of the work here, and now we’re sending these to the people of California, who will have the final say. Because unlike Donald Trump, we believe in democracy and empowering our voters.

August 21, 2025 - California

California lawmakers approve Newsom’s proposal, but make a significant change. The original legislation said the new districts “shall become operative only if Texas, Florida, or another state adopts a new congressional district map that takes effect after Aug. 1, 2025 and before January 1, 2031.” Lawmakers struck that language:

If voters approve Proposition 50, California's new congressional map will take effect no matter what unless a court strikes it down.

As expected, the legislation easily passed with a required 2/3 vote in each chamber. That was expected since Democrats have a “super majority” in both houses.

Newsom signed the legislation on Friday, August 22. Here are comparisons between the current map and the new one going before voters:

Legislation Aca8 2025

171KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 22, 2025

The Texas State Senate approves a new congressional map on an 18-11 party-line vote at 12:30 a.m. State Senator Phil King says the map “meets the critically important goals of legality, of political performance for Republicans and of improved compactness.”

A lawsuit is filed that day by the League of United Latin American Citizens on behalf of 13 citizens that alleges the new map is discriminatory. From the lawsuit:

It eviscerates minorities’ opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in four key areas of the state: Harris County, the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area, Central Texas, and South Texas. The result is that non-Anglo Texans now have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in far fewer districts than under the map previously enacted in 2021.

Lulac Redistricting Lawsuit

1.26MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 24, 2025

In an interview with Meet The Press, Vance tells host Kristen Welker that the Trump administration is finding “opportunities” to push back against unfair gerrymanders in Democratic states.

All we’re doing frankly is trying to make the situation a little bit more fair on a national scale. The Democrats have gerrymandered their states really aggressively. We think there are opportunities to push back against that\, and that’s really all we’re doing.

August 25, 2025 - California

GOP lawmakers file a lawsuit, asking the California Supreme Court to remove Proposition 50 from the ballot. The lawsuit argues it violates amendments to the state constitution that were made in 2010 when voters approved independent redistricting.

One of the plaintiffs, State Sen. Tony Strickland, tells KQED:

It’s authoritarian to predetermine elections in California, and that’s exactly what will happen if Gavin Newsom is successful in November.

President Trump also says his administration plans to sue California.

“BRING IT,” Newom responded on X.

California Gop Lawsuit

5.42MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 25, 2025 - Utah

A Utah judge rules that lawmakers in 2020 did not have authority to effectively repeal a ballot initiative (Proposition 4) that voters approved two years earlier to establish an independent redistricting commission.

Republican lawmakers turned the commission into an advisory body and then proceeded to “crack” a competitive seat in the Salt Lake City area, splitting it into four Republican districts. Judge Dianna Gibson gives lawmakers 30 days to submit a map that “complies with the mandatory redistricting standards and requirements originally established under Proposition 4.”

082525 Utah Residistring Ruling

804KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 26, 2025 - Indiana

Indiana Republican lawmakers discuss redistricting with Vice President JD Vance in Washington, D.C. They appear to be warming to the idea of redistricting. Rep. Jim Seymour tells the Indy Star that “I'm not as opposed to it as I was.”

There were a lot of fascinating points he brought up that I was not aware of. A lot of food for thought. ... (There are) things that we can do to help President Trump after this midterm election so that he can enact a lot of his policies.

August 27, 2025 - California

The state Supreme Court rejects the GOP lawsuit. There was no formal opinion. The court docket simply says, “The petition for writ of mandate and application for stay are denied.”

August 29, 2025 - Texas

Governor Greg Abbott signs the bill that establishes the state’s new gerrymandered districts. In the above video posted on X, Abbott holds up the bill and declares, “Texas is now more red in the United States Congress.”

August 29, 2025 - Missouri

Governor Mike Kehoe announces he is calling a special session to redraw the state’s congressional maps. Republicans have a 6-2 majority in Missouri’s congressional delegation. Kehoe wants Republicans to pick up a seat by significantly altering the Kansas City-area district of 11-term Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who won 60% of the vote in 2024.

September 3, 2025 - Utah

Judge Dianna Gibson rejects lawmakers’ request to stay her ruling. The lawmakers argued they didn’t have enough time.

Gibson acknowledged that she set a tight deadline, but pointed to Texas and California as proof that a new map can be submitted within 30 days.

September 12, 2025 - Missouri

Lawmakers approve a new map that targets Cleaver’s district. Two lawsuits are filed the same day that contend the state’s constitution doesn’t allow mid-decade redistricting. Another has already been filed by the NAACP.

September 28, 2025 - Missouri

Governor Mike Kehoe signs legislation for the new maps.

October 10, 2025 - Indiana

Vance travels to Indiana to meet with lawmakers and Governor Mike Braun about redistricting.

Braun called it a “thoughtful discussion” on redistricting “and the importance of ensuring fair representation for every Hoosier.” He’s suggested that there could be a special session in November to draw a new congressional map.

Republican lawmakers have not decided if they are in support of the idea, but Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray says a decision is expected soon, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reports.

October 13, 2025 - North Carolina

House and Senate leaders announce their intention to redraw the state’s congressional maps in an effort to pick up one seat for Republicans, which currently have a 10-4 advantage in North Carolina.

Democratic Governor Josh Stein does not have the power to veto map legislation, although if history is any guide, there would certainly be a legal to challenge to whatever changes Republicans make. They expect to vote on a new map next week.

October 21, 2025 - North Carolina

Republican lawmakers approve a new map that targets the seat of two-term Democratic Congressman Don Davis. The northeastern North Carolina district currently has a 3% GOP advantage. The Washington Post reports that Republicans will now have an 11-point advantage.

Subscribe now

Matt Taibbi has had a slew of reporting in the last month about declassified documents related to Russiagate, so I thought it would be useful to have everything in one place — not just for our audience, but internally as well.

July 3, 2025

First up is a CIA report commissioned by CIA Director John Ratcliffe that focuses on the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6, 2017. Matt writes about the CIA report here.

Among the findings: former CIA Director John Brennan was warned not to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA.

CIA’s Deputy Director for Analysis (DDA) warned in an email to Brennan on 29 December that including it in any form risked “the credibility of the entire paper.”

The new CIA report, dated June 26, criticizes the intelligence chiefs for including the Steele Dossier in the ICA, saying that “ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles” and “undermined the credibility” of his key conclusions. That isn’t just an after the fact conclusion, however. As Matt notes in this story, it was already known that Brennan overruled NSA chief Mike Rogers and two senior CIA managers in Russia to reach the much-disputed conclusion that Putin “aspired” to help Donald Trump win the election. The CIA report elaborates:

The two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia argued jointly against including the “aspire” judgment. In an email to Brennan on 30 December, they stated the judgment should be removed because it was both weakly supported and unnecessary, given the strength and logic of the paper’s other findings on intent. They warned that including it would only “open up a line of very politicized inquiry.”

Below is the CIA report, called a “Note,” as well as the January 6, 2017, ICA.

062625 Cia Note

428KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ica 2017 01

1.52MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 9, 2026

Matt reports:

In a story first broken by Fox News, reported further by Margot Cleveland at The Federalist, Miranda Devine at the New York Post, and Paul Sperry at RealClear Investigations, and bolstered now by our own sources at Racket, it’s confirmed: FBI Director Kash Patel has opened criminal investigations into former CIA chief John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, for offenses related to the Trump-Russia scandal colloquially known as “Russiagate.”

Specifically, the FBI is looking at perjury and conspiracy against them related to how the CIA and FBI worked to produce the infamous ICA.

Matt also reports on an angry letter from House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) chair Rick Crawford sent to Trump about his disappointment in that the CIA was “permitted to whitewash” its June 26 report on the intelligence community’s role in Russiagate. He also said that his committee does not have a staff report that “documents efforts within the CIA to manufacture the Trump-Russia collusion narrative and must not be locked away indefinitely.”

Mr. President, CIA has in its possession a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) staff report that exposes the truth about the politically driven Obama-era assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect Trump.” The report was produced during the 116th Congress under the leadership of Devin Nunes despite extraordinary restrictions imposed by CIA. Among those restrictions are a prohibition on transporting the final document to our secure spaces on Capitol Hill. As a result, very few people have been able to review it.

Crawford Letter To Potus On Cia Lessons Learned Review

684KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 10, 2025

Brennan goes on MSNBC, where he is a paid contributor, to address the investigation. Under the headline, “Brennan, MSNBC Can't Stop Lying About Trump and Russia,” Matt provides a breakdown of the interview with Nicole Wallace. Among Brennan’s complaints is that Ratcliffe did not speak to him. Matt writes:

Brennan’s unintentionally hilarious complaint is that John Ratcliffe didn’t bother interviewing him for the 8-page note released last week.

This is the same Brennan who included an explosive “annex” of classified material from ex-spy Christopher Steele that upended American politics for years without interviewing Steele, his “Primary Sub-Source” Igor Danchenko of the Brookings Institute, or any of the Russian sources who ostensibly provided the pillars of Steele’s reports: tales of Trump “employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show,” the “well-developed conspiracy” between Trump and Russia, and the notion that “Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting… Donald Trump, for at least five years.”

Wallace also interviews former Hillary Clinton attorney Marc Elias, who in 2016 was the point man in hiring Fusion-GPS, the research firm that hired Christopher Steele to compile reports on Trump. Matt writes:

Abandoning all self-respect, humorously hoping no one would remember his entire political raison d’être has been leveraging iffy information into legal trouble for antagonists, he said, “Like honestly, I’m just imploring the media, do NOT report” the news of the investigations. Priceless.

July 18-21, 2025

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard releases a 114-page document, titled “Declassified evidence of Obama administration’s conspiracy to subvert Trump’s 2016 victory and presidency.”

Dig Declassified Evidence Obama Subvert President Trump 2016 Victory Election July2025

20.4MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Gabbard also releases an 11-page memorandum that provides a timeline and key portions from the declassified report.

Dig Russia Hoax Memo And Timeline Revisited

759KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The declassified report shows that intelligence officials on December 8, 2016, were preparing to release a report that concluded “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”

From Matt’s July 18 story on the declassified report:

On the following day, December 9th, 2016, members of Obama’s National Security Principals Committee — including Clapper, CIA director John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Brian McKeon, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and Avril Haines — gathered for a meeting, after which each received an email titled, “POTUS Tasking on Russia Election Meddling.” The email tasked the members with the creation of a new “assessment per the President’s request.”

Matt follows up on July 19 in a story titled, “Barack Obama Now Squarely in Russiagate Crosshairs.” He writes:

It once seemed a lock that Obama would be remembered as the winsome hero of Shepard Fairey’s portrait, but Gabbard’s documents place him at the center of an unprecedented act of political sabotage, committed in his last Oval Office days as a humiliated lame-duck in the winter of 2016-2017.

Matt goes into more detail on July 21 in a piece headlined, “Explaining Russiagate: Why the December 9th, 2016 Meeting Mattered”

July 23, 2025

Gabbard releases a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report - the one Crawford complained was being at the CIA — shows that uncredible evidence was used to conclude in the 2017 ICA that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win and “aspired to help his chances of victory.” From Matt’s story, headlined, “In Brutal Document Release, The Russia Hoax is Finally Exposed”:

The Assessment was written by just five CIA analysts hand-picked by Brennan, but even these most favored lieutenants couldn’t accept the key pieces of evidence. Two of the five went to Brennan to say, “We don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected,” only to be overruled. The same thing happened when members of the group objected to the Steele material, saying it didn’t meet even “basic tradecraft standards.” When confronted on this point, Brennan reportedly said, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

Dig Declassified Hpsci Report Manufactured Russia Hoax July2025

9.21MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In a companion piece, “Russiagate Explained: The Sins of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment,” Racket highlights other notable findings, including intelligence that was not used in the ICA.

July 30, 2025

Retired CIA officer Susan Miller, who said she was an author of the 2017 ICA and has made multiple media appearances defending it, was not an author of the report after all.

“Not an author. Not involved,” a senior intelligence official informed Matt in a story headlined, “Hoax on Hoax? Ex-CIA Official Susan Miller Was Not an Author of Key Intelligence Community Assessment, as Claimed.”

“There’s a chance she’s on some emails or something like that,” adds another person familiar with the investigation. “But she’s not the author of the ICA… she wasn’t leading this effort. So it’s just totally bizarre that she claims the opposite.”

Matt writes:

As if Russiagate weren’t a weird enough story already, the sudden appearance of mysterious former CIA officer Susan Miller in a high-profile media campaign reduces the affair to a freak show. In a story about one of the most elaborate media frauds in history, in which the CIA used phony intelligence to prop up a rushed report insisting Russian President Vladimir Putin meddled in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump, it’s only fitting that the person leading the media defense of the original intelligence is not an author of the report in question and may not be significantly involved at all.

July 30, 2025

Gabbard releases a document in which a whistleblower — a former deputy national intelligence officer at the National Intelligence Council — details how his objections to evidence used in the 2017 ICA were suppressed.

The whistleblower also says that the Steele Dossier was “supposedly inserted” by Comey during a car ride involving him, Brennan and James Clapper. As Matt notes in his story, “The jokes write themselves.”

Dig Declassified Whistleblower Testimony Obama Subvert President Trump July2025

2.38MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Gabbard Press Release Russia Hoax Whistleblower Threatened, Multiple Attempts To Report Wrongdoing Were Ignored

228KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

July 31, 2025

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley releases the annex to John Durham’s 2023 special counsel report. The Durham annex, dated May 12, 2023, was declassified at Grassley’s request. Matt writes:

It’s not the final word on this mess, but it establishes definitively that the public version of the Trump-Russia story, which officially began in July of 2016, was a thin tissue of fiction, concealing a larger and more sordid tale dating to at least January of 2016.

Declassified Durham Annex Released By Chairman Grassley

14.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Senator Grassley Press Release On Durham Annex

232KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 1, 2025

In a story headlined, “No Doubt Left: Russiagate Was a Cover-Up,” Matt writes that with the disclosure of the Durham annex:

Finally, it seems, we can explain how the idea that Donald Trump was “gaffing his way toward treason” through a secret love affair (really!) with Vladimir Putin and extensive “ties” or “links” with Russia suddenly became The Biggest Story in the World in the summer of 2016.

It wasn’t the start of a corruption story about Trump, but the cover-up of a still-unresolved Hillary Clinton scandal. This is purely a Clinton corruption story, probably the last in a long line, as neither Bill nor Hillary will have careers when it’s finished, if they stay out of jail. Characteristically, the most powerful political family since the Kennedys won’t just bring many individuals down with them, but whole institutions, as the FBI, the CIA, the presidency of Barack Obama, and a dozen or so of the most celebrated brands in commercial media will see their names blackened forever through association with this idiotic caper. A fair number of those media companies should (and likely will) go out of business.

Aug. 8 , 2025

There are no records with this story, but it’s an important one nonetheless about the legacy media’s dismal reporting on Russiagate and many reporters’ reliance on the phrase “sources and methods.” Matt writes:

The recent press hysterics have to be understood in this context. Features decrying releases to taxpayers of documents written by public servants omit another fact: when you hear “sources and methods,” it’s a good bet the next word out of a reporter’s mouth is a lie. It’s nearly a 100% tendency.

Matt addresses an August 6 story in the Washington Post. Under the headline, “Gabbard overrode CIA officials’ concerns in push to release classified Russia report,” reporter Warren P. Strobel writes:

Gabbard, with the blessing of President Donald Trump, overrode arguments from the CIA and other intelligence agencies that more of the document should remain classified to obscure U.S. spy agencies’ sources and methods, the people said…

Matt writes that it’s to Gabbard’s credit that she had to fight to release the documents, but the Post “simply took news Gabbard’s office is proud of, and spat it out as a negative.”

August 12, 2025

A former staff member of the Democratic House Intelligence Committee told the FBI that former Congressman Adam Schiff, now a U.S. senator, informed staff that classified documents would be leaked as part of an effort to indict President Trump. From the documents:

John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy at Just the News broke the story on these FBI 302 documents, which are summaries of interviews with witnesses. From Matt’s story, headlined “Classified Leaks Back in Focus in Russiagate Investigation”:

The existence of a Schiff staffer who talked to federal investigators was referenced in a Justice Department Inspector General report released nine months ago, in December 2024. That was another investigation by Barack Obama appointee Michael Horowitz, into possible abuses by the Justice Department in Trump’s first term in searching for the origin of classified leaks to the Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times in the “spring and summer of 2017.” The subject of those media reports? Russiagate.

900940134 Declassified Documents 08122025

28.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Unlike many of his other executive actions, President Trump has U.S. Supreme Court precedent on his side in deciding to restrict residents of 12 countries from traveling to the U.S. and partially restricting travel from seven additional countries.

Of course, this action is commonly called a “ban” by media and politicians, but it’s probably not the most accurate word to use. The June 4 proclamation announcing the “ban” lists several exceptions. For example, it doesn’t apply to permanent residents of the U.S. (Green Card holders) and dual citizens. Also exempt are athletes, coaches, and team support personnel heading to the U.S. for major sporting events, such as next year’s World Cup, as well as Afghans eligible for a Special Immigrant Visa for their assistance to the U.S. during the war in Afghanistan. You can see a full list of exceptions in the proclamation.

Trump’s June 4 announcement references his travel restrictions from seven countries during his first term, which he called “one of our most successful policies, and they were a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on our soil.”

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that policy in a 5-4 decision in 2018. Activists are still expected to challenge Trump’s latest travel restrictions, but many legal analysts say this version is on stronger legal ground.

He began his announcement by referring to the June 1 terrorism in Boulder, Colo., in which Egyptian Mohamed Sabry Soliman is accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at people — burning several of them — who were marching in support of hostages still held in Gaza by Hamas terrorists.

The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted as well as those who have come here as temporary visitors and overstayed their visas. We don’t want ‘em.

Yet Trump’s order does not include Egypt even though Soliman arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2022.

The 12 countries with full restrictions are Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Of these countries, only Libya and Somalia were part of his previous travel ban.

The following seven countries have a partial travel restriction to the U.S.: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, the last of which was included in Trump’s travel ban during his first term.

Here’s a timeline of the Trump 2.0 version of the policy, which takes effect June 9, along with justifications for the 12 countries that have the most restrictions. As of this writing, no lawsuit has been filed to challenge the policy. We’ll update this timeline if and when that occurs.

January 20, 2025

Trump issues an executive order on his first day in office that sets the stage for issuing a travel ban. The order calls for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to produce a report that:

• Identifies countries where vetting and screening information “is so deficient” that it warrants a partial or full suspension on letting residents of those countries travel to the U.S.

• Identifies how many residents of those countries have entered the U.S. since former President Joe Biden took office “and any other information the Secretaries and Attorney General deem relevant to the actions or activities of such nationals since their admission or entry to the United States.”

