Minneapolis Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On, Part VIII

There was quite a bit of news on the Minnesota front yesterday. Let's run down the biggest developments, at least briefly:

• Omar Attacked: Yesterday, while Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) was holding a town hall, she was rushed by a man named Anthony James Kazmierczak, who tried to spray her in the face with some sort of chemical. The Representative was unhurt, and the would-be attacker was apprehended.
  
  Given that Donald Trump has constantly targeted Omar with vicious, often racist, rhetoric, one might say that he has some responsibility here. However, the President has a different explanation. He believes Omar is a "fraud" and that she paid Kazmierczak to spray her so as to engender sympathy. There's no problem that can't be solved with a nice conspiracy theory, we suppose. Did you ever notice, by the way, that when there is a right-wing protest (1/6, Kazmierczak), the protesters are actually paid actors? And when there is a left-wing protest (Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland), the protesters are... actually paid actors? The only difference is that George Soros pays for the faux left-wing protests, whereas it's not clear who's paying for the faux right-wing protests.
  
  Also, in a completely unrelated development, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) released its annual report on threats against members of Congress. The number of threats the USCP investigated last year was 14,938, meaning that the first year of Trump's presidency saw a 58% increase. Don't doubt that when some members choose not to rebel against Trump, the concern is not political, it's personal safety.
  
  
• Ecuadorian Consulate: It is possible that the feds are recalibrating in Minnesota, but they are still trying to use strong-arm tactics. Yesterday, ICE agents tried (and failed) to force their way into the Ecuadorian consulate in Minneapolis. We have no idea why Ecuador, the 70th most populous nation in the world, would need to have a consulate in Minneapolis, the United States' 46th largest city, but there must be a reason. In any event, for American officials to (try to) invade is a major no-no.
  
  
• Quid Pro Quo: We really should be giving more attention to this subplot, but this whole situation is very big and very complicated and there's only so much time in the day. That said, we have noted that the Department of "Justice" has been trying to extort Minnesota to hand over a copy of its voter rolls. This is a transparent attempt to: (1) try to kick as many voters off the lists as possible, in advance of the 2026 elections, and (2) try to hunt down alleged "fraudulent" immigrant voters and arrest them.
  
  Following the killing of Alex Pretti, "Attorney General" Pam Bondi told Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon (DFL) that he could end the "chaos" if he would just give up the information. This is a pretty clear admission that at least part of the reason that ICE is in Minnesota is blackmail, and that the officers are acting as the Trump administration's Schutzstaffel. Yesterday, Simon made clear that the attempt at extortion won't work, and the answer is still "no."
  
  
• No Kings 3: In response to recent events, specifically "a secret police force terrorizing American communities," the third No Kings action has been scheduled for Saturday, March 28. If readers would like to sign up for updates, they can do so here.
  
  
• Alex Pretti, Part I: Yesterday, various outlets reported that Alex Pretti had a previous confrontation with federal officers, about a week before the fatal one, in which he was tackled and had a rib broken. People who are toting the ICE water say this reveals that Pretti was an agitator who deliberately goaded law enforcement officers into violent action. In our view, this news reveals... nothing. We saw the videos, and no matter what Pretti did or did not do a week before he was killed, he did nothing on that day to justify the use of lethal force, much less the use of lethal force 10 times.
  
  
• Alex Pretti, Part II: On that note, CNN and the Associated Press unearthed yet another video of the shooting, one that has about 6 minutes of activity leading up to Pretti's death. It makes clear, yet again, that the scene was calm and that Pretti was just exercising his First Amendment rights to protest before federal law enforcement turned up the temperature and caused the chaos that ended in Pretti's death.
  
  
• The Sharks Are Turning on One Another, Part I: We presume that every single person reading this believes (surely correctly) that White House Senior Adviser Stephen Miller is one of the driving forces behind what's happening in Minnesota. Most important, though, is that Donald Trump believes it. And now that things have become a mess, well, the President is at least temporarily uninterested in any further advice from his right-hand demon. And so, as the administration was trying to figure out how to "fix things" in Minneapolis, Miller was frozen out, and not allowed to be a part of the conversation.
  
