Adventures in Overreach, Part I: More Trouble for the Big, Beautiful Bill

As is obvious from the headlines, there is a running theme through much of today's post. On Wednesday, we wrote: "'Overpromise and underdeliver' is pretty much the theme of Donald Trump's political career (it's probably also true of other aspects of his life)." In case you missed it, that was meant to be a backdoor small-penis joke. In any event, there is something to be said, in both politics and in life, for setting lofty goals. But you're going to run into problems if the goals are TOO lofty, or if success causes you to double-down and overstep, or if you simply won't or can't admit it on those occasions where you came up a little short. Donald Trump has all three of these bad habits, and that is the storyline that runs through our first four items today.

As we have noted, we don't like to overdo it when it comes to talking about budget-related sausage-making, because a lot of the talk coming from Capitol Hill is just hot air and empty posturing. For example, yesterday, the SALTy Republicans in the House drew a line in the sand, decreeing that the Senate's current proposal on SALT deductions is not good enough to get their votes, if and when the Senate bill returns to the lower chamber. The leaders of this faction are Reps. Mike Lawler and Nick LaLota (both R-NY) and Young Kim (R-CA); they are reportedly speaking on behalf of at least a dozen of their colleagues.

Meanwhile, a group of five Republicans from Western states drew a different line in the sand, announcing that they are "no" votes if the bill retains provisions that allow for sales of vast tracts of public lands to private corporations. The leader of the latter faction, incidentally, is Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT), who—when he was leading the Department of the Interior—was quite eager to open up public lands to exploitation by private interests. His change of heart may have something to do with the fact that the current proposal will not allow him to line his own pockets. Teapot Dome-style corruption is only fun if one has a ticket for a seat on the gravy train, we suppose.

Anyhow, who knows how serious these folks are about the gauntlets they've thrown down? If either faction were to stick to its guns, that would be enough to torpedo a bill in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can only afford three defections. But as we have pointed out many times, these folks tend to back down when the rubber hits the road. If you had to bet, you would be wise to wager on most or all of them doing so yet again.

There was one development yesterday, however, that goes beyond posturing and hot-air blowing, and that presents a real problem for Republican leadership in both chambers: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that most of the Medicaid provisions cannot be passed via reconciliation. The reasoning was different, depending on the particular provision in question, but most of it boils down to: "This provision is fundamentally about policy, not about the budget."

The math for the big, beautiful bill was already less-than-stellar. Now, it's become an epic train wreck. If the Republicans somehow push the bill through the Senate, in its current Byrd-bathed state, then they will not be able to make the tax cuts permanent, and they will also cause the deficit to explode. The former would displease the millionaires and billionaires who exercise so very much influence over the Party; the latter would infuriate the budget hawks in the House.

At this point, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) effectively has three options. He can try to ram it through, post-Byrd bath, and—if he is successful—dare the House to vote the bill down. Or, he can make changes to the bill, so as to try to fix some of the many problems that have emerged. Or, he can try to do an end-run around the Parliamentarian, by creating yet another filibuster carve-out. Thune said yesterday that he would not do that, but last month he used smoke and mirrors to do an end-run around the Parliamentarian, while still being able to claim that he did not technically do an end-run around the Parliamentarian. So, he could do that again, though keep in mind that the Medicaid stuff was already unpopular with many Senate Republicans. People like Susan Collins (ME), Josh Hawley (MO) and Thom Tillis (NC) may not be eager to participate in parliamentary tricks so as to secure passage of legislation they already don't like.

And that brings us to Trump. The Republican Party is in this situation, in large part, because he made too many big promises to too many people, and now he can't deliver. Now, it can fairly well be said that Joe Biden did the same thing with HIS big budget bill. Remember when there was talk of outlays of $6 trillion or more on social programs? But what Biden did, after the Democratic members had time to get their talking points out there, was roll up his sleeves and get to work, setting priorities and developing a framework for what a feasible bill would look like. Eventually, with significant help from his staff and from Democratic leadership in Congress, he managed to get the $1.6 trillion in spending passed. That's not $6 trillion, but it's still a lot.

Trump, by contrast, just does not do sausage-making. Yes, he has underlings who TRY, but they can only accomplish so much when their boss is not clear about his priorities, or when his priorities change based on whoever it was that he last spoke to. It would help a lot if, for example, he came out and said unequivocally that his priority is the deficit, and that means the tax cuts aren't doable right now. But he doesn't do things like that, because he cannot admit, even tacitly, that he has failed to deliver on a promise.

That means that the main weapon in Trump's arsenal is bluster. He likes to threaten Republican members with primary challenges, and he will start doing a lot of that if and when a budget bill starts to get close to the finish line. He also likes to try to scare the voting public. Yesterday, for example, Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and thus one of Trump's main surrogates on budget matters, warned that if the big, beautiful bill does not get passed, the economy might slip into a recession.