June 4, 2025

President Trump announces his travel ban in a social media video post at 8:11 p.m. He references the report he ordered on January 20, which he says considered the presence of terrorists in countries, visa security cooperation and their “inability to verify travelers’ identities, inadequate record-keeping of criminal histories, and persistently high rates of illegal visa overstays.”

“The strength of the restrictions we’re applying depends on the severity of the threat posed,” Trump says.

The report, however, is not released, although Trump’s policy and a White House “fact sheet” on the policy appear to note findings from the report. The fact sheet also references data from publicly available overstay reports.

Fy 2023 Overstay Report 080524

1.07MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The following are condensed findings from the fact sheet the White House uses to justify full restrictions from 12 countries.

Afghanistan

B1/B2 visa (business and tourist) overstay rate of 9.7%.
F/M/J visa (student, vocational and exchange visitor) overstay rate of 29.3%.

In addition, the White House says the country “lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents” and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.

Burma

• B1/B2 overstay rate: 27.07%.

• F/M/J overstay rate: 42.17%. The fact sheet says Burma has “historically not cooperated … to accept back their removable nationals.”

Chad

• B1/B2 overstay rate: 49.54%, an increase of about 12% from the previous year.

• F/M/J overstay rate: 55.64%.

Republic of the Congo

• B1/B2 overstay rate: 29.63%.

• F/M/J overstay rate: 35.14%.

Equatorial Guinea

• B1/B2 overstay rate: 21.98%.

• F/M/J overstay rate: 70.18%.

Eritrea

• B1/B2 overstay rate: 20.09%.

• F/M/J overstay rate: 55.43%.

The White House “questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea. Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals. Eritrea has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals.”

Haiti

• B1/B2 overstay rate 31.38%.

• F/M/J overstay rate: 25.05%.

The fact sheet notes that Haiti “lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States.”

Iran

From the fact sheet:

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.

The White House does not mention Iran’s visa overstay rates since they don’t appear to be a factor in the decision, but they are:

• B1/B2: 4.99%

• F/M/J: 4.49%

Libya

The historical terrorist presence within Libya’s territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals.

The White House also says Libya lacks a “competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents.” Overstay rates are not cited, but they are:

• B1/B2: 6.71%

• F/M/J: 31.21%

Somalia

The White House says Somalia does not have a competent or central authority for issuing passports. In addition:

Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects. A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia’s territory. The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States.

Its visa overstay rates (not cited in the White House fact sheet) are:

• B1/B2: 10.94%

• F/M/J: 34.38%

Sudan

• B1/B2 overstay rate: 26.3%

• F/M/J overstay rate: 28.4%

The White House says Sudan does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.

Yemen

Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. The government does not have physical control over its own territory. Since January 20, 2025, Yemen has been the site of active U.S. military operations.

Visa overstay rates (again, not cited by the White House):

• B1/B2: 19.76%

• F/M/J: 40.92%

There’s been a lot of celebration over NIH Director Bhattacharya’s announcement that the agency’s last in-house beagle lab is gone. Actually, announcement isn’t quite right. It was more like a matter-of-fact statement. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought he was just repeating what had already been announced.

“We got rid of all the beagle experiments on the NIH campus,” he said in the middle of a May 4 interview on Fox & Friends Weekend as he talked about changing the culture at the agency. That was it.

But those 12 words were huge for groups such as White Coat Waste, PETA, and the Physicians Committee for Ethical Medicine.

In the last decade, White Coat Waste (WCW) has led an aggressive campaign to end the use of dogs for medical research. It focused a lot of its energy on pressuring Anthony Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for nearly 40 years, to end the practice. The NIAID is a division of the NIH.

“Today’s landmark victory is especially sweet as our fight to expose and close Fauci and NIH’s in-house dog labs–which slaughtered more than 2,000 beagles over the last 40 years–was the first campaign White Coat Waste started in 2016,” said Anthony Bellotti, the founder and president of WCW, the day Bhattacharya said the last lab was gone.

But to hear WCW spokesman Justin Goodman talk, the victory is more like winning a battle in a war.

“It was the NIH's last in-house dog lab. And it was actually the last deadly dog laboratory across all government agencies inside the agencies themselves,” Goodman says. “Unfortunately, the NIH, the Department of Defense, the FDA and other agencies are still funding experimentation on dogs and cats outside of their agencies at colleges and universities and private companies across the country. So we're hoping to export this great homegrown victory inside the government, outside to these other laboratories that are being funded with our tax dollars.”

The dogs were primarily used to research septic shock, Goodman says. But why beagles?

“Beagles are the victim of choice for the same reason that they make such great pets. They are well-behaved and sweet and forgiving, and that makes them easy to cage and abuse as well,” he says.

He referenced this section of a 2023 proposal for an NIH-funded study in China. The company, Pharmaron, states why it prefers beagles.

Gross. Here’s the entire contract and proposal for that study, followed by the timeline:

Contract 75n95023p00683 Wm

77.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

November 5, 2016

The White Coat Waste Project publishes a report titled “Spending to Death: Wasteful Government Spending, Transparency Failures, and the Secretive World of Federal Dog Experiments.” The WCW’s report describes how, in 2015 alone, over 1,183 beagles, hounds, and mixed-breed dogs, including puppies, were “subjected to painful, bizarre and wasteful experiments inside federal agency laboratories” operated by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

According to the Project, the agencies in question purchased the dogs “just to cut them apart, infect them, make them sick, and kill them in taxpayer-funded experiments.” Many of the dogs were used in experiments in which they were intentionally given heart attacks, implanted with experimental technology, or had their skulls drilled.

2016 11 05 Wcw Spending To Death Report

3.61MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

October 21, 2021

A bipartisan group of 24 lawmakers sign a letter to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci that says they have “grave concerns” that NIAD spent $1.68 million from October 2018 to February 2019 on experiments involving beagle puppies. The money was spent over a four-month period, from October 2018 to February 2019.

Of particular concern is the fact that the invoice to NIAID included a line item for “cordectomy.” As you are likely aware, a cordectomy, also known as “devocalization,” involves slitting a dog’s vocal cords in order to prevent them from barking, howling, or crying. This cruel procedure — which is opposed with rare exceptions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and others — seems to have been performed so that experimenters would not have to listen to the pained cries of the beagle puppies. This is a reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds.

The letter asks Fauci to provide a detailed rationale for the tests, which were carried out on 44 beagle puppies who were between six and eight months old.

Six Republican U.S. senators sign a similar letter to Fauci on Oct. 29.

10 21 2021 Bipartisan Letter To Congress

737KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

10 29 2021 Senators Paul Marshall Cotton Rubio Braun Collins Letter To NIAID About Beagle Experiments

452KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Oct. 28, 2021

Fact-checkers get to work. First, Politifact reports that a photo WCW posted of beagles’ heads in mesh cages didn’t come from a NIAID-funded study and that the journal that published the study erroneously gave NIAID credit. The journal said it made a mistake and issues a correction.

WCW cited a database of NIH-funded research “which appeared to link the agency to the study,” Politifact reports. It even marks up the photo:

Nov. 19, 2021

A story in The Washington Post calls it a “viral and false claim” that NIAID funded the study with beagles’ heads in mesh cages. The Post reports:

The false claim about the funding for the beagle study, research that was conducted in Tunisia, originated with an error by scientists. Initially, the researchers mistakenly listed NIAID as a funder when they published a paper in a scientific journal in late July.

The story says the study “does not appear in a database of NIH-funded projects.”

The NIAID did, however, fund another study in Tunisia by the same researchers, the Post reports. It evaluated a vaccine for a parasitic disease that infects humans and dogs.

Twelve dogs were given the vaccine and then put in a fenced-in open space outside during high sand fly season, NIAID said, to see if the dogs still became infected.

WCW’s Justin Goodman doesn’t believe NIAID’s denial and tells the Post it’s “too convenient.”

Dec. 26, 2021

The Washington Post reports that in July 2021, the USDA cited a beagle-breeding facility called Envigo in Cumberland, Va. The NIH is among its clients. The Post story cites a PETA report that found Envigo and its predecessor had contracts with NIH that were “potentially worth” $1.2 million. Among the problems inspectors found, according to the Post:

• More than 500 dogs in a building without air conditioning. The dogs were in temperatures above 85 degrees for at least five hours.

• Roughly a dozen nursing dogs went without water for 42 hours.

• Fight wounds on nearly 50 dogs.

A spokesman for Envigo told the Post it would correct the problems. The company also says its dogs play an “integral role in the development of advanced pacemakers,” vaccine development, and Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis research.

May 19, 2022

The Justice Department files a complaint against Envigo for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The complaint (see below) says the facility had housed up to 5,000 beagles in the last year in which it received more than “60 citations for non-compliance with the AWA, which have affected thousands of beagles. More than half of those citations were deemed “critical” or “direct,” the most serious types of AWA citation.

Nearly 150 dogs are immediately removed from the facility. In July, Envigo agrees to surrender more than 4,000 beagles and close the facility. The dogs are put up for adoption.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, WCW obtained records of NIH doing business with that facility and others run by Envigo.

DOJ Complaint

249KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

55874 FOIA Envigo

19.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Office Of Public Affairs Justice Department Secures The Surrender Of Over 4,000 Beagles From Virginia Breeder Of Dogs For Research United States Department Of Justice

263KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

June 3, 2024

Fauci appears before a hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. While condemning Fauci, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia holds up the photograph of the two beagles being exposed to sand flies as their heads are held in mesh cages.

In the video above, Greene says:

As director of the NIH, you did sign off on these so-called scientific experiments, and as a dog lover, I want to tell you this is disgusting and evil, what you signed off on. And these experiments that happened to beagles are paid for by the American taxpayer. And I want you to know Americans don’t pay their taxes for animals to be tortured like this. So, the type of science that you are representing, Mr. Fauci, is abhorrent, and it needs to stop.

Greene shows the photograph again during another exchange about 30 seconds later, to which Fauci replies:

What do dogs have to do with anything we’re talking about today?

On the same day, Envigo pleads guilty and agrees to pay $35 million in fines.

Justice Department Guilty Plea

290KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Plea Agreement

30.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

June 7, 2024

Fresh off of Greene confronting Fauci, the Washington Post takes a deeper dive into that picture it had earlier called a “viral and false claim.”

The Post no longer stridently labels it a “false claim.”

It reports that the NIH couldn’t provide proof that it didn’t fund the study involving dogs’ heads in mesh cases — it only had the word of a researcher at Ohio State who asked for a correction in 2021 after being contacted by the NIH. The editor of the journal agreed but expressed hesitation because she was also an employee of NIAID. She emailed NIAID officials that she was worried about a conflict of interest. The NIH declined the Post’s request to answer questions about the potential conflict.

The story notes that its November 2021 article (mentioned above) said the trapped-beagles claim “does not appear in a database of NIH-funded projects.” That was true — but:

The emails show that, while it was removed before the publication of The Post article, the study had been listed in the database for months and was still listed as of the previous month, when Fauci first asked about the controversy.

It turns out there’s more to the story about the beagle study that NIAID acknowledged funding — the one in which the dogs were reportedly “put in a fenced-in open space outside.”

Finally, other documents obtained by White Coat Waste suggest the Tunisia study funded by NIH was not as benign as the agency suggested. Instead of an “enclosed open space,” the study’s grant application shows a photograph that indicated that the dogs were kept in a cage as they were “exposed to sand fly bites each night through the sand fly season to ensure transmission.” The grant application also described how, separately, dogs would be sedated and placed in cages for two hours while they were exposed to 15 to 30 female sand flies.

The story concludes:

The emails show that NIH was not fully transparent as it tried to handle a public-relations nightmare. Perhaps there was little reason to doubt Satoskar, but officials embraced his explanation without confirming as they rushed out a statement. They made no acknowledgment that they had removed the study from the NIH grant database or that the editor of the journal that quickly issued the correction had a potential conflict of interest. Moreover, the NIH study in Tunisia that the agency said it funded was cast in a positive light that is undermined by the grant application that has since been made public.

Meanwhile, WCW had already posted a contract and research description that it says is for the study that had the viral picture of the two dogs.

Niaid Foiadoc Wm

15.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

WCW also obtained emails from one of the Washington Post reporters, Beth Reinhard, who wrote the 2021 story that said it was a “viral and false claim” that NIAID funded the study. In seeking comment, Reinhard wrote she was working on a story about a “massive disinformation campaign” against Fauci.

May 4, 2025

During an appearance on Fox & Friends Weekend, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya says “we got rid of all the beagle experiments on the NIH campus.” He mentions it as an example of changing the culture at NIH, not as a big policy announcement.

White Coast Waste founder Anthony Bellotti takes credit for the decision, saying:

As the watchdog that first uncovered and battled Dr. Fauci’s beagle tests (the biggest animal testing scandal in history), we’re proud that White Coat Waste has closed the NIH’s last in-house beagle laboratory—and the US government’s biggest dog lab.

Research assistance by Kathleen McCook

The Rio Grande River received a lot of attention during the border crises. Migrants frequently entered the country illegally by crossing the river along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas. Governor Greg Abbott had a floating border installed on the river, which Mexico argued violated a 1944 water treaty between the two countries.

The U.S. contends that Mexico was already violating that treaty, but for a different reason. Mexico is supposed to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water (1 acre-foot is nearly 326,000 gallons) to the U.S. every five years from the Rio Grande and six tributaries. In return, the U.S. gives Mexico 1.5 million acre-feet each year from the Colorado River.

But Mexico is way behind schedule. By late April, it had only released about 531,000 acre-feet during the current five-year cycle, which ends in October. After some political hardball by the Trump administration — which included rejecting Mexico’s request for a Colorado River water transfer — the two countries agreed to a compromise on April 28: Mexico will send up to 420,000 acre-feet by October, depending on hydrology conditions. U.S. and Mexican officials will meet in July to assess those conditions, according to a State Department fact sheet.

Even if Mexico manages to release that much water, it will still be well short of delivering 1.75 million acre-feet. To address that, Mexico agreed to an immediate release of 56,750 acre-feet from the Amistad Reservoir — which is managed by both countries — and monthly releases from Amistad and another reservoir. It also agreed to let the U.S. get 50% of the water from the six Mexican tributaries, an increase from the one-third called for in the 1944 treaty.

The deal is related to another agreement, Minute No. 331, approved in November by the International Boundary Water Commission that allows for new strategies, says Rosario Sanchez, a senior research scientist at Texas A&M’s Water Resources Institute.

“The problem is it is based on the assumption that there is enough water for everyone. There’s not,” Sanchez says.

Here are 2025 water levels at Amistad Reservoir compared to the previous two years.

Not good — and this is one of the reservoirs that’s supposed to have monthly releases under the compromise deal.

Mexico rejects accusations that it’s been violating the water treaty. It blames drought conditions, and the treaty does allow either country to withhold water during times of “extraordinary drought.” The problem, says Sanchez, is the treaty doesn’t define what qualifies as an extraordinary drought.

“My recommendation is to try to define what extraordinary drought is because it’s not extraordinary anymore,” Sanchez says.

Here’s a timeline of some key moments since the treaty was signed, including the escalating tensions leading up to the April 28 compromise agreement:

Feb. 3, 1944

The United States and Mexico sign a treaty relating to the “utilization of waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande.” It takes effect Nov. 8, 1945.

1944 Water Treaty

1.55MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Aug. 30, 1973

The U.S. and Mexico agree to Minute 242, which sets salinity standards for the Colorado River. Agricultural runoff increased salinity levels so high that the water destroyed crops in Mexico.

Minute 242

165KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

February 4, 2020

Hundreds of Mexican farmers occupy the La Boquilla Dam in Chihuahua in protest of the Mexican government’s plans to transfer water to the U.S. They argue that their water needs should come first, especially with the dam below capacity. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador criticizes the farmers for being too demanding, and the protesters are removed by National Guardsmen the following day.

September 9, 2020

Protesters return to the La Boquilla Dam, closing its sluice gates and hurling Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Mexican National Guardsmen. Three people are arrested. Civilians attack National Guard vehicles that were transporting the arrestees. A firefight ensues, and two people die.

October 21, 2020

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) agrees to Minute No. 325. Mexico says it will provide the U.S. with water from the Amistad and Falcon International Reservoirs to prevent a second consecutive water cycle shortfall just days before the October 24 deadline. The U.S. agrees to temporarily assist Mexico if the transfer from the two reservoirs makes it difficult for Mexican communities downstream of the Amistad Dam to meet their water needs.

Minute 325 International Boundary And Watter Commision

234KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

November 7, 2024

The IBCW agrees to Minute No. 331 to give Mexico more flexibility to meet water deliveries. It also establishes the binational Rio Grande Projects Work Group and the Rio Grande Environment Work Group.

2024 11 07 Minute No

3.74MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 20, 2025

The State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs denies Mexico's request for a special Colorado River water delivery to Tijuana. The Bureau announces on X that it’s the first time the U.S. has rejected a non-treaty request for Colorado River water.

Newsweek reports that about 90% of Tijuana’s water comes from the Colorado River. The decision is praised by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Stephen Mumme, a Colorado State professor who specializes in water policy, tells Newsweek that the decision breaks two norms:

• Avoiding any connection between the Colorado River and the Rio Grande.

• Not restricting urban water supplies, which take priority during water shortages.

Sanchez of Texas A&M tells Racket the move was effective in the short term, but she worries about long-term consequences.

“I don’t like the precedent that it created, because now Mexico can do that, too.”

April 10, 2025

President Trump says Mexico is “stealing the water from Texas farmers.”

April 28, 2025

Mexico agrees to release up to 420,000 acre-feet of water over the next six months and increase the U.S. share of water from six Rio Grande tributaries.

State Department Fact Sheet

245KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Joint Statement Issued By Mexican Government

348KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2025 04 28 State Department Press Statement

260KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 5, 2025

The U.S. reverses course and agrees to Mexico’s request to release water from the Colorado River.

Andrew Lowenthal is a familiar name to many Racket readers. He worked with Matt on the Twitter Files and played an instrumental role in developing Racket’s top 50 list of organizations that are part of the Censorship-Industrial Complex.

We’ve reconnected with Lowenthal in the last few weeks because of an impressive new searchable database developed by his nonprofit group, liber-net, on U.S. government grants awarded to groups to fight mis/disinformation. We first reported on the database here.

It breaks down government grants in the mis/disinformation space going back to 2010. It gives the amounts, of course, but also descriptions and commentary about the grants with links to official information on USAspending.gov, plus a ratings system of one to five flags for each grant. Roughly 100 of 867 grants since 2016 have at least four flags.

Lowenthal also writes about what he’s learning from the database on his Network Affects Substack. Last week, for example, he analyzed which organizations and countries received the most U.S. mis/disinfo grants.

For journalists, this database is a treasure trove of information. It doesn’t tell you the whole story about the grants, but it provides a thread for journalists and anyone else to do their own research. I asked Lowenthal about that:

I think there's actually several dozen stories in there for anyone. And this would be a invitation to anyone out there… what was this project? Who are these people? What were they doing during this time? Each one actually deserves a thousand words on it, or at least half of them do, because there’s some really bizarre kind of thinking around a lot of the activities that people were undertaking.

