Of Course a 2020 Fake Elector Is Involved in This Saga
As key members of the Trump administration refuse to give straight answers about whether they intend to send armed federal agents to polling places in a few weeks — which is against federal law — Wisconsin election officials are grappling with the vacuum that that ambiguity has created.
For more than a year, we’ve been covering the wishy-washy responses from Trump administration officials like Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, FBI Director Kash Patel and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to serious questions about the matter. President Trump has remained vague on the issue as well. The reason executive branch officials are facing questions about whether this is something they’re considering is twofold. The Trump administration has made it clear it has every intention of pulling out all the stops to interfere in states’ rights to administer their own elections, and Trump’s election denying allies outside the administration (e.g. Steve Bannon) are agitating around the idea. Trump himself has also expressed profound regret about not enlisting members of the military to seize voting equipment in 2020.
Hegseth has creatively dodged on the matter repeatedly in public, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee back in April that he has “never been ordered to do anything illegal, and I won’t” when questioned about deploying service members to voting sites. Patel and Mullin have been a bit less slimy about it by essentially admitting its something they’ve thought about doing. Patel recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he plans to have agents and intelligence analysts stationed at FBI field offices during the election in case there are any election security-related issues that need to be investigated. And Mullin has walked a similar line that leaves the door open for armed officers at polling places in particular (if far-fetched) circumstances.
“The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” he said last month.
Election officials are now being forced to step in and address the potential for disruption should the administration concoct some sort of emergency justification for sending armed federal officers to key precincts. Federal law prevents the government from sending any armed troops, agents or officers to polling place unless it is to “repel armed enemies of the United States.”
Members of the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission voted on Thursday to sign off on guidance that will be sent to local election officials to help them navigate such a situation. Here’s what the guidance says, according to the Associated Press:
The memo tells Wisconsin’s roughly 1,800 clerks who administer elections what to do if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, Department of Homeland Security officials, FBI agents or local law enforcement shows up at the polls.
If officers arrive, the guidance says the head of the polling site should inform the municipal clerk, who should then tell the county clerk and the state elections commission. If the agents are there to observe, they must check in like any other observer and be subject to rules governing them, the guidance says.
Only one member of the board, a Republican, reportedly voted against sending out the guidance, in comments that actively diminished the threat and potential for major disenfranchisement in key parts of the country.
“I personally think this guidance is unnecessary because we have not seemed to need it the past 201 years,” Republican Commissioner Bob Spindell said, per the AP.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the Trump administration’s proposal to livestream the execution of a convicted mass murderer Sunday, brushing aside concerns that the broadcast could turn him into a martyr, something the editorial board of the “New York Post” argued might result from a public viewing.
The proposal calls for publicly broadcasting the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.
When CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan asked whether broadcasting Hasan’s execution could encourage radicalization by turning him into a martyr, Mullin offered a blunt response: “No one has to watch it.”
“I don’t see an elevated risk at this point at all because of this,” Mullin said, arguing that the execution would demonstrate the consequences of attacking Americans.
“I give absolutely zero thought to the way that this man dies,” he added.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Thursday that Hasan would be executed by firing squad Dec. 3, with the proceedings livestreamed to the public. The execution would be the first carried out by the U.S. military since 1961.
Secretary Hegseth was asked about the execution of Nidal Hasan:
“No-brainer—execution by firing squad…
Of course we’re doing it at Fort Hood. We’re going to do it at 1 o’clock—which is when he did it. It’s going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad.”
The proposal has drawn objections from lawmakers in both parties. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, urged the Pentagon to reverse what she called a “gruesome decision,” warning that the broadcast could provide Hasan with the notoriety and martyrdom he seeks.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., also condemned the proposal, saying public executions belong to oppressive dictatorships, not the United States. Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., said he supports Hasan’s death sentence but opposes broadcasting it.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., warned that livestreaming the execution could provide material for terrorist recruitment.
Others have defended the proposal. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas and a longtime Trump ally, argued that public executions demonstrate the sanctity of human life. Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., also expressed support.