We actually think Miran is right about that, though that does not mean his conclusion that Congress MUST pass the big, beautiful bill is correct. Recall that the most commonly accepted definition of "recession" is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Well, thanks to Trump policies that have nothing to do with the budget bill, the U.S. is already halfway there. The federal government's number crunchers had already estimated that the U.S. economy shrank 0.2% in Q1; yesterday, that number was revised to 0.5%. In Q4 of 2024, by contrast, the GDP grew by 2.4%. Now, what was the biggest difference between Q4 of last year, and Q1 of this year, when it comes to fiscal policy. Hmmmm... that's a head-scratcher...

What we are saying, in so many words, is that the U.S. is probably going to enter a recession in Q2. That will happen if the big, beautiful bill passes, and it will happen if the big, beautiful bill fails. So, Miran is technically correct when he says there will probably be a recession if the big, beautiful bill does not pass. (Z)

Adventures in Overreach, Part II: Trump Managed to Shank the Iran Bombing

Normally, the word "shank" is used to describe a (particular type of) screw-up in golf. Given that Donald Trump seems to divide his time roughly equally between golfing and governing, it seemed appropriate to use it here.

Earlier this week, we made mention of the occasion where Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya. That likely did not benefit the Gipper or his party, long-term (recall, the Republicans took a beating in the midterms that year). However, it certainly boosted Reagan's approval rating in the short-term. And while St. Ronnie wasn't in the top echelon of presidents when it comes to intelligence, he was plenty smart enough to frame things properly. To wit: Libya was responsible for several acts of violence, particularly the bombing of La Belle discotheque; the U.S. has punished Libya for its actions, the end. The President kept it nice and simple, and did not try to make the "accomplishment" seem bigger or more meaningful than it really was.

Trump, by contrast, feels the need to oversell everything (see Overreach, Adventures in). And so, after ordering the attack on Iran, Trump made the grandiose pronouncement that Iran's nuclear program was "obliterated." He also claimed that Iran and Israel would never shoot at each other again, a claim so absurd that nobody could possibly take it seriously. The "obliterated" part was at least in the realm of possibility, but as we've written multiple times, it clearly didn't happen that way.

Still, as is par for the course (another golf reference!), Trump and his administration continue to double- and triple-down on his original claim. The President spoke to the press yesterday and reiterated that total obliteration is what happened. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did the same. The White House also gave briefings to key Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, trying to sell them on the idea that Iran has been badly wounded. The Democrats weren't buying it at all and even the Republicans were having trouble swallowing the President's claims. One is reminded of the occasion where Trump used a Sharpie to try to convince everyone that a hurricane had hit places it hadn't actually hit. We're actually a little surprised there isn't already a Sharpie-enhanced map of the damage to the Iranian nuclear facilities:

Because of his (chronically) loose lips, Trump has thus backed himself into a corner. Two corners, really. First, his whole brand is "I am strong/macho/masculine." If the bombing was ineffectual, it makes him look weak. If he changes course, and admits it wasn't as successful as it first appeared, that also makes him look weak. It does not help things that one of the signature accomplishments of the Obama administration was the successful raid on the Osama bin Laden compound. That wasn't a bombing, of course, but it was a bold strike against a national security threat, and one that actually achieved its goals.

The second corner boils down to: What next? If the (clearly ineffective) attack is one-and-done, and Iran is back at full strength in a few months (and, in particular, if they become a nuclear power within 6-18 months), then that looks very, very bad for Trump. On the other hand, if he decides there will need to be a second attack (and maybe a third, and a fourth, etc.), then he risks dragging the U.S. into yet another endless war. He would also divide his base, which includes a LOT of isolationists. Neither outcome is a good one for the administration.

You can tell that Trump knows he really stepped in it because, as he does when his back is against the wall, he is lashing out right now. Specifically, he pulled one of his favorite clubs out of the bag (third golf reference!) and blamed the messenger. In this case, the messenger he chose was CNN's Natasha Bertrand, who was part of the team that wrote the original story about how the attack did not achieve its goals. Here's his first potshot:

Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out "like a dog."She lied on the Laptop from Hell Story, and now she lied on the Nuclear Sites Story, attempting to destroy our Patriot Pilots by making them look bad when, in fact, they did a GREAT job and hit "pay dirt"— TOTAL OBLITERATION! She should not be allowed to work at Fake News CNN. It's people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network. Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!

He later broadened his attack to include The New York Times, referring to the reporters who covered the Iran story as "BAD AND SICK PEOPLE":

We just caught the Failing New York Times, working with Fake News CNN, cheating again! They tried to demean the great work our B-2 pilots did, and they were wrong in doing so. These reporters are just BAD AND SICK PEOPLE. You would think they would be proud of the great success we had, instead of trying to always make our Country look bad. TOTAL OBLITERATION!

The President also blamed the Democrats for leaking the information about the "PERFECT FLIGHT" to these news outlets. This despite the fact that both outlets published their stories before the Democrats had been briefed. In any case, notice how he keeps repeating "TOTAL OBLITERATION!" He just can't back down, or even just remain quiet and allow it to fade away.

