THERE ARE LEGAL SCHOLARS WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE TRUMP COULD SERVE A THIRD TERM

I don't really know why this happened over the weekend:

President Trump did not rule out seeking a third term in office on Sunday, telling NBC News that he was “not joking” about the possibility and suggesting there were “methods” to circumvent the two-term limit laid out in the Constitution.

It's easy to imagine that Trump said this knowing that it would push Signalgate out of the headlines (although coverage of that scandal is fading, and Trump's impending tariffs will be the top Washington story very soon). But I should note that it was Trump's interviewer, Kristen Welker, who brought the subject up, although perhaps she did so because people in Trumpworld, particularly Steve Bannon, urged her to ask about the idea so it would garner headlines.

KRISTEN WELKER: So, when you're jo – I know you're joking about this, but I've been talking to a lot of your allies. They say they're very serious. You know, I talked to Steve Bannon on the record, quite frankly. So, I can just tell you. I mean, he says he's, you know, really seriously looking at potential plans that would allow you to serve a third term.

Trump, of course, couldn't back down -- backing down, in his eyes, would make him look weak, the worst possible sin in his world. But Welker seems more excited to talk about the idea than Trump.

KRISTEN WELKER: So, but I don't hear you ruling – like, in a very serious way, do you rule that out? Are you like, I can't serve a third term, it's unconstitutional? What's your thinking around it?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people want me to do it. But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I’m focused on the current.

And, a bit later:

KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. So, but, but, sir, I'm hearing – you don't sound like you're joking. I've heard you joke about this a number of times.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: No, no I'm not joking. I’m not joking –

KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah. Yeah.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: But, I'm not – it is far too early to think about it.

If I'm guessing right, Bannon planted the thought in Welker's head, and she ran with it. She thought it would be great television. The news-making headlines would be good for NBC and good for her. Bannon saw it as an epic troll and a great distraction.

And I'm guessing that Bannon, or someone else in Trumpworld, fed Welker this scenario:

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Well, there are plans. There are – not plans. There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know.

KRISTEN WELKER: Basic– Well, let me throw out one where President Vance would run for office and then would, basically, if, if you – if he won, at the top of the ticket, would then pass the baton to you.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Well, that's one. But there are others too. There are others.

You might assume that this is plainly unconstitutional. Most constitutional scholars would agree. But there are dissenters.

In 1999, Bruce G. Peabody and Scott E. Gant published a paper in the Minnesota Law Review titled "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment." Their conclusion:

Our analysis leads us to the belief that the Twenty-Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole leave open possibilities for a twice-elected President to resume that Office.... For instance, we have suggested that a President nearing the end of his or her second term and determined to stay in office might run as Vice President with the idea that the President-elect would step aside, allowing the already twice-elected President (and Vice President-elect) to serve a third term without running afoul of the Twenty-Second Amendment's bar on reelection.

The key phrase here is "bar on reelection." The 22nd Amendment doesn't say a president can't serve three terms. It says:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

(Emphasis added.)

The 12th Amendment describes the process by which the electors of the Electoral College are supposed to vote for president and vice president. It was written at a time when electors weren't expected to merely ratify the results of the popular vote in their respective states. It says in part:

... no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Peabody and Gant's argument is that the 22nd Amendment prevents a twice-elected president from being elected to a third term, but doesn't prevent a twice-elected president from being president again. In order to determine who's eligible to be president, we have to look at Article II of the Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In "Two-Time Presidents and the Vice-Presidency," a 2015 paper published in the Boston College Law Review, Dan T. Coenen writes:

... the Article II clause imposes no term limit of any sort on presidential service. Instead, it requires only that a President be (1) a natural-born citizen, (2) at least thirty-five years of age, and (3) a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. Because twice-before-elected Presidents (such as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton) continue to meet each of these three (and only three) textually specified eligibility requirements, such persons are—according to proponents of the they-can-run position—not “ineligible” to be President for purposes of the Twelfth Amendment. Therefore, they remain “eligible” to seek and to hold the vice-presidency.

His belief?

Some analysts have argued that the Constitution forecloses the possibility that a twice-before-elected President can hold (or at least secure election to) the vice-presidential office. However, the text and history of the relevant constitutional provisions point to the opposite conclusion: A twice-before-elected President may become Vice-President, either through appointment or through election, and thereafter succeed from that office to the presidency for the full remainder of the pending term.

As I've said before, in reference to Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, it doesn't matter whether the vast majority of legal scholars hold one view of what the Constitution says on a particular subject -- if the right-wing mafia wants a different outcome, and if there's any scholarship whatsoever supporting that outcome, our Federalist Society courts will feel free to go with what the activist right wants. Or the courts will just make stuff up on the spot.

I'm not sure we'll even have elections in 2028 -- it seems quite possible that by then we'll be under martial law and elections will be suspended. But if we still have them -- real ones, or (more likely) Orbanesque ones that Democrats aren't permitted to win -- and if Trump is alive and determined to stay in office, I find it hard to imagine that he'll go to the Supreme Court and, in effect, ask permission to run again. That's not his style. Either he'll just run, daring fellow Republicans to challenge him and daring opponents to try to keep him off the ballot, or he'll tell his cultists to vote in the primaries for slates of "uncommitted" conventional delegates who are actually pledged to him. Then in the general election he'll tell them to back a placeholder candidate who pledges to put him back in office. (I don't think he'll trust J.D. Vance for this. I think the ticket will include loyal family members like Lara Trump and Donald Trump Jr.)

All of this assumes that he's alive and more or less functional, and that he hasn't alienated vast swaths of the country by destroying the economy, enshittifying or eliminating social services, and starting batshit-crazy imperialist wars.

I think Trump might want to be president for life because that would be a guarantee that he'll never go to prison, and because the power trip of being a dictator is life-giving to him. But maybe America will be angry enough by then to make this impossible.

HEY, GAVIN: IF THE DEMOCRATIC BRAND IS SO TOXIC, WHY ARE REPUBLICANS RUNNING SCARED IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS?

This weekend, Gavin Newsom was on Bill Maher's show doing the Democrat-bashing act that the media loves:

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said on Friday that the Democratic brand was “toxic” and that his party had to admit its own mistakes, delivering tough love as Democrats struggle in their fight against the Trump administration....

“The Democratic brand is toxic right now,” he said, pointing to a recent NBC News poll that showed Democrats with a 27 percent favorability rating, the lowest in at least a generation.

