For His Next Trick, Donald Trump Will Gargle Peanut Butter

Ukraine and Russia continue to dominate the headlines, with the result that the challenge facing Donald Trump is coming into focus more and more.

We have been very dismissive of Trump's efforts in Alaska, in items yesterday and the day before. Politico had a piece yesterday that had a bit more positivity than our two write-ups. It adds the following observations to the discussion: (1) the Trump-Volodymyr Zelenskyy relationship looks to be much improved, which improves the odds of progress in negotiations; (2) the involvement of the European leaders helps a lot in terms of keeping things civil and productive (and keeping J.D. Vance's yap shut) and (3) the Overton Window has moved at least a little, in that Vladimir Putin is at least talking about security guarantees for Ukraine.

Any progress, no matter how slight, is better than no progress, of course. That said, there remain a couple of very basic, but very difficult challenges. The first of those, which we also noted in yesterday's item, is that "security guarantees" is very broad, and potentially covers a lot of territory. Figuring out what those security guarantees might look like is no small task, especially since the two sides of the discussion actually want very different things. Zelenskyy wants something very strong, because he doesn't want his country to be invaded again. This is especially true if Ukraine is forced to yield some portion of Donbas, which is critical to their national defenses. The Europeans are with Zelenskyy here—philosophically, because they oppose imperialism, and pragmatically because if Ukraine falls, a NATO nation is likely to be next, drawing everyone into the war.

Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, may be "talking" about security guarantees, but only because, in chess, you sometimes have to sacrifice a pawn in order to put yourself in a position to take the other player's queen. If he even agrees to security guarantees, which is by no means a probable outcome, he is going to want the weakest options possible. In part, because any foreign troops or weapons in Ukraine are a threat to Russia. And in much larger part because Putin still wants to re-assemble the Soviet Empire. He may agree to stop the fighting for a while, so he can regroup and rebuild, but he will eventually attack Ukraine again (and, if not Ukraine, some other neighboring nation). The stronger the security guarantees for Ukraine, the harder Russia's next war will be for Putin.

The second challenge, very much related to the first, is that Putin and Zelenskyy are approaching this from very different vantage points. Putin is operating from the (dubious) position that he has won, and that it's in his power, and the United States' power, to impose terms on the defeated Ukrainian people. Zelenskyy doesn't see things that way, naturally, and is interested in talking about how the fighting can be ended as quickly as possible, and the prewar status quo restored.

In practical terms, the differing views of the two leaders imply very different approaches to the peace process. Putin thinks that all that is needed is for him and Trump to get together and hammer something out. Zelenskyy thinks that all three of them need to get into a room, perhaps accompanied by the other European leaders. Trump, at least at the moment, favors Zelenskyy's approach, and believed that he had made much progress toward setting up a trilateral discussion. Yesterday, however, Putin threw cold borscht all over that, suggesting that a face-to-face with Zelenskyy is far in the future, if it happens at all.

So, those are the two major diplomatic challenges for Trump. There's also a domestic political challenge on top of that. If Trump commits America to safeguarding Ukrainian security—and in particular, if he commits to sending U.S. troops there, even as a peacekeeping force—he will aggravate the "America First" isolationist wing of his base. If he throws Ukraine under the bus, or doesn't do enough to keep that nation secure, he will aggravate the internationalist wing of his base. Keeping the isolationists happy is presumably why Trump did a 180 yesterday and said he is not, in fact, considering the possibility of American boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Trump has had an almost unbroken record of success at bending the various Republican factions to his will. So, whatever comes to pass, the odds are good he will overcome the domestic political challenge, one way or another. On the other hand, we stand by yesterday's critical assessment of his skills as a diplomat. There may not be a path to resolving the disparate viewpoints of Zelenskyy/the European leaders on one hand, and Putin on the other. And if that path does exist, we are not sanguine that Trump is the man to find it. (Z)

The Redistricting Wars Continue

There were dribs and drabs of news from many different quarters yesterday, as America marches toward gerrymandering perfection—a nation where 0 of 435 districts are actually competitive. Donald Duck could end up kicking Goofy's ass from sea to shining sea.