It would appear, based on inside information leaked by someone in the White House, that the administration has determined that allowing Iran to become a nuclear power (or a near-nuclear power) is a nonstarter, and so is another attack. That leaves Team Trump with the exactly the same approach as the one pursued by (the hated) Team Obama: diplomacy, aided by goodies to make it worth the Iranians' while. Specifically, there is talk of freeing up $30 billion in frozen Iranian funds, to help them redirect their nuclear program toward civilian use. Note that, after the Obama administration freed up frozen Iranian funds as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Trump went on a Twitter rampage (it was still actually called Twitter back then, of course), accusing Obama of selling out and aiding and abetting terrorists. He also predicted that Obama would start a war with Iran for political gain. Almost right, Mr. President!

Is the lesson here that Trump is a hypocrite? That it's much easier to "govern" from the cheap seats? Maybe some of both. The problem is that there may be no more difficult diplomatic nut to crack than Iran. And while Obama had a skilled team of people working under him, most of Trump's underlings were chosen not for their talents as negotiators, but for their skill in ball-washing (one last golf reference!). (Z)

Adventures in Overreach, Part III: Trump, Bondi Have Managed to Saddle Themselves with a Real Mess

The courts have been working overtime for the last week or two, perhaps because the Republican Party is giving them an awful lot to do. Truth be told, it's tough to keep up, as we don't want to turn this site into LawFare or SCOTUSblog. So, today, we're going to do an update on the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, and then over the next few days we'll get to some other legal news, including the ruling the Supreme Court will issue today about birthright citizenship, and the ruling that South Carolina uncorked yesterday, looking to gut Planned Parenthood.

As readers will recall, Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States from CECOT, the gulag in El Salvador where he was unlawfully sent, and from which Trump administration officials repeatedly said no one could ever be returned. The ostensible reason Abrego Garcia was brought back was not to comply with a Court order to facilitate his return, but to face criminal charges for transporting, and conspiring to transport, alleged undocumented immigrants around the U.S. Those are the only charges in the indictment. And yet, despite these being the only charges, the indictment is rife with irrelevant, highly inflammatory allegations, such as an accusation that Abrego Garcia transported weapons and physically abused some of the people he allegedly drove around.

One can infer that, given the absence of any charges related to those claims, the DoJ has insufficient evidence to support them. Further, it appears that the only support for the crimes he is actually charged with comes from alleged co-conspirators, some of whom are currently serving time for actual smuggling. Needless to say, these will be less-than-credible witnesses, both because they are convicted felons, and because such witnesses often received something in exchange for their testimony.

Indeed, at the detention hearing in the criminal case on June 13, it was revealed that one of the witnesses with a criminal record, who is in the U.S. illegally, will be given preferred immigration status in exchange for his testimony. A second witness is a relative of the first witness and is also serving time—he agreed to cooperate in exchange for his release from jail. The federal public defender remarked that the government is going to give actual criminals deals to stay in the U.S. just to get this one person. There is no indication that there is any evidence to independently corroborate what these witnesses will claim. When all you've got are less-than-credible witnesses being given powerful incentives to say whatever the government demands, the odds of an embarrassing loss are pretty high.

This past Sunday, a judge ruled that Abrego Garcia must be released pending the criminal trial, finding that Department of Justice had failed to prove he was a danger or a flight risk, while observing that many of the allegations look to be overblown. However, the judge also said that ICE could still detain him and initiate deportation proceedings. So, Abrego Garcia will have to go before an immigration judge to argue he should be released on bond pending any immigration proceedings. That's two cases in two different courts, as the government works desperately to defeat the person who has become the poster boy for Trump administration overreach. Using all of these government resources to destroy this man is not only unconscionable but constitutes clear waste and abuse—where is DOGE when you need it?

The indictment also includes allegations that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13—but again, there are no charges related to those claims. In fact, Abrego Garcia's history, that he fled El Salvador with some members of his family to avoid the gang and escape their extortion and threats, does not fit with the narrative the Trump administration is peddling.

It's no surprise, then, that so many legal analysts are calling this indictment "thin." Oh, and incidentally, if knowingly transporting undocumented immigrants is a crime, the DoJ has a much stronger case against Govs. Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who deliberately flew planeloads of undocumented men and women to other states to try to overwhelm their resources. We aren't holding our breath that those charges will be brought.

The bottom line is that these damning, unnecessary statements are not relevant to the actual charges. They seem designed purely to cast Abrego Garcia in a sinister light, and to sell the narrative that the Trump administration is successfully targeting "the bad guys." And Abrego Garcia's defense attorneys and the trial court may have something to say about that. These types of extraneous statements, especially when alleged by the DoJ, can constitute sanctionable conduct and an abuse of power. Moreover, when one adds to that the Attorney General of the United States conducting a concerted smear campaign, sanctions can be levied not only at staffers at the DoJ, but also at AG Pam Bondi herself.

There are several problems with Bondi's grandstanding. She is already the subject of an effort to have her disbarred in Florida where she is licensed. Her performance here is not going to help her cause. (Ironically, you don't have to be a licensed attorney to be the U.S. AG, which is probably lucky for her, but not so much for the American people whom she is supposed to be representing.)