The epsode aired on Friday. Three days earlier, this happened:

Democrat James Andrew Malone narrowly won a special election for a Pennsylvania state Senate seat in Republican-leaning suburbs and farming communities, scoring an upset in a district that a Democrat hasn’t represented in the chamber for 136 years.

A day earlier, this happened:

President Trump on Thursday said he had asked Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, to stay in Congress rather than serve as ambassador to the United Nations, amid concern about the minuscule voting margin that Republicans hold in the House....

It ... highlighted concerns among Mr. Trump and leading members of his party about their ability to win what should be safe Republican seats in districts like Ms. Stefanik’s solidly red region of upstate New York.

And now there's this:

Republicans nationwide are turning their eyes and focus to Florida’s 6th Congressional District’s special election, occurring Tuesday, where Republican Randy Fine seeks to prevent an upset victory by Democrat Joshua Weil.

Axios reported a poll from Donald Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, showing Fine losing to Weil by three percentage points, despite the district being ruby red. Such a result would be a shock.

The 6th District was held by now-Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who won the seat in 2024 by 33 points.

Republicans will probably win this race -- they lead in the early vote now. They might be trying to lower expectations so they can say they overperformed if their candidate wins. But as noted above, the GOP won this seat by 33 points in November, and Donald Trump won the district by 30 points. Any victory margin that's significantly short of that is a sign of Republican weakness.

I regularly criticize Democrats. I would have given the party an unfavorable rating if I'd been asked by NBC's pollsters. But I vote Democratic. I give money to Democratic candidates. I've volunteered for Democratic campaigns. My criticisms are different from Newsom's (and those of Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and John Fetterman) -- I think too many Democrats, especially in leadership, are afraid to assert that the party supports a large number of very popular policies, and are afraid to attack the Republican Party for opposing those policies (and, now, for seeking to destroy a great deal of what's good in America). I think there are many, many voters who are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party -- or at least its leadership -- but who also know we'd be better off with Democrats in charge.

When reporters quote Newsom, why don't they express any skepticism about the Democrats' toxicity? They see the Malone victory. They see how special elections are scaring the GOP. They see the angry crowds at congressional town halls. They see the massive crowds at rallies headlined by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a Democrat) and Bernie Sanders (an independent who caucuses with Democrats and who's run for president as a Democrat twice). They see Donald Trump's weak poll numbers, especially on issues.

On Maher's show, Newsom said that Democrats are censorious:

“Democrats, we tend to be a little more judgmental than we should be,” the Democratic governor told host Bill Maher. “This notion of cancel culture... You’ve been living it, you’ve been on the receiving end of it for years and years and years. That’s real.”

“Democrats need to own up to that,” he said. “They’ve got to mature.”

Newsom accuses Democrats of practicing cancel culture, citing Maher, who's had his current successful HBO show for 22 uninterrupted years (and whose previous show was taken off the air after he angered Republicans). Meanwhile, under a Republican president, masked men can arrest and deport you for writing an op-ed, or attempt to deport you because you're a scientist who neglected to declare frog embryos while going through customs, as a cover-up for the real reason, which is that you criticized Russia's war in Ukraine. Can the press put all this Democrat-bashing talk about "cancel culture" in perspective, please?

Newsom also said that Democrats are condescending:

“We talk down to people,” he said. “We talk past people.”

Which of the follow do you think is more likely to talk down to people: Gavin Newsom ...

... or James Malone, who won that Pennsylvania race?

Stop treating these Democrat-bashing Democrats as if they're uttering objective truths. They aren't.

THE TRUMP INSIDER BACKSTABBING BEGINS

A day after The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that he'd been included in a group chat discussing plans for a bomb attack on Houthi targets in Yemen, The New York Times published a story under the headline "Inside Pete Hegseth’s Rocky First Months at the Pentagon." I was puzzled by this story, because none of the apparent rockiness seemed particularly rocky by the standards of Donald Trump:

Even before [Hegseth] disclosed secret battle plans for Yemen in a group chat, information that could have endangered American fighter pilots, it had been a rocky two months for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guard infantryman and Fox News weekend host, started his job at the Pentagon determined to out-Trump President Trump, Defense Department officials and aides said.

The president is skeptical about the value of NATO and European alliances, so the Pentagon under Mr. Hegseth considered plans in which the United States would give up its command role overseeing NATO troops. After Mr. Trump issued executive orders targeting transgender people, Mr. Hegseth ordered a ban on transgender troops.

Maybe Hegseth was jumping the gun a bit, but it's hard to see why any of this would have displeased Trump.

Mr. Trump has embraced Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla. The Pentagon planned a sensitive briefing to give Mr. Musk a firsthand look at how the military would fight a war with China, a potentially valuable step for any businessman with interests there....

The president made clear last Friday that he had been caught by surprise by a report in The New York Times on the Pentagon’s briefing for Mr. Musk, who oversees an effort to shrink the government, but also denied that the meeting had been planned.

“I don’t want to show that to anybody, but certainly you wouldn’t show it to a businessman who is helping us so much,” Mr. Trump said.

Trump seemed to think this was a bad idea, or maybe he was just embarrassed that the story leaked, but he didn't seem particularly angry.

Remember, Hegseth doesn't have to do a good job. He just has to do a good job by Trump's standards. Even after the China story broke, it didn't seem as if Trump was displeased with Hegseth.

But then another story appeared at CNN, under the headline "Concerns About Hegseth’s Judgment Come Roaring Back After Group Chat Scandal."

Interviews with multiple current and former national security officials this week, including career military and civilian officials, reflect growing concerns about Hegseth’s leadership at the Pentagon....

So far, several high-profile initiatives spearheaded by Hegseth inside DoD since he was confirmed in January— including several related to the southern border mission and a purge of “DEI” content—have either been scaled back or rescinded as he has rushed to implement changes demanded by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

This again?

The current and former officials said the rocky start underscores both Hegseth’s inexperience and his freewheeling approach to leadership. Many of his orders are verbal and based on gut instinct rather than a deliberative, multi-layered process, people familiar with his methods said.

“He’s a TV personality,” one of the sources said. “[A general officer] makes a recommendation, and he’s like, ‘Yeah, yeah, go do it.’ [Former Defense Secretary] Lloyd Austin would never be like, ‘Yeah, yeah, go do it.’ He’d be like, ‘We’ll take it under consideration.’”

He does things based on gut instinct rather than deliberation? He doesn't do things the way they were done by Lloyd Austin, a black man appointed by Joe Biden? And that's supposed to be bad in Trump's eyes?