Starting in Texas, which remains the focal point of this story for another day or so, state Rep. Nicole Collier (D) decided she did not much care for the idea of being escorted to and from the state capitol by law enforcement, and being surveilled during the time she spent at home. So, she decided not to leave her desk at all, and to sleep in the state House chamber. This produced another wave of headlines drawing attention to the shenanigans in Texas, and so several of Collier's colleagues joined in on... pretty much the weirdest slumber party ever. They will presumably be able to head home today, as the vote on the new Texas maps is scheduled to take place this morning.

Meanwhile, over in California, the vote on a "temporarily gerrymandered maps" ballot initiative is expected to take place on Thursday. Local media is taking it as a given that the Democratic-dominated legislature will give it their blessing. Keeping in mind that the state is quite blue, there's a good chance the initiative will pass in November, even with all the billionaire money and the Governator opposing it. This means that the Republicans' best chance is to kill the measure before it can get before the voters. State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R) is leading the charge, it appears. He has asked the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's Office to declare the measure illegal. If that doesn't work, then he plans to file a lawsuit (which would presumably be in addition to the lawsuit that some other Republican legislators have already filed). DeMaio has described the redistricting effort with a whole bunch of unflattering terms, like "illegal," "corrupt" and "unconstitutional."

The problem here is that DeMaio (and the Republicans) don't have a legal leg to stand on. Amending the state Constitution is kind of the state sport in California (the Golden State has one of the longest constitutions in the world, at 74,821 words, albeit not as long as the ones in Alabama or India, which check in at 369,129 words and 146,385 words, respectively). The law that creates a redistricting commission was put into the state Constitution with a referendum approved by California voters. That means that California voters most certainly have the power to impose a permanent or temporary vote change to the rules.

And then there is Indiana. It is driving the White House nuts that such a red state has two blue districts. And so, the administration is twisting any arms it can find, to try to persuade/force Indiana's leadership to gerrymander their map. If the Hoosiers bow to pressure, the target will undoubtedly be IN-01, which is in the northwest corner of the state, and has a lot of Black voters and some Chicago exurbanites. It's D+1 and is currently represented by Frank J. Mrvan (D-IN).

Finally, for readers who are interested in theoretical maneuvers, Matthew A. Seligman and Aaron Tang have written an interesting piece for Slate. They propose that the blue states that have redistricting commissions should keep them, but should adopt a provision that if red states adopt gerrymandered maps, the blue states will automatically, and by law, respond in kind.

This proposal has two upsides from the Democrats' perspective. First, it might forestall red-state game-playing, since a counter-response from the blue state(s) in question would be automatic. Second, it would be good optics, by making it very clear which side was the aggressor. This said, it would be none too easy to come up with a clear set of rules as to what "triggers" the blue state response. Is it enough for, say, Florida to steal one seat? Or does it require something more expansive? On top of that, it would appear that this particular cow has already left this particular barn, and that the time for such clauses was 10 or 20 or 200 years ago. Still, it's an interesting idea. (Z)

House Preparing to "Release" Epstein Files

Jeffrey Epstein has been pretty absent from the news for the past week or two, which is undoubtedly a relief for Donald Trump. And while we do have this Epstein item today, it's going to be very brief. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has laid hands on some portion of the Epstein files, and has signaled its plans, pending a vote from the House of Representatives. Let us highlight two brief passages from the CNN write-up of the news:

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform intends to make public some files it subpoenaed related to the Jeffrey Epstein case

And:

Speaker Mike Johnson took steps to delay until September a vote of the full House to publicly release the DOJ's Epstein files. The Louisiana Republican has said he supports transparency in the case but wants to give the administration room to handle the matter.

Emphasis is ours.

Obviously, "some" files is not "all" files. And does anyone really doubt that anything that might be even slightly incriminating to Trump will be put in the "do not release" pile? Especially when the Speaker himself openly says that his primary concern is accommodating the needs of the Trump administration?