  Miller may be one of the most evil people in the country, but he's not stupid, and he can certainly tell which way the winds are blowing. And so, in contrast to his insta-response where he slurred Alex Pretti as a terrorist and an assassin, Miller has changed his tune. He said yesterday that this may be the fault of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and her department, and that agents might not have been following "proper protocol" when Pretti was shot to death.
  
  We have never really understood what Miller offers Trump, other than muscle, flattery and loyalty. Yes, Trump values those things a great deal. Still, if this mess continues to spin out of control, it's at least conceivable that Miller's head could roll. Not likely, but not impossible anymore.
  
  
• The Sharks Are Turning on One Another, Part II: There is no way that Miller's head rolls before Noem (aka his preferred scapegoat) gets guillotined. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer (the sharpest blade in the guillotine?), but she's got enough political smarts to realize that she might well be in a big game of hot potato right now, and she's at serious risk of being the one to get burned. So, at around the same time Miller was throwing her under the bus, she was throwing Miller under the bus, telling reporters that everything that her department has done was on the direct orders of Miller and Trump.
  
  Thus far, Noem is safe. On Monday evening she and Trump met for 2 hours. Hopefully she had some extra lip balm to help treat lips chapped from all the a**-kissing that went on. Following the meeting, Trump suggested he was happy with what he heard (before dozing off?) and said Noem is "doing a very good job."
  
  That might not be enough, though. Trump's feelings about a staffer can turn on a dime, especially when he thinks he can save himself by sacrificing them. Meanwhile, Noem may have become an anchor around his neck. Congressional Democrats are moving forward, with enthusiasm, with their plans to impeach her as soon as possible. If Noem stays on the job for the next 9 months, she will be wielded as a cudgel by the Democrats for the next 9 months. There are also Republicans who think she should be shown the door, among them Sens. Thom Tillis (NC) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Noem may soon become more trouble than she's worth.

We still have plenty more Minneapolis material to cover, but we're going to stop there for today. Another entry Friday. (Z)

Surprise! Corporate Interests Are in Bed with Trump

Fighting the good fight, when it comes to stopping politicians from taking bribes, is certainly worth it. But this story, which we thank reader L.K. in Los Angeles, CA, for bringing to our attention, shows why it's impossible to ever actually solve the problem. Grifters gonna grift, and if one pathway is shut down, they'll just find another.

The grift in question here is a documentary, specifically Melania, which chronicles the story of First Lady Melania Trump. It was produced and directed by Brett Ratner. Ratner was canceled in 2017 because he sexually harassed a bunch of actresses, and his work since has been exclusively Trump propaganda—he also produced the pro-Donald Trump documentary The Man You Don't Know a couple of years ago. Despite the fact that the first Trump film flopped, and that Melania Trump is barely a first lady, Amazon snatched up the distribution and streaming rights to Melania for a mere $40 million, with $28 million of that going directly to Melania Trump. This is the highest figure ever paid for a documentary.

So, why would Amazon pay so much? Hmmm... it's probably not to promote the artistry of Brett Ratner. And it's not likely because there is so much money to be made selling the film to viewers—it's already been released in the U.K., and it largely played to empty houses. And there are no reviews from U.S critics yet, because Amazon has embargoed the film prior to its general release (it will stream, and will be in over 2,000 theaters, on Friday). If you know anything about the movie business, "We don't want critics to see the film in advance" is never a good sign.

Since Amazon's interest in the film appears to have nothing to do with, you know, the movie business, there might be some other motivation at play here. For example, Amazon might be thinking about the fact that the Trump administration has the power to make life tough for Amazon in general, if it so chooses—say, by making it harder to build industrial-sized AI centers. Further, Jeff Bezos might be thinking about the fact that the administration also gets to decide how to dole out about $20 billion annually for space ventures. Bezos' other company, Blue Origin, would very much like some of that $20 billion. And if just, say, 10% of that $20 billion flows Bezos' way, then $40 million for a documentary is a bargain, even if it's a mega-flop.