What we're supposed to take away from this story is that Hegseth is on thin ice. What I took away from the story is that "current and former national security officials" want Hegseth to be on thin ice.

Then yesterday we had this Wall Street Journal story (free to read here):

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is facing scrutiny over his handling of details of a military strike, brought his wife, a former Fox News producer, to two meetings with foreign military counterparts where sensitive information was discussed, according to multiple people who were present or had knowledge of the discussions.

One of the meetings, a high-level discussion at the Pentagon on March 6 between Hegseth and U.K. Secretary of Defense John Healey, took place at a sensitive moment for the trans-Atlantic alliance, one day after the U.S. said it had cut off military intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The group that met at the Pentagon....

Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer Hegseth, isn’t a Defense Department employee, defense officials said....

Jennifer Hegseth also attended a meeting last month at North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in Brussels where allied defense officials discussed their support for Ukraine, according to two people who attended the meeting.

And also this AP story:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s younger brother is serving in a key position inside the Pentagon as a Department of Homeland Security liaison and senior adviser, Hegseth’s office confirmed.

The high-profile job has meant meetings with a UFC fighting champion, a trip to Guantanamo Bay and, right now, traveling on the Pentagon’s 747 aircraft as Hegseth makes his first trip as defense secretary to the Indo-Pacific.

Hegseth's haters are clearly calling reporters (or maybe messaging them on Signal) and unloading a lot of grievances. I don't think it will work, at least for now, because Hegseth's presence takes Trump back to his happy place (sitting in front of a TV tuned to Fox News), and because Trump is determined not to admit any error in Signalgate (or Whiskeyleaks or whatever we're calling it), because he's following the Roy Cohn "Never apologize, never explain, go on offense" strategy that, unfortunately for us, has worked for him all his life.

But this tells me that the Trump/Project 2025 strategy of replacing as many people as possible with loyalist ideologues still leaves quite a few government employees who are willing to stab key Trump subordinates in the back, in some cases because their loyalty to Trump doesn't mean they're loyal to one another, and in other cases because the employees aren't loyalists -- apparently you can't purge every non-MAGA person in the federal government. Which means that there's a possibility that the Trump administration can be seriously weakened by infighting, if not now, then sooner or later.

So keep on backstabbing, folks. Eventually you might score some important kills.

KRISTI NOEM'S PRISON PHOTO OP WAS "SADDAM = BIN LADEN" 2.0

It's obvious that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's visit to El Salvador's brutal Cecot prison was part of the the Trump administration's effort to keep pumping out images of performative machismo in order to appeal to Trump's multi-ethnic, multi-generational coalition of male voters (a "badass" woman in skintight clothing is a familiar trope in male-coded popular culture):

The Trumpers know what boys like.

But there's more going on here, and it's not just that the administration wanted to change the subject from Signalgate. The Trumpers know how many stories have appeared challenging the notion that the immigrants who were rounded up and shipped to El Salvador a couple of weeks ago are all gang members. We know they were gang members because they had gang tattoos is a narrative they fear is falling apart.

NEW: @MotherJones reports that one of the men renditioned to El Salvador is Neri Alvarado, who was working in Dallas as a baker. An ICE agent told him they were questioning all men with tattoos.

Neri has an AUTISM AWARENESS TATTOO in honor of his 15-year-old brother with autism. pic.twitter.com/eufotQrax2

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) March 26, 2025

So they posed Noem in front of shirtless men whose tattoos sure look like gang tattoos.

But we know from news reports that there are 10,000 to 20,000 prisoners at Cecot, and only 261 of them were sent there by the Trump administration. We also know from news reports that this prison held gang members long before Trump was inaugurated again. Here's a CNN report from last November:



So there's no reason to believe that the men in the photo op include any of Trump's 261 detainees. But the administration wants to send the message that they're the same men, and counter the message that men who were rounded up had innocuous tattoos, but without saying that the men posed behind Noem are Trump's detainees.

This is a propaganda approach that should be familiar to anyone who lived through the early 2000s. The Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, and wanted Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attack, but no one in the administration actually said in so many words that Saddam was the culprit. The link was always implied rather than stated, but it was implied incessantly:

From September 12, 2002, to May 2003, the subjects of terrorism and Iraq were intertwined on a regular basis. Of the 13 speeches given [by President George W. Bush] in this period, 12 referenced terror and Iraq in the same paragraph and 10 placed them within the same sentence. In 4 speeches, a discussion of terrorism preceded the first mention of Iraq, giving the impression that Iraq was a logical extension of the terrorism discussion....

Another notable construction in Bush’s speeches is the juxtaposition of Iraq/Saddam Hussein with September 11.... Seven of 13 speeches from September 2002 to May 2003, place September 11 and Iraq in the same paragraph, while four speeches place them in the same sentence. Three times in this period, Bush speeches proposed a hypothetical situation in which the September 11 hijackers were armed with WMD provided by the Iraqi government.

Noem and the Republican Party's principal communications outlet, Fox News, sent the message that the tattooed men behind Noem were the men the administration had rounded up without ever saying so explicitly.

Here's what viewers saw on Fox before the photo op took place:



The words at the beginning of this clip:

All right, it's happening today: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will step foot in the El Salvador megaprison where the "worst of the worst" was deported from the U.S. two weekends ago, and they're being held at this hour.

After she arrived and did the photo op, Fox reported:

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem toured El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center on Wednesday, where hundreds of alleged criminal illegal aliens are being held after the Trump administration deported them earlier this month....

Video of the tour showed Noem coming face to face with alleged members of Tren de Aragua, all of whom were shirtless and had shaved heads, while also donning white prison pants.

We'd watched the shaving of the Trump detainees' heads in mid-March, and they were wearing white uniforms, so Fox in this report Fox was connecting the tattooed men in the Noem photo op to the Trump detention without doing so explicitly.

Noem made a Tiktok-style vertical video:

She said:

I'm here at Cecot today visiting this facility, and, first of all, I want to thank El Salvador and their president for their partnership with the United States of America to bring our terrorists here and to incarcerate them and have consequences for the violence that they have perpetuated in our communities. I also want everybody to know, if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face. First of all, do not come to our country illegally. You will be removed and you will be prosecuted. But know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people.

In this video, she never says that the men in tattoos who were posed behind her include any of the 261 people who were detained in America and renditioned to El Salvador. She doesn't have to. She calls them "terrorists," echoing Trump's executive order declaring Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization. She makes the link by implication.

So this meeting in February seems appropriate:



As the kids say, game recognizes game.