Vice President JD Vance has questioned whether the livestream will actually happen, but won’t watch it if it does. And President Donald Trump said Saturday that he would ultimately decide.
The controversy comes less than two weeks after Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute Christa Pike, who survived two doses of lethal injection drugs Sept. 30. Pike later regained consciousness, and her attorneys have sought to preserve evidence from the botched procedure.
After congratulating the crew on completing thousands of combat missions with “zero casualties, zero flight mishaps, and zero working toilets,” Jost’s Hegseth offered an update on developments back home.
“In December, as we get into the Christmas spirit, we’re gonna execute a guy in a wheelchair on live TV,” he announced. “That’s right, public executions are back,” he continued, joking that anyone who survived the firing squad would have to fight boxer Jake Paul.
The sketch also mocked a controversial Department of War logo, with a sailor asking whether it featured a Nazi eagle. “It’s an American eagle with a Nazi vibe,” Jost’s Hegseth replied.
James Austin Johnson later appeared as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announcing plans to expand cold and flu season to include listeria, measles and “trench brain.”
Later, Jost returned to the Weekend Update desk, opening with what he called a “tragic developing story” involving Trump. “It’s that President Trump has sadly not won the Nobel Peace Prize,” Jost said, introducing a clip of the president complaining about the award’s recipient.
“He’s genuinely angry that he didn’t win the Peace Prize,” Jost said, pointing to Trump’s military actions before adding, “And he still thought, ‘This is my year.’” Jost compared Trump’s expectations to believing he might win an Oscar for *Tom & Jerry*.
Michael Che returned to the execution controversy, joking that the Pentagon’s proposed livestream would mark the first public execution in the United States since “a couple of weeks ago,” drawing groans from the audience.
Saturday’s episode was hosted by comedian Shane Gillis, with Rosalía as musical guest.
The episode also featured an unscripted moment when host Shane Gillis accidentally dropped an uncensored F-bomb during a Green Eggs and Ham parody. Gillis broke character after realizing his mistake, prompting cast member Mikey Day to incorporate the slip into the sketch. Gillis apologized during the show’s closing credits.
The Pentagon's first military execution since World War II is scheduled for December 3, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says it will be livestreamed for the public. Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 fellow service members and injured 32 more in 2009, will be put to death by a firing squad. — Read the rest
On Wednesday in the Oval Office, Donald Trump made clear that he’s not happy with how his political rivals have treated him and stoutly reserved his right for revenge. “They impeached me twice. I certainly — even to this moment I can do whatever I want, if I want.” Trump said, before claiming that only his respect for the office of the president keeps his behavior in check.
If this were a sitcom— and it feels like a bad one — we would now hear a laugh track followed by groans.
Clearly Trump has never understood the foundational concepts of American politics. Political ethics, the art of “half a loaf,” the truism that “all politics are local” and the principles of public service over private enrichment are lost on him. Those are just sayings on trophies Trump has minted for himself since he’ll never get the Nobel Peace Prize.
He certainly doesn’t understand compromise or the importance of local issues. Consider his enthusiastic support for data centers, the only issue currently uniting Americans. He’s too busy feathering his own nest while laughing off any pretense of ethical behavior. While we can certainly criticize Trump for ignoring the foundations of our democracy, the same could also be said of Congress, most state houses and many city councils. And, hey, let’s not talk about the local pool board. That’s where stuff really gets weird. Sometime I’ll tell you about my former neighbor in Gaithersburg who thought “Robert’s Rules of Order” had something to do with sharing spouses.
Recent polls of likely voters in the midterm elections make it clear that a significant majority are extremely tired of the nonsense promulgated by Trump and others. Yeah, those are just polls and they only offer you a vague snapshot in time. That being said, it isn’t just about the polls. Donald Trump is so scared of what’s coming that he’s limited his campaign activities to shoring up support in the deepest red districts of America while threatening Democrats with hellfire and damnation.