It certainly looks to us like the other shoe has (quietly) fallen. The Republicans need to release something, because the base is clamoring for it. On the other hand, most Republicans don't want to bring Trump down. A carefully curated release from the Oversight Committee could potentially: (1) feed the ravenous QAnon wolves, (2) protect Trump, and (3) keep the White House from being directly involved in the "what files to release?" process, giving the whole thing a veneer of fairness and impartiality.

We cannot claim to understand the conspiratorial Republican mindset, so we have no idea if this will be enough to put Epsteinpot Dome in the rear-view mirror. But it could. (Z)

A Department of Justice Turned Upside-Down

One of the goals of the Trump administration has been to hollow out the DOJ and fire as many career prosecutors as possible, while getting as many others as possible to quit. Once the pros are gone, the White House can install loyalists who will do the bidding of the President, or anyone ostensibly acting at his direction. Then, they can go on a revenge tour to punish his perceived enemies and reward those who pay him off or with whom he feels some affinity—like other criminals, including those who attacked the U.S. Capitol and assaulted police officers with bats and pipes. So, one could say the mission of the DoJ has been largely turned on its head. The mission now is not to be an independent agency whose only fealty is to the rule of law and that serves the American people and brings cases without fear or favor. Instead, the mission is to serve one Donald J. Trump and intimidate and jail anyone who crosses him or threatens his agenda. In case anyone is wondering, this is what actual weaponization of the DoJ looks like. (As a reminder, Trump was indicted not because of politics, but because he broke federal law by conspiring to overturn a free and fair election and by squirreling away, and refusing to return, highly classified documents in his bathroom and ballroom at Mar-a-Lago.)

As dangerous as proceeding down that path is, and as harrowing as it is for innocent men and women to be targeted for political purposes, there are some foreseeable consequences to these actions. When all you care about is loyalty, you're going to find some serious holes in your new hires' competence. Turns out it takes more than just being a sycophant to be an effective prosecutor. And the judges before whom these flunkies appear are getting mighty impatient in ways government attorneys have not seen before. Remember when Erez Reuveni was truthful in court, and admitted that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego was an administrative error? He was rewarded for his candor by being summarily fired. No one who wants to keep their job with this administration will make that mistake again, so lawyers are either obfuscating or outright lying to the courts now. As a result, courts have made clear that any benefit of the doubt that DoJ attorneys used to enjoy is gone, while calling their work "shoddy." What had been called a "presumption of regularity" is now "prove it." And, lo and behold, they can't.

The saying goes that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if she wants. And indeed, in grand jury proceedings, the deck is stacked against defendants. Only the prosecutor is allowed to select and present evidence and the standard for an indictment is only probable cause, far lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for convictions. And yet, if there's no evidence at all, that sandwich walks. And more and more, we're seeing grand juries refusing to return indictments due to insufficient evidence. The DoJ prosecutors are overcharging as a publicity stunt—asking for felony indictments when the action only supports a misdemeanor—and grand juries aren't playing along. In L.A., for example, where Trump has installed loyalist Bill Essayli, a former state assemblyman, as interim U.S. Attorney, he tried to punish protesters by bringing felony assault charges, only to see them dismissed outright or rejected by grand juries. In D.C., prosecutors are also failing to secure indictments against protesters challenging Trump's federal takeover.

In Trump's immunity case before the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito and others warned that if presidents were not immune from criminal charges for their official acts, former presidents of both parties could be subject to political prosecutions, and they could not perform their official duties under that threat. Turns out that they had that backward.

The justices failed to account for a corrupt president's weaponizing that immunity cloak to turn America's foremost prosecutorial agency into his own personal retribution arm. But the guardrails and layers of process that Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other dissenters argued would protect former presidents also work to protect the people from the current president's abuse of power.

And former federal prosecutors are not staying quiet. Most are fighting their dismissals and many are running for office themselves. When you believe in the rule of law and have spent your career in service of equal justice, it's hard to let it be destroyed without a fight. (L)

Candidate News: U.S. House

Time for a roundup of news from some of the races for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives:

• California: The DCCC has made its first official ad buy of the 2026 cycle, dropping five figures for ads in Chinese-, Korean- and Vietnamese-language newspapers in Southern California. The specific targets are CA-40 (which is R+1 and is represented by Young Kim, R, who is Korean-American), CA-45 (which is D+1, and is represented by Derek Tran, D, who is Vietnamese-American) and CA-47 (which is D+3, and is represented by Dave Min, D, who is also Korean-American).
  