THEY'RE COVERING SIGNALGATE BECAUSE THEIR INSTINCTS TELL THEM THEY SHOULD, AND THEY'LL STOP SOON FOR THE SAME REASON

I've been wondering why the Signal chat scandal broke through in the media when so many other scandals linked to Donald Trump don't. Then I watched a clip of a Chris Matthews appearance on Morning Joe yesterday and it all made sense:

Chris Matthews declared the White House attack plans leak story has moved from “blunder” to “cover up” after the full texts chain including defense officials was published by Jeffrey Goldberg on Wednesday....

Matthews said:

I believe this story moved from blunder, which it was the last few days, to cover up, and the cover up began almost immediately. We saw the president after coming out of his meeting. We saw last night on Laura Ingraham’s show where Mike Waltz tried to defend himself. She was very good at pushing him and pushing him pretty well, I thought, and have to tell you she’s going to go further tonight after this information. This is classified information. It’s strike zone. It’s about an attack by the United States on the Houthis, a warfront that hadn’t gotten much attention before in this country, but it has now.

Matthews recalled his own time working as a speechwriter for late President Jimmy Carter and how national security information would flow and be protected. The former MSNBC host suggested there is more to Goldberg’s number being attached to the call than we know thus far.

He said:

There’s two stories. What was Jeffrey Goldberg’s phone number doing in the office of Mike Waltz? Why did they have the phone number? Nobody’s asked this question. What, are they hanging out together? Do they talk occasionally? How come they had the number and how could it find itself into this call list of people? How did that happen? By accident? Accident?! There is no accident here. This happened because somebody did it.

Matthews worked in the Carter House during the Cold War. He addressed these remarks to a former Republican congressman who was elected in the late twentieth century, and to the daughter of Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.

This story broke through because, on foreign policy, the media still has a twentieth-century mindset. For media figures with this mindset, America is the leader of the Free World and the national security apparatus must be protected at all costs.

In this century, that's led the media to make horrible judgments -- cheerleading the Iraq War, for instance -- but this week it means that Signalgate is the most damaging story the second Trump administration has faced, even though it's far from the worst thing the administration has done.

*****

The media's knee-jerk habits made this a serious scandal, which is good, but it's likely that other knee-jerk media tendencies will end the scandal prematurely. Here's Politico Playbook this morning:

... to be clear: There is no administration in the world — beyond this one — where a blunder of these proportions happens and nobody gets fired or resigns. Not in London. Not in Moscow. Not in Tokyo. Not in Pyongyang. Nowhere....

But whatever: Trump’s America is a rare beast indeed, and it is absolutely in the president’s gift to let this pass. The president clearly loves his top team and has his own media echo chamber to help out if he decides it’s all a “hoax.” (Sample chyron on last night’s Fox News: “DEMOCRATS ARE OVERPLAYING THE SIGNAL LEAK.”) Plus — the Houthi mission was indeed a success. U.S. military lives were not lost. And the rest of the media can’t write about this gaffe forever.

Wow. There it is: the media can’t write about this gaffe forever. After less than 72 hours!

The media wrote about Benghazi forever. The media wrote about Hillary Clinton and emails forever. But on this subject, the media is apparently getting restless already.

This is another instinct: to restore the media's preferred level of stasis and equilibrium, where Republicans are on top and the GOP gets away with even its most appalling deeds, while Democrats are the Big Fat Loser party that all normal people hate, although it somehow occasionally wins an election or two.

One set of media instincts made Signalgate a scandal, but this instinct will probably make it a non-story by next week at the latest.

WHITE HOUSE SPIN: PLANS TO KILL PEOPLE AND DESTROY TARGETS WITH BOMBS ARE TOTALLY NOT "WAR PLANS" (updated)

Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic have now pubished the complete Trump administration Signal discussion of the March 15 bombing attack on Houthi targets in Yemen. Goldberg decided to publish this because representatives of the administration insisted on several occasions that nothing in the chat was classified.

On Monday, shortly after we published a story about a massive Trump-administration security breach, a reporter asked the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, why he had shared plans about a forthcoming attack on Yemen on the Signal messaging app. He answered, “Nobody was texting war plans. And that’s all I have to say about that.”

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, were both asked about the Signal chat, to which Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently invited by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. “There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal group,” Gabbard told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ratcliffe said much the same: “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.”

President Donald Trump, asked yesterday afternoon about the same matter, said, “It wasn’t classified information.”

It won't surprise me if the administration now does a 180 and proclaims that Goldberg and The Atlantic leaked secret information and should be prosecuted for that. It won't surprise me if Goldberg actually is prosecuted.

But for now, the White House and its allies are taking a familiar approach to the scandal.

Remember when the Mueller Report was completed and Trump began reciting, like a mantra, one particular two-word phrase -- "no collusion"? Mueller made clear in the report that he did not examine the question of collusion because "collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law." He said his report established that there were multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that Russia sought a Trump victory while the Trump campaign sought Russia's help in the campaign. But the report didn't say there was collusion, in so many words, so Trump repeated (and still repeats) the phrase "no collusion" as often as possible. He's used it 181 times on social media and dozens of times in speeches and interviews.

The key idea Trumpers want us to have in the current scandal is: no war plans.

You see, the headline of the original Goldberg story was "The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans." The headline of the new story is "Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal." The current message from the White House and its propagandists is: Lying LIE-berals said these were "war plans" and now admit they were merely "attack plans."

No, really, that's their big gotcha.

The Atlantic has conceded: these were NOT “war plans.”

This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin. pic.twitter.com/atGrDd2ymr

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) March 26, 2025

So part of the headline at the Washington Examiner is "White House Pushes Back on ‘War Plans’ Claims." Townhall goes with "Did You Notice What Vanished From The Atlantic's Narrative About the Hegseth Signal Story?"

The Atlantic felt their story was dying. The Trump administration said no classified war plans were discussed in the Signal chat story that’s captured the hyper-regional confines of liberal America. It looks like a nothing burger vis-à-vis a severe breach in classified information....

The hook was that classified war plans were discussed, and [CIA director John] Ratcliffe shot down a claim. There was nothing classified, Jeff, so release the texts. At first, he decided not to do it, simply claiming his detractors were wrong—a typical response when fake news is knowingly peddled.

So, The Atlantic opted to publish the text they felt was classified, though it wasn’t, and two things were clear: these aren’t war plans, and that narrative has conspicuously vanished....

LOL... these are not war plans. https://t.co/oZ3cAbrdtk

— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) March 26, 2025

They look like war plans to me, but I'm just a lying LIE-beral, so what do I know?

