The third piece in the Biden series is already 3,000 words, and not that close to being done. We can finish it OR we can have a somewhat normal Friday posting, but not both. We choose the latter, so we'll have the Biden finale on Tuesday of next week.

Trump vs. Harvard: Are the Administration's Options Beginning to Peter Out?

Donald Trump and his administration continue to wage war against Harvard, having undertaken a couple more maneuvers designed to bring the university to its knees.

The first of those is the announcement that the administration will cancel another $100 million in contracts that the government has signed with the university. That follows the nearly $3 billion in contracts (mostly funding for research) that have already been canceled.

The second of those is a plan to make it much harder for international students to get student visas. Reportedly, the State Department will conduct much more "probing" interviews, and will spend time looking into applicants' social media. According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chinese students will come in for special scrutiny, and will be rejected if they have "communist ties" or they are working in "critical fields."

The $100 million in contracts has the same set of problems as all the other cancellations, namely that there's a point to writing up and signing contracts, and that is so the two parties are both committed, and neither of them can back out for no good reason. That applies even to the President of the United States; if the administration moves forward with these new cancellations (they're still "being studied" right now), then it will end up in court, with the other $3 billion worth of agreements.

As to the student visas, perhaps this plan sounds plausible in theory. In practice, it's a mess. The State Department has been DOGE-ified, and lengthening interviews/going through social media would demand person-hours that really aren't available. If the focus is particularly on Chinese students, well, there are about 300,000 of them with visas right now. Their social media is largely going to be in—wait for it—Chinese, a language that most State Department employees are not fluent in. Further, how does one even determine if a citizen of a communist nation has "ties to communism"? That's like trying to figure out if a U.S. citizen has "ties to capitalism."

Similarly, how does one determine if a student is working in a "critical field"? Sure, we can see it if a research team is building nuclear bombs or something like that. It's easy enough to boot all the Chinese students from the Manhattan Project. But for the vast majority of research going on in 2025 (as opposed to the 1940s), you have to be a world-class expert to possibly understand what's critical and/or some sort of potential security risk. For example, Geoffrey Hinton, who is the most recent Nobel laureate in Physics, works on visualizing data using t-SNE. Terence Tao, who may be the country's best mathematician, is known for his work on compressed sensing. Dan Kahne, who chairs the Department of Chemistry at Harvard, has done a lot of research into lipopolysaccharide transporters. Can you tell if any of those are "critical fields" or represent some sort of security risk? And do you think Marco Rubio can tell?

The Rubio announcements have been met with a combination of eye-rolling and hair-tearing-out by the federal bureaucracy. We'll find out if he's actually able to implement his plans, or if he even tries. In any event, the first thought we had when we heard about the new anti-Harvard measures was... the White House's bag of tricks seems to be running short. The $100 million is way less impressive and less impactful than $3 billion, and the student visa plans are somewhat impractical and certainly are not laser-focused on just one school. Maybe the administration is running out of leverage to utilize.

Meanwhile, the pushback is well underway. Trump bragged this week that "Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked." But the evidence does not support that conclusion, as the university has already prevailed in court several times. Most recently, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs extended the temporary restraining order she issued, the one that prohibits the administration from revoking Harvard's right to accept foreign students.

At the same time, prominent members of the Harvard faculty are all over the place, flaying the administration, and mounting a resistance. Steven Pinker, who is in the running for "most famous faculty member at Harvard," wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which he accused the administration of having a case of "Harvard Derangement Syndrome" and said that while much/all of this is being done in the name of fighting antisemitism, the actions of Trump and his minions are actually harming Jews. Similarly, Laurence Tribe, who is also in the running for "most famous faculty member at Harvard," went on TV to slam Trump as a "paper tiger" and "tin horn tyrant" who is going to lose, and lose, and lose some more in court over the coming months and years.

That's the latest Harvard-related news but, as long as we're on the general subject, we thought we would also address a few Harvard-related rumors/urban legends that have circulated widely in the last couple of weeks:

• Barron Trump: The most widespread rumor, and the one we've been asked about the most, is the one that claims that when Barron Trump was college-shopping last year, he applied to Harvard and was rejected. This, ostensibly, is the reason his father has targeted the school—it's driven by the desire for revenge.
  