No one could be more delighted than the Democratic National Committee, whose pitch to the electorate consists of three words: “We’re not him!” It’s a simple message, if not exactly an inspiring one, made possible by Trump’s overwhelmingly inept corruption. At least for now, the Republicans have lowered the bar so far under a despotic president that even the dysfunctional Democrats might crawl over it.
The Democratic Party’s pitch to the electorate consists of three words: “We’re not him!” It’s a simple message, if not exactly an inspiring one, made possible by Trump’s overwhelmingly inept corruption.
Where I see real hope for change is at the local level. Some of the most promising Democrats have led energetic and engaging campaigns, with more public appearances in front of potential constituents than most Republican incumbents have ever dared to hold. The pitch is reaching disgruntled voters of all stripes, including Latinos, Republican women and independents. Some of them, like retired Army officer Richard Ojeda, the Democratic nominee in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, and Fred Wellman, another military vet running in Missouri’s 2nd District, have independently and successfully put themselves within striking distance in traditionally red districts. Trump won Wellman’s Missouri district by eight points in 2024, and won Ojeda’s Tar Heel State district by double digits. With more than three weeks to go, both races are statistical dead heats.Wow. It appears that talking to the electorate and not acting like a bully can have positive effects. Who knew?
Meanwhile Trump still preaches his gospel that the economy is in great shape and people are doing better than ever; “I think we’re going to do very well,” he said recently. “We’re letting people know what the Republicans have done, and it’s incredible. And prices are now coming way down. And oil, as soon as the war is over, which will be soon, will be coming way down.”
While his stump speech wears thin, Republican incumbents are also running against a Democratic Party that has already lost twice to Trump, forcing us to confront what might happen if the Republicans win again. In the first two years of the second Trump administration, he has effectively destroyed the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 10th amendments. With a continuing GOP majority in Congress, the other five are toast as well.
It’s more interesting to consider what happens if the Democrats, despite their best efforts, actually win control of Congress. Can they make substantive changes? Obviously, Trump will veto any bills the Democrats pass. During the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, House Speaker John Boehner famously remarked that the House had passed a plan, and it was up to Barack Obama to sign it. Will the current crop of Democrats be satisfied to offer that response in 2027?
I doubt it. There’s already talk of impeaching both Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Trump himself — at least according to Trump. My bet is on Hegseth. At the very least, that would undermine Trump’s control of the military, which he would eagerly wield to suppress the will of the people. It was an outgoing Republican member of Congress, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who proposed impeaching the “secretary of fashion,” and it’s widely believed that more Republicans could be persuaded to vote Hegseth out following a big blue wave. Actually removing him from office would require 67 votes in the Senate, always a tall order. But Hegseth is as popular in Congress as a canker sore on a first date. On Thursday, he revived the medieval notion of holding public executions, always a sign of civility, and after a Democratic takeover of both houses, the remaining Republicans will have their own futures to think about. As Brad Pitt said in “Fight Club,” it’s about “survival of the fittest, baby.”
If Hegseth is actually removed, the smart money would have Congress then turning its attention on Trump. Only then, the argument goes, would Trump be weakened enough that it might be possible to impeach and convict him, finally removing him from office. I’d want to whip the votes to make sure you could get a conviction before even starting down that road. But many angry Democrats want to bypass Hegseth and immediately try to impeach the president. Knee-jerk reaction? Thy name is politician.
Of course, it’s also possible the Democrats might opt to do nothing about Trump once they get a majority, which is more or less their national campaign strategy. But with no ability to pass legislation, I suspect they’d focus their energy on investigations, some of which would go nowhere and all of which would further fuel our nation’s bitter divisions. But is there another, better option?
Six weeks before the 2020 election, when Trump’s chances of winning looked bleak, he let us know he’d be willing to sponsor or support an insurrection. He urged us to stop counting the votes. We got the insurrection when we didn’t. So what’s he telling us now? One persistent fear is that he may try to snatch ballot boxes in hotly contested districts and claim victory, while screaming about election fraud. Others are fearful that with the complicity of the Republicans in Congress, he’ll let government funding run out in mid-December and shut down the government again.