The most breathless version of this spin -- and probably the one that comes clsest to what the White House wants to see from everyone on the GOP side -- is from Gateway Pundit:

... Jeffrey Goldberg, the leftist anti-Trump editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, claimed without evidence that he was “accidentally” added to a secure Signal group chat by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz where top Trump administration officials discussed sensitive military operations against Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen and called them “war plans.”

... Team Trump angrily fired back and called Goldberg a liar, saying no war plans were discussed. Now, Goldberg and his co-worker Shane Harris have published details of the military plans against the Houthis to call Team Trump’s bluff and humiliate Trump.

... astute TGP readers will note that Goldberg called these details “war plans” to ensure maximum media coverage. He wanted readers to believe he had obtained top-secret military information and was doing the nation a favor by not leaking it.

... Now he is calling the leaks “attack plans.”

... The White House responded to the leak with fire. Also, key staffers noted the far-left outlet’s inadvertent confession, which proved Goldberg helped orchestrate another hoax designed to damage the Trump administration.

To every MAGA voter, this will now be classified as "fake news" and a "hoax," because -- obviously! -- "attack plans" aren't "war plans."

I don't know if they can get anyone outside the base to swallow this. They'll certainly try, and if it doesn't work, they'll move on to something equally dishonest. Anything to avoid admitting that Goldberg's reporting is correct, which, to Trump, would be the unpardonable sin.

*****

UPDATE: The surest sign that they're trying to burn this phrase into our brains? ALL CAPS.

No locations.

No sources & methods.

NO WAR PLANS.

Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent.

BOTTOM LINE: President Trump is protecting America and our interests.

— Mike Waltz (@MikeWaltz47) March 26, 2025

APPARENTLY, REPUBLICANS DON'T THINK THEIR LIES ABOUT SIGNAL-GATE NEED TO BE ELABORATE (updated)

After insurrectionists stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Republicans offered many elaborate, dishonest explanations for why their Donald Trump and the perpetrators weren't really at fault. The rioters were actually Antifa! The FBI was responsible! The riot happened because Nancy Pelosi runs the Capitol Police and failed to provide adequate security! And that's just a partial list of GOP responses.

Right now, it's less than 24 hours since Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic published a story describing his accidental inclusion in a Trump administration national security group chat on Signal that eventually provided details on an upcoming mission to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen. Maybe the narratives from the GOP and the administration will become more elaborate in the next few days or weeks, but for now, Republicans barely seem to be trying. The first response from our co-presidents was: This was in The Atlantic? Only losers work there!

President Trump: "I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic, to me it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it's not much of a magazine...you're telling me about it for the first time." pic.twitter.com/Jd1wG1WzVJ

— CSPAN (@cspan) March 24, 2025

Best place to hide a dead body is page 2 of The Atlantic magazine, because no one ever goes there https://t.co/10A01hObHO

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 24, 2025

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is going with Goldberg is a lying liar LIE-beral and no actual war plans were discussed:



Hegseth said:

You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again, to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the "fine people on both sides" hoax, or "suckers and losers" hoax. So this is a guy that peddles in garbage. This is what he does.

And also:

Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that. Alright, I appreciate it. That's it.

Karoline Leavitt, Trump's press secretary, went with the same messages (her tweet is here):

They assume they can get away with dishonestly saying that no war plans were discussed because while Goldberg made clear in his story that war plans absolutely were discussed, he was careful not to publish those details, because he's taking more care to protect America's national security that the people in this chat. They know he won't publish the details. So they're brazening it out.

If the parties were reversed, minority Republicans in the House and Senate would angrily insist upon hearings in multiple Senate and House committees, and abashed Democrats in the majority would agree that hearings need to be held. The pressure would be so great that there would already be at least one resignation, and probably several. Donald Trump would be accusing the chat group of treason, as would many other Republicans, and Trump and other Republicans would be suggesting the death penalty as an appropriate punishment.

Some of that would be a tad excessive in our current circumstances. However:

Literally every Democrat in Washington should be doing this:

The current head of the Democratic National Committee is calling for Hegseth's resignation, as is one of his predecessors:

Harrison, to his credit, wants Democrats in Congress to do more than just make demands:

And Senator Tammy Duckworth says Hegseth should go:

But this Politico story suggests that Democrats are -- as usual -- likely to dither:

Jason Bresler, a Democratic strategist, said the episode could play into “a waterfall effect” of news cycle after news cycle that “wears down on voters,” while Mike Nellis, a digital strategist, said Democrats “need to settle on 2-3 stories we’re telling people about how the Trump administration is hurting the American people. One of them absolutely has to be focused on how we’re less safe with these idiots texting war plans to unknown phone numbers.”

But the issue, for now, doesn’t immediately touch voters’ bank accounts, the key factor that decided the 2024 election. Instead, it involves foreign policy — an issue that doesn’t typically register among midterm voters.

“Let’s see how it plays out and how people understand it,” said Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, who also serves on the Intel committee, “how they learn why it’s important to them that intelligence is kept secret, and why that keeps them safe.”

On the question of whether voters care about anything other than egg prices, Brian Beutler has a good rebuttal to Representative Quigley:

The lesson of the Clinton emails debacle is that the public can be made to care about many, many things more than they care about the price of eggs. At least for the purposes of determining how much they approve of or like or trust politicians. Pull them into a focus group, where they want to be perceived a certain way, or candid about their material circumstances, and they’ll tell pollsters all about their economic struggles and hopes for a more prosperous future. But then they’ll whip out their phones and get worked up about whatever bullshit gets served to them on whatever sources of information they choose.

But isn't Mike Nellis right? Shouldn't Democrats "settle on 2-3 stories we’re telling people about how the Trump administration is hurting the American people," one of which may or may not be this? I'd respond to that by pointing out how Trump operates. We're talking about tariffs, we're talking about DOGE budget and personnel cuts, we're talking about the disappearances of immigrants who were allegedly gang members but clearly aren't, we're talking about crackdowns on universities where anti-Israel protests have taken place, we're talking about Ukraine, we're talking about the president's efforts to strong-arm Greenland and Canada ... and in the middle of all this, Trump tosses another story into the mix by complaining about a six-year-old portrait of himself at the Colorado state capitol that he suddenly decided he doesn't like. He clearly doesn't think it's risky to have too many stories out there. And his whining persuaded Colorado to take the painting down.

Just be bold for once. No one's going to accuse you of being "woke" or engaging in "faculty-lounge politics" if you defend the operational security of America's military planning. But for Democrats, fear isn't a strategy -- it's a reflex. It's the party's default setting.