  We can see why people put things together in this way, since it all seems very plausible. But there's no evidence the younger Trump applied to, or was rejected by, Harvard. A secret the school (and other elite schools) would prefer you not know is that celebrity admissions are handled by a special office, one that is very good at finding a way to get the celebrity applicants admitted. If Barron Trump had applied, he very likely would have gotten in, even if his credentials were not up to snuff. On top of that, while it is true that the President is at war with Harvard, that's only because they fought back. His first targets were actually Columbia and Princeton.
  
  
• Tenure Revoked: Earlier this week, Harvard revoked the tenure of a professor, Francesca Gino. This is pretty unusual in academia, and it's unheard of at Harvard. In fact, no other professor has had their tenure revoked since Harvard adopted the current guidelines governing tenure... back in the 1940s. Indeed, it is possible that Harvard has NEVER revoked a professor's tenure before. There are no known examples of it happening at that institution before this week.
  
  Naturally, some folks have noted the unprecedented assault Harvard finds itself under, and the unprecedented revocation of tenure, and concluded the two must be related (even if they can't really explain why or how). It's human nature to assume that when two very unusual things happen at the same time, there must be some connection, but in this case, there isn't. Gino is a notorious case in academia, and she's been under investigation for years (since at least 2020) for faking her data. Her situation just happened to reach its conclusion right now; it would have done so just the same if Kamala Harris was president. (Actually, it's not really the conclusion; Gino is still fighting the school in court.)
  
  There is a message/lesson here, but it's unrelated to politics. In theory, good research is good research, regardless of the results. A properly done study that shows that calcium helps prevent cancer uses the same methods and rules as a properly done study that shows that calcium DOES NOT prevent cancer (these are invented hypotheticals, please do not send us e-mails about calcium and cancer). Needless to say, the theoretical reward structure in academia—good research is good research is good research—is not the actual reward structure. Dramatic and sexy conclusions are much more marketable for a candidate than bland and unsexy ones. That's doubly true if their work has some crossover appeal, and will attract research funding and/or media attention. As readers can imagine, if they're not already very familiar with this dynamic, the reward structure can and often does induce people to cook the books.
  
  In Gino's case, she first made a name with a study that "showed" that if someone signs an honesty pledge before filling out a form, they are less likely to lie. She also got a lot of attention with a study that "showed" that only "rebels" really succeed in business. This work not only got her a lot of media attention, as well as tenure at Harvard, it also led to a lucrative side hustle giving talks at corporate conferences and running training sessions. For several years, she was one of the highest-paid faculty members at the school, earning in excess of $1 million annually. Of course, every time there is a case like Gino's, lots of people in the academic world declare "things have to change." But they never do.
  
  
• Civics Class: The third story circulating widely right now is that Harvard has announced an online civics class, available to all who want to take it, that teaches students how to recognize when their country is being taken over by a dictatorship.
  
  The civics class is definitely real (the website is right here). And it would be a slick move for Harvard to put together such a course as a response to Trump. But the truth is that the course has been offered since at least 2020, and that its actual title and focus are "American Government: Constitutional Foundations." Presumably, topics related to dictatorship and/or abuses of power will come up, but that is not the sole subject matter.

And that's the latest from Cambridge. We doubt we'll be able to get through next week without at least one Harvard item, given how fast the slings and arrows are flying back and forth. (Z)

Trump Administration Goes All-in on the Fascist Immigration Playbook

Again, we really don't like to use that kind of loaded language when we write this site. But when the shoe fits, what choice do we have?

The first news on this front, which broke yesterday, involves 54-year-old immigrant Ramon Morales Reyes, who is undocumented. This week, a DHS official received an envelope, which included Reyes' return address on it. Inside was this note:

When we first read it, it felt like those situations where someone tries to mimic a child's writing or drawing style; it was created by someone working mightily to make it LOOK and SEEM authentic. But it is improbable, for example, that a would-be assassin would not only warn the government of his plans, but would conveniently include his home address. What is this, a James Bond movie?

Despite these red flags, Noem ran with it. In fact, not only did she run with it, she said the letter was received shortly after James Comey posted his seashell picture, and so was clearly inspired by him. As far as leaps of logic go, that one is just... nuts. The FBI has since confirmed that there is no way Reyes wrote the letter, and that it was almost certainly the work of a different person who is facing a criminal trial, one where Reyes is a witness for the prosecution. Needless to say, if Reyes is deported, he will not be in a great position to testify.