One example of bizarre: a $637,000 NIH grant to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai last year to address health misinformation in marginalized communities. A component of the grant is to develop an app “especially designed for hairstylists and barbers who are known influencers in communities of color. The app will give these community influencers easy access to understandable, reliable, and timely health infographics they can share with clients.”

Just what you want when you sit down for a hair cut: your barber hitting you up with government-funded health care talking points. The grant was given a rating of five flags.

I reached out to the medical school’s project leader and the NIH representative listed on the grant, but did not hear back.

Here’s more of my conversation with Lowenthal about his database and about him, edited for clarity and brevity.

Greg Collard: How did you get involved in this type of work?

Andrew Lowenthal: I’ve been involved in it for a really long time because I essentially founded and ran an NGO that worked on these issues for almost two decades. But then there was this drift that I saw starting a little bit before [the first term of] Trump and Brexit, and then once Trump and Brexit happened, it really went into full swing. Essentially all the work politics, speech repression and the safety culture, etc. A lot of eggshells got laid like landmines around the spaces that I was in, and once Covid hit, it really took off. And a lot of spaces that were meant to be defending free speech and expression, not only did they say nothing during the censorship during Covid, but it turns out they participated in the censorship.

GC: So you experienced censorship in the organization where you worked?

AL: Well, not in my organization, because I was the director. But I was self-censoring for sure because if I had been honest — or if I'd been direct about what I thought about the pandemic and the Covid censorship — probably half the staff would've left and probably half the funders would've stopped funding us.

GC: I worked in public radio for years, so I know about self-censoring for sure. So, this database, how did it come about and how long did it take to develop?

AL: Well, we first started with this policy project, which was about what a new administration could do to essentially dismantle the censorship industrial complex. That started in October last year, and in November we decided to build a database of all the federal grants. And then of course there was this huge two-week period where USAID and DOGE became kind of the talk of the town, but we weren’t actually ready for it. That's when it should have gone out or beforehand, but we were trying to be very careful about what we included and didn't include. Part of the later motivation was to counter what for us seemed like a little bit of [DOGE’s] carpet-bombing approach to defunding this stuff, which generates a huge amount of backlash. We want to provide something a little more precise.

GC: You recently wrote about the top 30 countries that received grants to address the misinformation. One thing that surprised me is that Ukraine didn’t make the top 30 in either the total amount or the number of awards. Why is that?

AL: My theory is that a lot of it's hidden because of security considerations. Also, there are not a huge number of organizations that have the capacity to take money for this. The ones that do are really big and it's being included in much larger grants, where Ukraine [mis/disinfo] only represents a small percentage.

GC: This database is obviously a tool for journalists. Do you see it as a tool for the general public?

AL: Yes, to a degree, because I also think there are advocates and et cetera out there that would find it useful to know who is actually getting the funding, and potentially more for journalists to kind of understand what was being funded. Because the other thing about this database is we're not saying this is all censorship work, which is why we have the ratings and the flags. If you look at some of the one-flag things, they're quite innocuous and you wouldn't kind of go, hey that sounds like a deeply problematic project. We wanted to capture more broadly what was happening in the grants space. There are a lot of bad awards that are, I think you could say, advancing a kind of censorship system, but not all of it is. So you have to be quite careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

But I think journalists, people who are free speech advocates, would definitely find it quite useful to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened. The narrative that this was all censorship work, that doesn't fit. And the narrative that huge amounts of this were going out to foreign initiatives— there's a certain amount, but it's not the majority of the money. And the narrative that it's all USAID I would say is also not correct. It's actually much more the Defense Department in terms of pure amounts of money, and it's the State Department in terms of number of grants.

And I should also say this is not a complete picture. For sure there's stuff that we missed. And there are a lot of grants that seem to us very banal, like combatting misinformation around vaping. We didn't include those because we didn't think they seemed in any way controversial. There are 100 or more like that. If we had included them, it would skew to present that maybe the majority of this stuff isn't deeply problematic, but there's a chunk of a third or more that is really a problem. I would hope that one of the reactions to this is, here's a more accurate tool that we can use to define problem areas and actors, rather than just let's destroy this entire department.

GC: The ratings liber-net gives to grants are subjective. Has there been pushback from any groups about how you rated them?

AL: Yes, they are definitely subjective and we're clear on what our methodology is. And essentially the more it's something that looks like censorship — so something that's flagging content for take-down is something that's also involved in very high levels of surveillance of citizen speech — those go up to the top [and get rated four or five flags]. But it's subjective in the same way as some place that rates restaurants. You're getting their version of what the best or worst restaurants are. We've basically gone and ranked what we think are the worst restaurants.

We did have a project reach out to us and argue that their rating was wrong. We listened to them and they made some good arguments, and we dropped them down a couple of flags from four to two. There are 27 with five flags and 77 with four flags. There are really bad ones, but I think it's more this whole kind of group-think that's happening about how to deal with a very messy internet. The overall response to a very turbulent information environment is to consult experts and impose a top-down cleanup operation as opposed to more grassroots and bottom-up solutions, which is a huge flip for that space. One of the things that attracted me to the digital rights space is that its ethos was very much about the people and grassroots. Early internet culture was actually generally a progressive, California-type culture that thought very highly of everyday people for the most part.

And this [new model] thinks extremely poorly of everyday people. It thinks everyday people are a really big problem. And so it's essentially extremely elitist in how it comes up with these solutions. At some point they went, “Oh, these kind of icky people have gotten on the internet and we don't like them.” Suddenly the “deplorables” got on the internet and they all changed their tune about how fantastic this was all going to be and how much this kind of large scale participation in the democratic process was going to be a good thing. And they went, “Oh, this is bad. Now we have to justify imposing order on the Internet.”

The deadline for Real ID is now six days away. It’s only taken 20 years to get this far, which is bad even by government standards.

Yes, Covid played a role, but the Real ID Act passed in May 2005. It had already taken 15 years when Covid became the excuse to extend the deadline not once, but twice more.

The extensions were welcome news to many of us. The last thing any sane person wants to do is hang out at the DMV for a few hours. Fortunately, you don’t need a Real ID for domestic air travel if you have a passport, which is something to consider when reading figures on the percentages of state populations that are Real ID compliant.

For example, New Jersey has the distinction of having the lowest rate of Real ID compliance at just 17%. However, it has the nation’s highest rate of passport ownership. Estimates vary, but this Center for American Progress report puts it at 80%.

On the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi has one of the highest percentages of Real ID compliance at 97%, but also has one of the lowest percentages of passport holders.

You can also bypass Real ID with a passport card and military ID. Here’s a list of acceptable IDs.

Nationwide, about 60 percent of the country 18 and older have a Real ID. Seven states and Washington, D.C., have at least 99% compliance.

You can click on your state here to see what documents your state accepts. While the requirements for Real ID are nationwide — such as proof of residence and Social Security number — the documents that are accepted vary.

Now, on to the Real ID timeline.

November 27, 2002

President George W. Bush signs H.R. 4628, authorizing the launch of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, better known as the 9/11 Commission. The Commission investigates every dimension of the September 11 terrorist attacks and makes recommendations to prevent future attacks.

July 22, 2004

The 9/11 Commission Report is published. One of the recommendations made by the Commission is a national standard for driver’s licenses:

Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.

911report

7.22MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

December 17, 2004

Bush signs the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Section 7212 of the 235-page bill requires the secretary of transportation to devise baseline standards for identification documents, including driver’s licenses, “issued by States for use by Federal agencies for identification purposes.” The bill tasks the secretary with overseeing a “negotiated rulemaking process” that includes representatives from the states and bans federal agencies from accepting state-issued identification documents that do not meet those standards two years after they are implemented.

January 26, 2005

Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin introduces H.R. 418, the purpose of which is “to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver’s license and identification document security standards.” (Sensenbrenner also introduced the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001.)

May 11, 2005

Bush signs the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. The bill includes the Real ID Act and repeals Section 7212 of the IRTPA. The Act establishes a series of nine criteria for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards. They are:

(1) The person’s full legal name.
(2) The person’s date of birth.
(3) The person’s gender.
(4) The person’s driver’s license or identification card number.
(5) A digital photograph of the person.
(6) The person’s address of principle residence.
(7) The person’s signature.
(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

These standards must be met by May 11, 2008.

Statute 119 Pg231

343KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 1, 2007

The Department of Homeland Security states that it will grant extensions for Real ID compliance to any state that requests them. This first extension would give a state until December 31, 2009, to be compliant.

May 11, 2008

The original deadline for Real ID implementation comes and goes without a single state complying with the Act’s criteria. All 50 states are automatically granted extensions.

December 20, 2013

The National Security Council establishes a timetable for states to implement Real ID. This schedule requires all state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards to be Real ID-compliant by October 1, 2020.

April 27, 2020

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf announces that the Oct. 1 deadline for “card-based enforcement” of Real ID will be extended to Oct. 1, 2021.

December 5, 2022

After several more delays, the Department of Homeland Security announces a final implementation deadline of May 7, 2025. The DHS press release emphasizes that, after the deadline, the Transportation Security Administration will be barred from accepting driver’s licenses and identification cards that are non-compliant.

April 11, 2025

No more extensions. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reaffirms on X that May 7 remains the deadline.

Starting May 7, you will need a Real ID to travel by air or to visit federal buildings in the United States. These IDs keep our country safe because they help prevent fraud and they enhance security. Please do your part to protect our country. Go today, and don’t delay.

May 6, 2025

Noem tells members of the House Appropriations Committee that travelers who have not obtained a Real ID will still be able to fly after the May 7 deadline. However, they will be subject to additional security screenings.

Noem says, “If [a traveler’s ID is] not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, but people will be allowed to fly.”

She does not indicate how long this arrangement will last.

With research assistance from James Rushmore

There are two primary seasons for open letters:

1. The first few months of an administration, when aggrieved political groups (most often) voice their dissatisfaction.

2. The last few months of election season, when the goal is to fuck with you - emphasizing how scary one candidate is or how much stronger the other is, when the truth is they both suck.

The October 19, 2020 letter signed by 51 former senior intelligence officials is probably the most infamous example of number 2. It said email from Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

We now know it was more like a Biden misinformation program. We know from the House Intelligence Select Committee that it started with Biden campaign official Anthony Blinken — who later became Secretary of State — calling former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell, who then organized the letter. The purpose was to provide cover and talking points for Biden to help him in a final debate with Trump, the House committee found.

Of course there are almost always political motives behind open letters. In 2020, the Trump campaign released an open letter signed by 235 retired military leaders saying Trump was good for national security, and Biden not so good. That was released only after the progressive group Democracy Forward released a letter signed by 70 former Republican national security officials saying Trump had already failed with national security.

It’s mostly a game. The goal is to get the attention of traditional media, and have content that takes off on social media.

At least that’s usually the case. As Matt Taibbi notes in “Are We in a ‘Soft’ Civil War?” today, a strongly worded letter signed by 200 former diplomats and security officials titled “The Assault on American Democracy: A Call to Action” was published last Friday. It features big names former National Security Advisors Susan Rice and Anthony Lake as signatories, but received media attention in Bulgaria only. 

An open letter signed by political scientists after the January 6 riots received more media attention in the U.S. Then again, the letter called for Trump’s removal by impeachment or by invoking the 25th Amendment.

One of the signatories, Catawba College (NC) political science and history professor J. Michael Bitzer, says he considers the letter a “statement of principles.”

When something in my mind reaches beyond a level of partisanship to the level of fundamental values we hope Americans stand for on principle, then statements of principles are a core responsibility for those of us who study them. There’s so much partisanship out there that people don’t need to hear from us on every political issue, but when it comes to fundamental values, if something calls that into question, it’s good to speak with a collective voice.

The “statement of principles” is usually more honest than the “open letter,” such as one written in early 2017 by former Columbia Journalism Review editor Kyle Pope but signed “The Press Corps.”

That piece is both hilarious and Class A Jim Acosta-level smug:

Access is preferable, but not critical. You may decide that giving reporters access to your administration has no upside. We think that would be a mistake on your part, but again, it’s your choice. We are very good at finding alternative ways to get information; indeed, some of the best reporting during the campaign came from news organizations that were banned from your rallies. Telling reporters that they won’t get access to something isn’t what we’d prefer, but it’s a challenge we relish.

Of course, we know that last part isn’t true. The Associated Press whined when its Oval Office access was cut off. Trump’s move was certainly silly, but democracy was not at stake.

Here’s a list of open letters — though certainly not complete — directed at Trump in his first and second terms.

November 29, 2016

Following Trump’s election as the 45th president, the Union of Concerned Scientists release an open letter to Trump and Congress. The letter, signed by 2,000-plus scientists — including 22 Nobel Prize winners — informs the president-elect and Congress that:

First, creating a strong and open culture of science begins at the top. Federal agencies should be led by officials with demonstrated track records of respecting science as a critical component of decision making. Further, recognizing that diversity makes science stronger, administration officials should welcome and encourage all scientists regardless of religious background, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The Washington Post’s lead on the letter says: “Call it the opening shot in a brewing war over scientific integrity in the future Trump administration.”

The headline is a reference to this line:

Congress and the Trump administration should adhere to high standards of scientific integrity and independence in responding to current and emerging public health and environmental threats.

Andrew Rosenberg of The Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists tells the Post, “We need to make sure there’s not political manipulation of the science.”

Science And The Public Interest

69.8KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 17, 2017

The Press Corps/Kyle Pope

This letter was written by Columbia Journalism Review editor Kyle Pope, but signed by “The Press Corps.” I reference this letter further up. Another excerpt:

We decide how much airtime to give your spokespeople and surrogates. We will strive to get your point of view across, even if you seek to shut us out. But that does not mean we are required to turn our airwaves or column inches over to people who repeatedly distort or bend the truth. We will call them out when they do, and we reserve the right, in the most egregious cases, to ban them from our outlets.

Tough stuff.

January 22, 2017

500 Women Scientists

Forbes magazine posts an open letter from 500 Women Scientists. It reads in part:

We are women scientists and we are members of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups. We are immigrants. We are people with disabilities. We are LGBTQIA. To represent us, you must embrace our inherent diversity. We will continue to contribute to the American scientific enterprise, and we invite you to do the same.

The letter also gives Trump eight “concrete ways” to support women and their contributions to society and science, such as strengthening America’s role as a leader in climate action by “investing in clean, low carbon energy and climate research.”

The Atlantic profiled the group as its members participated in the January 21st Women’s March on Washington, January 31, 2017 - Feb. 8, 2017

Interfaith Immigration Coalition
Evangelical Leaders

Over eight days, the Interfaith Immigration Coalition, evangelical leaders, and venture capitalists write open letters to Trump over his executive order that banned refugees from seven Muslim countries for 90 days.

From the Interfaith Immigration Coalition:

The U.S. Refugee Resettlement program has been and should remain open to those of all nationalities and religions who face persecution on account of the reasons enumerated under U.S. law. We oppose any policy change that would prevent refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, or individuals who practice Islam and other faiths from accessing the U.S. refugee resettlement program.

Interfaith Coalition Letter

1.42MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A Feb. 7 letter, organized by the National Venture Capital Association, says:

We are deeply troubled by the recent Executive Order banning citizens of seven countries and refugees from entering the U.S., as well as the recently leaked draft Executive Order suggesting plans to roll back worker visa and parole programs.

020717 NVCA Immigration Letter

905KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Feb. 8 letter from evangelical leaders was in the form of a full-page ad in the Washington Post.

As Christians, we have a historic call expressed over two thousand years, to serve the suffering. We cannot abandon this call now.

March 2, 2017

Various women’s rights groups

As advocates for women’s rights, equality, justice and inclusion, we have come together to outline core domestic policy priorities that will help ensure that all women in the United States have the opportunity to succeed and thrive.

That is the first line in a letter signed by about 400 progressive organizations, such as several NOW chapters. It proceeds to list six broad categories for which “we will measure your administration’s success by how women have fared during your tenure,” the letter warns.

Womens Community Letter 2017

560KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Sept. 29, 2017

Several evangelical leaders, including pastor TD Jakes and the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, email a letter to Trump and calling for him to denounce the alt-right.

We believe it is important for this movement to be addressed, for at its core it is a white identity movement and the majority of its members are white nationalists or white supremacists.

May 6, 2019

Several hundred former officials in the Justice Department issue a statement on Medium that says special counsel Robert Mueller’s report shows that Trump would be charged with obstruction of justice if he wasn’t president.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.

August 21 - Sept. 14, 2020

The tit-for-tat letters on national security mentioned at the top of this piece are released August 21 (anti-Trump) and Sept. 14 (pro-Trump)

235 Military Leaders Endorse President Trump Final

170KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Former Republican National Security Officials For Biden Defending Democracy Together

229KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Oct. 19, 2020

The letter from 51 former national security officials is released. Politico breaks the story.

Statement On Hunter Biden Emails

98.8KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 6, 2021

Following the January 6 riots, Political scientists write an open letter calling for Congress to remove President Trump from office.

Political Scientist Open Letter

700KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 11, 2021

Nearly 1,500 historians call for removing President Trump from office, via Medium.

Historians And Constitutional Scholars’ Statement On The Second Impeachment Of President Donald Trump By Historians And Legal Scholars For Impeachment

2.4MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 6, 2025

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

Several organizations sign on to this letter to “express grave concerns and to unequivocally oppose the use of the sanctions authority of the United States to attack the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent judicial institution dedicated to combating impunity for the gravest crimes known to humanity.”

Signatories include the ACLU, American Friends Service Committee, American Human Rights Council, and Amnesty International USA

January 29, 2025

American Friends Service Committee

A coalition of groups that includes Catholic Workers and the National Association of Korean Americans ask Trump to take a “peace-first approach” with North Korea. One recommendation is to formally end the Korean War.

Even though active hostilities between the United States and North Korea ended in 1953 with an Armistice Agreement, there was never a formal end to the war with a peace agreement. This continued state of war is the root cause of militarism and tensions that must be resolved if there is to be real progress with North Korea. A peace agreement that ends the wartime status quo would reduce tensions and foster more effective engagement on critical issues such as improved human rights and denuclearization.

March 3, 2025

Former prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

Sixteen former prisoners of Guantanamo Bay sign an open letter to condemn an executive order to expand detention facilities for illegal immigrants there. The letter is posted on Aljazeera.

Guantanamo is not just a prison – it is a place where law is warped, dignity is stripped, and suffering is hidden behind barbed wire. We lived it. We know the clang of metal doors, the weight of shackles, and the silence of a world that looked away. We know what it means to be caged without charge, without trial, without hope.

March 31, 2025

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

More than 1,900 members sign an open letter to criticize cutbacks in the sciences and the administration investigations of universities.

The funding cuts are forcing institutions to pause research (including studies of new disease treatments), dismiss faculty, and stop enrolling graduate students—the pipeline for the next generation’s scientists.