*****

UPDATE: Okay, I'm seeing some righteous rage in Senate hearings today.

Senator Schumer? Congressman Jeffries? Watch and learn.

*****

UPDATE: Hakeem Jeffries has just said that Hegseth should be "fired immediately."

MANY VOTERS RESPECT ANGRY TRUMP MORE THAN THEY RESPECT THEMSELVES

This morning I've been looking at the crosstabs of a recent CNN poll. The topline number in this poll wasn't great for President Trump -- his job approval rating was 45%, with 54% disapproving -- but some of the other numbers in the poll should have pointed to an even worse result.

Respondents were asked,

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please indicate/say whether you think each one applies or does not apply to Donald Trump.

Only 40% of respondents agreed that Trump "cares about people like you"; 60% said he doesn't. Only 34% said that Trump "will unite the country and not divide it"; 65% said he wouldn't. Only 38% said he "respects the rule of law"; 62% said he doesn't.

However, 50% said he "can bring the kind of change the country needs" (49% said he can't), and 49% said he "can mange the government effectively" (51% said he can't).

So at least 10% of the country thinks that Trump "can bring the kind of change the country needs" despite believing that he doesn't care about people like themselves. At least 12% of the country thinks that Trump "can bring the kind of change the country needs" but will also divide America. At least 12% of the country thinks that Trump "can bring the kind of change the country needs" despite also believing that he doesn't respect the rule of law.

The 10% of the country that thinks Trump can do what's right for America without caring for people like themselves isn't the MAGA base -- we know that those people believe Trump cares deeply about them. I think this sliver of the electorate is the one that gave Trump the win in November. They think the country will get better as long as we have a president who's doing something aggressively -- even if they're caught in the crossfire. (The husband of a Peruvian immigrant who says he doesn't regret his Trump vote even though Trump is trying to deport his wife clearly falls into this category.)

Pollsters ask whether voters think a politician cares about people like them, or ask about issues voters care about. In the crosstabs of a recent NBC poll, we see Trump doing poorly on the issue voters say they care most about: Trump, in this poll, has a 44% approval rating on the economy, with 54% disapproval. He's at 42%/55% on inflation and the cost of living. He's also at 45%/53% on foreign policy, and 42%/55% of Russia and Ukraine. Only on border security and immigration is he in positive territory (55%/43%). Yet his overall job approval rating in this poll is not bad: 47% approve, 51% disapprove.

Voters like the cruelty of Trump's approach to immigration -- and I think they like his aggression in the abstract. We might have guessed that the vast majority of voters would be alienated by some of his insane acts of aggression, but while some voters clearly are, others seem to be living vicariously through his apparently limitless ability to push people around and get away with it. They also seem to believe that our bully president is being a bully for America, and that America needs a bully, even if he's not acting as if he cares about people like themselves.

That's the only way I can understand a couple of batshit crazy stories that are leading the news today. First, Greenland:

Relations between Greenland and the United States sank further on Sunday as the Greenlandic prime minister erupted over what he called a “highly aggressive” delegation of senior officials the Trump administration said it would send to the island this week.

Usha Vance, the second lady, and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, are among the officials headed to the island, which is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, though President Trump has vowed to make it part of the United States “one way or the other.”

When a Reuters/Ipsos poll asked respondents whether "the U.S. should take control of Greenland so the U.S. military can better guard the country," 69% disapproved and only 27% approved. Yet this insane crusade doesn't seem to be harming Trump's overall popularity -- in most polls, his job approval nearly matches his job disapproval.

The other crazy story is this one:

President Donald Trump on Sunday night disparaged a portrait of himself hanging in the Colorado Capitol as “purposefully distorted” and called on the state’s Gov. Jared Polis to take it down.

“Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,” Trump wrote to his social media platform Truth Social.

He acknowledged that the artist, Sarah Boardman, had also painted a portrait of former President Barack Obama, which he said looks “wonderful,” calling his “truly the worst.”

Is the Trump painitng really worse than the Obama painting? I don't think either one is very good, but they both seem respectful.

A significant percentage of the non-MAGA portion of the country watches Trump pick ridiculous fights like this and doesn't think, Our president is dangerously crazy. Instead, these people think, He's a bull in a china shop, but the country is a mess, and maybe that's what we need to straighten it out.

I think more non-MAGA Americans might tip toward He's dangerously crazy if Democrats talked about the crazy stuff more often. Democrats should focus on important aspects of the Trump presidency that aren't popular (firing veterans, gutting needed programs, empowering Elon Musk) -- but they should also focus on the things Trump does that are just plain preposterous. Maybe if he got more pushback on these things, he would seem like what he actually is -- a head case with anger issues whose most precious possessions are grievances -- rather than like an assertive leader who gets things done because he makes noise.

"LET THE SYSTEM WORK" ANTI-TRUMPERS HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER US

I mentioned this a few days ago, but it's a special day today, so I'll mention it again: On Friday, February 21, Democratic strategist James Carville said this about Donald Trump's presidency while being interviewed by Mediaite's Dan Abrams on SiriusXM:

What I have said very publicly is that Democrats need to play possum. This whole thing is collapsing. It doesn’t need Elizabeth Warren and somebody screaming to pacify some progressive advocacy groups in Washington, which, by the way, I wish these people were just useless. They’re actually worse than useless, that they’re detrimental. And they never, ever learn to shut up. And so then this is what I believe. I believe that this administration, in less than 30 days is in the midst of a massive collapse and particularly a collapse in public opinion.

The conversation continued:

“It’s going to be easy pickings here in six weeks,” [Carville] said of opportunities for Democrats. “Just lay back.”

Abrams asked, “You literally think 30 days to six weeks, the Trump administration is effectively going to collapse in terms of public support?

Carville predicted Trump would find it impossible to pass any agenda items and that House Speaker Mike Johnson would be forced to reach across the aisle to ask House Democrats for help.

“We’re in the midst of a collapse,” Carville said. “It’s over.”

Today is Day 30 -- the thirtieth day following that pronouncement. Here are Trump's job approval numbers in the polling averages:

* Nate Silver: approval 47.5%, disapproval 49.6% (-2.1)

* RealClearPolling: approval 47.9%, disapproval 48.8% (-0.9)

* G. Elliott Morris, Silver's successor at FiveThirtyEight: approval 47.5%, disapproval 48.8% (-1.3)

*VoteHub: approval 47.7%, disapproval 48.6% (-0.9)

The numbers aren't great, but that's not a collapse. And Mike Johnson was able to line up the votes for a continuing budget resolution, which Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer failed to block.