When Noem went forward with this, she either knew she was telling a 100% lie, or she took aggressive steps to put her fingers in her ears and her head in the sand so she could claim that she didn't know. In the latter case, it would be gross negligence and, either way, Reyes certainly has the basis for a defamation lawsuit. Remember, as we've noted recently, government employees DO NOT have immunity from civil suits related to their actions. Her behavior is also vile, and creating bugaboos out of lies and misrepresentations is absolutely Fascism 101.

The other news on the immigration front (beyond the student visas; see above), is this: Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller, themselves the child and grandchild of immigrants, respectively, are endeavoring to create a new "Department of Remigration." Not familiar with that word? We'll just share the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Remigration:

Remigration is a far-right European concept of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants, usually including those born in Europe, to their place of racial ancestry, often with no regard for their citizenship or legal status.

In this case, readers don't even need our opinion that this is fascist, because Rubio and Miller got the idea from literal fascists in Germany and Austria. Perhaps they are unaware that, among the targets of various remigration movements, have been Latinos and Jews. In fact, Jews were the FIRST target.

We thought we had to pass these stories along, but beyond that, we don't know what to say, other than: These are such terrible, terrible people. (Z)

Make a Wish!: The Decline and Fall of Ron Weaselly

There was a time when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) was a rising star in the GOP. In fact, he was arguably THE rising star, and the heir presumptive to the MAGA throne. These days, it looks more like he was a shooting star, one who burned bright and is now fading away.

The governor is currently beset by all sorts of problems that speak to his much-reduced status. Here is a solid, but not comprehensive, list:

• Uncharitable: As we have noted, DeSantis' wife Casey, who is also his preferred successor, is at the center of a scandal involving the charity she founded and more than $10 million in (alleged) grift. The stench has also attached itself to the governor, especially since the people who received money they should not have received were mostly HIS friends and allies, not hers.
  
  
• The Legislature: There was a time when the state legislature was terrified of DeSantis, and largely unwilling to defy him, for fear he would kill this project or that investment in a member's district. That time has passed, perhaps because Florida Republicans have recognized that DeSantis is done in about a year, while Donald Trump (who dislikes DeSantis) will be in power for much longer than that. So, the legislators are now rebelling against the Governor on a frequent basis, both in terms of their official actions and in terms of their public pronouncements. To take one example, Speaker of the Florida House Daniel Perez (R) just did an interview with Florida Politics in which he accused DeSantis of telling "lies and stories that never happened" and "throwing temper tantrums."
  
  
• The Bureaucracy: Similarly, much of the state bureaucracy was scared of DeSantis. But again, that appears to have passed. For example, this week, the regents of the University of Florida met to choose a new president for the system, as former senator Ben Sasse threw in the towel after just one year on the job. And the person they chose was a clear poke in the Governor's eye. It's Santa Ono, currently the leader of the University of Michigan, and thus the fellow who oversaw that school's DEI programs. Ono is certainly a liberal, but he's also a politician (of a sort), as all major-university leaders are. So while he wrote an op-ed in which he said he's no longer a supporter of DEI, conservatives aren't buying it. Here's Paul du Quenoy, a right-wing columnist for The Telegraph (UK):

  Until only recently, Ono was a public supporter of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as other radical Left shibboleths. Oddly, he was the only finalist for the Florida position, which comes with a salary of as much as $3 million per year. Ono must still be approved by the Florida state university system's Board of Governors. This is usually a formality, but a majority vote of that body should end this un-American charade and send him packing.
  
  Critics of DEI are reeling at Ono's appointment, in what they correctly see not only as a betrayal of everything DeSantis has stood for as governor but also as a major threat to the cause of education reform, which president Trump has put into policy via executive orders released in the first days of his presidency.

  Obviously, DeSantis opposed Ono, but he was ignored.
  
  
• Whining: As his influence has been slipping through his fingers, like so many grains of sand in an hourglass, the Governor has developed the habit of traveling around the state and holding press conferences where he whines and moans about whatever is on his mind—woke judges, drag shows, the "big, beautiful budget," immigration, whatever. It would seem that most people, on both sides of the aisle, find it off-putting.
  
  
• Body Slammed: On Saturday, trying to remind everyone that he's a "man of the people," DeSantis attended WWE's Saturday Night's Main Event in Tampa. Pro wrestling, in Florida... those should really be DeSantis' people. Remember how many pro wrestlers/MMA figures were given prime spots at the Republican National Convention, for example. However, on Saturday, when DeSantis was shown on the Jumbotron, the crowd erupted into a chant of "You suck! You suck! You suck!"

