There is no point in ranting about every ludicrous statement posted by Trump on his vanity social media platform. Doing so could be a full-time job and would accomplish little, other than giving Trump the attention his parents denied him. More importantly, it reduces the resistance to a reactive posture. We need to play offense so that we are controlling the media narrative and political response to Trump’s anti-democratic agenda.
Still, when a president says they no longer believe in the fundamental guarantees of the Constitution, that statement deserves comment. After all, the primary duty of the president is to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed.” Rejecting the foundational duty of the presidency is tantamount to saying, “I no longer want to be president; I want to be something more.”
Sure, Trump has told us he wants to be “king”—and we should believe him. But the idiocy of that statement is so manifest that it suggests Trump is trying to “own the libs”—i.e., trolling with ideological lures designed to distract us from the real dangers posed by his presidency.
On Monday, Trump posted a statement asserting that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are too demanding for his feeble health and short attention span. In responding to the Supreme Court’s order to provide due process to migrants subject to deportation, Trump posted,
We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years. We would need hundreds of thousands of trials for the hundreds of thousands of Illegals we are sending out of the Country. Such a thing is not possible to do. What a ridiculous situation we are in.
The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “due process” is not qualified by the phrase, “if possible.”
Trump effectively asserts the right to amend the Constitution based on his view of what is convenient and possible. The Constitution grants him no authority to unilaterally amend or limit its guarantees, and such a right would contradict the president’s obligation to “take care” to “faithfully execute” the laws.
Trump is parroting a line he has been fed by his propagandists and lawyers. They are telling him he can ignore the laws—including court orders—if it is impossible (in his view) to comply with them.
Under ordinary circumstances, when a president violates the law or court orders, they are subject to impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. The GOP-controlled Congress has (for now) removed that remedy from the table.
Which brings us back to “We, the people,” and the strategy of resisting through nationwide protests. Today, a friend and reader noted that Trump doesn’t care about protests. That observation is absolutely correct. But persuadable independents and disaffected Republicans do care. So do members of Congress and nervous judges looking over their shoulders to see if their opinions will be supported in the court of public opinion if they are defied by Trump.
If Trump chooses to selectively enforce the Constitution based on his view of convenience and practicality, he will be usurping the role assigned to the courts in Article III of the Constitution. If he attempts to do so, massive protests, general strikes, and civil resistance are the only guardrails that remain. But they are powerful guardrails that can and will stop any effort to reduce the Constitution to a “style guide” rather than the foundational charter of one of the world’s oldest democracies.
The next few weeks will test the courts as never before. We should hope for the best. But as social media snarks are wont to remind us, “Hope is not a strategy.” Widespread national protests and general strikes are time-tested political strategies. We should be ready in case Trump engages in self-help by appointing himself as the arbiter of the Constitution’s guarantees.
Trump will attend the funeral of Pope Francis.
Pope Francis died on Monday, April 21, 2025. Although there is much to say about Pope Francis, that subject is beyond the scope of this newsletter. However, the fact that President Trump and Melania will attend the funeral has political implications, which I will discuss at a later date.
For now, it is sufficient to note Trump’s announcement that he would be attending the funeral:
Melania and I will be going to the funeral of Pope Francis, in Rome. We look forward to being there!
You do not have to be a Catholic or an American to be embarrassed by Trump’s crass, uncouth, and inappropriate announcement.
Harvard sues Trump administration.
Harvard University continues to demonstrate exemplary leadership in resisting the overreach of the Trump administration. On Monday, Harvard filed a lawsuit seeking to declare the punitive measures by the Trump administration to be violations of the First Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Harvard sues Trump administration over efforts to ‘gain control of academic decision-making’ | Harvard University | The Guardian.
The complaint is here: Harvard College v. Health & Human Services Complaint.
The complaint is a compelling, well-drafted indictment of the administration’s illegal and destructive behavior. If you have time, read the first six pages for a description of Harvard’s role in scientific and health research that has improved the health, safety, and welfare of hundreds of millions of Americans.
The administration’s illegal actions are described succinctly:
Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus. But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance.
Moreover . . . Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government “shall” satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. . . .
The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding.
Harvard University will prevail in its suit against the administration. At least as importantly, Harvard sets the standard that other colleges and universities should follow!
Trump’s tariff chaos causes a steep decline in US markets.
Trump’s tariffs have taken a toll on the US securities markets over the last six weeks. On Monday, market indices were sharply lower, suggesting that the US markets would suffer the worst April since 1932. See WSJ, Dow Headed for Worst April Since 1932 as Investors Send ‘No Confidence’ Signal - WSJ (Accessible to all.)
Per the WSJ,
Worries about trade restrictions and the prospect of President Trump firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell have investors bracing for greater losses ahead. Corporate earnings reports are rolling in, along with executives’ tariff-dented outlooks for the months ahead. Few think the administration’s negotiations with trade partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain.
Meanwhile, counterweights that usually strengthen when stocks fall—such as government bonds and the U.S. dollar—are also under pressure, leaving investors with few havens to wait out the storm.
Conservative “talking heads” are taking to the airwaves, begging Trump to stop. It seems unlikely that he will, at least in the short term.