"Playing possum" isn't working.

But the courts will save us -- right? That's what we're being told by J. Michael Luttig in The New York Times:

Luttig is, of course, a former federal judge who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush; he's a Donald Trump critic and a frequent guest on MSNBC. In paragraph 4 of his op-ed, he says: Just you wait, Mr. President -- the courts are coming for you.

But unless Mr. Trump immediately turns an about-face and beats a fast retreat, not only will he plunge the nation deeper into constitutional crisis, which he appears fully willing to do, he will also find himself increasingly hobbled even before his already vanishing political honeymoon is over.

(The reference to Trump's "already vanishing political honeymoon" suggests that Luttig believes James Carville was right thirty days ago.)

So how will Trump be "hobbled"? Five paragraphs later, Luttig tells us the hobbling began after Trump defied district court judge James Boasberg and called for his impeachment:

Within hours, the tectonic plates of the constitutional order shifted beneath Mr. Trump’s feet. The chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr. — the head of the third branch of government — rebuked the president in a rare missive. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” the chief justice instructed.

The constutional tectonic plates may have shifted under Trump's feet, but Trump clearly kept his balance. Luttig writes:

Unbowed, Mr. Trump laced into Judge Boasberg the next day on his Truth Social platform....

So maybe that wasn't much of a tremor?

Four paragraphs later, Luttig tells us:

Mr. Trump seems supremely confident, though deludedly so, that he can win this war against the federal judiciary, just as he was deludedly confident that he could win the war he instigated against America’s democracy after the 2020 election.

Some would argue that it was a long war against American democracy, and Trump actually won it. After all, he's president now.

But Luttig tells us Trump is "deluded" if he thinks "he can win this war against the federal judiciary." So what will happen to Trump? Finally, after four more paragraphs that fail to answer this question, we learn what fate awaits Trump, according to Luttig. I hope you're sitting down:

If the president oversteps his authority in his dispute with Judge Boasberg, the Supreme Court will step in and assert its undisputed constitutional power “to say what the law is.” A rebuke from the nation’s highest court in his wished-for war with the nation’s federal courts could well cripple Mr. Trump’s presidency and tarnish his legacy.

That's it? "A rebuke from the nation’s highest court"? That's going to "cripple Mr. Trump’s presidency"? How?

Luttig has nothing. The only way to understand this is to assume that the constitutional crisis will be the rebuke to Trump -- that Trump will feel so ashamed at being rebuked that he'll comply, or that he'll stir sleeping giants, as Luttig says elsewhere in the op-ed:

If Mr. Trump continues to attempt to usurp the authority of the courts, the battle will be joined, and it will be up to the Supreme Court, Congress and the American people to step forward and say: Enough.

People might rise up -- many people are rising up now -- but who listens to us when what we want conflicts with what powerful people want? And a Republican Congress will never rise up.

And will the Supreme Court even respond the way Luttig assumes it will? Elie Mystal doesn't think so. He expects just the opposite, and he thinks the statement John Roberts issued this week wasn't a rebuke at all:

It may sound like Roberts was saying that Trump should litigate his disagreements with Judge Boasberg in the normal way, but what he’s really saying is that Trump should feel free to ignore lower-court orders until the Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in....

Roberts is trying to maintain the appearance of power in the face of a president who has shown no inclination to respect it. He is trying, desperately, to avoid a judicial confrontation with Trump, while still wanting to sound like he is in control....

Trump is not going to follow a Supreme Court order he doesn’t like, and everybody paying attention knows that, including Roberts. The only way for Roberts to avoid being exposed by Trump as unimportant is to defer to Trump on any matter of real import.

Roberts will undoubtedly ... admonish Trump for his process of ignoring the law, but ultimately rule that the laws Trump won’t follow anyway are unconstitutional. He knows Trump will violate his orders, so his entire plan will be to not issue an order that Trump can violate.

The system won't save us. Chuck Schumer, on Meet the Press this morning, said explicitly that it's our job to do the fighting, not his job or his colleagues' job:

... But if the public is so, so angry and takes action, and certainly we Democrats will, it will trigger a mass movement from one end of the country to the other, something that we haven't seen in a very long time.

So our leaders won't lead. We have to be the leaders. Thanks for nothing, Chuck.

IS THIS WHAT AN IDEOLOGICALLY BROAD ANTI-TRUMP COALITION LOOKS LIKE?

Could Democrats be having a Tea Party moment? The usually astute Ed Kilgore says no. He claims to understand what the Obama-era Tea Party was all about:

... the differences between the current moment and the one that sparked the tea-party movement are at least as striking as the similarities. The most important difference is that the uprising on the right was sharply ideological, and went far beyond demands for greater partisan combativeness. Its impetus was pretty clearly the bipartisan actions taken to mitigate the financial collapse that occurred late in the Bush administration, including the TARP bailout of investment institutions, but more importantly, the relief provided to regular folks who defaulted on mortgages.

... While tea-party protests may have been aimed at TARP and then Obamacare, they really represented a revolt against the New Deal and Great Society legacy of beneficent government and a clear and powerful right turn for the Republican Party.

Really? The Tea Party was a movement of opposition to "the New Deal and Great Society legacy of beneficent government"? Did you ever see any signs at Tea Party rallies that said "Repeal Social Security" or "Dump Medicare"? Neither did I. As for whether the movement was purely a protest against the welfare state, let me point out that we did, in fact, see signs like these:

I agree with Kilgore that angry Democrats today are different from the Tea Partiers of the Obama years, but one big reason is that they're not racist.

Kilgore thinks the current movement can't be compared to the Tea Party because Democrats don't agree on a push to the ideological extreme:

... it’s not accurate to say that the current wave of anger is ideological or the product of an aroused Left. As Politico notes, Democrats unhappy with their party are not at all united in any ideological diagnosis or prescription:

Despite the restive energy in the party’s progressive wing, the Democratic discontent does not seem to be centered around a desire to pull the party to the left or the right. Democrats cannot seem to agree on which direction the party should move in — recent Gallup polling found that 45 percent wanted the party to become more moderate, while 29 percent felt it should become more liberal, and 22 percent wanted it to stay the same.

I’m reasonably sure very few of the original tea-party activists wanted the GOP to become “more moderate.”

Republican voters don't seek moderation because Republican politicians and pundits don't endorse moderation or scold people at the partisan edge. Democratic politicians and pundits frequently do, which is one reason much of the rank-and-file embraces the middle.