But as far as this case goes, there are at least half a dozen issues:

1. Defendant's Right to a Fair Trial: Every defendant accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. And prosecutors, at least the ethical ones, are careful in their statements to the press to avoid trying the case in the court of public opinion before a jury can hear it. Not only has Bondi violated that basic maxim, but she has gone even further and accused Abrego Garcia of crimes and conduct that do not appear in the indictment. She has accused him of everything from sex trafficking to terrorism. This opens the door to motions for a mistrial for tainting the jury pool and for selective and vindictive prosecution. It sure seems like the DoJ has it in for him and Bondi is doing nothing to dispel that notion.
   
   
2. Sanctionable Conduct for Misrepresentations to the Court and Unsupported Allegations: The indictment has led to the resignation of Ben Schrader, the chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville, the office that brought the charges, and where he worked for 15 years. The indictment was signed by the acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Robert McGuire, who refers to himself as the "accidental acting U.S. Attorney" after two predecessors resigned after Trump took office. Schrader's resignation obliquely states that "the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons" and ABC news quotes sources that he quit out of concern the case was being pursued for political purposes. At the end of the day, the DoJ has to have evidence to not only prove its case but to bring it in the first place. If there is evidence that the DoJ misled the grand jury or misrepresented the facts (see below), the judge could not only dismiss the charges but could sanction the government and Bondi herself.
   
   
3. Civil Suit for Malicious Prosecution: Readers may have seen that Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested outside a Newark detention facility and charged with trespassing, only to see those charges dropped, has sued the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba for malicious prosecution and false arrest. If the DoJ loses its case here, Abrego Garcia would likely also sue for these claims.
   
   
4. Civil Suit for Defamation: Bondi could also be liable for defamation for her extrajudicial statements. Once again, Baraka's suit is instructive. He sued Habba personally for her statements to the media that he "stormed" the detention facility, when in fact he was invited there and was escorted inside the gates. As we've written before, executive officials enjoy only qualified immunity, which can be defeated by showing that the statements were not made in good faith and were knowingly false. Such a suit could seek compensatory and punitive damages.
   
   
5. Motions to Dismiss and Exclude Irrelevant Evidence: Even if the case survives, the defense will likely bring many pre-trial motions to dismiss the case and exclude irrelevant evidence, including anything related to weapons or narcotics smuggling, alleged abuse, or international trafficking since, since Abrego Garcia is not charged with any of that. Along these lines, just a few words about that van with the extra seats: Abrego Garcia is not accused of reconfiguring the van. Instead, the indictment uses the passive voice: Abrego Garcia is alleged to have "transported undocumented aliens in an unsafe manner, including using reconfigured vehicles with after-market unattached seating rows... " So, according to the indictment, the problem with the van is that it was unsafe—not that the seats are themselves evidence of an illegal operation.
   
   
6. Contempt Charges: It's worth noting that the contempt hearing is still alive and well in Judge Paula Xinis' court for the government's failure to comply with her orders regarding discovery and the facilitation of Abrego Garcia's return. And federal judges are well aware of the debate over the budget bill that contains a provision that would prohibit enforcement of contempt orders unless the prevailing party has put up a bond for the injunctive relief that led to the violation. So, judges are now ordering a bond to be paid... in the amount of $1. Turns out teachers aren't the only ones who know something about malicious compliance. The Senate caught wind of this, and was ready to amend the bill to require the bond to cover the costs of injunctive relief, but now it would appear to be a dead-letter issue thanks to the Senate Parliamentarian.

Finally, it bears repeating that this administration always, always overreaches when it could very likely achieve many of its goals by playing it straight. The Tennessee Highway Patrol, in the 2022 traffic stop, remarked that it looked like Abrego Garcia was transporting undocumented immigrants. But he was not cited, and the Department of Homeland Security declined to pursue it after they were given a referral. This new investigation only began after he had been mistakenly deported to El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 court order prohibiting his removal to that country. In the unlikely event that the timing was just a coincidence and the DoJ had uncovered new evidence that supported the THP's hunch, they could have brought a charge for the unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens and perhaps could have prevailed in court.

However, by doubling- and tripling-down on the original mistake, and insisting on characterizing Abrego Garcia as a hardened criminal who is the mastermind of an international smuggling ring, while apparently having no actual evidence to back up those claims, Trump's underlings have probably blown their chance of proving anything and have opened themselves and the administration up to liability and penalties on many fronts. Moreover, in a serious misstep, the indictment contradicts the police report. And if it was an intentional misrepresentation to the grand jury, that will be a big problem for them. The indictment alleges that Abrego Garcia lied to the THP and denied being in Texas despite cell phone evidence to the contrary. In fact, according to the THP report, when asked where he had been, Abrego Garcia said that he was driving from Houston to Maryland via St. Louis. This is a continuation of the "shoddy" work that the courts have been seeing from the DoJ since Trump took office and then installed loyalists who routinely ignore the law and their oaths for purely political purposes.