When DeSantis first burst onto the national scene, a few years back, we thought he might just be able to position himself as the heir to the MAGA throne. But since then, he's grossly overplayed his hand with all the crazy authoritarian stuff, he's gotten in ethical/legal trouble, he's shown that he's got the charisma of a boiled potato, he's alienated much of the MAGA base, and he's been the butt of many a joke. He's cooked, just like the last governor of Florida who was so overconfident in his chances, he'd already begun looking at patterns for the Oval Office curtains. All that's left is for DeSantis to announce that his new, high-energy slogan is "Ron!" (Z)

Trade Wars: As Horace Said, "Seize the Day, Trusting as Little as Possible in Tomorrow"

There was a little bit of tariff-related news yesterday, which the Trump administration is hailing as a victory: In a brief order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed Wednesday's ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT), the one that struck down virtually all of the tariffs that Donald Trump had announced since becoming president for a second time.

We chose the Horace quote for the headline because there is an excellent possibility that today's victory becomes tomorrow's defeat (well, more like next week's defeat). The USCIT ruling is only stayed for a little more than a week, so that parties on both sides have a chance to file briefs, and the Appeals Court has time to consider the matter. This is a very common short-term outcome, and was likely enough that the USCIT had actually already stayed its own ruling for 10 days, to give the Appeals Court every opportunity to decide if it wanted to take a look-see. Put another way, the ruling would not have taken effect until June 7, at the earliest. Now, that has been pushed back to... June 9. That doesn't really tell us anything about the merits of the administration's case.

And that brings us to the next point, which is that, as we noted yesterday, the administration's argument is pretty weak, and is going to be evaluated by judges who are hostile to either unchecked executive power or protectionism or both. Yesterday, in a piece for Politico, former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori highlighted a couple of other problem areas for the White House.

First, the administration's arguments are based heavily on a 1971 case, United States v. Yoshida International, in which the Supreme Court allowed Richard Nixon to implement some (fairly limited) tariffs on his own authority. At first glance, that seems like an excellent precedent for Team Trump to use. However, the administration's lawyers had to pick and choose, utilizing the elements of the decision they like, and ignoring the parts they don't like. For example, Trump and his legal team are arguing that tariff rates are not a justiciable question. In Yoshida, SCOTUS said they most certainly ARE a justiciable question. Needless to say, this kind of picking-and-choosing does not make for a great foundation, as it: (1) brings the judges' attention to a ruling that, in some ways, undermines the administration's case, and (2) suggests that they couldn't come up with better precedents, because if they could, they wouldn't have used this one.

The other issue that Khardori points out is one of legal philosophy, albeit a different philosophical issue than the ones we pointed out. In brief, the general trendline in jurisprudence in the last decade or so, and in particular in conservative jurisprudence, has been "Congress has given away too many powers to the executive branch, powers it is not allowed to delegate." It seems improbable that, in this one case, the justices of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or of the Supreme Court, are going to do a 180, and strike down a decision that is entirely in harmony with the general trendline.

You never know what a court—be it the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court—will do, until it does it. But if you had to bet, you'd still want to bet heavily against the administration.

Also, there is one other matter worth noting, one we did not have time to fit into yesterday's item. If the ruling from the USCIT stands, here are the tariffs that will go the way of the dodo:

• 10% universal baseline tariff on all nations
• Additional 10% "reciprocal" duty targeting all Chinese goods
• De minimis tariffs on Chinese goods valued at less than $800
• Additional 20% duties on Chinese goods and 25% duties on Canadian/Mexican goods, ostensibly as "punishment" for not doing enough to combat fentanyl trafficking.

Meanwhile, here are the tariffs that will still stand:

• 25% duty on most auto imports
• 25% duty on most auto parts imports
• 25% duty on all steel, aluminum, and aluminum articles

So, if the USCIT ruling survives appeal, then it will take a real bite out of Trump's plans. (Z)

The End of an Era: The Dean of Presidential Grandsons Has Passed Away

On Sunday, an era finally came to a close. It's an era that you might have expected to have ended oh, say, 100 years ago, but not so much. For those not already in the know, we are speaking of the death of Harrison Ruffin Tyler.

Tyler had an extremely successful career as a businessman and engineer, but this is not why he was famous. No, the key to his fame was the last name "Tyler," which he got from his father, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, and which Lyon got from HIS father, John Tyler. That is the same John Tyler who was born in 1790, who served as President of the United States from 1841-45 (after William Henry "Tippecanoe" Harrison keeled over), and who died in 1862, shortly after being elected to the Confederate Congress.