The administration’s current investigations of more than 50 universities send a chilling message. Columbia University was recently notified that its federal funding would be withheld unless it adopted disciplinary policies and disabled an academic department targeted by the administration. Destabilizing dozens of universities will endanger higher education—and the research those institutions conduct.

Public Statement On Supporting Science For The Benefit Of All Citizens Google Docs

588KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 24, 2025

The Assault on American Democracy: A Call to Action letter is released, signed by 200 former diplomats and security officials.

American global leadership has depended on many factors, including political, economic, and military power. But most important was the moral foundation for that power -- America as an example to others. Though our actions didn’t always live up to our ideals, we stood for simple but powerful ideas that people everywhere embraced: democracy, equality, individual liberty, and human rights.

That moral foundation is now in grave danger. The challenge comes from within, as President Trump and his administration have assaulted the pillars of our democracy here at home and our strength around the world.

Open Letter On Democracy With Signatories (1) (1)

261KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 22, 2025

American Association of Colleges and Universities
American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Several hundred college presidents and deans sign on to “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” The letter was released a day after Harvard sued the government following the Trump administration’s decision to withhold funding. The letter now has 547 signatures.

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.

A Call For Constructive Engagement

303KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 28, 2025

Coalition of Nobel Peace Prize-winning groups

Representatives of the three groups urge Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to work toward denuclearization.

Recent statements from your administrations have featured rhetoric about the desirability of a world without nuclear weapons and the exorbitant cost of nuclear weapons, funds that could be put to far better use. Talk about denuclearization must be matched by deeds. The world cannot continue to walk the edge of catastrophe.

With research assistance from James Rushmore

The Trump Administration this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to do what it did in 2019: lift an injunction that prohibits the Defense Department from proceeding with a policy that prohibits transgender people from serving in the military.

In 2019, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction on a policy developed by former Defense Secretary James Mattis while also rejecting the first Trump administration’s request to bypass lower courts and take up the case.

Solicitor General John Sauer argues in his emergency application filed Thursday that the government suffers irreparable harm under judicial orders that prohibit implementation of the policy while cases play out in court.

In staying the injunctions against the Mattis policy, this Court necessarily determined that those injunctions would otherwise cause the government irreparable harm. The same is true here: Like the injunctions against the Mattis policy, the injunction against the 2025 policy irreparably harms the government by forcing it to maintain a policy that the Department has found to be inconsistent with “the best interests of the Military Services” and with “the interests of national security.”

042425 Supco Emergency Application

17MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The policy approved by the Trump administration in February also prohibits the Defense Department from paying for “medical procedures associated with facilitating sex reassignment surgery, genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria, or newly initiated cross-sex hormone therapy.”

But Politico obtained a leaked memo dated April 21 that says at least some medical care will resume. The memo from Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. Stephen Ferrara, says:

Service members and all other covered beneficiaries 19 years of age or older may receive appropriate care for their diagnosis of [gender dysphoria], including mental health care and counseling and newly initiated or ongoing cross-sex hormone therapy.

That is the only portion of the memo that Politico reprinted, so it’s unclear if that includes procedures such as genital reconstruction surgery. However, Politico reports “the memo says the Defense Department is returning to the Biden-era medical policy for transgender service members…”

Here’s a timeline of the policy decisions, court cases and other key moments in the debate over transgender people serving in the military, going back to the Obama administration:

July 13, 2015

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announces the formation of a working group to look at the impact of lifting a ban on transgender people openly serving in the military, and makes clear a policy change is forthcoming.

The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions.

October 3, 2015

In an address to the Human Rights Campaign, Vice President Joe Biden takes credit for Carter’s above remarks.

In July, when I said…transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time, it took the secretary of defense about 10 minutes in July 2015, no longer any questions: transgender people are able to serve in the United States military.

June 30, 2016

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announces that transgender people can openly serve in the military, and that they will be provided “medically necessary care.” Any transgender person who wants to enter the military must have “completed any medical treatment… in connection with their gender transition and to have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months.”

Ash cites a RAND study that estimates there are 4,000 members of the military who are transgender.

The first and fundamental reason is that the Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now – the finest fighting force the world has ever known.

Rand Study

473KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ash Carter On Ending The Ban On Transgender Service In The U

77KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

June 30, 2017

Secretary of Defense James Mattis delays enlistment of transgender recruits for six months. The announcement comes one day before they were eligible to enlist.

The press release announcing the delay is two sentences:

Secretary Mattis today approved a recommendation by the services to defer accessing transgender applicants into the military until Jan. 1, 2018.

The services will review their accession plans and provide input on the impact to the readiness and lethality of our forces.

July 26, 2017

President Trump announces in a series of tweets that the government “will not accept or allow” transgender people “to serve in any capacity.”

August 25, 2017

President Trump issues a memorandum that formally prohibits transgender people from joining the military, and leaves it up to Mattis to decide what to do with current members of the military who are transgender.

081725 Memorandum

122KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

August 28, 2017 - Oct. 2017

Transgender members of the military and advocacy groups file a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the ban.

A person’s gender identity constitutes a core aspect of individual self-definition. The Ban and current accessions bar diminish the personhood, dignity, and autonomy of the individual plaintiffs and of the transgender members of the organizational plaintiffs, and impermissibly interfere with the most intimate choices a person may make in a lifetime, including the right to self-expression and to live openly and authentically.

In another lawsuit, Democratic attorneys general from 14 states and Washington, D.C., file an amicus brief in support of a preliminary injunction. Among its arguments:

Prohibiting open service estranges transgender service members from their fellow troops, undermining the group’s ability to trust and bond.

Karnoski Us 20170828 Complaint

230KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ag Amicus Brief

325KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 23, 2018

Trump signs a memorandum that revokes his Aug. 25, 2017, memorandum and gives Mattis authority to implement the policies regarding transgender military members that he had given to the president a month earlier. Most transgender people are prohibited from military service, but there are exceptions. The policies are:

• Transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria are disqualified from military service, except under the following limited circumstances: (1) if they have been stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological sex prior to accession; (2) Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria after entering into service may be retained if they do not require a change of gender and remain deployable within applicable retention standards; and (3) currently serving Service members who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria since the previous administration's policy took effect and prior to the effective date of this new policy, may continue to serve in their preferred gender and receive medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria.

• Transgender persons who require or have undergone gender transition are disqualified from military service.

• Transgender persons without a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria, who are otherwise qualified for service, may serve, like all other Service members, in their biological sex.

Mattis writes in a memo to Trump:

Mattis Memorandum Re Military Service By Transgender Individuals (22 Feb 2018)

4.82MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Statement From The Press Secretary Regarding Service By Transgender Individuals In The Military – The White House

121KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Presidential Memorandum For The Secretary Of Defense And The Secretary Of Homeland Security Regarding Military Service By Transgender Individuals – The White House

134KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 22, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court removes lower court injunctions on the ban — allowing the policies to take effect — but rejects the Trump administration’s request to bypass lower courts and hear oral arguments on the topic.

January 21, 2021

President Joe Biden signs an executive order that overturns Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military

“What I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform,” Biden says in the Oval Office before signing the order.

Biden Executive Order

188KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Dod Statement On Biden Order

41.5KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 27, 2025

President Trump signs an executive order that sets the stage for the Department of Defense to ban transgender people from serving in the military. It rescinds Biden’s order and directs the Defense Department to have a new policy within 60 days. The order says that:

Expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.

January 28, 2025

An Army reservist, 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, and other members of the military file a lawsuit to strike down Trump’s order. He says in a prepared statement:

When you put on the uniform, differences fall away and what matters is your ability to do the job. Every individual must meet the same objective and rigorous qualifications in order to serve. It has been my dream and my goal to serve my country for as long as I can remember. My being transgender has no bearing on my dedication to the mission, my commitment to my unit, or my ability to perform my duties in accordance with the high standards expected of me and every service member.

012825 Talbott Lawsuit

391KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Feb. 06, 2025

U.S. Navy Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling and other service members file a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order. Shilling, who has served for 19 years, says Trump’s order is not about readiness, cohesion, or merit but “about exclusion and betrayal, purposely targeting those of us who volunteered to serve, simply for having the courage and integrity to live our truth.”

In the video above, Shilling explains the process she went through after transitioning.

I’m one of the first naval aviators to regain my flight clearance post-transition. And what that means is the Navy was rightfully medically conservative — I’m going to go fly a $100 million aircraft, the F-18 like you saw in Top Gun II — so they ran me through every psychological evaluation, every physical evaluation you could think of, and at the end of the day there was no reason to keep me out of the cockpit.

020625 Shilling Lawsuit

432KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

030425 Emily Shilling Ammended Complaint

503KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Feb. 28, 2025

Under the above headline, the Defense Department announces that “Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria will soon be processed for separation by their respective services,” and that medical care related to gender dysphoria will end.

A February 26 memo from acting Under Secretary of Defense Darin Selnick lists several policy provisions. Among them:

• Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.

• Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms

  consistent with, gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service … Characterization of service under these procedures will be honorable except where the Service member's record otherwise warrants a lower characterization.

• No funds from the Department of Defense will be used to pay for Service members' unscheduled, scheduled, or planned medical procedures associated with facilitating sex reassignment surgery, genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria, or newly initiated cross-sex hormone therapy.

Dod Memorandum Prioritizing Military Excellence And Readiness

5.82MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

020725 Memo Hegseth

849KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Dod Press Release Gender Dysphoria Incompatible With Military, Service Members Must Serve In Accordance With Sex

948KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 18, 2025

U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes grants Talbot case plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. In her opinion, she address the government’s claim that courts should defer to the military’s judgment.

Yes, the Court must defer. But not blindly. The President issued EO14183 within seven days of taking office, and Secretary Hegseth issued the Policy thirty days later. There is no evidence that they consulted with uniformed military leaders before doing so. Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data.

031825 Reyes Opinion

674KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responds on X:

March 27, 2025

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle orders a preliminary injunction in the Shilling case, prohibiting the Defense Department from implementing its ban on transgender members of the military.

032725 Preliminary Injuction

113KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 1, 2025

Attorneys in the Shilling case urge justices to maintain Judge Settle’s preliminary injunction, arguing that a stay “would upend the status quo by allowing the government to immediately begin discharging thousands of transgender servicemembers.”

Their response to Sauer’s emergency application also says that Hegseth’s policy would undercut “the equal protection, due process, and free speech rights of transgender servicemembers and those who wish to serve, as well as basic equitable notions of fairness.” They note the Hegseth policy goes further than the Mattis policy, as the latter did not call for the expulsion of servicemembers who had already transitioned.

2025 05 01 Response In Opposition To Application For Stay

531KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Following Trump 2.0 is a difficult task. There has been no calm in President Trump’s first three months. He even generated controversy on Easter Sunday (then again, so did Joe Biden last year when he proclaimed it Transgender Day of Visibility).

Besides Trump’s Happy Easter social media post, there was also news Sunday regarding his much-maligned secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.

Call it Signalgate 2.0. The New York Times reports that his wife, brother (a Pentagon employee), and personal lawyer were part of a Signal group chat that Hegseth initiated about the March 15 attack on the Houthis. The sources are “four people with knowledge of the chat.” From the Times:

Some of those people said that the information Mr. Hegseth shared on the Signal chat included the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting the Houthis in Yemen — essentially the same attack plans that he shared on a separate Signal chat the same day that mistakenly included the editor of The Atlantic.

The Times had an update on Tuesday — this time from “an official and a person familiar with the conversations” — with a report that the attack plans Hegseth texted on Signal “came from U.S. Central Command through a secure, government system designed for sending classified information.”

Trump doesn’t seem to care. He called it a waste of time to address the Signalgate controversy and added:

“He’s doing a great job — ask the Houthis how he’s doing.”

U.S. attacks against the Houthis have killed about 120 people. The latest, last Thursday, killed 74.

As for Hegseth, he pulled out a version of the same playbook he used last month when Signalgate 1.0 broke. He noted the media’s culpability in pushing the Russia hoax, and also blamed recently-fired staffers.

What a big surprise that a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that pedaled the Russia hoax [and] won't give back their Pulitzers. They got Pulitzers for a bunch of lies, Pulitzers for a bunch of lies, and on hoaxes time and time and time again. And as they pedal those lies, no one ever calls 'em on it. See, this is what the media does.

National Security Adviser Michael Waltz formed the first Signal group chat that included The Atlantic’s editor, but Hegseth has also been heavily criticized for texting specific attack plans on the messenger service.

The White House maintains that nothing in that group chat was classified (National Security Director Tulsi Gabbard called the texts “candid and sensitive”) but that did not calm the concerns of people like Sarah Streyder of the military families group Secure Families Initiative. She told Newsweek:

Leaked war plans aren't just a breach of national security in some impersonal way. They're really a direct threat, both to the safety of service members and for us as military families, those are our parents, our spouses, our kids who now have increased risk and targets on their back.

Here’s a look back at many of the highlights — or, depending on your point of view, lowlights — and multitude of controversies in the first three months of Trump 2.0.

Deportations

The most high-profile deportation case has been that of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was legally in the U.S. since 2019. However, in the words of a Justice Department attorney, an “administrative error” resulted in him being deported to El Salvador.

Still, the Trump administration is arguing against his return because it claims Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang — which he denies — and says it has no control over what El Salvador does.

The Trump administration has refused to follow court orders to do what it can to return Abrego to the U.S., prompting concerns of a constitutional crisis. The federal judge in the case made clear in an order Tuesday that the administration has also failed to adequately respond to discovery requests from Abrego Garcia’s attorneys. Judge Paula Xinis granted that request to find out what’s been done to try to get him back to the U.S. She writes in her latest order:

For weeks, Defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders. Defendants have known, at least since last week, that this Court requires specific legal and factual showings to support any claim of privilege. Yet they have continued to rely on boilerplate assertions. That ends now. If Defendants want to preserve their privilege claims, they must support them with the required detail. Otherwise, they will lose the protections they failed to properly invoke.

Xinis set a deadline for 6 p.m. today for the government to provide all requested material.

You can read Racket’s detailed timeline, which includes court records, on the first month of the case here.

Meanwhile, the Abrego Garcia case has become especially politicized in the last week. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and four members of the House of Representatives have flown to El Salvador in the hopes of facilitating Abrego Garcia’s return, and the Department of Homeland Security posted on X documents that show Abrego Garcia’s wife sought a domestic violence protective order against him in 2021. Trump also posted this:

The image of the hand with “MS-13” on it has spurred accusations that the image was doctored, in part because the MS-13 symbols were never mentioned in court documents. Judge Xinis wrote in an April 6 memorandum opinion that in 2019, Homeland Security “relied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.”

One of the most consequential policies of Trump’s second term has been his use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to target alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. It’s also another case in which President Trump has criticized the judge.

On April 19, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily banned the administration from deporting a group of Venezuelans.

For more on the Alien Enemies Act, you can read our timeline in the Racket Library.

Border Security

President Trump signed two executive orders his first day in office to reduce illegal immigration. He also declared a national emergency to enable the military to help with border security.

The result: the number of southern border apprehensions in March — 7,181 — was the lowest since monthly data started being collected in 2000, according to Reuters. The previous low? About 8,300 in February 2025. That prompted Trump to declare “The Invasion of our Country is OVER”:

Apprehensions are not necessarily arrests. For example, they include requests for asylum. During the Biden administration, migrants could apply for asylum through an app. Trump canceled that app, as well as all asylum appointments upon taking office.

Border apprehensions started going down in February 2024, when there were about 140,500. There were roughly 47,000 in both November and December 2024. They went down to about 29,000 in January 2025. Here’s a look at border apprehensions since October 1, 2021, the start of the federal government’s 2022 fiscal year:

Yellow = FY 2022 Blue = FY 2023 Orange = FY 2024. Brown = FY 2025
Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Student Visas — Revocations and Arrests

It’s unclear how many student visas of international students have been revoked. Secretary of State Marco Rubio estimated 300 in late March. Inside Higher Ed reports more than 1,500 international students have lost their visas since April 7. It also has a map that breaks down the numbers by school.

The American Association of Immigration Lawyers says ICE has terminated the records of 4,700 international students since Trump took office. Some are fighting back in court.

Two high profile examples are Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk.

ICE officers arrested Khalil on March 8. Khalil is a permanent U.S. resident from Syria who came to America on a student visa to attend Columbia University as a graduate student. He served as a lead negotiator for pro-Palestinian protesters. Shortly after his arrest, Khalil was transferred to Louisiana, where he is currently being held at the LaSalle Detention Center.

Two days later, Trump called Khalil “a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student” and indicated that his apprehension would be “the first arrest of many to come.”

Khalil has not been charged with any crimes. A federal district court judge issued an order staying Khalil’s deportation, as well as ruling that his case be moved to New Jersey. Meanwhile, an immigration judge has upheld Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s authority to deport noncitizens. Here’s a Racket timeline on his case.

Homeland Security officers arrested Ozturk, a Tufts University graduate student from Turkey, on March 25. Like Khalil, Ozturk was transported to Louisiana. In a since-deleted X post, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin claimed that the DHS and ICE found that Ozturk had “engaged in activities in support of Hamas.”

A year earlier, Ozturk had co-authored an opinion piece in the Tufts student newspaper that was critical of the university’s response to a series of student government resolutions regarding the war in Gaza.

You can read a Racket timeline on her case here.

International relations

Forget the WEF, the WTC, and WHO. After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington today, the new reigning international body is WTF! Did that really happen?

That was the appropriate opening to Matt Taibbi’s Feb. 28 take on Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the White House.

Zelensky challenged Vance’s assertion that the path to peace depended on diplomacy. This led Vice President JD Vance to accuse Zelensky of being disrespectful. Trump joined the tumult after Zelensky claimed that the U.S., in spite of its “nice ocean,” would “feel [the impact of the war] in the future.” Trump said the Ukrainian leader did not “have the cards right now” and accused him of “gambling with World War III.”

Following the meeting, Trump canceled the signing of a rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine. However, in April, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a memorandum of intent that would pave the way for a revival of that agreement.

Preceding the Zelensky visit, Vance delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference in which he criticized “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.” Vance voiced concerns about the annulment of the Romanian presidential election, the European Union’s digital censorship, and the prosecution of a pro-life person praying outside an abortion clinic in the UK. He also called on Europe to increase its defense spending and become less dependent on the United States for its security.

The legacy media, of course, had some hilariously bad takes that Matt notes in this piece, After Vance Blasts Europe, the Mask Drops.

Tariffs

This could easily fall under International Relations or even Economic Policy, but we felt it warranted its own category, given how tariffs have been a constant theme throughout Trump’s second term — even before his “Liberation Day” announcement. From the on-again, off-again tariffs on Canada to his use of tariff threats as leverage with other countries, it’s been a defining feature of his approach.