  Ambitious Democrats are lining up to take on Kim, who would likely be one of the first victims of a blue wave. There are already seven members of the blue team who have announced runs, and more are expected.
  
  
• CA-41: Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) has been in Congress for three decades, and so knows a few tricks. However, his district got swingier in the last round of map-drawing (it's R+2), and it's one of the targets of Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) gerrymandering effort. The Congressman is not ready to retire, even though many people do at his age (72), but he might very well jump over to CA-40, and try to poach Young Kim's seat.
  
  Whatever Republican runs in this district, they are going to face an army of Democratic challengers. This one already has eight blue teamers, and there are a couple more who may get in. The Democratic establishment's preferred candidate is Katherine Aleman, who is moderate, young (33), and has something of a salt-of-the-earth persona. While she is a public school teacher, she is also an accomplished equestrian, and she runs a small agricultural operation called Fluffy Butt Ranch.
  
  
• DC-DEL: Since Washington, DC, was allocated a non-voting delegate to the House back in 1971, there have only been two people who filled the post. The second of those is Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), who was first elected in 1991. She's 88 now, and there are many reports, including from her own staff, that she's approaching late-stage Dianne Feinstein territory. It is probably instructive that Norton has twice announced she's running for reelection, only to have her office walk it back, and tell reporters no decision has been made.
  
  Since Norton is not a voting member of the House, her functionality (or lack thereof) does not affect the balance of power. However, the job was created because D.C. deserves an advocate in the legislature. And that's never been truer than right now. Eventually, Norton may be persuaded to step aside. But even if she stays the course, she's going to face at least one challenger, as DNC staffer Kinney Zalesne has filed paperwork.
  
  
• IL-02: Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) is giving up this seat so that she can run for the seat being vacated by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). The district is D+18, a.k.a. "Job for life, if you're a Democrat," so members of the Democratic Party are lining up around the block to potentially take a crack at it.
  
  Among the folks taking a look is someone who is a blast from the past and who, in fact, held the seat immediately before Kelly did. That would be Jesse Jackson Jr., who represented IL-02 from 1995-2012, and who is still just 60 years old, despite having served nearly 17 years and then having been out of office for 13 years.
  
  The small fly in the ointment is that Jackson left office—resigned, in fact—because he and his wife were implicated in a bribery scandal, one that eventually led to prison time for both of them. If he jumps in, he'd be hoping that all is forgiven—or, preferably, forgotten. Anyhow, if you believe name recognition is what it takes to triumph over a crowded primary field, Jackson's got it, far more so than the gaggle of state legislators and municipal officials who have announced/hinted at a run. If you believe affinity politics is the key, IL-02 is 49.5% Black.
  
  
• MO-02: This district is R+4, but it's represented by Ann Wagner (R), who is pretty popular. The Democrats are looking under rocks for a viable challenger, and some muckety-mucks thought they had a pretty swell idea: recruit former Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright. It's not just Republicans who can capitalize on the popularity of athletes.
  
  There are a couple of weaknesses in the plan, though: (1) It's not clear that Wainwright is a Democrat, and (2) He's not interested in running. Oh, well, you can't fault the political operatives for thinking outside the box!
  
  
• NY-17: Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) flirted with a gubernatorial run, but decided against it (probably at the insistence of Donald Trump who was worried about losing the House seat). Instead he is going to run for reelection in his D+1 district in the Hudson Valley. Naturally, having an incumbent is much better for the GOP than having an open seat. But Lawler is no shoo-in for reelection. He voted "yes" on the BBB and Democrats are going to tie that around his neck like a millstone. The bill was very unpopular in New York and he is going to have to defend it for the next 16 months. It won't be easy in a swing district. Many Democrats understand this, so seven of them have already filed to get the Democratic nomination.
  