The "premiere" for the film was held at the White House, and a whole bunch of corporate honchos were there to bow before the throne. Amazon was represented by CEO Andy Jassy. Apple's Tim Cook was there, too, since he knows that Trump will punish any perceived insult (specifically, by hitting the company with tariffs). And in case this government-business incest isn't bad enough, the premiere was held just hours after the killing of Alex Pretti. Basic decency would seem to demand that the event be canceled, or that the business bigwigs excuse themselves from attending. But everyone there is apparently pretty indecent. Or maybe they just really wanted to meet boxer (and convicted rapist) Mike Tyson, who was also in attendance.

And speaking of the mess in Minnesota, don't expect major corporate interests to push back against ICE anytime soon. Again, they all want to avoid ending up in the administration's crosshairs. And nearly all of them want to be in a position to lay claim to a chunk of government outlays. Further, some of them are actively profiting from ICE's efforts. For example, the database that ICE uses to find immigrants to target is hosted on... Amazon Web Services. Amazon also hosts DHS' Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology System, which collects biometric and facial recognition data on Americans—270 million of them.

Amazon is just one, very egregious, non-Elon Musk example. There are plenty of other big corporate interests that are 100% in bed with the Trump administration, like CBS, AT&T, Citizens Bank, Oracle, U-Line and others. The cozy relationship between Big Business and the federal government has been a basic fact of American history for generations. But when you end up with a president who is a world-class grifter? That's when things really begin to get out of control. (Z)

The Sports Report

There are many people out there, even today, who insist that politics has no place in the world of sports. These people are delusional. Politics and sports have intersected as long as there have been sports. Do these people not know, for example, who was responsible for staging Roman gladiatorial games? And why?

These days, the worlds of politics and sports collide even more frequently than in eras past, for at least two reasons. The first is that everything is more political these days. The second is that Donald Trump has a dream of making undocumented immigrants fight exotic animals to the death, so as to satisfy the bloodlust of the MAGA hordes. No, wait, that's not true. Or, at least, we don't have any evidence that it's true. Actually, the second reason is that Trump thinks sports in general are his key to connecting with the masses, and so he's been particularly aggressive about appropriating the world of sports for his own purposes.

There have been a couple of sports-related stories in the past few days worth addressing. To start, next weekend, the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots will travel to Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, to face off in the Super Bowl. In general, an opportunity to get some free face time as part of a broadcast that will reach hundreds of millions of people is something that Trump would not pass up. And yet, he says that he will take a pass this time: "It's just too far away... I would go if, you know, it was a little bit shorter."

This is a pretty flimsy excuse, even by Trump's standards. It's a 5.5-hour flight from D.C. to San Jose. Is that really all that different than the 4-hour flight to Denver, or the 3½ hour flight to Dallas? Especially when you have a bed, a TV, a telephone, and a desk at your disposal? In the interview where Trump said he would not be attending, he made clear what he's REALLY concerned with, declaring that he does not like to miss the game because "I've gotten great hands for the Super Bowl, they like me."

Of course, what would actually happen, given the recent disasters in Minnesota, not to mention the Greenland fiasco, the Venezuela mess, and the state of the economy, is that Trump would be booed lustily. Hundreds of millions of people would see and hear it, and it would also be replayed endlessly on local news, podcasts, post-Super Bowl editions of sports-centered shows, etc. Trump's presence would also give halftime performer Bad Bunny an opportunity (if he wants it) to embarrass the President. This suggests strongly that Trump has an awareness of how unpopular he is at the moment, even if he pretends otherwise. It is also possible, as a secondary explanation, that Trump is avoiding airplane flights because his health is shaky.

The other sports story is the World Cup, and the potential threat that European nations might boycott in response to Trump's economic and military imperialism. We already wrote about this, but we thought we should share some comments from one of our British correspondents, A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK:

Take it from this World Cup fan... the possibility of European nations boycotting the 2026 World Cup as retaliation for tariffs, as suggested on Monday, is almost certainly a non-starter. There's been some idle speculation on this side of the Atlantic, and a bit of political posturing, but it's not a serious proposition.