Trump rocked the financial and international world on April 2 when he announced across-the-board tariffs of 10% and additional reciprocal tariffs against 57 countries the administration considers unfair traders. The president then paused the reciprocal tariffs on all countries except China just as they were about to take effect, while also increasing tariffs against China. He did that after China imposed tariffs of 84% on American products.

We’re now in a trade war that’s made Fed Chairman Jerome Powell hesitant to support lower interest rates. He’s worried about inflation caused by tariffs, while Trump is calling him a “major loser” for refusing to lower rates.

DOGE and Elon Musk

The Elon Musk-run Department of Government Efficiency says it’s saved $160 billion so far. Racket has produced timelines on cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education, which are ranked #1 and #3 on DOGE’s “Agency Efficiency” leaderboard.

The pushback has been intense, with many critics saying Musk has more influence than President Trump. A Feb. 3 piece in The Atlantic is a good example:

He did not receive a single vote. He did not get confirmed. He does not receive a government paycheck.

The world’s richest man has declared war on the federal government and, in a matter of days, has moved to slash its size and reach, while gaining access to some of its most sensitive secrets. He has shaped the public discourse by wielding the powerful social-media site he controls and has threatened to use his fortune to bankroll electoral challenges to anyone who opposes him.

Elon Musk’s influence appears unchecked, triggering cries of alarm from those who worry about conflicts of interest, security clearances, and a broad, ill-defined mandate.

Musk and DOGE are a regular topic at protests, including the nationwide “Tesla Takedown” rallies that Racket covered through its Activism, Uncensored series. There have also been disturbing law-breaking reactions from critics.

But Trump has not wavered in his support of Musk and DOGE. Musk himself brushed off critics last month:

This is a revolution and I think it might be the biggest revolution in the government since the original revolution

However, Musk announced Tuesday his full-time status with DOGE will come to an end next month “now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done.”

He’ll focus on Tesla — which reported declining profits Tuesday — but Musk says he will still “spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the president would like me to do so.”

Higher Education

The Trump administration has suspended federal money or threatened to do so against several universities over what it considers failures to address antisemitism and DEI programs the administration believes are discriminatory.

Harvard is the most notable. The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in grants and a $60 million contract after Harvard refused to agree to a list of demands. The IRS is now reportedly looking at revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Harvard responded Monday with a lawsuit. The school’s president says the administration is trying to control “whom we hire and what we teach.”

Here’s a Racket timeline on the Trump administration’s standoff with Harvard.

It was no surprise Monday when the Trump administration quickly froze more than $2 billion in grants and a $60 million contract for Harvard after the school refused to accept a list of demands as a condition of receiving federal funding.

But it couldn’t end there. After all, it’s well established that President Trump doesn’t like to be told no. Sure enough, he came through Tuesday morning.

It only took a day for the first reports that the IRS plans to follow through with Trump’s threat.

CNN relies on “two sources familiar with the matter,” and says a final decision is “expected soon.”

The New York Times relies on three sources who say the IRS is “weighing whether to revoke Harvard’s tax exemption,” and two of those sources say that “IRS officials have told colleagues” that the Treasury Department asked the agency to consider doing it.

Harvard has been classified as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization since tax reform legislation was passed in 1969. As a nonprofit, the school has been exempt from taxes for most of its history under previous tax legislation or local exemptions, although Harvard does make voluntary payments to local governments in lieu of property taxes.

It wasn’t until 1986 that educational institutions were specifically exempt from IRS code. Here’s the justification for that from the Association of American Universities:

The educational purposes of universities and colleges – teaching, research, and public service – have been recognized in federal law as critical to the well-being of our democratic society. Higher education institutions are in turn exempted from income tax so they can make the most of their revenues.

Needless to say, a lot has happened at Harvard since Oct. 7, 2023, that has been the antithesis of that high-minded reasoning, incidents like this from Oct. 18, 2023:

It’s not exactly a closing argument that a college deserves tax-exempt status when the school tells students that using the wrong pronouns is abusive, but its president isn’t so sure when it comes to calling for the genocide of Jews just a few days after students interrupted classes to chant “Globalize the Intifada.”

It’s also not a good look for a school that received — according to a lawsuit — at least $1.3 million in federal money from 2022 - 2023 even though it has an endowment of $50.7 billion.

Harvard has made changes since the fall of 2023 to prove its antisemitic credentials. One example: last May the school gave academic sanctions to 35 pro-Palestinian protesters.

But the White House says Harvard hasn’t gone far enough. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says Trump “wants to see Harvard apologize, and Harvard should apologize for the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish American students.”

Here’s a timeline of other events on the path to this standoff between Harvard and Trump:

Jan. 10, 2024

Six students file a lawsuit against Harvard for its “antisemitism cancer.” The lawsuit says Harvard hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection:

Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior.

The lawsuit gives examples of anti-semitism at Harvard going back several years and says the school’s “deliberate indifference to, and indeed enabling of, antisemitism on its campus constitutes an egregious violation” of the Civil Rights Act.

011025 Harvard Lawsuit

663KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

052824 Amended Complaint

12MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 29, 2024

The Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA) files a federal complaint against Harvard with the Office of Civil Rights on behalf of Muslim and Palestinian students.

“We have been chased, spat at, stalked, and hounded by doxxing trucks on campus, and even at our families’ homes,” says a student in a press release announcing the complaint.

The MLFA also has a complaint that’s similar to what’s in the lawsuit filed by Jewish students: “Instead of providing protection or resources, Harvard responded to the students’ requests for help with closed doors,” the MLFA says.

May 18, 2024

Two Harvard graduate students are charged with misdemeanor counts of assault and battery and violating the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act over the Oct. 18, 2023, incident in which they and others surrounded an Israeli student filming protesters. Students repeatedly yell “Shame” as they surround him. The Civil Rights Act charge has since been dismissed, but the assault and battery charges remain.

May 22, 2024

Another lawsuit is filed against Harvard over antisemitism. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of five students by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education. From the lawsuit:

Jews are fair game. Students and faculty can harass and discriminate against Jews, and they can do so openly and with impunity. Harvard will go out of its way to protect antisemitic protestors and conspiracy-theorists.

The Israeli student who was surrounded by pro-Palestinian protesters on Oct. 18, 2023, is among the plaintiffs.

“The assailants grabbed him, and one hit him in the neck with his forearm, before forcing [him] out of Harvard’s quad,” the lawsuit says.

The video of the assault is shocking. But more remarkable perhaps is that Harvard has not taken any action to date to redress both the physical assault and the clear violations of its Anti-Bullying and Anti-Discrimination Policies. Instead, it cited an ongoing criminal investigation into [the} assailants and claimed that it is “standard practice” to await the criminal process—yet another contrived excuse.

2024 05 22 Brandeis Center And Jewish Americans For Fairness V

806KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Oct. 8, 2024

Shortly after a vigil commemorating the first anniversary of the October 7 terrorist attacks, a vandal smashes the windows of Harvard’s University Hall and pours fake blood on the statue of John Harvard. A video of the vandalism is posted to Instagram with the following caption: “We are committed to bringing the war home and answering the call to open up a new front here in the belly of the beast.”

January 17, 2025

Harvard settles the Office of Civil Rights complaint filed by Muslim students. A letter from OCR attorneys says:

OCR is concerned that the University’s Non-Discrimination Policy appears to impede its ability to meet its obligations pursuant to Title VI to provide a prompt and effective response to incidents of shared ancestry harassment that create a hostile environment about which it knew or should have known.

The OCR finds that “the Policy may preclude or dismiss complaints of a discriminatory hostile environment in violation of its obligations under Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act.

The letter says Harvard agrees to implement a resolution agreement.

011725 Ocr Letter To Harvard

361KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 21, 2025

Harvard settles both lawsuits accusing it of antisemitism, although the lead plaintiff in the one case, Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, refuses to settle.

Harvard agrees to:

• Adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and include examples aligned with the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education.

• Post online a Frequently Asked Questions document that clarifies both Jewish and Israeli identity are covered by Harvard’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies.

• Reaffirm at least annually that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated.

012125 Harvard Settlement

307KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 27, 2025

Acting Budget Director Matthew Vaeth directs federal agencies to temporarily freeze all federal grants and loans to ensure they comply with recent executive orders, including one that targets DEI programs.

The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve.

Harvard President Alan Garber says some federal research will have to stop. He adds:

In these challenging times, our efforts will be guided by our values and commitments: supporting academic excellence and the pursuit of knowledge; championing open inquiry, constructive dialogue, and academic freedom; building a community in which people of all backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences come together to learn, grow, and thrive; and embracing the rights and responsibilities that membership in such a community demands.

The following day, a federal judge issues a ruling that temporarily blocks the funding freeze, and issues a preliminary injunction the following month.

0127 Omb Letter Funding Pause

1010KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2025 02 25 Order

79.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2025 02 28 Order

482KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 31, 2025

The Trump Administration announces that its Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism will review $9 billion in federal grants and contracts with Harvard.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon says in a prepared statement:

Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry - has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus.

Garber addresses the review in an email titled “Our Resolve” to "members of the Harvard Community.”

“If this funding is stopped, it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation,” Garber writes.

The government has informed us that they are considering this action because they are concerned that the University has not fulfilled its obligations to curb and combat antisemitic harassment. We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry. Urgent action and deep resolve are needed to address this serious problem that is growing across America and around the world. It is present on our campus. I have experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president, and I know how damaging it can be to a student who has come to learn and make friends at a college or university.

033125 Garber Email

164KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 11, 2025

The Trump Administration sends a letter to Garber that says Harvard must uphold civil rights and foster “the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor” if it's to continue receiving federal money:

Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.

041125 Trump Admin Letter To Harvard

2.52MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The letter sets conditions for federal funding to continue. The full list of demands is in the letter above. They include:

• Governance reforms that reduce the power held by students and non-tenured faculty, and reduce the power of any professor or administrator “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

• Implementation of merit-based hiring policies and cease basing any hiring, promotion, or salary based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

• Implement merit-based admissions policies and end “all preferences” based on race, color, and national origin. In addition, “all admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government.”

• Implement a system for screening international students to “prevent admitting

  students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.” This demand calls for Harvard to immediately report to federal authorities any foreign student who commits a conduct violation.

• Ensure viewpoint diversity:

  Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.

• Audit of programs and departments “that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.”

The letter names departments that would be subject to the audit: the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.

The [audit] shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard's rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

April 14, 2025

Harvard responds to the Trump administration through a letter from its attorneys. It notes changes the school has made in the past 15 months and says the government has made demands that “in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.”

No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31 , 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country's scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. These demands extend not only to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government's terms as an agreement in principle.

041425 Harvard Response To Trump

704KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Trump Administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism responds by announcing a freeze on $2.2 billion in grants and a $60 million contract.

Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws.

May 5, 2025

In a letter to Garber, McMahon writes that Harvard “should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided.”

She says that Harvard is “engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law” instead of using public money “to advance the education of its students.”

Harvard University has made a mockery of this country’s higher education system. It has invited foreign students, who engage in violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of America, to its campus. In every way, Harvard has failed to abide by its legal obligations, its ethical and fiduciary duties, its transparency responsibilities, and any semblance of academic rigor. It had scrapped standardized testing requirements and a normalized grading system. This year Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing “remedial math” program for undergraduates. Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this “acclaimed university”? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of mathematics, are being rejected?

The letter also accuses Harvard of not abiding by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that struck down race-conscious admissions policies

McMahon says that the university can drawn upon its vast endowment and network of wealthy alumni for future funding.

5 5 25 Mcmahon Letter

162KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 12, 2025

Garber responds to McMahon with a letter of his own. He notes changes that Harvard has made, and a “shared interest” with McMahon to ensure American universities are “global leaders in innovative and life-saving research that benefits all Americans, boosts the national economy, and serves the country’s interests.”

Harvard’s efforts to achieve these goals are undermined and threatened by the federal government’s overreach into the constitutional freedoms of private universities and its continuing disregard of Harvard’s compliance with the law. It ignores the many meaningful steps we have taken and will continue to take to live up to our principles and improve the lives of people across the country and throughout the world. That is why we have gone to court to address the government’s unlawful attempt to control fundamental aspects of our university’s operations. Consistent with the law and with our own values, we continue to pursue needed reforms, doing so in consultation with our stakeholders and always in compliance with the law. But Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government.

Garber also says Harvard has an “unwavering commitment” to eliminating antisemitism and bigotry on campus.

5 12 2005 Garber Letter

111KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 22, 2025

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem informs Harvard it can no longer enroll international students. She made the announcement on X, saying she’s ordered DHS to terminate Harvard’s certification from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.

Harvard spokesman Jason Newton tells the New York Times that the action is “unlawful.”

We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the university — and this nation — immeasurably. We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.

International students make up 27% of Harvard’s enrollment.

5 22 25 Noem Letter

129KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 23, 2025

U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs grants Harvard a temporary restraining order to prohibit the foreign student ban from taking effect until a hearing is held.

5 23 25 Order Burroughs

103KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 28, 2025

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons sends a followup letter to Harvard that says DHS has “serious concerns” that the school has “coordinated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other foreign entities adverse to national security.”

The evidence DHS lists in the letter:

• Harvard University Received $151 Million From Foreign Governments Since January 2020 - making up more than 13 percent of the total $1.1 billion received from foreign donors over the same period.

• Harvard University hosted and trained members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide, even after its 2020 designation on the U.S. Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals List, with engagements continuing as recently as 2024.

• Harvard University researchers collaborated with China-based academics on projects funded by an Iranian government agent and partnered with Chinese universities tied to military advancements, including aerospace and optics research, using U.S. Department of Defense funds.

• Harvard University partnered with individuals linked to China's defense-industrial base, including conducting robotics research with military applications.

Lyons also lists examples of what he says are Harvard’s failure to maintain an environment free from violence and antisemitism.

The “effective immediately” language in Noem’s letter the previous week is absent. Instead, Lyons says the letter “advises” Harvard of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program’s “intent to withdraw” the school from SEVP’s certification program. Harvard has 30 days to respond.

Notice Of Intent To Withdrawal Harvard University Signed

804KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

With research assistance from James Rushmore

With President Trump sitting next to him, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that no, he is not going to release Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from his country’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), despite a Justice Department lawyer admitting in a court filing that Abrego Garcia’s deportation last month was an “administrative error.”

Subscribe now

No matter, said Bukele:

Bukele: Of course I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.

Reporter: But you could release him inside El Salvador.

Bukele: Yeah, but I’m not releasing, I mean, I’m not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country. We just turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country in the Western hemisphere, and you want us to go back into releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world? That’s not going to happen.

There was little doubt what Bukele would say. Attorney General Pam Bondi set the tone early on in the meeting. She explained what the Supreme Court meant last week when it said a lower court ruling “properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”

The Supreme Court ruled, [Mr.] President, that if El Salvador wants to return him … we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.

It brings to mind President Clinton’s infamous grand jury testimony when he said: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Abrego-Garcia left El Salvador and illegally entered the U.S. in 2011. His status as an illegal immigrant changed after he was arrested in 2019 and the Department of Homeland Security accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang. Abrego Garcia fought the accusation and applied for asylum. Instead, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal” status.

A federal judge wrote in an April 6 opinion that in El Salvador “the Barrio 18 gang had been targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business.”

The Justice Department argues its hands are tied. It doesn’t matter that the U.S. is paying El Salvador $6 million a year to house U.S. deportees at CECOT.

“The United States does not have control over Abrego Garcia. Or the sovereign nation of El Salvador,” says one court filing.

Below is a timeline of the case since Abrego Garcia was arrested last month, leading up to Monday’s Oval Office meeting with Bukele.

March 12-15, 2025

ICE agents stop Abrego Garcia and tell him that he is no longer under “withholding of removal” status. The Trump administration says he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which the president has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

Abrego Garcia, who denies he is part of MS-13, is sent to an ICE detention facility in La Villa, Texas, and from there he is deported to El Salvador on March 15 along with 260 others, primarily Venezuelan nationals. He is being held in CECOT, a prison that has a capacity of 40,000 inmates.

March 24, 2025

Abrego Garcia and his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, file a lawsuit that notes Abrego Garcia has been in the U.S. legally since 2019 under withholding of removal status, and that the designation was never lifted.

They also accuse the government of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite “knowing that he would be immediately incarcerated and tortured in that country’s most notorious prison; indeed, Defendants have paid the government of El Salvador millions of dollars to do exactly that. Such conduct shocks the conscience and cries out for immediate judicial relief.”

The lawsuit requests the court order the U.S. government to tell the government of El Salvador to release and deliver Abrego Garcia to the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador.

0324complaint

3.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2019 Immigration Court Hearings And Order

1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 31, 2025

The Justice Department acknowledges in a court filing that “although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error.”

Still, the Justice Department argues the motion should be denied because the court “has no power” over El Salvador. Justice Department attorneys argue:

Under their (plaintiffs) logic, this Court may assume jurisdiction to decide whether the order is legal, but if the order were determined legal, then jurisdiction would disappear again.

The government also says there’s no proof that Abrego Garcia will be tortured or killed in CECOT:

Plaintiffs point to little evidence about conditions in CECOT itself (focusing primarily on its capacity for detainees), instead extrapolating from allegations about conditions in different Salvadoran prisons. While there may be allegations of abuses in other Salvadoran prisons—very few in relation to the large number of detainees—there is no clear showing that Abrego Garcia himself is likely to be tortured or killed in CECOT. More fundamentally, this Court should defer to the government’s determination that Abrego Garcia will not likely be tortured or killed in El Salvador.

03312025 Administrative Error Response

1.05MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 4, 2025

U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis orders the Trump Administration to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m., April 7. She writes:

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador In violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act…and without any legal process; his continued presence in El Salvador, for obvious reasons, constitutes irreparable harm; the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of returning him to the United States; and issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary to restore him to the status quo and to avoid ongoing irreparable harm resulting from Abrego Garcia’s unlawful removal.

April 5, 2025

The Justice Department appeals the order, calling it “indefensible” that “a federal district judge ordered the United States to force El Salvador to send one of its citizens—a member of MS-13, no less—back to the United States by midnight on Monday. “If there was ever a case for an emergency stay pending appeal, this would be it.”

More from the appellate motion:

Foremost, [the order] commands Defendants to do something they have no independent authority to do: Make El Salvador release Abrego Garcia, and send him to America. That is why Plaintiffs did not even ask the district court for an order directing Abrego Garcia’s return. As Plaintiffs themselves acknowledged, a federal court “has no jurisdiction over the Government of El Salvador and cannot force that sovereign nation to release Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from its prison.” That concession is all that is needed to order a stay here. No federal court has the power to command the Executive to engage in a certain act of foreign relations; that is the exclusive prerogative of Article II, immune from superintendence by Article III.