In other words, until Sunday, the grandson of a man born while George Washington was president, who served himself as president two decades before the Civil War, and who died of old age during the Civil War, still walked among us. That was made possible by John Tyler being a dirty old man who continued to have kids well into his senior years (15 in total; Lyon was born in 1853, when John was 63), and then Lyon picking up the family habit, and also being a dirty old man who continued to have kids into his senior years (6 in total; Harrison was born in 1928, when Lyon was 75). Obviously, Harrison Tyler never met his grandfather, having missed the opportunity by a mere 66 years.

We should probably also note that the "Ruffin" in Harrison Tyler's name comes from his great-grandfather Edmund. Edmund Ruffin was a white supremacist and pro-Confederate zealot who is best known for being given the honor of ordering the firing of the first shot at Fort Sumter. He was so disappointed when the South lost the Civil War that he took his own life (there are those who call it the "last shot" of the Civil War). Edmund Ruffin, who had 11 kids, was not related to John Tyler; that lineage comes from Harrison's mother. It would seem that women on both sides of Harrison's family had a taste for racists with very active libidos.

Naturally, this is not all that important in the scheme of things, but we still thought we should note it. Oh, and Harrison, who had only three kids, the last when he was 32, did not inherit his forebears' habit in that area. Or the other habit, for that matter. Anyhow, vaya con dios, Harrison Tyler. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown

For last week's theme, the first hint we gave was: "it's certainly been a tiring week (see above note), but you shouldn't cry for us, especially if you're in Argentina." On Saturday, we added: "If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll say that you might want to think about the Great White Way (although not the same Great White Way that Stephen Miller has in mind)." In response to that hint, reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA offered this observation:

Au contraire, mon amis, it IS the same as Stephen Miller's Great White Way. I'm talking the musical within a musical, The Producers' "Springtime For Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden!" I could really see Miller making a good go at playing Franz Liebkind—he would be a natural. See, you guys are more clever than you knew (or maybe you should just say that was your intention all along).

We wished we'd thought of it, but no, it wasn't our intention. And now, in case it's not already obvious, here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.M. in Dunellen, NJ:

Broadway musicals!

• In the House: Johnson Herds the Cats—Cats
• In the Senate: Thune Decides to Deep-Six the Filibuster for CRA "Reviews"—Six
• In the Supreme Court: Sorry, Oklahoma! No Religious Charter Schools for You (For Now)—Oklahoma!
• Trump Administration vs. Harvard: DHS Comes Down Wicked Hard on Foreign Students—Wicked
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Elvis Is the King and I Am the Queen—The King and I
• This Week in Schadenfreude: A Hair-Raising Blunder—Hair
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Grease Is Sooooo 20th Century—Grease

We didn't expect this level of detail in readers' answers, but just to make sure we didn't use anything too obscure, we limited ourselves to musicals that had at least 1,000 performances. That includes You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown from this item's headline (1,597 performances in its original run). Our first hint referred to the musical Evita (1,567 performances), and the second to the most common nickname for Broadway.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

J.D. in Jamaica Plain, MA J.G. in Truro, England, UK S.G. in Durham, NC G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN M.S. in Canton, NY M.Y. in San Jose, CA J.F. in Fayetteville, NC G.W. in Avon, CT R D. in Cheshire, CT K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT J.T. in Philadelphia, PA N.H. in London, England, UK M.M. in Dunellen P.R. in Kirksville, MO K.H. in Maryville, TN K.J. in Paw Paw, MI M.T. in Simpsonville, SC D.E. in High Springs, FL T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts A.D. in Vass, NC S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.W. in Altea, Spain W.V. in San Jacinto, CA D.P. in Mt Rainier, MD

D.K. in Bethesda, MD J.A. in Queretaro, Mexico R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK A.L. in Ottawa, ON, Canada M.K. in Rye, NY M.F. in Goshen, KY D.D. in Highland Park, IL J.W. in York, England, UK J.T. in Madison, WI B.R. in Arlington, MA K.F. in Berea, KY A.H. in Newberg, OR M.M. in Charlottesville, VA R.R. in Lancaster, PA B.K. in Mystic, CT B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA S.A. in Clinton, WA P.D. in Leamington, ON, Canada R.E. in Birmingham, AL D.P. in San Jose, CA D.L. in Uslar, Germany N.S. in Fayetteville, NY S.W. in Corvallis, OR J.N. in Zionsville, IN B.E. in Brooklyn, NY

The 50th correct response was received at 7:31 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the category Literature, and it does not include the item about the administration's vile immigration policies. For a hint, we'll say that one of the headlines is actually a little TOO on the nose, but we just couldn't resist.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line May 30 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: When People Talk about "Trump's Bill," Is THIS What They Mean?