In the end, as with the budget bill, and with the Iran bombing, the administration cares primarily about "winning" THIS news cycle, without worrying too much about what happens next, and without being willing to put in the hard work of doing their jobs properly. Trump knows he can get away with this, because neither his voters nor the courts are likely to hold him personally liable. However, the folks underneath him, from Bondi on down, are nowhere near as bulletproof. Watch for an item next week on this subject. (L & Z)

Adventures in Overreach, Part IV: Dodgers Throw a Bean Ball at Trump

And to wrap up this theme, let's now talk a bit about the world of sports. Not too long ago, Politico ran a piece headlined: "Trump looks to meddle in the sports world like no president before," along with the subhead: "He sees power in dominating sports arenas as much as policy arenas." The basic point of the article is that Trump understands that people really like and care about sports, and that by association he can get some good PR and can burnish his own "manly" credentials.

It is true that Trump has aggressively insinuated himself into the world of sports during the first 6 months of his second term. He shows up at UFC events. He attended the Super Bowl. He rode in "The Beast" at the Daytona 500, providing the pacing for one pre-race lap. He's hosted several champion teams at the White House. He also used some muscle to get Hall of Fame eligibility restored for the deceased Pete Rose.

That said, Politico oversells the case just a wee bit, presumably to make the article seem stronger. Theodore Roosevelt palled around with professional boxers. William Howard Taft threw the first pitch out at a Washington Senators game in 1910, and every sitting president since then, save Jimmy Carter, continued the tradition. Richard Nixon literally drew up plays for the football team that was then known as the Washington Redskins. Barack Obama always made a point of sharing his NCAA Tournament picks, for both the men's and the women's Division I tournaments.

The point is that Trump did not have some sort of unique insight when it comes to utilizing sports to burnish his image. When it comes to Trump and sports, there are really two main differences between him and his predecessors. The first is that he's much more willing to use the sports world to wage culture-wars battles. The second is that other presidents largely won't go to major sporting events because the security arrangements are expensive and are detrimental to the enjoyment of other fans. Trump cares little about such considerations, by contrast.

In any event, hanging around with successful athletes, who are not only "winners" but are generally also physically fit and good looking, produces a version of the halo effect that makes the president (or any other politician) seem like a good-looking winner. It also makes a politician seem like a man, or a woman, of the people. So, hosting the 2025 NCAA Men's Basketball champion University of Florida Gators at the White House, or playing golf with Bryson DeChambeau are the kinds of things that are all-upside for Trump.

The problem, as we have endeavored to illustrate today, is that Trump just can't leave well enough alone. As we note above, he has moved beyond the meet-and-greets to using sports as a means of fighting the culture wars. That might be a winner and it might not be; it could go either way. But even that is not enough; he's now also decided to use sports as a way of getting some attention for his immigration policy.

The case study here is the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were put into a real bind by the anti-ICE protests that broke out across Los Angeles. On one hand, the team is a multi-billion-dollar business that wants to stay on the good side of a president who has no problem using the powers of government to punish his perceived enemies. Further, the team draws nearly 4 million fans per year, which means they have customers of all political stripes. On the other hand, Dodger Stadium was built on land cleared by forcibly removing a prosperous Mexican-American community in the 1940s. So, there's sort of a your-hands-are-dirty dynamic, somewhat like buildings constructed with slave labor. Further, an enormous percentage of the team's fanbase is Latino (particularly Mexican-American).

The upshot is that the team's silence on the ICE raids was both noticeable and was odious to a lot of Dodger supporters. This resulted in a column by L.A. Times reporter Dylan Hernandez (full disclosure: former colleague of Z when they were both at the Daily Bruin) headlined "Cowardly Dodgers remain silent as ICE raids terrorize their fans." Before publishing, Hernandez asked Dodgers management for comment, and executive vice president and chief marketing officer Lon Rosen categorically refused to say anything.

This was about as much as the Trump administration could have hoped for. There is no chance that a team whose fanbase is 40% Latino is going to come out with a pro-ICE statement. However, the Dodgers' silence, given the circumstances, spoke volumes. So, the smart move would have been for the White House to take the semi-win, and to move on.

That, of course, is not what this White House does. Instead, some genius (DHS Secretary Kristi Noem?) decided to press the advantage, and to dispatch ICE vehicles to Dodger Stadium, presumably to round up a few "suspected" undocumented immigrants, and to steal some headlines. This forced the Dodgers to take a side, and it most certainly was not the side of ICE. In fact, the team told ICE to take their vehicles and their masked officers and get lost. Someone at ICE then got on eX-Twitter and accused the Dodgers of lying: "False. We were never there."

There is, of course, one small problem with that claim. It's downtown LA. It's Dodger Stadium. There are cameras everywhere. And so, it took just minutes for the Internet to be flooded with both video and photographs of the ICE vehicles parked right outside of Dodger Stadium, and then being forced to turn around and leave. The Trump administration still couldn't just take the loss, and so ICE promptly announced that yes, they had technically been outside Dodger Stadium, but it was just because one of their vehicles suffered a garden-variety breakdown, and it just so happened to be on the road outside the Stadium. With sonic-boom-like speed, once again, it took just minutes for the Internet to raise two salient points: (1) Why would a dozen vehicles be needed to take care of one broken-down vehicle? and (2) the roads into Dodger Stadium don't lead to anything BUT Dodger Stadium, so there is no reason to be on those roads EXCEPT to go to Dodger Stadium.