040525 Justice Department Stay Request Appeal

2.46MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

2025 04 06 Plaintiffs (Garcia) Appellees' Opposition To Emergency Motion For Stay Pending Appeal And Immediate Admin

5.42MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 6, 2025

Judge Xinis issues a follow-up memorandum opinion to her April 4 order:

Although the legal basis for the mass removal of hundreds of individuals to El Salvador remains disturbingly unclear, Abrego Garcia’s case is categorically different—there were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal. Nor does any evidence suggest that Abrego Garcia is being held in CECOT at the behest of Salvadoran authorities to answer for crimes in that country. Rather, his detention appears wholly lawless.

The judge also writes that in 2019, Homeland Security “relied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.”

2025 04 06 Memorandum Opinion

290KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 7, 2025

A three-judge panel of Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denies the government’s motion for a stay of Xinis’ order that says Abrego Garcia must be returned to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m. Judge Stephanie Thacker writes:

The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.

040725 Appeals Order

233KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Trump Administration appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts grants an administrative stay to give justices time to consider the case.

Following the stay, Bondi accuses Abrego Garcia of being a “violent gang member” in the video above:

We will continue to fight for the safety of Americans and get these people out of our country to make America safe.

April 10, 2025

The Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration but directs Judge Xinis to “clarify” a portion of her ruling. From the Supreme Court’s decision:

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

0410 Scotus

55.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 11, 2025

If the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.

President Trump says that aboard Air Force One a day after the Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling and says the government should “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Judge Xinis issues a new order that directs the government to “take all available steps to facilitate the return” of Abrego Garcia. In a hearing, she also makes clear her frustration with the Justice Department.

“The record, as it stands, is, despite this court's clear directive, your clients have done nothing to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia,” she says.

Xinis also orders the administration to provide daily updates on the status of Abrego Garcia’s return. She also criticizes Justice Department attorneys in her order:

During the hearing, the Court posed straightforward questions, including: Where is Abrego Garcia right now? What steps had Defendants taken to facilitate his return while the Court’s initial order on injunctive relief was in effect…? Defendants’ counsel responded that he could not answer these questions, and at times suggested that Defendants had withheld such information from him. As a result, counsel could not confirm, and thus did not advance any evidence, that Defendants had done anything to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. This remained Defendants’ position even after this Court reminded them that the Supreme Court of the United States expressly affirmed this Court’s authority to require the Government “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. From this Court’s perspective, Defendants’ contention that they could not answer these basic questions absent some nonspecific “vetting” that has yet to take place, provides no basis for their lack of compliance.

April 12, 2025

A State Department official reports to the court that Abrego Garcia is “alive and secure” at CECOT. “He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador,” the State Department’s Michael Kozak says in a filing.

However, he does not give an update on the status of Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys use Trump’s statements aboard Air Force One the previous day to justify a motion for additional relief:

Yesterday, President Trump confirmed that the United States has the power to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from prison and return to the United States: “If the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that. ... I respect the Supreme Court.”1 Of course, that is precisely what the Supreme Court did when it ruled that this Court’s injunction “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

His attorneys ask Judge Xinis to order the government to:

• Request El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia.

• Dispatch personnel to accompany Abrego Garcia.

• Provide air transportation for Abrego Garcia to return to Maryland.

• Grant Abrego Garcia parole.

The motion also asks Xinis to order the government to show why it shouldn’t be held in contempt for “failing to comply with this Court’s orders,” and immediately produce documents related to the government’s use of CECOT.

041225 Abrego Garcia Motion For Addtional Relief

282KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 14, 2025

The Justice Department puts in writing how it interprets “facilitate” in the Supreme Court’s order:

Defendants understand “facilitate” to mean what that term has long meant in the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States. Taking “all available steps to facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here. Indeed, no other reading of “facilitate” is tenable—or constitutional—here.

Any other interpretation, the motion argues, would “violate the separation of powers. The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner.”

041325 Doj Response To Motion

120KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 15, 2025

Judge Xinis approves a request by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys to depose Trump Administration officials to learn how the case has been handled and find out what’s been done to try to get him back to the U.S.

“I do need evidence in this regard because to date what the record shows is nothing has been done,” Xinis said in a hearing.

In her written order, Xinis also made clear what is meant by “facilitate.”

This Court…ordered no more than what the Supreme Court endorsed: that Defendants “take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible,” because bound within this remedy is Abrego Garcia’s “release from custody” and the assurance that Abrego Garcia’s “case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

Xinis provided definitions from different dictionaries with web links.

The fallacy in the Defendants’ argument is twofold. First, in the “immigration context” as it were, id., facilitating return of those wrongly deported can and has included more extensive governmental efforts, endorsed in prior precedent and DHS publications.1 Thus, the Court cannot credit that “facilitating” the ordered relief is as limited as Defendants suggest.

Second, and more fundamentally, Defendants appear to have done nothing to aid in Abrego Garcia’s release from custody and return to the United States to“ensure that his case is handled as it would have been” but for Defendants’ wrongful expulsion of him. Thus, Defendants’ attempt to skirt this issue by redefining “facilitate” runs contrary to law and logic.

An attorney for Abrego Garcia, Rina Gandhi, says she understands why Xinis didn’t hold Justice Department attorneys in contempt.

“I think that this is a highly politicized case and the judge understood that by doing so it would only raise tempers. Would it have been appropriate? Arguably, yes. But I think it was likely ultimately the right call to actually move this case forward.”

April 16

The case is getting more politicized. U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland flies to El Salvador to meeting with Abrego Garcia. The government denies that request.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security posts documents on X that show Abrego Garcia’s wife sought a domestic violence protective order against him in 2021.

In the video above, Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt pushes back on the media referring to Abrego Garcia as a “Maryland father.”

The Democrats and the media in this room have continually and wrognly labeled Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a Maryland father. There is no Maryland father. Let me reiterate: Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien MS-13 gang member and foreign terrorist who deported back to his home country.

April 17, 2025

Sen. Van Hollen meets with Abrego. After being told no on two consecutive days, El Salavor authorities brought Abrego Garcia to Van Hollen’s hotel.

Van Hollen says that Abrego Garcia told him he was place in a cell at CECOT with about 25 people.

He said he was not afraid of the other prisoners in his immediate cell, but that he was traumatized by being at CECOT and fearful of many of the prisoners in other cell blocks who called out to him and taunted him in various ways.

Abrego Garcia also told him that he was transfered to another prison on April 9 where conditions are better, but:

He said despite the better conditions, he still has no access to any news from the outside world and no ability to commuicate with anybody in the outside world. His conversation with me was the first communication he had with anybody outside a prison since he was abducted. He said he felt very sad about being in a prison because he had not committed any crime.

April 18, 2025

Trumps posts this image and message:

The image Trump post with “MS-13” on it has spurred accusations that it was doctored, in part because the MS-13 symbols were never mentioned in court documents. Judge Xinis wrote in an April 6 memorandum opinion that in 2019, Homeland Security “relied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.”

April 21, 2025

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia say the government is failing to comply with Xinis’ April 15 discovery order and request a conference with Justice Department attorneys. At issue again is the meaning of “facilitate.” Attorneys for both sides give their perspectives in the same letter to Xinis. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys write:

The Government refuses to respond to interrogatories it claims are “based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador,” despite the Supreme Court’s clear holding that “[t]he [O]rder properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”

They also say the government refuses to provide documents “concerning the legal basis for Abrego Garcia’s confinement,” nor provide any information about the administration’s agreement with El Salvador to hold migrants in the country’s prisons.

Justice Department attorneys counter that they’ve made a “good-faith effort” to responds, but object to some requests made by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys.

The insistence on examining “legal basis for Abrego’s confinement”is an absurdity. Upon Abrego’s repatriation to El Salvador, his detention was no longer a matter of the United States’ confinement, but a matter belonging to the government of El Salvador – which has been explained to the Plaintiffs repeatedly. Any requirement of a more detailed response by the Defendants would be wholly inappropriate and an invasion of diplomatic discussions.

042125 Request For Conference

446KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 22, 2025

Judge Xinis issues an order rather than schedule a conference, and she clearly not happy with government attorneys. Her order says:

For weeks, Defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders. Defendants have known, at least since last week, that this Court requires specific legal and factual showings to support any claim of privilege. Yet they have continued to rely on boilerplate assertions. That ends now.”

Xinis set a deadline for 6 p.m. April 23 for the government to provide all requested material.

042225 Xinis Order Discovery

210KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 29, 2025

During an interview with ABC News' Terry Moran, Trump contradicts the message that the administration has no control over Bukele “or the sovereign nation of El Salvador,” as one court filing puts it. Trump acknowledges he could persuade Bukele to release Abrego Garcia. Here’s an exchange from the video above:

MORAN: You could get him back. There's a phone on this desk.
TRUMP: I could.
MORAN: You could pick it up and, with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, “Send him back.” Right now.
TRUMP: And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that, but he's not.

June 6, 2025

After all the legal wrangling over the meaning of “facilitate,” Abrego Garcia is back in the U.S but facing federal charges in Tennessee. The Associated Press reports that U.S. authorities took custody of him after showing El Salvador President Nayib Bukele an arrest warrant.

Abrego Garcia is accused of conspiracy and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants — some of them members of MS-13 — between 2016 and 2025.

The May 21 grand jury indictment, which had been under seal, lists six unnamed co-conspirators — five citizens of El Salvador and one from Guatemala.

Over the course of the conspiracy, the co-conspirators knowingly and unlawfully transported thousands of undocumented aliens who had no authorization to be present in the United States, and many of whom were MS- 13 members and associates. The co - conspirators also worked with transnational criminal organizations in Mexico to transport undocumented aliens through Mexico and into the United States.

Abrego Garcia Indictment

3.24MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The indictment says Abrego Garcia, while a member of MS-13, and co-conspirators would pick up immigrants in the Houston area shortly after they illegally crossed the border, and transported them to other parts of the country.

It also says that Abrego Garcia transported illegally-purchased guns for resale in Maryland and “narcotics purchased in Texas for distribution and resale in Maryland,” although he is not charged with those alleged crimes.

The indictment mentions a Nov. 30, 2022, traffic stop near Cookeville, Tenn., by the Tennessee Highway Patrol. Abrego Garcia was the driver, and the indictment says he was transporting nine others in a Suburban that “had an after-market third row of seats placed where a cargo area should be, which was occupied by undocumented passengers.”

Here’s bodycam video from that traffic stop:

Abrego Garcia was given a warning for an expired license.

Homeland Security in April released a report on the traffic stop. There are two small discrepancies from the indictment.

1. The report says the traffic stop was Dec. 1, 2022, while the indictment says “on or about” Nov. 30. The bodycam video also says Nov. 30.

2. The indictment says there were nine additional passengers in Suburban, while the report and an officer in the video says there were eight passengers.

Dhs Report On Tennesseee Traffic Stop

133KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Meanwhile, here’s video of Trump when asked about Abrego Garcia aboard Air Force One.

Trump said it was DOJ’s call to bring him back.

Maybe they (DOJ) just said, “Look, all of these people, these judges want to try to run the country…” I could see a decision being made, bring him back, show everybody how horrible this guy is, and frankly we have to do something because the judges are trying to take the place of a president that won in a landslide.

Trump was asked if he spoke to Bukele directly to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. “I don’t want to say that,” Trump responded.

Subscribe now

While the trade war with China plays out, another war of political rhetoric is heating up again over the Panama Canal.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in Panama this week, and pointed out America’s military presence and joint training exercises with Panamanians. Though he said the U.S. doesn’t seek war and that “war with China is certainly not inevitable,” he had a strong military message for the CCP:

Our relationship is growing in part to meet communist China's rising challenge. China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area that gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous, and less sovereign.

He said “China will not weaponize this canal,” and it will stay that way “through the deterrent power of the strongest, most effective, and most lethal fighting force in the world.”

Hegseth followed up Wednesday with a similar message to the Central American Security Conference.

The era of capitulating to coercion by the communist Chinese is over. They're growing an adversarial control of strategic land and critical infrastructure in this hemisphere cannot and will not stand. To accomplish this, our countries cannot face these shared threats alone. We have to face them together. America will confront, will deter, and if necessary defeat these threats alongside all of you, our close and valued partners. Our mission is simple: achieve peace through strength through an America first approach. We're doing this by restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military and reestablishing deterrence.

Obviously, that didn’t go over well with China. Its embassy in Panama accuses the U.S. of hypocrisy as it “repeats ad nauseam the ‘Chinese interference and influence.’” It noted the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 and asked: “Who represents the real threat to the Channel? People will make their own judgment.”

(In making that judgment, a reminder that the U.S. still controlled the Panama Canal in 1989, and Panama was run by dictator Manuel Noriega who had been indicted in the U.S. on drug crimes. He was also a former CIA informant, and American officials knew about his crimes — which included helping Pablo Escobar — for years before doing anything about it).

China’s influence over the Canal has grown since 2017, when Panama severed ties with Taiwan and established diplomatic relations with China. A Chinese company controls the largest port on the Atlantic side of the Canal, and a Hong Kong company, CK Hutchinson, controls ports on both ends of the Canal. Last month, BlackRock, an American investment firm, reached a deal to buy CK Hutchinson’s ports, but that deal could be in jeopardy of falling through. Chinese firms are also building a bridge across the Canal.

President Trump has said the U.S. should have never given up the canal to Panama, which occurred on Dec. 31, 1999, as agreed to in treaties that President Carter signed in 1977 and won Senate approval the following year.

While critics place a lot of blame on Carter, Presidents Nixon and Ford started the negotiations. There was bipartisan support to reach a deal (there was even a tentative deal in place in 1967, but a coup in Panama ended those negotiations) because there were tensions and sometimes violence between locals and Americans. The audio below is from a 1976 NBC story that describes life inside the barbed wire fence that surrounded the Canal Zone: “Its 40,000 American residents, both military and civilian, enjoy a suburban lifestyle.” Panamanians on the other side of the fence were resentful.

Ronald Reagan changed the political debate over the Canal during his primary challenge to Ford in 1976. Opposition to any deal with Panama became the focus of his campaign. Reagan says in the ad below: “We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrijos (Panama’s dictator) should be told we’re going to keep it.”

The message was effective. Reagan won 24 states, and Ford didn’t secure the GOP nomination until the Republican National Convention.

Today’s debate over the Panama Canal

The Panama Canal was not a campaign issue in 2024. Trump first complained about passage rates charged to the Navy and U.S. shipping companies in two December 21 social media posts. Trump wrote that if the situation does not improve, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question. To the Officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!”

He repeated those criticisms and threats in a speech the following day:

It was not given for the benefit of others by a token of cooperation, but it was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions. You gotta treat us fairly, and they haven’t treated us fairly. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called that “preposterous.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also dismissed the idea of regaining control of the Panama Canal.

But Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz said Trump has a point. He dismissed the idea of taking the Canal by force, but said “the United States reasserting its history in the Panama Canal is actually a good, important, strategic issue.”

At a hearing in January, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz voiced concern about the bridge that Chinese firms are building across the Canal.

The partially-completed bridge gives China the ability to block the Canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation poses acute risks to U.S. national security.

A witness at that hearing, George Mason international law professor Eugene Kontorovich, testified that the presence of a Chinese company essentially means the Chinese military has a presence in the Canal.

In a communist regime, distinctions between private and government-owned firms are not as absolute or clear-cut as in a Western liberal society. This is particularly the case for the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which has an official doctrine known as “Military-Civilian Fusion,” a top-level strategy of the CCP Central Committee since 2019.

Here’s a timeline of key events in the history of the Panama Canal leading up to this week’s speeches from Hegseth.

January 22, 1903

The U.S. and Colombia, which controlled what is now Panama, agree to a treaty that gives the U.S. rights to the land to build the Canal in return for $10 million and $250,000 annually. However, Colombia’s congress rejects the deal.

November 3, 1903

With the backing of the U.S., Panama declares its independence from Colombia.

November 18, 1903

The U.S. and Panama sign the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which establishes the Panama Canal Zone and “grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone.” The treaty has the same financial terms that Colombia’s Congress rejected. It’s ratified by the Senate and approved by President Theodore Roosevelt in February 1904.

1903hay Bunau Varilla Treaty

39.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Construction begins in 1904. About 5,600 lives are lost by the time the Canal is completed a decade later.

August 15, 1914

The Panama Canal opens to shipping.

January 9, 1964

Panamanian rioters invade the Canal Zone and attempt to substitute the U.S. flag with a Panamanian one. The riots last three days, killing 22 Panamanians and four U.S. troops.

September 7, 1977

President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos sign the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Panama will take control of the Canal on Dec. 31, 1999. President Carter says:

This agreement thus forms a new partnership to ensure that this vital waterway, so important to all of us, will continue to be well-operated, safe, and open to shipping by all nations now and in the future. Under these accords, Panama will play an increasingly important role in the operation and defense of the Canal during the next 23 years, and after that, the United States will still be able to counter any threat to the Canal’s neutrality and openness for use.

Volume 1280 I 21086 English

460KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Neutrality Treaty

17.8KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

December 31, 1999

Panama gains control of the Canal. Army Secretary Louis Caldera, the head of the U.S. delegation at the handover ceremony, says:

The United States could not aspire to be a good neighbor to Latin America and continue occupying and dividing the territory of a country considered a friend.

December 21, 2024

On Truth Social, President-elect Trump slams Panama for charging the United States “exorbitant prices and rates of passage” to use the Canal. He claims that China is influencing the canal’s management, before adding, “This complete ‘rip-off’ of our Country will immediately stop.”

In a follow-up post, Trump adds:

December 22, 2024

While delivering a speech in Phoenix, Trump asks, “Has anyone ever heard of the Panama Canal? Because we're being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we're being ripped off everywhere else.”

When an audience member suggests taking back the Canal, Trump responds, “That’s a good idea.”

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino responds to Trump in a video he posts on X:

Mulino also issues a written statement, citing the Torrijos-Carter Treaties: “Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belong to PANAMA, and will continue to be. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable.”

He adds that passage rates are determined by “market conditions, international competition, operating costs and the maintenance and modernization needs of the interoceanic waterway,” and insists upon the Canal’s “permanent neutrality” and “open and safe operation for all nations.” He also rejects the notion that China wields any special influence over the Canal: “The Canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power.”

Trump’s response:

Trump also shares an AI-generated image with the following caption:

December 23, 2024

Panamanian protesters gather outside the U.S. embassy to protest Trump.

Among the chants: “Get out invading gringo” and “Trump, animal, leave the Canal alone.”

They burn an American flag and set fire to an image of Trump.

“Donald Trump and his imperial delusion cannot claim even a single centimeter of land in Panama,” says one protester.

December 25, 2024

Trump posts the following Christmas message:

Minutes later, he announces that Miami-Dade County Commissioner Kevin Marino Cabrera will serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Panama, “a Country that is ripping us off on the Panama Canal, far beyond their wildest dreams.”

December 26, 2024

Panamian President Murino holds a press conference to send a message to Trump that the Canal is not for sale.

The Canal is Panamanian and belongs to Panamanians. There's no possibility of opening any kind of conversation around this reality, which has cost the country blood, sweat and tears.