Six weeks before the 2020 election, when Trump’s chances of winning looked bleak, he let us know he’d be willing to sponsor an insurrection. So what’s he telling us now?
As he says, he’ll take whatever action he wants. That has included moving B-1 bombers from a base in England because of a supposed terror threat from Iran, a nation he claims is on its knees, along with a suggestion that the Iranians might “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego. Not exactly Trump’s finest hour.
His public pronouncement that he can do whatever he wants to Democratic leaders, combined with implied threats against American cities, proves one more time that this American president is an existential threat to humanity. Anything and everything is transactional to Trump, even the sacrifice of millions of innocent lives, both Democratic and Republican. More horrifying still, his statement was met by extended cheers from his exuberant audience of nearly 6,000 people who showed up in Nebraska on Oct. 5.
The punchline here is this: That was the second time in a week that Trump played before a very small crowd. It looks better, I suppose, to have a thousand people kept from entering a venue than seating them in a spacious arena he can no longer fill. In Ohio, he played to about 5,000 people in a high school gym and later threatened to jail reporters who pointed out that he hadn’t filled that “arena.”
Trump has clearly given up on retaining control of the House and pulled out of the U.S. Senate race in North Carolina. This week he has grown increasingly dark in emails to his MAGA contributors. Tuesday, he told his supporters, “One seat slips, then another, and the gavel changes hands like a throat being cut in silence. The other side does not need a landslide. They need the dark to do their work for them. A tired voter. An empty chair. A man who tells himself the night will pass if he stays indoors.”
No one believes Trump wrote that macabre bit of poetry, evocative of a “Halloween in the Heartland” tale of terror. It stinks of a collaboration between Susie Wiles and Stephen Miller.
At the end of this road, if the Democrats seize a majority in both the House and the Senate, Trump will become a Manhattan sewer rat cornered in a dank alley fighting over a rotting slice of pizza.
Government shutdowns, name-calling, blame-spreading, ballot seizures and even a failure to seat the winning Democrats in Congress are all conceivable between the morning of Nov. 4 and the moment the new Congress is sworn in. But I detect a couple of tells that indicate Trump’s threats are empty. First, his notoriously low popularity likely won’t lead to a more successful result than the Jan. 6 insurrection, although the effort could be more dangerous and desperate.
The second tell is that we’re already hearing talk among Republicans about moving beyond Trump. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio will supposedly run for House minority leader and outgoing Speaker Mike Johnson will be shown the door. Jordan has stayed in the shadows since Trump’s return, allowing Johnson to gaslight reporters and the public with his creepy smile. Will Jordan become the new face of the Republicans following Trump’s departure? Will JD Vance, who’s been campaigning in Alaska recently? (I make that suggestion with a straight face.) Then there’s Marco Rubio, the man in the Trump administration who wears all the hats and avoids most of the criticism. They are all jockeying for position in an uncertain future.
The surest sign Trump is faltering is his shrinking crowds — and his desperate efforts to hide that fact.
Trump may stay in office until January of 2029, and he may not. Nature, politics and his unexplained health issues will have a say in that matter.
But as both Republicans and Democrats contemplate a future without him, perhaps even one based on democratic principles, Trump becomes increasingly insignificant while, at the same time, increasingly dangerous. We cannot afford to forget that.
Pete Hegseth is odd. This isn’t just a personal opinion, though there’s no doubt that he gets widely mocked for his carefully cultivated public persona, which is a mix of megachurch preacher, gym rat and Robert Duvall’s napalm-huffing character in “Apocalypse Now.” The fact that the defense secretary is different is simply a statistical reality.
It’s not just that he’s a white evangelical Christian, a group that, according to PRRI, makes up only 13% of the population. Hegseth’s church, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, is extreme even for the right, with a leader who argues against women’s suffrage and teaches that slavery was the height of “mutual intimacy and harmony” between the races. Even within MAGA, those remain fringe positions, despite great efforts by some Christian nationalists to reignite “debate” on such long-resolved issues.