In the end, the Dodgers—who, again, really wanted to remain above the fray—not only ended up in a pissing contest with ICE, but they also issued the anti-ICE statement that Hernandez demanded in his column. The team also announced a $1 million donation meant to help families affected by the ICE raids.

One might fairly well say that the Trump administration had lemonade, and made lemons. The whole incident DID produce a lot of headlines, but not the kind the White House wanted. Instead, it made ICE look arbitrary and capricious and dishonest and... kind of weak. In general, a lot of people don't really like to see politics mixed with sports. And to lie in wait outside a sporting event (something that the administration HAS done with other teams) is a bad look. It may please the Stephen Millers of the world, but it's not going to please too many other people.

Trump & Co. are going to have a chance to repeat this mistake (and variants of this mistake) on a much larger scale. As chance would have it, the U.S. will host both of the world's most high-profile sporting events during Trump's second term: the World Cup in 2026, and the Summer Olympics in 2028, in both cases primarily in cities with large immigrant populations—the World Cup will stage matches in a dozen or so U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, Miami, and Houston, while the Olympics will be (mostly) hosted by Los Angeles and its surrounding locales.

Already, Trumpism may well be having an adverse effect on the World Cup. The famous tournament, the one that will be held in 2026, features teams organized by nation. However, as a lead-up to the 2026 event, FIFA has re-constituted the FIFA Club World Cup. That one, which is underway now, involves professional teams that normally play in national leagues (in other words, the 2026 World Cup might have a match between the national team of Spain and the national team of England, whereas the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup might have a match between Real Madrid and Manchester City).

Reader J.G. in San Diego, CA, was the first to bring to our attention that the opening game of the 2025 tournament took place in Miami a little over a week ago, with Inter Miami, of Major League Soccer, facing off against the Al-Ahly Sporting Club, of the Egyptian Premier League. Because association football fans are pretty fanatical, and because Lionel Messi plays for Inter Miami, tickets for the game were initially selling in the $300 range. But then, ICE announced that they would be in attendance, and that non-American citizens would need to provide proof that they are in the country legally.

Naturally, there are some people who might attend a match in Miami who are not in the country legally. There are also some who are in the country legally, but might not be able to easily summon the correct paperwork. On top of that, however, this is an administration that has shown a willingness to target people who are playing by the rules (e.g., those appearing at immigration court hearings), so as to make quotas. This is also an administration that has deported people who were in the country legally, and without anything resembling due process (see Garcia, Kilmar Abrego).

Add it up, and anyone who looks even faintly Latino/a can't feel terribly comfortable being at a game where ICE is patrolling, even if their paperwork is in order, even if they are citizens. And the fanbase for this particular sport, especially in Miami, tends to be overwhelmingly of Latino/a descent. So, the ticket prices crashed. Inter Miami, for its part, had great difficulty selling out the venue, and was offering student tickets for $20, plus four additional seats for free (which would seem to work out to $4 a ticket). Even non-students could get on StubHub and buy tickets for as little as $6. That is rather less than $300.

Again, we have no doubt that the Stephen Millers of the world think this is just fine and dandy. But we think we are on strong footing in saying that it will not work to the benefit of Trump or of the Republican Party if ICE manages to ruin the World Cup and/or the Olympics. That becomes doubly true if, out of concern, FIFA or the IOC decide to relocate their events. In particular, the World Cup is already set to be staged across three countries, with Canada and Mexico also hosting matches. It would not be THAT difficult to just relocate some of the matches scheduled for the U.S. to the Great White North, and to move the rest south of the border.

That's the price of overreach. Or one of them, at least. (Z)

Never Forget: WTF?

Today's reminiscence comes from reader P.R. in Saco, ME. We have chosen to leave it uncensored, for reasons that will presumably be plain. In any event, forewarned is fore-armed:

My mother was a 1950s military wife. My father was U.S. Naval Academy, class of '51, a Seabee (Construction Battalion). He was on-ship during the Korean War; often headed up public works departments on various bases; had two tours of duty in Vietnam; was commanding officer at the now-defunct Davisville naval base in Rhode Island. His career was decorated and my mother was his supporting cast.

With each move, which happened on average every year and a half as I was growing up, my mother packed up three girls and her husband; told us which belongings we had to leave behind because they were over the weight limit for shipping; and enrolled us in the local schools where we had to make new friends yet again. When she and my father ended up producing three girls with IQs over 150, and we got squirrelly in our various ways because my father wasn't around, and "gifted and talented" classes didn't exist, my mother shepherded us. She raised us alone when he was in Vietnam, where he was learning how to drink to the bottom of his sorrows at being apart from his wife and daughters. Through all our unexpressed grief from loss each time we moved, and my father's life being on the line, my mother commandeered the joint. She was steely.