He also denies Trump’s claim that the Chinese military has any presence in the Canal, saying, “There are no Chinese soldiers in the Canal, for the love of God.”

January 7, 2025

During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump refuses to rule out using military force to acquire the Panama Canal. He claims that it was “built for our military” and “is vital to our country.” He once again argues that the Canal is “being operated by China.”

January 9, 2025

Republican Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota introduces the Panama Canal Repurchase Act of 2025, which authorizes the President and the Secretary of State to “initiate and conduct negotiations with appropriate counterparts of the Government of the Republic of Panama to reacquire the Panama Canal.”

Bills 119hr283ih

226KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 10, 2025

Panama Canal Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez tells the Associated Press that the Canal cannot charge lower rates to U.S. ships. He speaks of his desire to “maintain the established rules,” insists that the Canal is a neutral economic zone, and says that the Chinese companies operating in its ports have no special influence over how the Canal is run.

January 20, 2025

During his inauguration address, President Trump describes how “American ships [that use the Panama Canal] are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape, or form.” He repeats his assertion that China controls the Canal and closes with the following: “We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”

Trump’s comments prompt another statement from Mulino in which he says, “The Canal was not a concession from anyone.”

Panama also sends the statement to the U.N. Security Council.

February 2, 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives in Panama City to meet with Mulino.

Mulino attempts to assuage Rubio’s concerns about Chinese influence by announcing that Panama would allow its membership in China’s Belt and Road Initiative to expire. He also vows to allow more U.S. investments in Panama.

Later that day, Trump reiterates his interest in obtaining the Canal. He tells reporters that “something very powerful is going to happen” if Panama does not cede control over the waterway.

Secretary of State Rubio is in Panama right now, and we're talking about the Panama Canal. What they've done is terrible. They violated the agreement. They're not allowed to violate the agreement.

China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China; that was given to Panama, foolishly. But they violated the agreement, and we're going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.

March 4, 2025

A consortium led by BlackRock announces that it will purchase CK Hutchison’s holdings in the Panama Ports Company, which owns and operates two ports on each side of the canal. CK Hutchison is owned by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and it reportedly felt “political pressure to exit the ports business.” The deal is worth over $19 billion.

Trump references the deal during his address to the joint session of Congress that evening (1:19:50 of the video below).

[The Panama Canal] was given away by the Carter administration for one dollar, but that agreement has been violated very severely. We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.

March 5, 2025

In an X post, Mulino denies Trump’s implication that the BlackRock deal lays the groundwork for a U.S. takeover of the Canal. He accuses Trump of lying.

March 13, 2025

NBC News reports that the Trump administration plans to bolster the U.S. military presence in Panama. Military officials tell NBC that, while the goal is to eventually reclaim control over the Canal, a U.S. invasion remains unlikely.

March 20, 2025

The Chinese government threatens to block CK Hutchison from selling its controlling interest in the two Panama Canal ports to BlackRock.

April 7, 2025

A Panamanian government investigation finds that CK Hutchison owes the country’s government over $300 million in fees because it did not properly renew its contract to operate its two ports along the Canal. This development has the potential to delay or even jeopardize the company’s deal with BlackRock.

Later that night, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth arrives in Panama. He will speak at the reopening of an American port and address the Central American Security Conference. He is the first secretary of defense to visit Panama in two decades.

April 8, 2025

Hegseth meets with Mulino and Panama Canal Authority Administrator Ricaurte Vazquez.

They release a joint statement that says they agree to “strengthen bilateral Canal security cooperation,” guarantee “the expedited transit of warships and auxiliary vessels of the Republic of Panama and the United States, improve bilateral cyber cooperation,” and allocate Army Corps of Engineers resources towards ensuring the Canal’s sustainability. They also announce that they will move toward adopting a new mechanism for U.S. payment of Canal tolls and charges. The Defense Secretary praises Mulino for withdrawing Panama from the Belt and Road Initiative.

Panama’s version of their joint statement includes an additional detail: It says that Hegseth “recognized Panama's leadership and inalienable sovereignty over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.”

Research assistance by James Rushmore

Tariffs have always been controversial, but they use to be a bit simpler.

There was the retaliatory chicken tax in 1964. West Germany placed tariffs on our poultry, so LBJ responded with a 25% tariff on light trucks.

I don’t know anyone who questions Ronald Reagan’s free trade bonafides, yet he imposed a 45% tariff on imported motorcycles to protect Harley Davidson. Japanese bikes were overtaking the market. The motorcycle tariff, as it became known, expired in 1988. I should probably be thankful for that since I ride a Yamaha.

My first experience dealing with tariffs as a journalist was in 2002. President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on steel because countries were “dumping” steel in the U.S. at below-market prices. Steel companies were filing bankruptcy and laying off workers. It seemed so obvious that something needed to be done.

But it’s a little more complicated. I didn’t realize at the time that lots of people and companies really don’t care where their shit comes from. Companies that need steel were used to cheap prices, and they suddenly had to pay higher prices. There are plenty of studies that say those companies lost more jobs than the number of people employed in the steel-producing industry.

The World Trade Organization, formed in 1995, eventually ruled the Bush tariffs were illegal. It’s ruled against America a lot, leading to accusations of anti-American bias. The Trump Administration has suspended payments to the WTO.

I don’t think Trump will care how the WTO rules on his “Liberation Day” tariffs, which hit the usual suspects (China) and the not-so-usual. Lesotho, a country in Africa that I suspect many Americans cannot locate on a map, topped Trump’s list at 50%.

My former colleague, Peter Savodnik, wrote about The Great Scramble in American politics — and that seems to be playing out when it comes to tariffs. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 77% of Republicans have a positive view of them, while 93% of Democrats have a negative view. The poll was taken shortly before Trump announced his tariffs last week.

It’s interesting to see attitudes shift on Capitol Hill, too. Sen. Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, is one who stands out. Back in 2018, he voiced concern about Trump’s tariffs against China, calling them a “mixed message” and saying it’s not a given that automobile companies like Toyota will “continue to build cars in the United States if that were to change, the rules of origin.”

Today, he’s on board with Trump’s tariffs.

In the video above, Cornyn says:

Part of the problem is we’ve sort of become accustomed to other countries treating us differently that we treat them. Part of the reuslt of that is we’ve offshored a lot of manufacturing outside of the United States. Part of President Trump’s, what’s he’s hoping for, is we can attract more businesses to come back and manufacture goods in the United States.

In 2023, Cornyn said it was time to move on from Trump. Not anymore:

On the Democratic side, there’s Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In 2009, he supported President Obama’s 35% tariffs on Chinese tires. At the time, Goodyear had tire plants in Buffalo and Niagara Falls. The plant in Buffalo has since shut down.

Schumer also supported President Trump’s 2018 tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum.

“Today he is doing the right thing,” Schumer said the day Trump announced the tariffs. Schumer said something needed to be done to respond to China stealing U.S. intellectual property.

In 2024, he sang the same tune when President Biden expanded Trump’s tariffs:

Fighting the CCP’s unfair trade practices is something I have cared about for a very long time. It was one of the very first issues I focused on when I first visited upstate New York as a Senator and saw for myself jobs leaving our shores. The CCP has shown they will stop at nothing to steal our intellectual property and undermine our economy.

In the last week, “grandma” has been in a lot of his anti-tariff talking points:

He also says tariffs should have been “pinpointed and targeted” instead of a “massive assault on American families.”

I don’t think it’s so simple. There are certainly a lot of people who feel they’ve been under assault by the status quo.

Below is a list of tariffs that America has imposed since 2002 leading up to President Trump’s second term.

March 5, 2002

President George W. Bush imposes tariffs on steel, targeting China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany and Brazil. They are to last for three years, starting at 30% and tapering to 18% in the third year.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., praised the action but added: “I am not confident that the problems of the steel industry are on their way to being solved” in part because the 30% rate only lasts for one year.

03 05 2002 Components Of The President's Decision

162KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

03 05 2002 President Announces Temporary Safeguards For Steel Industry

172KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

03 05 2002 Steel Products Proclamation

152KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

07 04 2002 USTR Proclamation

136KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Dec. 4, 2003

Bush rescinds the steel tariffs. The decision comes nearly a month after the World Trade Organization rules the tariffs were illegal, and gives countries they targeted the right to impose $2.2 billion in retaliatory tariffs.

“The President's complete lack of mettle in calling the W.T.O.'s bluff ignores the continuing damage being done," said Leo Gerard, the president of the United Steelworkers of America.

12 04 2003 President's Statement On Steel

149KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

12 04 2003 To Provide For The Termination Of Action Taken With Regard To Imports Of Certain Steel Products By The President Of The United States Of America A Proclamation

145KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

September 11, 2009

President Obama imposes a three-year tariff on Chinese tires that had been flooding the market since 2004. The tariffs start at 35% and go down to 25% by the third year.

The New York Times reports that four tire plants have shut down and more are scheduled to close.

The United Steelworkers Union says the tariffs stabilized the American tire industry. Chinese imports dropped significantly, but tires from South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia took their place, the Los Angeles Times reports in this 2016 story, which was pegged to Trump talking about tariffs on the campaign trail.

09 11 2009 Memorandum For Secretary Of Commerce, Secretary Of Labor, United State Trade Representative

200KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

09 11 2009 Proclamation To Address Market Disruption From Imports Of Certain Passenger Vehicle And Light Truck Tires

202KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

02 2016 Standing Up For American Workers And Businesses The Obama Administration's Trade Enforcement Record

498KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

January 22, 2018

Trump announces tariffs of 20 to 50% on washing machines and parts that decrease over three years, and 30% on solar panels and cells. The tariffs apply to any country, but are directed at China.

March 8, 2018

Trump announces tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum, but temporarily excludes Canada and Mexico. He later excludes Argentina, Brazil, Australia and South Korea, and the European Union.

05 31 2018 President Donald J

129KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Section 301 Final

2.88MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 31, 2018

Trump announces the steel and aluminum tariffs will apply to Canada, Mexico and the EU.

05 31 2018 President Donald J

129KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

June 15, 2018

Trump announces 25% tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese technology products “in light of China’s theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices.”

Trump adds another $200 billion in Chinese products at 10% after China imposes retaliatory retaliatory tariffs on $50 billion in American products.

06 15 2018 Statement By The President Regarding Trade With China

131KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

06 18 2018 Statement From The President Regarding Trade With China

130KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

May 17, 2019

Trump removes tariffs he imposed on Mexico and Canada nearly a year earlier, but then nearly two weeks later imposes a 5% tariff on all products from Mexico because of illegal immigration at the southern border. Trump says:

Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.

Trump says the tariffs will escalate to 25% and remain “until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory.”

05 19 2019 Proclamation On Adjusting Imports Of Aluminum Into The United States

146KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

05 30 2019 Statement From The President Regarding Emergency Measures To Address The Border Crisis

148KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

September 2, 2022

President Biden continues Trump’s tariffs against China.

May 14, 2024

Biden increases tariffs on $18 billion in Chinese products. They include:

• A 100% tariff on electric vehicles

• A 50% tariff on solar products

• A 25% tariff on other products such as steel and EV batteries.

Biden has strong words for China in making the announcement:

Sometimes they just outright steal through cyber espionage and other means. And it’s been a well-documented inter- — and internationally recognized. When you make tactics like these, they are — they’re — you’re not competing. It’s not competition. It’s cheating. And we’ve seen the damage here in America.

05 14 2024 Remarks By President Biden On His Actions To Protect American Workers And Businesses From China’s Unfair Trade Practices

109KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Nearly two decades ago, when charged to cover an apparent Depression-level event in the 2008 crash, I was stunned to discover how few resources were available to ordinary people hoping to make sense of the economy. The financial press was written by and for financial professionals, and every time I thought I’d found an analyst who made sense, I’d discover shortly after he or she was funded by banks or hedge funds incentivized to put lipsticks on pigs.

It also turned out that most of the statistics politicians used to represent the relative fitness or unfitness of the economy were and are weighted at best, and outright bull at worst, from the Consumer Price Index to the Unemployment Rate. Even LIBOR, the interbank lending rate that supposedly represented how finance companies thought about the economy, turned out to be a monstrous scam. The habit of tweaking stats became so ingrained, even Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman could unashamedly declare “the war on inflation is over” and “we won, at very little cost” using a graph that charted price growth excluding “food, energy, shelter, and used cars,” i.e. everything:

We’re again in panic mode, with front page charts full of down-pointing arrows, and the word “plummets” suddenly a ubiquitous headline term. However you feel about the new “reciprocal tariffs” program, we’re again entering a time in which most news consumers will need to know where to search for de-politicized answers to economic questions. I polled finance professionals, contributors like Eric Salzman, and reporters who cover economics to ask which sources are most accessible. Then I spoke at length with fellow Substacker Chris Irons of Quoth the Raven about the broader problems with finding reliable economic info, and some sites that short-cut the obstacles.

One quick note up front. Many respondents pointed out that a neophyte beginning a journey into sorting out what’s what in the economy may want to begin by familiarizing himself or herself with each of the twelve Federal Reserve banks. “They all pretty much report on different things,” says Salzman. “If you want to know what’s going on in the oil and gas business, the Dallas Fed issues a lot of research.” Irons pointed to FRED, or Federal Reserve Economic Data, put out by the St. Louis Fed. “It’s all there,” he says, noting for instance the multiple official unemployment rates that are often cherry-picked by financial media depending on the situation. “It’s just not what’s in the news.”

Data about Wall Street is found throughout the Fed system, but the New York and Boston Feds put out some of the most interesting numbers and surveys on financial markets. The Atlanta Fed prides itself on forecasting numbers like GDP growth, San Francisco is good for labor markets and Pacific Rim issues, and so on. You can find each bank’s site here, and all of them will have a notation reading “research” or “what we study” at the top.

A key thing to understand about economic searches is that governmental agencies (and quasi-governmental agencies, like the Fed) generally have a fair portion of the raw, unmanipulated data you’re looking for, both for macroeconomics and individual companies. The problem is learning to interpret the numbers, and finding convenient ways to locate everything you need in one place. If you’re following economic developments through the courts, costs can be a limiting factor, but as Matt Stoller points out, sites like CourtListener.Com can give you free updates about developments in antitrust cases or other lawsuits.

“If you want to understand important corporate economics,” Stoller says, “the place you understand them is when they’re fighting with each other.”

It’s a big topic, and future entries will probably feature separate articles for independent investors and people simply interested in learning what kind of shape the global or national economy is in from places other than newspapers proven to be unreliable. I asked Irons, whose “The Inevitable, Just Sooner” piece about Donald Trump’s tariff war expresses a lot of my own beliefs about the subject, how and where he goes to evaluate companies and the economy in general:

MT: Putting off macroeconomics for a moment, where do you start when you’re looking at a company?

Chris Irons: Well, the nice thing about Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting is that if you strip away all of the financial media, the sell-side analyst reports, and what everybody is saying about a given company, at the end of the day, everybody’s beholden to the same disclosure requirements. So there is always a way to make an apples-to-apples comparison of companies.

One company may be earning $20 million a year and be very pissed off about it, and Goldman Sachs might hate ‘em, and another company may be making $20 million a year, and it might be the hottest thing ever, all over CNBC, because they’re in AI or whatever. At the end of the day, if you’re just looking at each company’s 10-Ks.

MT: The annual reports required by the SEC.

Chris Irons: Right. So you’re looking at $20 million on either one, and then it’s up to you to determine where that sits within the industry that the company’s in. So one thing you can do is compare companies to their peers, obviously, which is what everybody on Wall Street does, and then kind of work your way out to the overall sector in general: “Okay, is this an auto stock? How is the whole industry doing?” Then work your way out even a little bit more to the macroeconomy.

MT: All of this is searchable at SEC.gov, right?

Chris Irons: Yes. You can go in there, there’s a search filings page, and just enter any company, if you want to use the official sites.

MT: There’s a nice clip-art picture of “you” frowning a little as you tackle the page:

MT: Anyway, there are all sorts of mandated disclosures in these documents. What are some of the most important?

Chris Irons: Literally reading a 10-K from start to finish is the best way to learn about a firm, especially if it’s just fresh off the press and you’re not two months into a new quarter. But when a 10-K or even a 10-Q [eds. note: the quarterly version] drops, that is really the best way to familiarize yourself with the basics of a company. They all start with, “What does the business do? What’s the name of the business? What’s the address? Where are they headquartered? Here’s the business that we’re in. Here’s the industry that we’re in, and here’s what the segments of our company are, so here’s where revenue is coming in.” So we may be Disney and we may have theme park revenue, video content, revenue, licensing revenue.

MT: They’re telling a story about how they make money.

Chris Irons: Right. How they make money, and if they don’t make money, how they expect to make money.

Now, the best way to cheat if you don’t even want to look at the financials, say you don’t know anything about accounting, is every company has a risk factor section. The rule of thumb with risk factors is you always put the most materially important risk at the top.

So if you have a “key man” risk where one guy knows the secret sauce and if he dies, you’re completely fucked, that’ll be up top. Or if it’s that you’re losing money as a cash burning biotech company that’s trying to push one drug through phase three, the first thing that they’re going to say is, our ability to operate is contingent upon our ability to raise capital. And that business could fail or be adversely affected if the phase three drug doesn’t go through or it doesn’t meet its primary endpoints. So the risk factors are often kind of overlooked as boilerplate, but they’re there for a reason.

I’ve been in the room with securities lawyers and executives as they write them, they’re worded purposefully and they’re written with great care because in essence, that is a way for the company to disclaim itself from future risk that an investor may say, “I didn’t see this coming.” So they do want to be forthcoming.

The problem is that nobody reads the 10-K. Everybody glances over it and they just say, okay, well this is just boilerplate lawyer bullshit. Well, it’s actually not. It’s actually the worst case scenarios that you can find. So that’s a great spot in an annual report to look at that. Most companies don’t look at that. If you turn on CNBC or you read a sell-side analyst report, they’re not going to go into depth about the risk factors.

MT: It’s one of the few places in America where people are required to be at least somewhat painfully honest in advance.

Chris Irons: Yeah. And some sites actually make it even a little bit easier. There’s a site that I really like that I’ve used for the last 10 years. It’s called BamSEC.

MT: Okay. Never heard of that. And it’s going to give you access to the same filings.

Chris Irons: It just organizes them a little bit. The SEC site is a bit convoluted, it’ll kind of give you a list of everything. In BAM SEC, you put the ticker in and immediately in one section of the screen you have your 8-Ks and your 10-Qs. Mostly they’re material events that occur to the business in between the periods of 10-Q. So if you just filed your quarterly and two weeks later your CEO resigns, that goes out in an 8-K, for foreign filers.

Then one section has insider buys and sells, which will be on Form-4s and Form-3s. Form-3s are your initial statement of beneficial ownership and Form-4s are when insiders transact in the stock. I think they’ll put the 13-G and D filings in there too, which is when you have outside investors come in and acquire a big enough stake in the company, where they have to disclose, “Hey, I’m a 5% owner.” This is actually what the SEC is going after Musk for right now.