All this means it’s hard not to laugh when Hegseth pontificates about his hatred of “weirdos.” Although he has a war to fight in Iran, somehow he finds time to focus his attention on what he clearly sees as the greater battle: remaking the military according to the demands of his very white, very male, very right-wing vision.
“No fatties, no t******s, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals,” Hegseth said during a Sept. 30 speech at the U.S. Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. He didn’t explicitly say “no women,” but his kicker — “with testosterone testing on top” — made the implication plain. The “no beardos” demand may seem strange, but as Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times explained, it’s coded racism. Hegseth ended medical exemptions that allowed beards for people, mostly Black men, with certain skin conditions. This may explain why he has no problem when white men have beards, as seen on his church leader, Doug Wilson, or the many celebrities the defense secretary likes to take photos with. (Hegseth himself sported a beard in 2018.)
“Wimps,” “radicals” and “weirdos” are more ambiguous pejoratives, but Hegseth’s recent actions suggest his definitions are expansive enough to cover the vast majority of Americans. He’s been on a firing spree, demanding a 20% cut of the Pentagon’s top brass in an apparent effort to expunge those he deems “woke.” The move comes after nearly two years of blocking promotions for and pushing out Black and female military leaders. Hegseth also rewrote the list of religions recognized by the Pentagon, narrowing from over 200 faith categorizations to a mere 31 — 22 of which are Christian. He claims this is to simplify the bureaucracy, but his motives are likely more disturbing: to stigmatize non-Christians and restrict the definition of “Christian.” The Air Force is already forcing service members to register their religious beliefs under the truncated list, drawing criticism from atheists and others whose belief systems are not included as options.
Last week, Hegseth upped the ante by announcing the formation of the Office of Religious Affairs “to strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters.” Despite boilerplate claims that this action will not “compel religious participation” or “diminish the free exercise rights” of service members, both the policies and pomp surrounding the announcement made it clear that the goal is to promote Hegseth’s version of Christianity — and shame anyone who does not adhere to it. The office will be run by the defense secretary himself and, in ominous language, promises to fund “research, technology, and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness,” which sounds like a data-gathering operation to ensure troops meet Hegseth’s esoteric views on proper religious practice.
“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God,” Hegseth said in his announcement, using language from the Book of Ephesians that will be sure to resonate with Christian evangelicals.
Taken together, this purge helps clarify what Hegseth means when he’s talking about “weirdos” and “wimps,” as well as other slurs like “t******s.” He’s hostile to women, the LGBTQ+ community, people of color and anyone who doesn’t adhere to his vision of conservative Christianity — although it’s worth noting that with his message of peace and love, Jesus Christ himself would not be accepted by Hegseth as a Christian.
The secretary may have gone to Princeton University, but he hasn’t yet grasped the concept of irony. The people he deems “weirdos” far outnumber those in his narrow category, presumably of non-weirdos, many times over.
Hegseth has tried to justify his position and rhetoric by arguing that a proper military should only contain “the real 1%” of supposedly superior people. But as Eliot Cohen of The Atlantic notes, this claim is ignorant of history. You need large numbers to win wars, which inherently means that armies can’t be elitist institutions.
Hegseth has a real math problem on his hands. His “real 1%” of alleged non-weirdos is just not enough people to staff a modern military, especially in times of war. His solution appears to be to hit the road, trying to recruit more mini-Hegseths to enlist. On Sept. 19 he embarked on the Send Me Tour in an effort to reach out to people in white evangelical-heavy parts of the country with a Bible-heavy pitch about how Jesus wants them to fight for their country. Both the tour’s name and the secretary’s stump speech rely heavily on Isaiah 6:8; Hegseth equates God’s call to the prophet to be faithful with his own plea for evangelicals to join the military.
In a response video, Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat from Georgia who is also an ordained minister with multiple theology degrees, didn’t mince his words. “Pete Hegseth is busy twisting the scriptures yet again . . . When Isaiah answers that call, it is not a call to go into battle.” Instead, Warnock said, “Isaiah challenges corruption” and “those who would crush the poor.”