The history of the World Cup is littered with tournaments taking place in unsavory regimes, and the event taking place regardless. The second tournament in 1934 was in fascist Italy, and Mussolini overtly used the event to promote the 'success' of fascism; that Italy then won was seen to help the fascist cause. The 1942 Cup didn't take place due to the war, but the canceled tournament had previously been awarded to Germany back in 1936, which was perhaps a bit tone deaf under the circumstances. The 1978 tournament was in Argentina, and went ahead with full European participation, despite the 1976 military coup installing a murderous right-wing military government in Buenos Aires (though Dutch superstar Johann Cruyff did take a personal stand and refused to make the trip to represent the Netherlands). While 1982 took place in a newly democratic Spain, the tournament had been awarded to the country in 1966, when it was still under the control of Francisco Franco; no one at the time could have imagined a democratic transformation taking place in the country in time for the 1982 tournament. In 2018, it was in Russia, 4 years after the conflict in Ukraine erupted (with the latter largely limited to the Donbas from 2014 to 2022), and well after it had become clear that Putin's government had taken an increasingly authoritarian turn. The 2022 Cup was in Qatar, which I doubt many would hold up as a beacon of human rights and democracy. And 2034 will be in Saudi Arabia, after some overt manipulation of the host voting process by FIFA head and Friend of Trump Gianni Infantino to ensure the Saudis would end up as hosts.

Through all of that, European teams have continued to show up, prioritizing participation in one of the two (alongside the Summer Olympics) great international sporting calendar set pieces. Individual players have occasionally taken a stand, but not nations or continental confederations. At least not on the basis of politics; what boycotts have taken place have tended to be over logistics. Uruguay and Argentina boycotted 1938 in protest at the tournament taking place in Europe for the second time in a row. Africa boycotted the 1966 World Cup to protest that Africa, Asia and Oceania would all have to compete for a single qualifying spot between them for the 16-team tournament. Israel was routinely boycotted by Arab nations (and North Korea) in tournament qualifying through the early 1970s, which was ultimately solved by moving Israel to the European confederation after they were expelled by the Asian counterpart. With the exception of the refusal to play Israel in qualification, none of these were political boycotts, and the boycott of Israel impacted qualification, not a willingness to play in the host country, no matter how unsavory the latter. It's also perhaps worth remembering that the only European nations to follow the U.S.-led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics were West Germany, Norway, mighty Monaco, and, erm, Albania; and somehow I suspect the Albanian boycott was more inspired by doctrinaire disagreements over Marxism by Enver Hoxha's regime rather than staunch support for the United States. So we have form in ignoring politics when it comes to both the Olympics and the World Cup.

The calculus here would likely change if the United States were to take Greenland by force—and I still can't quite believe that I have to consider the latter as credible scenario—thereby collapsing NATO. Then I can see a boycott. But if it's just a matter of such relatively minor (sarcasm) issues as tariffs, federal law enforcement officers murdering U.S. citizens in cold blood in public in Midwest cities, attempts to manipulate elections to the national legislature, the insanely expensive tickets to see the matches, and other assorted trivialities, then we'll turn up. We've always turned up in the past, after all, no matter how awful the hosts. And you try convincing Scots not to turn up when Scotland has qualified for its first tournament since 1998; good luck with that one.

A British soccer fan surely knows the dynamics here better than we do, so we're glad to have A.B.'s insight. With that said, we will point out something we've pointed out before: The tournament is scheduled to take place in three nations, with Mexico and Canada joining the U.S. It is certainly possible that FIFA could just move the American matches to the other two nations, which would allow them to boycott the U.S. without actually canceling the event. That strikes us as more plausible than a wide boycott, or a complete cancellation. (Z)

Bad News for Democrats in Virginia...

The gods of redistricting giveth, and the gods of redistricting taketh away. Just days after the Democrats got pretty good news out of New York on that front (the district of Republican Nicole Malliotakis is about to get much swingier), they got bad news out of Virginia, as a judge put a stop to plans to redraw the state's maps.

Virginia state law makes it pretty hard to re-draw district maps, beyond the one time per decade required by the Constitution. This is because redrawing maps mid-decade is invariably very partisan, and perhaps a little sleazy (or, perhaps a LOT sleazy). Specifically, if it is going to happen in the Old Dominion State, two consecutive legislative sessions have to sign off. The Democrats wangled approval #1 during a special session last October, and then passed approval #2 earlier this month. At that point, Democrats across the land started daydreaming about the roughly three seats they expected to acquire via more aggressive gerrymandering.