As with mass protests, the operative question is not whether Trump’s behavior will be modified. It is whether the outcry from the public, investment community, and American businesses will change the minds of a handful of Republicans in the House and Senate.
Congress could revoke Trump’s declaration of an economic emergency tomorrow and declare an end to all of the tariffs imposed by Trump.
To make matters worse, China has begun to employ Trumpian tactics in negotiations with its trading partners. China has warned its trading partners not to make tariff deals with the US that will disadvantage China. See Reuters, China warns countries against striking trade deals with US at its expense.
At a time when China is acting as a moderating influence on the global stage and the US is acting like a spoiled three-year-old, chances are good that China will be able to obstruct Trump’s efforts to negotiate separate tariff deals with over 100 nations (as the administration claims it intends to do).
Trump’s irrational economic behavior is threatening the retirement savings and financial security of tens of millions of Americans. Unless Trump does something dramatic within the next few days—which seems unlikely—the protest signs in use this weekend should remind others of the direct way in which Trump is threatening their financial security.
If voters were willing to swing a presidential election based on the price of eggs, they should be more than willing to flip control of Congress based on dramatic reductions in their savings.
Per NPR, Trump is planning to replace Pete Hegseth.
NPR is reporting that Trump has begun the process of identifying a replacement for embattled Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. White House looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary : NPR.
The NPR story is based on a single source, so it may reflect the wishful thinking of one person rather than a decision by Trump.
No matter, the leaks are coming out of the Pentagon at a furious pace, all designed to hasten the resignation or firing of Pete Hegseth. It cannot happen soon enough. Hegseth is an affirmative danger to the safety and security of all Americans. Moreover, his continued service as the Secretary of Defense is an insult to the men and women who are serving in the US military.
Trump administration walks back threat to dissolve DOJ tax division.
The administration has retreated from another bad idea. It had proposed the elimination of the Tax Division within the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the tax code. For obvious reasons, announcing that the DOJ would no longer commit resources to enforcement of the tax code is a bad idea. Someone in the administration appears to have figured that out.
As reported by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo, the Tax Division will split its criminal and civil functions between the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the DOJ, respectively. See Talking Points Memo, DOJ Scraps Plan to Shutter Tax Division.
A note about the publication schedule over the next three weeks.
Over the next three weeks, my wife and I expect to welcome our fourth and fifth grandchildren into the world. Our fourth grandchild (a boy) will be born in Los Angeles and the fifth (a girl) in D.C.
We will have the happy duty of caring for the new ‘big sister’ while mom, dad, and their new baby adjust to the world in Los Angeles. We will then travel to D.C. to be with our youngest daughter and her husband to lend a helping hand with their first baby for a few weeks.
I hope to maintain a regular publication schedule but will obviously put family first. So, if the newsletter doesn’t show up in your inbox on time (or at all) on a particular day, don’t worry. I will be back in touch as soon as reasonable under the circumstances.
Thanks for your understanding!
Concluding Thoughts.
I have received (what seems like) several hundred copies of a document allegedly authored by Liz Cheney entitled, “Democrats, I need more from you.” The “letter” was not authored by Cheney, but by someone who does not appear to have a readily identifiable profile as a pro-democracy activist. The purported author, “Dr. Pru Lee,” may not be the real identity of the author.
Setting aside the mysterious source of the letter, it has struck a chord with many Democrats. Indeed, many of the copies forwarded to me are accompanied by emails that express some sense of satisfaction that the author has criticized the Democratic Party for its failures and laid out a sensible plan for a path forward.
I suspect the letter was written by a Democratic consultant or insider who is upset with the progressive wing of the party and/or the grassroots movement. The author says, in part,
Yes, the tours around the country? Nice.
The speeches? Nice.
The clever congressional clapbacks? Nice.
That was great for giving hope.
Now we need action
Don’t just send postcards. Send resources.
Many of the “recommendations” in the letter aren’t realistic—either in a reasonable timeframe or ever. For example, the letter demands the Democratic Party
Form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition.
Deputize the resistance.
Join the International Criminal Court.
Fund state-level resistance infrastructure.
Stop campaigning.
You [the Democratic Party] should be publicly laying out:
• The laws and amendments you’ll pass to ensure this never happens again
• The systems you’ll tear down and the safeguards you’ll enshrine
• The plan to hold perpetrators of human atrocities accountable.
I endorse the author’s passion and understand how the author has managed to channel the anger of rank-and-file Democrats toward their party. But it simply isn’t productive or helpful during this moment of crisis to devote our resources to attacking the Democratic Party.
Here’s a thought experiment: If you have forwarded the above letter to your closest one hundred friends and relatives, try drafting a sequel that begins, **“**Dear Republicans, I need more from you . . . .”
The virtue of the “Dear Republicans” version of the letter is that it shifts the focus to where it belongs: On those who are enabling Trump, rather than on those who are resisting him.
Is the resistance perfect? No. Is the Democratic Party perfect? No. Are congressional Democrats perfect? No. But compared to their Republican counterparts, Democrats look like heroes of democracy, warts and all.
Democrats aren’t the problem. They are the solution. Be part of the solution. We can sort out the credits and debits after we reclaim democracy!
Talk to you tomorrow!
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed
You must log in or register to comment.