My mother was well-read, if not educated. My parents were old-guard Republicans, even as their Democrat-leaning daughters argued with them at the dining room table on evenings. My parents were the rarest of birds, socially liberal but fiscally conservative. My mother supported my father's vote and referred to whichever leader was in place as "worthy leader."

In our small family ecosystem she held a tight fist around decency and civility. Swear words, in our house, were "shut up" and "stupid." (My ex-husband used them both in a sentence to refer to me once and, well, that marriage wasn't long for the world.) My mother's worst curse word was "damn!" when she dropped the spaghetti on the kitchen floor one evening. So, in her sixties, on an afternoon after she and my father had seen a matinee, she was flummoxed when I asked her how she had liked the movie. She said: "Well, it was pretty good, but I don't understand why they have to use..." she was on a roll here, and she meant to say "the Eff word," but what actually came out of her mouth was, "I don't understand why they have to use the FUCK word..." Whereupon her face went white, her mouth fell open, and her eyes went wide. That word had never been meant to issue forth from her mouth. Perhaps she was recalling soap from her 1930s childhood.

So, as I recall my shocked mother's sacrifice, I lament, as would she, the decline in presidential conduct of recent news cycles. Never mind that she never in her life would have been able to vote for Donald Trump, and "worthy leader" would have been relegated to the trash bin. She would simply be uncomprehending as to the degradation of political standards, human standards, since her era, a time in which it was her duty and responsibility to be supporting actress for all my father's patriotic stardom.

My mother thought swear words were indicative of a tiny vocabulary. (Perhaps they go inevitably with tiny hands.) My mother, for all her complications of a highly intelligent woman trapped in so many ways by gender expectations of the 1950s, knew that crudeness and lack of decency were no way to support and represent one's country.

Thanks, P.R. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Deep Down

The last time we had a headline theme (a couple of weeks ago), we gave two hints. The first: "For this week's theme, we're doing song titles, which means the category is music. For a hint, we'll tell you that the headlines appear in the correct order for the theme, and that you would do well to focus on the first two headlines, because those are the easiest to pin down." And the second: "If there had been one more item, the headline would likely have been 'Straight, No Chaser,' which is a song by Marquis Hill."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader P.A. in Redwood City, CA:

Every subject is a title of a song that has been recorded by an artist whose name includes a royal title.

• Donald and Elon: The Thrill Is Gone—B.B. King
• Legal News: Another One Bites the Dust—Queen
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Alice Through The Looking Glass—Prince
• This Week in Schadenfreude: I Got It Bad (And That Ain't Good)—Duke Ellington
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Oh, Lady Be Good—Count Basie

And "Deep Down," the headline for this item, is by jazz drummer Joey Baron.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

G.M. in Chevy Chase, MD C.B. in Lakeville, MN N.H. in London, England, UK S.K. in Ardmore, PA J.N. in Zionsville, IN M.W. in Altea, Spain S.G. in Durham, NC P.A. in Redwood City D.E. in High Springs, FL A.D. in Vass, NC T.P. in Kings Park, NY M.V. in Oak Park, IL E.S. in Providence, RI K.H. in Golden, CO M.S. in Canton, NY M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO D.S. in Layton, UT M.B. in Albany, NY S.R. in Paradise, CA D.C. in Teaneck, NJ J.D. in Olathe, KS K.J. in Paw Paw, MI G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN P.F. in Las Vegas, NV E.S. in Maine, NY

G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.L. in Simpsonville, SC B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA L.D. in Bedford, MA T.F. in Ridgewood, NJ A.D. in East Lansing, MI E.B. in Bloomington, IL M.M. in Dunellen, NJ C.S. in Chicago, IL R.G. in Baltimore, MD B.B. in Avon, CT L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands T.C. in St. Paul, MN M.L. in Iowa City, IA Z.K. in Albany, NY F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI S.W. in Winter Garden, FL K.R. in Austin, TX M.T. in Simpsonville, SC T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts D.M. in Oakland, CA B.B. in Charleston, WV J.C. in Trenton, NJ O.B. in Santa Monica, CA A.G. in Chicago, IL

This was a tough one, such that the 50th correct response was not received until 3:30 p.m. PT on Tuesday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the category Science and Nature, and it does not include the "Never Forget" item. For a hint, we'll say that we can imagine certain people having an advantage when it comes to the solution. For example, all the folks listed in the Congress: Retirements link at the top left of this page. Or a very bad doctor. Or the Marx Brothers, particularly circa 1933.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line June 27 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: $JPROOF Gets Knocked on Its Rump

There are a lot of really awful people in America right now. And very near the top of the list is far-right podcaster Stew Peters. If there is any bigotry he does not embrace, we don't know what it is. On his "show," he regularly embraces homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, white supremacism, and all the other golden oldies. It will not surprise you to learn that he's also a conspiracy theorist, and in particular that he's all-in on the same conspiratorial notions as HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. It will further not surprise you to learn that Peters, like his fellow conspiratorial-bigot-a**hole Alex Jones, sells many products that will allow you to... unlock your inner potential, or something.