They’re saying he didn’t file that when he needed to on Twitter. And then there’s another section of the page where you have the proxy statements and some other stuff. You’ll get a lot of the same information that you get in the annual reports, but you’re also going to get a lot of detail about the board of directors, the biographies of the people that are on the board of directors, the different committees within the board of directors.

So BAM SEC just lays that shit out. Everything’s dated, so you know what the most recent filing is.

Chris Irons: There are a lot of really nice features on this site. You have correspondence. These are comment letters going back and forth to the SEC. So you can read those and see kind of what the SEC is asking them about.

MT: Cool.

Chris Irons: Yeah, ownership, which is your Form-4s, and again, your 13 Ds and Gs, and then prospectuses and registrations, which are documents related to selling stock to raise capital generally.

MT: Like securities or bonds or anything of that sort?

Chris Irons: Yeah, exactly. If they’re going to go out and sell convertible bonds or they’re going to sell stock, some administrative stuff, prospectuses - also, proxies will have an immense amount of information in them. A lot of the information will be repetitive, so you’ll see stuff that is in the 10-K, but say two months later, a company wants to go sell a million shares to raise 50 million, they have to once again disclose all that shit so that people that are participating in the purchase of the securities are aware of everything that was in the 10-K. So you’ll get a lot of redundant information. But for example, if you have a prospectus that was filed yesterday and the 10-K was filed two months ago, you may get more updated information in the prospectus.

MT: So the average person, if they pick up the newspaper, the information they get about whether we have a good economy or not is going to be unemployment rate, inflation, where the stock market is, and maybe something like the consumer price index. What other things should people be looking at?

Chris Irons: Well, I think people at first need to understand that those statistics in and of themselves are gamed.

For example, the CPI uses things like owner’s equivalent rent and hedonic adjustments where they game the numbers to be significantly lower than they are, which is why you kind of notice things going up 10% a year price-wise, while they’re telling you they’re only going up 3% a year.

There used to be a great site called the CHAPWOOD Index, which looks like they may have stopped in 2023, but the idea here is to kind of show you the true cost of living increases. And what they do is they take a basket of items similar to the way that CPI does it, but they include items that CPI strategically excludes and they don’t make adjustments. CPI makes an adjustment like this: if the price of TVs goes up year over year by 10%, but your TV can now stream video when it not used to not be able to do that, they will go in and discretionarily edit the true cost of what a TV costs because you’re theoretically getting more than what you would’ve gotten last year.

MT: Because it’s more awesome now!

Chris Irons: Yeah, exactly. Those are the kind of bullshit games that are in these numbers. There’s a cool little link on this site that just says problems with CPI. It’s on the CHAPWOOD index site, and it just says the government’s been artificially deflating CPI to keep figures as low as possible.

And that’s because things like social security are all earmarked to the rate of inflation. So people would be shitting a brick if they knew inflation was 10% and the government’s cost of living increase for social services was trying to meet this 3% CPI number. And it’s the same with unemployment. There are huge differences in the way unemployment numbers used to be reported, versus now.

Unemployment used to just mean people who were out of work. Now the unemployment numbers are excluding the people who are actively looking for a job. They do shit like this. Peter Schiff has a great series on problems with the unemployment number. I’m going to see if I can find it. The U-6 rate is what? Prior to 1994, the U-6 rate was the official rate, and that’s what you should get in there because they don’t use the U-6 rate, they use a different rate now, the U-3 rate.

MT: So they went from a higher calculation to a lower one in 1994?

Chris Irons: Yes. It’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is how they fucking release the numbers. U-1 is people unemployed 15 weeks or longer as a percent of the civilian labor force. U-2 is job losers and people who completed temporary jobs. U-3, total unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force, which is the official unemployment rate. And U-6, which is total unemployed plus all people marginally attached to the labor force plus total employed part-time for economic reasons as a percent of the civilian labor force, plus all people marginally attached to labor force.

So just cast the net a little bit wider, and it used to be the employment number that they use. Now they use the U-3 rate, which is a smaller pot of people. So they’re data-mining essentially.

MT: Gotcha. What other data might be of interest to an ordinary person? The Fed obviously puts out all kinds of papers.

Chris Irons: The size of their balance sheet. I find it fascinating.

When they started quantitative easing, the idea was they were going to buy some bonds and then they were going to sell ‘em back into the market. And that never happened. They just started buying bonds and now the Fed balance sheet is whatever, seven or 8 trillion, and at some point something’s going to give because they have 7 trillion worth of - I don’t know if they’re subprime assets - but they’re assets that if they went to go find a market to buy them now wouldn’t be there.

Monetary policy, the way that we’ve run it really since the 2000s, is just kind of this big unprecedented experiment and nobody really knows how it’s going to end. You have financial PhDs basically claiming that we’ve figured out the secret sauce, that we can twist and distort and micromanage the economy to get it to do whatever we want at any point that we want, and that this is the path to utopia. And then you have the free market people that say maybe it’s working now, but every day you fiddle around with this bullshit more, the worse it’s going to be when the reckoning comes. I actually just wrote an article about this last week that shows that one of the negative consequences of monetary policy now is this widening inequality gap. So if you go to my substack and you look at the dark secret behind Democrats’ economic policy, which should be the pinned number one, and just scroll down to the chart that says net personal wealth.

MT: Okay.

Chris Irons: So both parties are guilty of this, but I’m writing specifically about Democrats because they’re the party that sells equity and equality and not just equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. This is the result of the monetary policy that this country has, which is not that the gap between the top 10% and the bottom 90% is widening, but it’s accelerated. And so it’s not just all of this wealth that they’re accruing, because with wealth comes power and influence. It’s within this very same system that Ben Bernanke once said we can print money at no cost, meaning it doesn’t cost anything to run the fucking printer. It costs 2 cents of electricity, but the long and short of it is there’s real cost and this is what the real cost looks like.

Looks like the fucking ultra rich that these dildos are railing against on a daily basis getting exponentially richer and at the same time bringing with them a quality of life by virtue of osmosis. Because as this is occurring, inflation is worsening. And so these people in the top 10%, they don’t feel anything. The people in the bottom 90% are being brutalized, brutalized because the people on a shoestring budget are going to the store. And when they used to get 16 ounces of Fruity Pebbles for $4, now it’s $8 and they only get 10 ounces.

That is a fucking big deal for some people. You know what I mean?

MT: Sure.

Chris Irons: That multiplied across all discretionary spending and especially consumer staples is where it hits these people. And so it’s no surprise to me that Nancy Pelosi thinks that the economy’s working fine or that any of these rich fucks throw a dart. They all think everything’s working. But that is this chart. If everybody understood what was in this chart, people would be raising a lot of serious fucking questions about monetary policy because this takes everything the Democrats talk about and all the virtue signaling bullshit about equity and bringing people together and we’re all going to sing Kumbaya and everybody gets a chance - and refutes it directly. And this happened under both parties.

MT: Alright, are there other sites like that that you can think of that might not be known to the average person?

Chris Irons: Another great site that I really like is called currentmarketvaluation.com.

MT: Sounds self-explanatory.

Chris Irons: It’s super easy. If you look at something like a price-to-earnings ratio, that’s essentially the most commonly used way to determine whether stocks are expensive or cheap. You have to compare them to something, whether that’s the historical average or the industry or whatever. But this gives you that in a couple of different ways to value to market.

Chris Irons: So if you scroll down, you see where it says market valuation models?

MT: Yes.

Chris Irons: This makes things super simple because it’s telling you right up top that things are strongly overvalued.

Irons: What it’s showing you there is how many sigma deviations it is away from the historical trend line. The Buffet indicator is market cap to GDP, which is what Warren Buffet has said in the past. It’s his favorite indicator, which is hilarious because three or four weeks ago, there was a big mystery, like, oh, why is Warren Buffet in all this cash? Why does Berkshire Hathaway have all this cash? It’s like the fucking indicator is called the Buffett indicator, and it’s two sigma deviations above the trend line. So his favorite indicator is screaming that the market is overvalued, and then you have your price-to-earnings model. You don’t even have to look at the rest. Those are two great ways to value the market. Market cap to GDP is perfect for the overall market. Price-to-earnings can be used for companies as well, and what I think is really important is that people see a stock go from 200 to a hundred. So they think it’s cheap because it’s 50% less than it was. Price means almost nothing. I mean, it’s a function of a company’s valuation, but when you’re trying to determine whether or not a company is cheap or it’s expensive, what you should be looking at is the multiple.

And the multiple is how many times the current or next year’s earnings does the market trade at. Now when we’ve been in very deep recessions, that number’s gone as low as, I think, somewhere eight to 12 times earnings for the S&P. It may have even gotten lower than that before when a market traditionally is fair to a little bit more aggressively valued. You’re talking 12 to 20, 12 to 22. And we’re talking about basic stocks here. Certain industries have different PEs. Companies that grow a lot will have higher PEs. But this is all just very broad generalization. When you look at the market now and you see that the S&P, which is a collection of all different industries, is trading above 30 times earnings, to me that says that the stock market is overvalued.

MT: Severely, right?

Chris Irons: Yes. Because in essence, when you buy a stock at a multiple, what you’re doing is you’re betting if a company trades 10 times earnings and it earns $2 a share this year, it’d be trading at $20 a share, take your full year EPS, and you divide that into the share price and that’s your price-to-earnings multiple, give or take some other bullshit. That’s not really important. That number, what you’re doing is you’re buying 10 years of forward earnings under the assumption that the company is going to either be enough or last long enough that it’s going to pay you more than 10 years worth of earnings because you’re paying upfront 10 years worth of earnings. The market’s a forward looking indicator.

So when you’re buying the S&P today, you’re buying 35 years of what the S&P is set to earn this year or next year. Now, because of inflation and because of earnings growth, that number usually does move higher. But if you get into a situation where, and that’s in general X-ing out individual company performance, but if you get into a situation where earnings start to stagnate or decline, that 35 multiple can become a 40 multiple or can become a 45 multiple, and you don’t have a lot of leeway there. Now you’ve paid for 45 years worth of earnings that at least now in the short to midterm may not be coming to fruition. You may have to wait significantly longer than you thought. So that’s why you always hear companies talk about price-to-earnings multiples. Tesla’s a stock that everybody talks about, right?

The debate on Tesla, which trades right now at something over a hundred times earnings, which is extreme, that’s very aggressive even for a technology company. Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, they’re between 30 and 45 times earnings because they’re expected to grow significantly. They’re branching out into other businesses. Tesla is trading at over a hundred times earnings. And the debate is whether or not the new shit that they’re going to bring to market, things that they claim that they’re working on, Robotaxis and the Optimist Robot and the AI and whatever other shit they say they’re working on, whether that is going to fill in the gap of these significantly aggressive expectations that the market is pricing into the stock now, because traditional automakers, people that are skeptics, say if you look at Ford, if you look at General Motors, if you look at Volkswagen, if you look at Stellantis and you go overseas, look at Renault, these companies are trading between five and 15 times earnings.

So somebody’s wrong: either the people that think it’s a car company are wrong because they have this aggressive new technology that’s going to earn them so much more money in the future. Or the people that are paying a hundred times earnings now are wrong because at its core, it’s really a car company and it’s aggressively overvalued. And so the question is, especially with all the volatility from Tesla, whether their legacy auto business, which generates their revenue and cash flow, will begin to decline. If that happens, that 100 becomes 150 times earnings very quickly. And so that’s a good example of how you could see people arguing over multiples, because I’ve seen people this week say, oh, it came from 400 to 200, so it’s cheap.

Well, if you believe it should be valued like a traditional automaker, it isn’t cheap. It’s 10 times more expensive than it should be. But if you believe it’s going to be the first company of its kind to have taxis all over the nation and it’s barely tapping into a hundred trillion dollars industry, well then it’s incredibly undervalued. So the multiple tells you how aggressive the market is being on a particular company or on the stock based on their forward-looking expectations.

MT: So everybody’s being too bullish.

[Eds note: this interview was conducted before the recent price drops]

Chris Irons: If you ask my opinion, I would say that’s a gross understatement. I would say that we are in a period of insane euphoria driven by a significant amount of liquidity that was put into the market during Covid. I mean, the speculation that’s out there is not like anything I’ve ever seen. You have entire industries, something like Fartcoin had billions in market cap at one time. What does that mean? That means there’s billions floating around out there in this asset that for all intents and purposes, everybody knows is a joke. It’s worth nothing. It serves no purpose. It’s not a product, it’s not a service. That’s how aggressive people are being. So in a recessionary environment or an environment where the market starts to cascade lower, all of that, what they call malinvestment dog shit, all of that has to come in. All of that money has to evaporate. All of that speculation has to evaporate.

So if you look historically where the market’s multiple is now, if you look at the Schiller PE, which is just a way to adjust the PE for growth, look at something like the Schiller PE of the overall market. There’s only been one time in history where it’s as high as it is now. And that was right before the 2000 bubble. So that’s the level of aggressive valuation we’re at right now. We’re at about year 2000 bubble aggressiveness.

MT: Back in a new paradigm.

Chris Irons: Exactly. This time it’s different.

MT: Thanks, Chris.

Chris Irons: Thank you.

Layoff notices went out this week to some 10,000 employees of the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the cuts March 27 to go along with another 10,000 who took early retirement or voluntary separation offers.

Layoff notices were emailed Tuesday to employees — April Fool’s Day. It was no joke.

We want to give attention to FOIA staff cuts at HHS, as public records are a key component of our Racket Library.

Staff who fulfill public records requests took a huge hit in RFK Jr’s reorganization.

The CDC’s FOIA office was reportedly eliminated, for example. Exactly how many of the 336 full-time FOIA staff members at HHS are affected is unclear. For example, Bloomberg reports all FOIA staff in the FDA were dismissed, while CBS reports it was two-thirds of staff.

Racket asked HHS for a breakdown of FOIA layoffs, but only received a recycled statement about FOIA offices being “siloed.” There was no response to a follow-up question asking for a breakdown, possibly because public information officers are part of the layoffs.

In any case, expect a much longer wait for any public records, says attorney Allan Blutstein of FOIA Advisor:

The records that are of public interest will remain undisclosed, and for longer periods. I suspect what staff remains is likely to be focused on litigation because it’s much easier to ignore a FOIA requester than a plaintiff in court. So unless your request is in litigation, you’ll be likely further back in the processing que and the delays will just intensify.

HHS had 51,800 FOIA requests in 2024, according to FOIA.gov — the fifth-highest of all government agencies. The top five in FOIA requests:

1. Homeland Security: 911,535
2. Dept. of Justice: 132,527
3. Veterans Affairs: 105,725
4. Dept. of Defense: 61,858
5. Health/Human Services: 51,800

Blutstein suspects HHS and other agencies will rely more on outside contractors to fulfill requests.

“I assume they’re cheaper, but in my experience they’re also not as good.”

Children’s Health Defense, an organization Kennedy founded, was a prolific filer of FOIA requests and lawsuits under his leadership, often against HHS agencies.

Under federal FOIA law, the government must respond to FOIA requests within 20 days, excluding weekends and holidays. So, what happens if government agencies fail to respond and fulfill requests within that window because they don’t have staff?

Blutstein says that hasn’t been answered yet, but a federal judge last month addressed the issue in a case that the Center to Advance Security in America (CASA) brought against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

In a consent motion — which means both parties agree to it — USAID asked for a stay on CASA’s FOIA request and to instead provide a status report in May. The motion notes only three FOIA staff remained at USAID following massive layoffs announced Feb. 23.

“These three employees are now responsible for processing 1002 valid FOIA requests, fifteen open litigations, three appeals, and twelve consultations,” the motion says.

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss granted the stay, but strongly indicated he would not have if CASA objected to the request.

In the present context, the Court is skeptical that an agency can avoid its obligations under FOIA—including the obligation to process a request in an efficient and prompt manner— by simply implementing a reduction-in-force…FOIA’s demand for expedition—and, indeed, more generally, FOIA’s requirement that agencies release all non-exempt, responsive records—would be rendered meaningless if an agency could avoid these statutory obligations through the simple expedient of dismissing its FOIA staff.

031125 Moss Order

148KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

As for the FOIA staff cutbacks at HHS, an unnamed agency official told CBS that the goal is to have all FOIA staff in a central location, but a final decision has not been made.

Below is a brief timeline of statements leading up to the layoffs, as well as reaction:

February 13, 2025

During his swearing-in ceremony, Kennedy vows to bring “radical transparency” to the department and its agencies. The following exchange starts at 7:13 in the video above:

REPORTER: If I could ask you, Mr. Secretary, do you plan to fire anyone immediately? Or what are your plans on day one, which I guess is today?

SECRETARY KENNEDY: Our plans are radical transparency and returning gold-standard science to NIH, to the FDA, and CDC – to end – ending the corruption, ending the corporate capture of those agencies, getting rid of the people on those panels that have conflicts of interest. We can do unadorned and unimpeded science, rather than the kind of product that is coming out of those agencies today.

Remarks By President Trump And Secretary Of The Department Of Health And Human Services Robert F

226KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 27, 2025

Kennedy announces that he is cutting 10,000 employees.

In a video posted to X, Kennedy says the Biden administration increased staff by 17% but “all that money has failed to improve the health of Americans.”

He talks of a “sprawling bureaucracy,” and announces his plans “to eliminate an entire alphabet soup of departments at agencies while preserving their core functions….”

A fact sheet breaks down cuts among the FDA, CDC, National Institutes for Health and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

• FDA: 3,500 full-time employees (HHS says it does not affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, or inspectors).

• CDC: 2,400 employees.

• NIH: 1,200 employees.

• CMS: 300 employees.

Fact Sheet Hhs’ Transformation To Make America Healthy Again Hhs

102KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

March 28, 2025

Congresswoman Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, the ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee, issues a statement attacking Kennedy and DOGE:

Secretary Kennedy and DOGE’s illegal assault on public health is going to harm the American people, weaken American leadership, and destroy our ability to combat diseases and research groundbreaking cures and treatments. He is circumventing Congressional authority and putting culture wars over science. His actions are going to harm our national biosecurity, stop cures for cancer, and leave everyday Americans unable to access the care they need.

April 1, 2025

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources Thomas Nagy sends early-morning emails to more than 10,000 HHS workers informing them that they will lose their jobs (see example below).

The layoff notices cite an executive order President Trump signed Feb. 11 to implement the DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative.

Later in the day, Kennedy posts the following on X:

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders send Kennedy a letter (see below) asking him to appear before their committee to discuss his “proposed reorganization.” The hearing is scheduled for April 10.

2025 04 01 HHS Notice of RIF

195KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Executive Order 14210

169KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

25 04 10 Kennedy Witness Invitation HHS Restructuring

192KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

April 2, 2025

House Democrats push Republican leaders to have Kennedy appear before the Energy and Commerce Committee. Republicans only agree to a briefing from HHS staff.