Those objectives, of course, are not remotely Hegseth’s. His creation of a hierarchy that places white, straight men at the top and relegates everyone else into an underclass of “weirdos” and “wimps” ignores the Bible’s historical context — and actual meaning. Anyone who doubts that can simply examine his behavior in office and his monomaniacal focus on sorting America’s service members into a worthy-unworthy dichotomy, based solely on how much they adhere to his own self-serving ideals of what a soldier should look like.
“Saturday Night Live” imagined a Republican Party scrambling for a winning message ahead of the midterm elections and finding little help from some of its biggest names.
The show’s cold open featured Republican strategists trying to record campaign ads as the party’s prospects were described as “looking bleak,” cycling through Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth before President Donald Trump stepped in.
Marcello Hernández’s Rubio initially delivered his appeal in Spanish, only to abandon the pitch and admit that he, too, had been duped.
“Oh my God! He tricked us!” Rubio exclaimed, before rattling off Trump’s conflicts with Venezuela, Iran and Canada.
McConnell, played by Mikey Day, was wheeled onto the set and struggled to deliver his lines, while Jeremy Culhane’s Vance was quickly dismissed after introducing himself.
“We can just AI this,” one of the strategists concluded.
Colin Jost’s Hegseth then barged into the shoot and urged Republicans to “do the gayest thing ever and vote,” while parodying the defense secretary’s recent emphasis on religion and culture-war issues at the Pentagon.
“I’m putting God back in war and it’s working,” Jost said. “Our soldiers are praying a lot more than they used to.”
But James Austin Johnson’s Trump eventually decided he had the solution to Republicans’ problems.
“If the Republicans win, I’ll give everyone $5,000,” Johnson said. “And that is not a bribe because I have no intention of following through on that promise.”
Trump has repeatedly promised a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” for every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans retain control of Congress in November. The proposal, which would require congressional approval, could cost more than $1 trillion.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is putting religion closer to the top of the Pentagon’s chain of command.
Hegseth announced the creation of a new Office of Religious Affairs during his State of the Force address Wednesday. The office will report directly to Hegseth and advise Pentagon leadership on religious policy, funding and the “spiritual readiness” of U.S. service members.
“No staff filters, no bureaucratic dilution — a direct line to the secretary,” Hegseth said.
The office will also oversee the Armed Forces Chaplains Board and advocate for funding for religious programs across the military.
The Pentagon memo establishing the office says it cannot “compel religious participation” or diminish the rights of service members, civilian employees or family members “of any faith or no faith.”
“Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual,” Hegseth said. “God is good. Evil is not. And America’s military must understand the difference.”
Hegseth also criticized what he called the military’s previous embrace of “political correctness and secular humanism” and claimed fewer than 5% of service members identify as nonreligious.
“So 95% of our force recognizes an Almighty God,” he said.
The Pentagon’s most recent publicly released data, from 2019, found roughly 70% of active-duty personnel identified as Christian. Nearly a quarter had an unknown or unclassified religious affiliation.
The office follows a series of changes Hegseth has made to religious life in the military. The Pentagon this year condensed more than 200 religious affiliation codes to 31, initially eliminating specific classifications for atheists, Unitarian Universalists, pagans and Wiccans, among others.
Hegseth has also hosted Christian worship services at the Pentagon. During one service in March, he prayed for God to enable U.S. troops to inflict violence “against those who deserve no mercy.”
The Missouri gerrymandering fight felt a lot like old-school Republican politics: boring, procedural trickery to rig the systems of government in their favor.
There may only be one person in the world who thinks that a Democratic majority in Congress could actually roll back all of Trumpism in a matter of months.
“We gotta win this election,” he told the audience at a rally in North Carolina on Sept. 16. “If we don’t, all of those things that we got you . . . they’re all gonna go away. All of the things that we’ve done, the strongest border in the history of our country, it’s all gonna go away. If we lose, you’re going to lose your border, you’re going to lose your tax cuts, you’re going to lose your wealth, and our country is going to go through hell, and we’re going to be a laughingstock all over the world, just as we were two years ago.”
It’s almost like he doesn’t know he has a veto.