The daydreams are over, at least for now. Yesterday, Tazewell County circuit court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled that the Democrats did not follow the correct procedures for adopting a new district map. He raised several problems in his ruling, but the biggest one was that by the time Democrats voted for the change last October, early voting in Virginia had already begun. What the statute actually says is that map changes have to be approved both before and after any one election. And since the legislature did not vote until October, the "before" part of that was not fulfilled.

Virginia Democrats say they will appeal the decision, and we have no doubt they will, because why not give it a try? But Hurley is a seasoned jurist, and his ruling is both clear and thorough. We are not exactly experts on the finer points of Virginia election law, but it looks very much like the blue team blew it here. They can change the maps for 2028, if they want to, but they're probably out of luck for 2026. (Z)

...But Good News in Florida?

At this point, anyone who reads this site can probably name the list of seats that will determine control of the next Senate. To flip the upper chamber, the Democrats have to hold on to the seats in Georgia (Jon Ossoff), and in Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire (all of them open). Then, they will pretty much have to claim the GOP-held seats in North Carolina (open) and Maine (Susan Collins). And finally, they will need upsets in at least two of Texas (John Cornyn, but could end up open), Ohio (Jon Husted), Louisiana (Bill Cassidy, but could end up open), Alaska (Dan Sullivan), Nebraska (Pete Ricketts) and Iowa (open). (As a sidebar, Dan Osborn in Nebraska says he will join no caucus, but a win for him would still work as one of the two, because that would leave the Senate caucuses at 50 D/I, 49 R, 1 I, thus depriving J.D. Vance of his tiebreaker vote.)

The state of Florida could theoretically appear in the previous paragraph, for a couple of reasons. The first is that the incumbent, Sen. Ashley Moody (R), is appointed, and appointed senators have a mixed record when it comes to getting reelected. The second is that there is still some reason to think of Florida as purple; in the last four U.S. Senate elections where Donald Trump was not also on the ballot, the Republican candidate got 58% of the vote (2022), 50% of the vote (2018), 42% of the vote (2012) and 49% of the vote (2010). That works out to one big win, one big loss, one razor-thin win (0.12% in 2018) and one where it's hard to say (2010) because the non-GOP vote was split almost evenly between two other candidates. The third reason for some small measure of Democratic hope is that Moody is not Cuban, and the success of Marco Rubio (who is responsible for the one big non-Trump-year win in 2018) was powered substantially by Cuban voters engaging in identity politics. And the fourth reason is that some parts of Trumpism, particularly the ICE stuff, are not playing well in the Sunshine State.

The problem, as we have written a million times, is you can't beat someone with no one. And thus far, the Democrats basically had no one. Yes, there were a few folks who had jumped in, and a few more who had filed some paperwork, but nobody likely to get voters excited, and nobody with wide name recognition. In fact, there is only one candidate who has raised more than $200,000. That would be teacher and former House candidate Josh Weil, whose $14 million take dwarfed all comers. But he withdrew from the race, citing health issues.

As of yesterday, however, the Democrats may have someone, as Alexander Vindman has jumped into the race. He is, of course, a retired lieutenant colonel and a veteran of the Iraq War, as well as the brother of Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA). Most importantly, he was a whistleblower in the Trump-Ukraine scandal (when Trump tried to extort Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and a key witness during the first Trump impeachment.

The Democrats have tried various approaches to Senate races in the past 20 years. A Black Democrat, who will get minority voters to the polls! A centrist Democrat who used to be governor! A woman who has won elections in a swing district! Needless to say, none of these candidates was able to crack the code. We are skeptical that "military veteran" matters all that much these days, though it may help a little. However, if Florida voters are looking to poke Trump in the eye, what better way than voting for one of his nemeses?

If you would like to see Vindman's launch video, here it is:

It's not bad, though he's not a particularly dynamic speaker. At the moment, we'd probably rate Florida as something like the 8th most likely state to see its Senate seat flip in 2026. That's not that high on the list, but 48 hours ago, we would have had it more like 15th. (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