In nearly any other era of American history, Stew Peters would just be a garden-variety kook, and would have no place on a politics-themed site like this one. But the current era is not like any other era in American history. Not only is there a fair bit of overlap between "Peters' listeners" and "Donald Trump's base," but Peters is also closely aligned with several members of the Trump administration. Most obviously, FBI Director Kash Patel has been a guest on the show at least eight times. Patel claims he does not know who Peters is, but the footage is out there.

Anyhow, all three legs of the triad that forms the basis of Peters' existence—bigotry, conspiratorial thinking, and grift—are present in his latest venture. As you might expect from someone like Peters, he quite likes the idea of cryptocurrency. However, as you might also guess, he's skeptical of existing cryptocurrencies because he claims they are all controlled by Jewish bankers. And so, to "solve" this problem, and to line his pockets at the same time, he decided to introduce his own cryptocurrency, $JPROOF. Undoubtedly, readers can figure out what $JPROOF stands for without us having to tell you.

Crypto, mobile phone service, and two-bit "censorship-free" social media sites may be the three most popular grifts for 21st century right-wingers. Crypto's the easiest of the three, so of course that's the one a nitwit like Peters would choose. And happily, the whole thing was a disaster. The first problem is that the customer base for a cryptocurrency rooted in out-and-out-bigotry is going to be at least somewhat limited. The second problem is that Peters promised that most of the $JPROOF coins would be kept in "the vault," so as to preserve the overall value. However, it was quickly discovered that Peters was lying, and he was unloading the coins as quickly as he could, while he could. Hard to believe a swell guy like that isn't honest.

At its height, on May 4, $JPROOF was selling for 11 cents a coin. That's actually pretty good in crypto-world, where most meme coins struggle to reach a valuation of a penny, much less 11 pennies. And the opening price for $JPROOF was about 8 cents, so people who bought early and sold at the peak made a bit of money. However, the price has absolutely cratered since then. At the close of business yesterday, $JPROOF was down to $0.0001283 per coin. This means the total market capitalization of $JPROOF went from about $15 million at its peak to its current total of less than $14,000.

It is certainly possible that Peters made out here, just like Donald Trump made out well on his scammy meme coins. But even if that is true, it is necessarily the case that some sizable number of bigots took a haircut, as they backed their vile ideas with their actual money. For example, neo-Nazi online personality Lucas Gage lost his whole $10,000 investment. And Mo Khan, the Temple University student who made headlines after posting a sign that said "Fu** the Jews" at a Philadelphia bar, was given $100,000 in $JPROOF that is now worth... rather less than $100,000. And even if Peters did make some money here, he's absolutely outed himself as someone more than willing to dishonestly shear the sheep that follow him, so maybe his next grift will flop even worse than this one. Point is, there is plenty of schadenfreude to go around here. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Helping the Children of Gaza Back on Their Feet

Misan Harriman is one of the most prominent photographers in the U.K. This is due, at least in part, to the breadth of his portfolio—he's done a lot of celebrity portraits (and was the first Black man to shoot the cover shot for the British edition of Vogue), but he's also done hard news, most notably coverage of the Black Lives Matter protests. Oh, and he was nominated for an Oscar this year, for the short film The After.

When it comes to the current conflict in Gaza, and the geopolitics therein, there are many people whose sympathies lie somewhere on the Israeli side of the spectrum, and many people whose sympathies lie somewhere on the Palestinian side of the spectrum, and many people who see both sides. However, virtually everyone (excepting a few real a**holes) sympathizes with the civilians of Gaza, who had relatively little to do with the actions of their government. That goes double for the children of Gaza, who had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of their government.

Harriman is among the many people who felt very badly about those kids, and who wanted to do something to help. Again, he's a photographer, which means that, broadly, he thinks creatively, and specifically, he thinks a lot about the power of photography. And that told Harriman what he needed to do to try and help.

At this point, if you're not already familiar with the story, you probably think you know where this is headed: Harriman traveled to the Middle East, maybe on his own dime, took some very compelling photos of the suffering there, got the photos published, and generated some sympathy and/or some donations for the refugees of Gaza. If this was so, it would certainly be admirable.

That is not what Harriman did, however. No, his idea was to acquire some digital cameras, use them for a seminar on photography for a group of refugee children, and then have them take compelling photos. This not only serves to document the refugees' experience, it's also nourishment for the hearts and the souls of the kids who are a part of the program, so it's a double win.

Actually, you might argue that it's really a triple win. If the person or people taking the photographs was an outsider, they would surely be drawn almost entirely to tragic scenes. However, the photos the kids have taken (you can see many of them at the link) actually lean much more to the uplifting end of the spectrum—smiling self portraits, families being reunited, folks participating in religious rituals, and even... cats. There are few burdens that are not lightened, at least a little bit, by a good cat photo (or a good dog photo).

Thus far, Harriman has only been able to work with a very small group of children. Further, given the challenges of reaching Gaza itself with any kind of aid, he's been limited to working with refugees who managed to escape to Egypt. Still, what an idea, and what a template! One can only hope that the notion catches on.

Have a good weekend, all! (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