Back here in the real world, Democrats will likely flip the House in November, and maybe the Senate too. But if they want to have something to show for it two years from now, they’re going to have to find a way to get around Trump’s veto power.
That will require the kind of aggression — the kind of fight — the current crop of Democratic party leaders has never shown.
Imagine, instead, a Democratic leadership with a to-do list in one hand — starting with a compelling affordability agenda — and a how-to list in the other hand, something like this:
No more cowering from veto threats. Democrats should dare Trump to veto popular legislation and make him own the consequences if he does.
Demand major concessions from Trump in return for passing a new debt limit and a defense spending bill, and shut down the government if necessary.
Drive a wedge between Republican legislators and their increasingly unpopular and irrational leader.
No more protecting “centrist” Democrats from tough votes.
Order the Capitol Police to arrest and jail administration officials if they refuse to honor congressional subpoenas.
Democrats in leadership and on the campaign trail talk a lot about their lofty legislative goals. But some of those goals are unattainable as long as Trump has the veto — and even more so if Republicans keep the Senate. Democrats need to be thinking and talking about what they can practically achieve — and how. And they need to have a battle plan so they can hit the ground running in January.
I raised questions about how they could do that in a Sept. 2 op-ed for MS NOW. As part of my hunt for answers, I turned to some wise left-leaning Washington veterans for their thoughts.
“This is going to be really tricky business,” Norman Ornstein, the longtime congressional analyst, told me.
“It would require a wholesale change in the DNA of House and Senate Democrats,” said Jim Manley, a political strategist who spent more than 20 years working in the Senate, including six years as spokesman for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Triumphant congressional Democrats “are going to be feeling feisty, they’re going to feel vindicated, and they’re going to feel like fighting like hell,” said Robert Kuttner, who co-founded the Economic Policy Institute and the American Prospect.
“If they aren’t assertive,” Ornstein warned, “they may not hold their majority for very long.”
Each of these experts, with decades of experience between them, all agreed that whether Democrats control one of both chambers, they need to pass lots of popular bills and make it painful for Trump and Republicans to oppose them. If the legislation becomes law, it’s a huge victory. If it’s blocked, the public will know who to blame.
“The old playbook says you’ve got to be concerned about the threat of a veto,” Manley said. “Why go through that exercise if it can’t get through the Senate and/or is going to be subject to the president’s veto? You’ve got to husband your resources.”
“We’ve got to adopt a strategy that you never know until you try. You never know until you apply pressure. You never know until you force a vote.”
But now, he said, “If the president wants to veto it, that’s fine. We’ve got to adopt a strategy that you never know until you try. You never know until you apply pressure. You never know until you force a vote. Trump is incredibly weakened already. He’s going to be even weaker next year. He’s losing juice on Capitol Hill. He’s losing altitude with the American people.”
Democrats are in general agreement about one starting point: an affordability agenda recently outlined by House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. It calls for bringing down the cost of healthcare, groceries, gas and housing. Of those four areas, healthcare is approaching a major crisis, which sets the Democrats up for their first major battle: Restoring the devastating Medicaid cuts in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that Republicans in 2025 intentionally postponed until after the 2026 midterms.
“Very few people appreciate the fact — except for the authors of the bill that did it — how much healthcare spending is going to be cut, and how many people are going to be hurt in the next year,” said Manley.
As Ornstein explained, “Medicaid money doesn’t go to the 10 million people who are going to lose their health insurance because they impose these new onerous work and reporting requirements. It goes to the providers.”
Hospitals and nursing homes will lose money and some will close, putting even more pressure on those that remain.
“So first,” Ornstein said, “you’re going to hold hearings pointing out why this is happening, and that it was the Big Beautiful Bill that did it. Two, you are going to pass bills that restore funding. And if Trump vetoes them then you’re going to hold a bunch of hearings on why he is undermining health care in America.”
Legislation to restore Medicaid cuts— and to restore the tax credits for the Affordable Care Act that Trump cut last year, throwing three million people off their insurance plans — “those are the kinds of things that are just very, very popular that are going to be hard for Republicans to oppose,” Kuttner said.