  
• TN-07: Mark Green's resignation from the House is now official, and he has departed for... some sort of financial scheme in Guyana. And now, Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to try to lay claim to the remainder of his term. It would appear that the leading candidate is Matt Van Epps, a West Point graduate who is currently serving as Tennessee Department of General Services Commissioner. In announcing his candidacy, Van Epps said: "From one West Point grad to another, I commend Congressman Green for his conservative legacy and his commitment to advancing President Trump's America First agenda on behalf of Tennessee." Does that give you a pretty good feel for how red TN-07 is? For the record, it's R+10.
  
  
• TX-11: Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) is obnoxious. First, because he is one of those members (and they exist on both sides) who is clearly more interested in getting TV time than in doing his job. Second, because anytime there is a "debate" in Congress, he expends all kinds of hot air bellowing that [BILL X] is not conservative enough, and won't get his vote, and then... he folds like a cheap suit.
  
  Apparently, Roy is interested in greener pastures, and so may run for the attorney generalship of Texas, a job being vacated by Ken Paxton (R) so he can run for the U.S. Senate. Perhaps Roy is tired of Washington, and of having no actual influence or power there. Maybe he's looked at Paxton's tenure, and decided that the AG post offers far more opportunities for political theater than being a backbencher in the House. Maybe he's just tired of the constant fundraising.
  
  There is a cautionary tale here, one not far in the past. In 2022, the equally obnoxious Louie Gohmert (R) gave up his seat in the House to take a shot at becoming Texas' AG, and he got crushed. It's true that he was up against Paxton, who was an incumbent. But it's also true that Gohmert finished a distant fourth place in the primary, meaning he presumably would have been out of luck even if Paxton wasn't in the race.

That's the latest. Soon, we need to do another round of updates on gubernatorial and U.S. Senate candidates. (Z)

A Nation of Immigrants: Pay It Forward

Today, we start with a memory from R.W.G. in Bexley, OH:

My great-grandmother Rose was born in a shtetl near Odessa, Ukraine. Both her husband and brother emigrated to the U.S. in 1912 or 1913. When Rose and her sister-in-law began their journey to the U.S., World War I had broken out. It was too dangerous to go through Europe and then across the Atlantic Ocean, so the two women, with four children under the age of 5, took the long way. They went east across Russia, and south through Mongolia, arriving in China. Rose's passport has a stamp from the American Consulate in Harbin, China, dated 13 August 1917, followed by a stamp from the Consul General in Yokohama two months later. They entered the U.S. in San Francisco and traveled by train to Stamford, Connecticut. The journey took them 2 years; when they ran out of money for travel (or bribes) they would stop and launder clothes until they had enough to continue.

That set of great-grandparents entered the U.S. legally, but another of my great-grandparents did not. My father's grandfather, Harry, was born in Vilna, Lithuania, and, like many young Jews of the time, he became a socialist. (My father remembers going with his grandfather to socialist party meetings in New York. After the meetings they would sometimes go to burlesque shows.) According to family lore, Harry was involved (to what extent is unknown; details are sketchy) in a plot to assassinate the governor of the province, who was directly appointed by the Czar. In any case, my great-grandfather thought it prudent to get out of Dodge, so to speak. Harry came to the U.S. using someone else's passport, and used the name on the passport exclusively thereafter. He never would tell anyone what his real name was. Perhaps he was more involved with that plot than we thought?

What strikes me about these stories (and the stories of those who are coming here today) is that while the details may have changed, the extraordinary risks that ordinary people were willing to undertake in order to provide a better life for themselves and their children is humbling. Thanks to my great-grandparents I have always lived in a place where I have been free to worship, think, or live the way I choose. I owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid—I can only do my best to pay it forward.

Thanks, R.W.G.

The present-day story we had yesterday, about Luís Leon, may or may not be true. DHS denies the whole thing, which is not exactly the most persuasive evidence we've ever heard. However, other outlets, including Snopes and the DailyKos, have also raised questions. At the same time, there are numerous outlets that have the story, and have not retracted or updated it.

In any case, we've decided to focus on just the stories from readers for now. We will most certainly have several items about the harsh side of the Trump administration's immigration policy, but we've decided they will work better on their own.

If readers have immigrant stories, please do send them in to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger