Another One Bites the Dust

On March 5, then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem got the boot. On April 2, then-"AG" Pam Bondi joined Noem in the unemployment line. And then there were three, because as of yesterday, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer is out. That's three in a little over a month, which means that after a year-plus of mostly stability, we're back to Trump v1.0 levels of turnover.

Chavez-DeRemer has been enmeshed in various scandals for months, culminating in an extensive exposé in The New York Times last week. Here's the list of (known) issues:

• The Secretary was, reportedly, involved in a sexual relationship with an underling.
  
  
• She drank to excess while working, and distributed large quantities of alcohol to underlings.
  
  
• She also used staff to do personal tasks, like planning her vacations.
  
  
• Chavez-DeRemer, and several of her deputies, strongly encouraged younger, female employees to "pay attention" to older, male employees (and older, male hangers-on).
  
  
• The Secretary's husband, Shawn DeRemer, made unwanted advances to numerous female staffers, and was eventually banned from the department entirely after he was accused of "inappropriately touching" two young women.
  
  
• The Secretary's father, Richard Chavez, was in the habit of sending creepy text messages to young, female staffers. The one that is getting particular attention reads: "Hearing u/r in town. Wishing you would let me know. I could have made some excuses to get out and show u around. Please keep this private."

It is really unbelievable how many sexual predators there are in this presidential administration. Heck, it is really unbelievable how many sexual predators there are in just the Chavez-DeRemer family.

Meanwhile, there is nothing publicly known about Chavez-DeRemer today that wasn't known a week ago, or even a month ago. So, why did the axe swing now? It's certainly possible that the White House's patience ran out. Another explanation, however, is that there is something new (and bad) about to come to light. We'll soon see, one way or the other.

The fall of Chavez-DeRemer has a fair bit in common with the fall of Noem, namely that they were both engaging in problematic relationships with underlings, and they were both grossly abusing the privileges of office. Bondi, by contrast, was done in by her failure to successfully pursue Donald Trump's enemies, and her unwise public statements. However, the two things that all three of the now-former Cabinet officers have in common are: (1) All of them embarrassed the administration and (2) All of them are women. Given that male Cabinet officers outnumbered female Cabinet officers more than 2-to-1 at the start of this year, it's pretty long odds that the first three folks would just so happen to be women, without some externality coming into play (like, say, a misogynist boss).

So, who is going to be the next to go? Here's a rundown of the leading candidates:

• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: He seems to grow more and more unhinged by the day. Last week, a lot of attention was paid to a Biblical passage he read at one of his Pentagon revival meetings, a Biblical passage that isn't actually a Biblical passage at all, and is instead (basically) Jules' speech from the movie Pulp Fiction, right before he guns down three men in cold blood. On one hand, contrary to much of the social media commentary, it's clear from the video that Hegseth knew that it wasn't actually a Bible passage. On the other hand, millions of people saw the headline "Hegseth confuses Pulp Fiction with Bible," and did not learn that is not really accurate. Also, even if Hegseth fully understood the reference, it IS a prelude to three blood-drenched murders. So, perhaps not the best choice for a quasi-religious gathering.
  
  Getting less attention, to our surprise (though we did have a letter about it this weekend) was Hegseth attacking the media members who cover his press conferences (which he is stuck with, thanks to court intervention). He slurred the Pentagon press pool as "unpatriotic" and compared them to the Pharisees. That is pretty clearly a dog whistle (more like a dog bullhorn, actually) that translates to "Damn you Jews who control the media."
  
  We actually don't think that Hegseth's ongoing, embarrassing behavior (including his alleged drinking) will bring him down. It could, since embarrassing behavior and drinking brought Chavez-DeRemer down, but we tend to doubt it. We'd say that Hegseth's REAL Achilles' heel is the Iran War. It's going badly, and it looks like it's about to turn "hot" again, and if it does, the beating the administration is taking will only get worse. Since nothing is EVER Trump's fault, someone will probably have to take the fall, and Hegseth is an excellent candidate.
  
  The Secretary does have one ace in the hole, though (and no, it's not copies of those kompromat videos that Vlad Putin supposedly has). It's that House Democrats are trying to impeach Hegseth. That might cause Trump to keep him, just to "own the libs."
  
  
• HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Kennedy's presence in the Trump administration is entirely a marriage of convenience. Kennedy doesn't really care about Trumpism (and, indeed, tried to make a deal with Kamala Harris first), and Trump doesn't really care about MAHA. Is there a point at which too many children will have died from diseases that were previously under control, thanks to Kennedy's policies?
  
  There are a couple of mildly bad signs for the HHS Secretary. The first is that after churning through several CDC directors of dubious merit, the White House has just nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz, who is a Navy veteran and an actual, experienced expert in public health. In other words, she is NOT Bobby Jr.'s kind of person.
  
  Kennedy's other problem is that he is in the middle of a bunch of Congressional hearings, and they are off to a poor start. Recall that it was a poor performance at a Congressional hearing that proved to be the final straw for both Noem and Bondi.
  
  
• DNI Tulsi Gabbard: For this one, we have to read between the lines a little bit. To start, note that: (1) She could also get some of the blame for Iran, (2) She has also had a couple of bad appearances before Congress recently, and (3) She has, like Bondi, failed to punish Trump's enemies.
  
  Late last week, Gabbard made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice over the intelligence community's handling of the information used in the first Trump impeachment (the one in 2019, after he tried to blackmail Volodymyr Zelenskyy). In particular, Gabbard wants to see then-intelligence-community-IG Michael Atkinson do some time in the pokey. Or, at least, she SAYS that is what she wants to see. There is not the slightest chance of a successful prosecution here, since: (1) Atkinson did nothing criminal, and (2) the statute of limitations has run, anyhow.
  
  So, Gabbard's maneuver is clearly just a stunt for the benefit of an audience of one. And a pretty desperate stunt, at that. The kind of desperate stunt that someone in the Trump administration pulls when they fear they are in danger of getting canned, and they are running out of ideas to save themselves. Oh, and don't forget, Gabbard is a woman.
  
  
• FBI Director Kash Patel: Not actually a Cabinet officer, of course, but a high-profile member of the administration nonetheless. And another case where we have to read between the lines a little bit. To begin, let us note that, like Noem and Chavez-DeRemer, Patel has abused the spoils of office. And, like Chavez-DeRemer and Hegseth, he's gotten some unflattering coverage due to his alcohol use. That includes a lengthy story published in The Atlantic late last week, in which veteran reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick reported that Patel's colleagues at the FBI were concerned about his alcohol use and his frequent, unexplained work absences.
  
  Yesterday, Patel fired back by... suing The Atlantic for $250 million, claiming he has been defamed. This is another lawsuit that is going absolutely nowhere. First of all, the truth is an absolute defense against a libel claim, and you can bet your last dollar that Fitzpatrick had ample sources for what she reported and that she believed her reporting to be true (also note that there's a big difference between reporting "Patel abuses alcohol" and reporting "Patel's colleagues worry that he abuses alcohol"). Second, Patel would never submit to the discovery process, which would open up his life and his past alcohol use (of which there is plenty) to scrutiny.
  
  We can only think of two potential motivations for this lawsuit. The first is to try to intimidate media outlets, and to keep them from reporting critically on Patel. The second is to put on a show for the audience of one that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a show that says, "I hate the media, too, and I'm following your lead in doing something about it." Certainly, it smacks of the same kind of "don't fire me!" desperation as the Gabbard criminal referral.

A couple of weeks ago, we asked readers to vote as to which Cabinet member would be next to go. Here's how the vote shook out:

• Gabbard—58.7%
• Hegseth—20.8%
• Chavez-DeRemer—8.9%
• Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick—5.2%
• Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins—0.8%
• Someone Else—5.6%

We also got hundreds and hundreds of comments, and we selected a few to share; notice the theme that runs through so many of them:

• It won't be Howard Lutnick. He knows too much about Epstein, so Trump has to keep him close.
  
  
• All Cabinet officials should get as limber as they can with yoga stretches in order to more easily extract that eventual incoming knife in the back. This administration is gonzo and I weep for this country.
  
  
• Another woman will be replaced with a white man, since in one person's mind, women apparently aren't MAGA enough. (Notice this started happening after MTG rebelled?)
  
  
• As usual it is the women fired first. If it was based on competence, Hegseth would have been the first to go.
  
  
• At some point, I would like to see them all tried and imprisoned. Not bloody likely, though...
  
  
• Secretary of Energy Chris Wright will be among the next three fired. Gasoline prices are high, must be DoE's fault! (Don't get me wrong, he deserves to be fired, but not because of gas prices.)
  
  
• I picked Gabbard because Trump lives to scapegoat women.
  
  
• Gabbard because deep down inside Trump knows she gave him bad intel on Iran's capabilities and intentions.
  
  
• Trump hates women. He will continue to fire women ahead of white guys. Patel isn't all that safe either.
  
  
• He's sacked two women so far. So I'd say DeRemer-Chavez will follow Gabbard out the door.
  
  
• Kash Patel is not a member of the Cabinet but I don't think he'll be in his current role by Election Day.
  
  
• Kegsbreath is the biggest public embarrassment right now, but he's male.
  
  
• Kennedy must go, but Trump knows that would hurt him politically
  
  
• Trump will give the appearance of "Cleaning House" by firing 3 more in the cabinet outside of a Friday news cycle to try to prevent a terrible mid-term showing. This will fail miserably.
  
  
• Elect a clown, expect a circus.
  
  
• Fire every one of these clowns. Bring in new clowns.
  
  
• How long until Barron, Melania and other family members join the Cabinet?

There must have been close to 500 readers who wrote in with some variant of the "it's always the women" observation.

We shall see who goes next. At this rate, we'll only have to wait a week or so to find out. (Z)

Notes on the State of Virginia

Today, of course, we learn whether voters in Virginia want to change the state's maps to make them into an aggressive Democratic gerrymander. We had an item about it yesterday. We got several comments from dialed-in voters and thought that today, we'd pass them along:

• L.E. in Suffolk, VA: Some thoughts from a constituent of Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA).
  
  I think the Virginia Redistricting "Yes" will win. However, that alone is probably not enough to unseat Kiggans and/or Rep. Rob Wittman (R).
  
  I believe that Kiggans' VA-02 goes from a PVI of EVEN to D+1, so not much of a change. Her opponent will be Elaine Luria, who certainly has name recognition as the former representative from the district. I like both women and really wish Kiggans was a D. Her views are very moderate and she could easily fit as a D from our very military district. My impression is that Kiggans is a better campaigner than Luria, so I would still give her the edge. The real decider will be the size of the blue wave. I think that surge amplitude would have been the determining factor even without redistricting.
  
  Wittman's District would go from R+3 to D+5, but I still wouldn't count him out as he has consistently outperformed his PVI by a healthy amount. I think it might take a 10+ point Blue Wave to unseat him.
  
  
• V.S. in Charlottesville, VA: April 18th was the last day to vote early in-person for the election. Mail-in ballots can still be returned through 7:00 p.m. on the 21st. Ballots, as long as they are postmarked by the 21st, are accepted through Friday, April 24. In the 2025 general election, just under 50k ballots were returned during this time period.
  
  Some general observations. The early vote tracked closely with the 2025 general election early vote with a deficit of only 5.5%, or 80,000 votes to date. However, turnout in the traditional Republican areas was up between 3% and 9% depending on the region, for a total additional early vote in these areas of about 21,000 over the 2025 general election. It's not clear if these additional votes are cannibalizing same-day votes from 2025 or if these are new voters. Turnout in the Democratic areas was down between 2% to 11%, again depending on the region. That being said, just under 62% of the total early vote came from the Capitol region, Northern Virginia, and Hampton Roads, which all lean blue.
  
  Based on the early vote, I decided to calculate four different scenarios using the margins of victory in 2025, 2024, and 2021. The former two favored Democrats, and 2021 was the best Republicans have done statewide in some time:
  
  
  • 2025 margin: 13.4% win (438,000 votes), ballot measure passes
  • 2024 margin: 4.6% win (151,000 votes), ballot measure passes
  • 2021 margin: -3.3% loss (-109,000 votes), ballot measure fails
  • Hybrid margin: 4.6% win (150,000 votes), ballot measure passes
  
  For the hybrid margin, I assumed the 2024 margin of victory for the Democratic leaning regions, and the 2021 margin of victory for the Republican regions. Interestingly, this barely changed the results compared to just using the 2024 margin for all regions. This just indicates there are not enough votes in those regions to overcome the Democratic votes in the other regions. That is unless, overall, Democrats do not vote.
  
  We will find out how this all plays out on Tuesday evening. One issue is even if the measure passes, the Virginia courts still need to rule whether the proper procedure was followed in placing the measure in front of voters.
  
  
• D.B. in Farmville, VA: Thought I'd write in to fill you (and maybe the other readers) in on what's up in Virginia, the current battleground in the redistricting fight.
  
  First of all, though it's a referendum—not super common here—it's definitely a battle. I'm getting hit with more election messaging than even in most November elections. I've seen TV ads, I've gotten bulk mailers, and I've gotten phone-text spam. But the messaging is really interesting.
  
  On the TVs (e.g., in a bar), the balance of which side you see shifts based on the station, but the "YES" messaging is all about "protect our rights" and often some version of the sentence "we didn't start this fight but now we have to finish it" (and a reminder that it's temporary); and the "NO" messaging is two-prong: (1) past clips of Barack Obama and Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) saying gerrymandering is bad, and (2) right-wing wedge-issue stuff. I've seen assertions that the Democrats would raise taxes, would grant benefits to "illegals," would let "boys play in girls' sports," and more of that ilk.
  
  On the text messaging and in the mailers, the YES side is much the same, but the NO side is completely different. Clearly targeting me as a left-of-center voter, the images are largely of serious-faced Black people and saying that "minority representation is under attack" and that the change "divides communities of color," and that... wait, I have to quote the whole thing:

  Virginia's minority communities deserve strong representation in Congress to improve our healthcare, lower housing costs, and protect our rights.

  That's from "Justice for Democracy PAC", which is definitely a front for people that absolutely do not believe that sentence. The phone spam too spreads fear that the initiative "divides Black and brown communities." Perhaps of note: In a regular election cycle, I get an annoyingly large amount of phone spam from the Ds (or, apparently from the Ds) but usually get zero from the Rs. But the lists are for sale to anyone, I guess.
  
  It's legitimately challenging to make the YES case without leaning on a lot of nuance, which this kind of ad is usually very bad at conveying. I'm conflicted myself: I truly want fair districting, and Virginia had a good model, but it's been shown that "fair districting" simply doesn't work at the state level for federal districts... a challenging message to package simply (although I'm quite taken with "we didn't start this fight but now we have to finish it"). On the other hand, a friend of mine remarked that this advertising was the first time in memory that ads convinced them how to vote—seeing the scaremongering NO ad convinced them to vote YES. We'll see tonight, I guess.

Thanks to all of you for writing in! (Z)

Another Rebellion in the House

This story almost got by us, but the House has once again done an end run around Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). The nation of Haiti has been beset by problems for years, as a result of a devastating earthquake and nearly uncontrolled crime. So, the Obama administration granted Haitian refugees Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The first Trump administration extended that, as did the Biden administration.

It would seem that, this time around, someone in the White House (ahem, Stephen Miller?) noticed that Haitians are Black. So, sh**hole country. And thus, the administration said there would be no more extensions, since there are allegedly no longer "extraordinary and temporary conditions" in Haiti. In response, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) filed a bill by which Congress would extend TPS for Haitian refugees. Johnson refused to bring it to the floor, and so Pressley sought, and secured, the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition.

The bill came up for a vote last Thursday, and passed, 224-204, with 10 Republicans crossing the aisle to vote with all the Democrats. Here is a list of those 10 Republicans, along with the PVI of their districts:

Member	District	PVI
Don Bacon	NE-02	D+3
Mike Carey	OH-15	R+4
Brian Fitzpatrick	PA-01	D+1
Mario Díaz-Balart	FL-26	R+16
Carlos Giménez	FL-28	R+10
Mike Lawler	NY-17	D+1
Nicole Malliotakis	NY-11	R+10
Rich McCormick	GA-07	R+11
María Elvira Salazar	FL-27	R+6
Mike Turner	OH-10	R+3

In addition, Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who was until recently a Republican, and who still caucuses with the GOP, voted for the bill. His district, CA-03, is R+2.

There are some pretty obvious themes that run through this list of apostates. To start, a lot of them represent swingy districts. Don Bacon doesn't count here, because while his district IS swingy, he's retiring. So presumably, he just voted his conscience. Or, alternatively, he just voted for what would piss Donald Trump off. Anyhow, while we have to exclude Bacon, we also have to include Nicole Malliotakis. Though her district does not appear swingy, she has to prepare for a potential future where the courts allow the new district maps to be put in place, which would definitely make her district swingy.

Truth be told, we're not clear why the six Republican members (and the "independent") running for reelection in swingy districts would be concerned about Haitian immigrants, in particular, and (apparently) see it as an important issue for constituents. There was, of course, the whole Trump/Vance shtick from 2024 about Haitians eating cats and dogs. Perhaps these members fear that will come back to life, and it will not be well for them to appear hostile to Haitians. But that is just a guess.

The other theme that runs through the list is "south Florida." Díaz-Balart, Giménez and Salazar all represent districts in the farthest southern part of Florida. It's not too easy to confirm that their districts have some sizable number of Haitian residents/voters, but certainly, if someone fled Haiti for the U.S., south Florida is the first place they would reach. The census does not break populations down by nation of origin, but we did check and confirm that those districts all have a sizable number of Haitian restaurants. So too does GA-07, for that matter. That's at least indirect evidence of a meaningful population of Haitians.

The bill is likely to die in the Senate. And if it doesn't die there, it will be killed by Trump's veto pen. That said, all is not lost for the Haitian refugees. The initial decision to yank their protected status is before the federal courts right now, and so may be restored at the end of one or more judges' gavels.

But the real story here is that this is the eighth successful discharge petition this Congress, which is more than the previous 20 Congresses combined. It is also an act of rebellion, not only against Johnson, but against Trump. As the President's approval rating sinks, and as swing-district members get closer and closer to Election Day, will such acts of rebellion become even more common? It's well within the realm of possibility. (Z)

Legal Bytes: TrumpWatch

We have some legal news we want to get caught up on, mostly focusing on how Donald Trump and his Trumpettes are doing what they can to bend the legal system to their will.

Aileen Cannon, Meet Neomi Rao: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg can't catch a break. He's been trying to hold the Trump administration accountable for violating his March 2025 order to turn the planes around and return detainees headed to El Salvador, and he drew the worst possible panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals: Two Trump appointees who are among the most notorious MAGA acolytes on the judiciary, Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, have never seen a Trump action or order they didn't absolutely love.

Boasberg had initiated a contempt inquiry to hear witnesses and other evidence to learn if his court order was willfully violated. And Rao and Walker granted Trump the extraordinary remedy of shutting down the proceeding before it even started. Importantly, this isn't a ruling that a contempt charge is unfounded; this is an appeals court telling a district judge that he can't even investigate whether his order has been violated in the first place. Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented and said that the ruling, which relies on the figleaf of "national security," threatens the rule of law and the courts' ability to enforce their orders.

Our Take: The plaintiffs are likely to seek a rehearing by the entire court of appeals, known as an en banc hearing. When Rao and Walker shut Boasberg down the first time, the Court denied an en banc hearing, but this ruling is so off the rails and obviously partisan that the other judges will likely get involved at this point.

---

The Cruelty Is the Point: At the urging of a conservative advocacy group called the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Department of Education has said that it will no longer enforce the terms of several settlement agreements with colleges and school districts regarding their treatment of trans students. The Department now says that discrimination based on gender identity is not a violation of Title IX. In an agreement with Taft College in 2023, for example, the school agreed to revise its policies "to clarify that repeatedly refusing to use a student's preferred name and pronouns may constitute harassment based on sex, creating a hostile environment under Title IX." But not anymore, apparently. As Sydney Duncan of Advocates for Trans Equity put it, "[T]he department of education is sending a signal that your kid's safety, dignity and access to education are optional if they happen to be trans."

Our Take: The Supreme Court has held that sex discrimination includes gender identity and these colleges entered into these consent decrees and, by all accounts, were complying. In fact, one college said it would continue to abide by the settlement. So, there was no justification for this action other than this administration's continued targeting of the trans community, which is, itself, discriminatory.

---

Putting the Dic in Vindictive?: Donald Trump's quest for revenge against former CIA director John Brennan continues. The Department of Justice has been trying to build a criminal case against Brennan and the career prosecutor on the case, Marie Medetis Long, had the audacity to say they had no case, so she was immediately replaced. Now, another Trump personal attorney, Joseph DiGenova, is going to head up the investigation and make Brennan an offer he can't refuse. Oh, and it's being run out of the U.S. attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, and a former clerk for Aileen Cannon, Chris DeLorenz, has also been put on the case.

Our Take: They will no doubt try to bring criminal charges against Brennan for something, but it's likely to go about as far as the James Comey and Letitia James prosecutions. And that's true even if they get Aileen Cannon as the judge. But meanwhile, they're wasting huge amounts of resources harassing people to serve Trump's vindictive desires

---

In Counting There Is Strength: There has been a legal fight going on in Maricopa County, pitting crazypants Republicans (the Maricopa Board of Supervisors) versus a crazypants Republican (Justin Heap, the recorder for Maricopa County). Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled this week, and backed Heap. So, Heap will control the counting of the votes in Maricopa, unless the state Supreme Court steps in, which it may well do.

Our Take: Why can't the U.S. do what most other western democracies do, and place the running of elections in the hands of non-partisan career officials?

We will have Political Bytes tomorrow. (L & Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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