But we may be entering a period in which moderate Democrats and progressive Democrats have a lot in common. Is it moderate or progressive to want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA to function properly? I think the wish to defend these and other bedrock programs transcends the Democratic Party's ideological differences.

And now we're seeing two politicians from different wings of the Democratic Party reaching out to each other.

Remember Conor Lamb, the former Pennsylvania congressman who was seen by some as the most electable candidate in the state's 2022 Senate primary? That primary was won by the eventual general-election winner, John Fetterman, who was seen as a member of the party's Bernie Sanders wing. Lamb, by contrast, was described in The Nation as another Joe Manchin:

In 2018, Lamb was one of 13 Democrats to vote for an amendment repealing an Obama-era clean water regulation known as Waters of the United States, and one of seven to oppose an amendment that would reduce fossil fuel research and development funds. He voted twice for GOP resolutions against implementing carbon taxes.

... Lamb has also joined Republicans in voting against other Democratic priorities, like decriminalizing marijuana, ending the war in Iraq, and delivering Covid-19 relief to undocumented immigrants. When Lamb first entered Congress, he voted with Trump’s position about 68 percent of the time.

But now Fetterman is doing the Manchin imitation and Lamb is attacking him from the left:

And now there's this:

Centrists can agree with progressives that it's good to defend Social Security and Medicare, and I think quite a few Democratic voters who don't consider themselves progressives aren't happy with the current oligarchy -- or won't be when its heedless "break stuff" ideology begins tearing down more of what Americans take for granted.

I don't know whether all this can add up to a Democratic Tea Party. The Obama-era Tea Party wanted what plutocrats wanted, so the Koch network and the Murdoch media were enthusiastic backers. Democrats today want to save (or restore) the social safety net (and the rule of law, and services like the post office that are under threat). Rich people are unlikely to get behind this. But maybe Democrats across the spectrum from left to center can find a way to build a broad-based movement on their own.

THE CHAINSAW ISN'T MEANT FOR MUSK'S BUSINESSES, OR FOR DEFENSE IN GENERAL

This is the top political story right now:

Pentagon Set Up Briefing for Musk on Potential War With China

The Pentagon was scheduled on Friday to brief Elon Musk on the U.S. military’s plan for any war that might break out with China, two U.S. officials said on Thursday.

Another official said the briefing would be China focused, without providing additional details.

That's from The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal also has the story, under the headline "Musk Set to Receive Top-Secret Briefing on U.S. War Plans for China." (Free to read here.)

My first thought when I read this was that President Trump has given his administration the structure he wanted for his first term, as reported in this story from July 2016:

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before.... according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer ... Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

I think that's more or less what we have in Trump's second term: Musk and the planners of Project 2025, particularly Russell Vought, are in charge of actually doing stuff. Trump is the figurehead -- although he also seems to be operating like a Cabinet secretary in his own administration, in charge of what you might call the Department of Grievance. He's ordering attacks on allies (Canada, Europe, Ukraine) and on domestic enemies (universities, big law firms that have represented his legal pursuers). But apart from that, Musk and the 2025ers are the ones who decide what's being done and how.

On the other hand, it's not clear that Musk is actually deciding China policy for America. The Times story tells us this:

But there is a possible reason Mr. Musk might have needed to know aspects of the war plan. If Mr. Musk and his team of cost cutters from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, want to trim the Pentagon budget in a responsible way, they may need to know what weapons systems the Pentagon plans to use in a fight with China.

Take aircraft carriers, for example. Cutting back on future aircraft carriers would save billions of dollars, money that could be spent on drones or other weaponry. But if the U.S. war strategy relies on using aircraft carriers in innovative ways that would surprise China, mothballing existing ships or stopping production on future ships could cripple that plan.

Trump and Musk want us to believe that DOGE is cutting the budget of every part of the government, but defense has traditionally been sacrosanct in Washington, particularly under Republicans. We're getting mixed signals on that. This week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted about $580 million in defense cuts, which he wants us to believe are part of a war on wokeness:

... slashed grants ... include those that fund research efforts and other activities in areas of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and related social programs, climate change, social science, Covid-19 pandemic response and other areas “not aligned” with Defense Department priorities.

Those efforts include a $6 million move to decarbonize emissions of Navy ships, $5.2 million to diversify the Navy and $9 million to create “equitable” artificial intelligence.

“I need lethal machine learning models, not equitable machine learning models,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth has also announced that 60,000 civilian defense employees will lose their jobs. On the other hand, the budget resolution that was recently passed in the House calls for a $100 billion increase in defense spending over the next decade. That's more what I expect from an all-GOP government. This administration wants to be seen as devoted to budget-cutting, but I think the Pentagon will have more say about the cuts than other parts of the government, because Republicans love military buildups. (And yes, so do most Democrats, but I think Republicans who aren't named "R. Paul" love them more.)

I assume the Pentagon's plan for a war with China has been on the shelf for a long time and wasn't rewritten when Trump was elected. The obvious reason Musk wants to take a look at it is to ensure that it doesn't harm his interests. From the Journal story:

The meeting underscored the crosscutting interests Musk has.... It could give him as the head of Tesla, which relies on China for car production, and SpaceX, a U.S. defense contractor, access to sensitive military secrets unavailable to business competitors....

He has weighed in recently on defense acquisitions, calling on the Pentagon to stop buying Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jets and to shift to a large fleet of drones. “Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway,” he posted to X, his social-media site, in November. “Will just get pilots killed.”

Lockheed Martin owns half of a rocket company that is one of SpaceX’s biggest competitors in space launch.

Musk has made positive comments about China in recent years, leading Beijing to hope he could be a conduit to Trump. In 2023, Musk said he was “kind of pro-China” during a conversation about whether Beijing would be helpful in writing global rules about artificial intelligence.

“I have some vested interests in China but honestly, I think China is underrated and I think the people of China are really awesome and there is a lot of positive energy there.”

Musk has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close partner of China, the country that has supported Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. During one of their conversations, Putin asked Musk not to activate a Starlink internet satellite above Taiwan as a favor to Chinese President Xi Jinping.

So I think this is a story about corruption more than it is about turning military planning over to our Dunning-Kruger co-president. I think it's also about the military's continued status as a sacred cow in Washington. I suspect that the Pentagon will get more backup when it says no to Musk than other parts of the government. But he'll still be corruptly permitted to use Pentagon decision-making to make himself richer and more firmly embedded as a military contractor.