As we have explained in the past, we take the position that if a political meme catches fire on the Internet, that communicates something meaningful—that the idea or criticism or joke has moved beyond just the world of political wonks. That, in turn, suggests a potentially useful line of messaging for one party or the other.

We offer this reminder as preface to this week's schadenfreude. Donald Trump has been willing to do a lot of harm in order to advance his tariff plan, and to achieve... whatever he's trying to achieve. And now, well, he's reaping the whirlwind, at least on a satirical level. The TACO Trade meme has absolutely taken off, with the result that it is all over social media. And we thought we'd do what we do sometimes, and run down some of the notable specimens:

1. It has an... avant-garde feel.

---

2. If Stephen Miller sees this, he might try to kick Trump out of the country.

---

3. It has a definite energy to it.

---

4. We'll just point out that the original man in a yellow suit was intended as a symbol of greed and selfishness.

---

5. If Big Bird and Foghorn Leghorn had a kid...

---

6. The QAnon Shaman now has a rival.

---

7. There's a LOT of information here.

---

8. We bet there are a lot of restaurants where wearing this suit would get you a free taco on Tuesday.

---

9. Of course there's already a t-shirt for sale.

---

10. That didn't take long.

---

11. Not all that creative, but notice who posted it.

---

12. This is a little unsettling (though it would explain a lot).

---

13. This is unsettling in a different way.

---

14. Probably not a great choice for someone on a low-cholesterol diet.

---

The polls suggest that the Democrats have a potential winner with this trade war stuff, and now, the memes agree. We may soon know if the polls—or maybe the memes—cause Trump to wave the white flag. Or maybe it's the yellow flag. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: King Charles Shows Prince Harry How It's Done

Most readers presumably know that Prince Harry is on the outs with his father, King Charles III, and his brother, Prince William. Reasonable people can differ on exactly who is to blame for the situation, and in what measure, but there's no denying that in airing his grievances, Harry has taken the sledgehammer approach. For example, publishing a book with 416 pages full of dirty laundry is not exactly a subtle maneuver.

Princes, at least sometimes, can get away with being indecorous. Monarchs, by and large, cannot. As the head of state for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations, they are expected to be a model of good behavior for their subjects. They are also expected to stay out of politics; to do otherwise could trigger a constitutional crisis. The recently departed Queen Elizabeth II was very good at all of this.

That said, Elizabeth most certainly had opinions, and Charles definitely has opinions. And British monarchs tend to be pretty good at remaining within the rules, and adhering to the expected standards of behavior, and yet... still getting their opinions out there, sometimes. You could call the techniques they use "subtlety." Or maybe "plausible deniability," or "malicious compliance," or "passive aggression." Whatever it is, it's rather different from the Prince Harry approach, and both Elizabeth and her son are masters of the art.

That brings us to the actual subject of this item, which is the speech that Charles gave to the Canadian Parliament this week. It is not common for monarchs to address that body, but for... some reason, Charles thought the time was right. Here are a few of the things he said:

• "The world is a more dangerous and uncertain place than at any point since the Second World War. Canada is facing challenges that are unprecedented in our lifetimes."
  
  
• "A confident Canada, which has welcomed new Canadians, including from some of the most tragic global conflict zones, can seize this opportunity by recognizing that all Canadians can give themselves far more than any foreign power on any continent can ever take away. And that by staying true to Canadian values, Canada can build new alliances and a new economy that serves all Canadians."
  
  
• "The Government will protect Canada's sovereignty by rebuilding, rearming, and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces. It will boost Canada's defense industry by joining ReArm Europe, to invest in transatlantic security with Canada's European partners."
  
  
• "The True North is indeed strong and free!"

It should be noted that the speech was written primarily by the staff of PM Mark Carney. But Charles offered some informal input, and it was Charles who decided to visit Canada in the first place, and it was Charles who made sure to emphasize all of the passages we quote above. In the speech, the PM and the King made sure nobody was mentioned by name. But they, and their audience, had a particular name in mind, nonetheless. Again, the King's son could learn a thing or two about the art of subtlety.

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