“There will be negotiations,” he said. “And the more Republicans [that] Democrats have siding with them, then the more pressure there is on Trump.”
Fissures are sure to keep growing between Trump and Republicans in Congress, Kuttner said. “If the Republicans have a wipeout in both houses — and it’s increasingly looking like that could well happen — and Trump is in his last two years and is a crazier and crazier lame duck, a lot of the loyalty starts dissipating.”
“It’s not like they’ll suddenly recover backbone or principle,” he said. “This is just a simple calculation of self-interest.”
“Will there be ways to try and exploit that and try and get stuff done?” Manley asked. “It’s possible, yes.”
When it comes to demanding that Trump do — or stop doing — something in particular, Democrats don’t have a lot of leverage. But they’ve got some.
“Trump’s got two things that he needs to do next year,” Manley said. “He needs to figure out a way to fund defense spending, and he needs to be a part of an effort to pass a debt limit increase. Beyond that, he doesn’t really need anything legislatively.”
That gives Democrats two big chances to refuse to go along with the president until their demands are met. “They should go to the mat,” Ornstein said, “and that might include government shutdowns, maybe even having extended government shutdowns.”
While Manley cautioned that any leverage Democrats earn after the midterms “only goes so far,” he pointed out that “doesn’t mean they can’t try to use it.” Democratic leadership is also going to have to start getting tougher with the caucus, he said.
Manley pointed out that two conservative Democrats cast the decisive votes on Sept. 1 advancing a Republican legislative package. “I just find that highly objectionable. The leadership’s going to have to figure out a strategy to not have people defect on key votes.”
Manley invoked his own history as a Senate staffer as evidence. “The old Jim — the guy who worked for Harry Reid — always looked out for the caucus as a whole, trying to protect the centrists. I get this. But there’s going to have to be some changes.”
Manley invoked his own history as a Senate staffer as evidence. “The old Jim — the guy who worked for Harry Reid — always looked out for the caucus as a whole, trying to protect the centrists. I get this. But there’s going to have to be some changes.”
Democrats will need to do a better job of resisting lobbyists. “You know, former members — and let’s be honest, there’s going to be former members, former staffers — they’re going to go up to the Hill and they’re going to try and plead with Democrats to cut their clients some slack,” Manley said. “And the leadership and the committee chairs are just simply going to have to say no.”
Oversight will be another important way to put Trump and Republicans on the defensive. Once Democrats have the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas that comes with being in the majority, there will be “so many incredible opportunities for investigation,” Kuttner said.
There will also be one major obstacle: Ever since 2019, shortly after the midterm elections during his first term that gave Democrats a majority in the House, Trump has simply refused to honor congressional subpoenas.
During Trump’s first administration, Democratic House members voted to issue criminal contempt citations to two Cabinet officials — Attorney General Bill Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross — who denied them documents. But it didn’t work: Criminal contempt enforcement is up to the Department of Justice, and with Barr in charge, the department balked.
There is, however, a way Democrats can escalate: They can brush off their “inherent contempt” power, and enforce it themselves.
“How far are you willing to go?” asked Ornstein. “Are you actually going to use your power, set up a little jail in the Capitol, and have the Capitol Police arrest them?”
Ornstein’s answer: Yes. “I’d like to see that. If people are going to defy Congress, hold them accountable, knowing that this Justice Department won’t do so.”
If they win a majority in the Senate, of course, Democrats will also have the ability to confirm or reject Trump appointees, including judges. “You would hope that they would basically say: ‘no more radical lunatic judges, no more rattle radical lunatic Cabinet members or sub-Cabinet members,’” Ornstein said.
Trump could counter by putting those appointees — or even worse choices — in acting roles. But, as Ornstein put it, “You’re not going to have an opportunity to put in lifetime appointments — and you certainly will not have the opportunity with the Supreme Court.”
Finally, there’s impeachment. On the one hand, launching impeachment proceedings in the House is unlikely to result in removal, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. But they’re great for focusing the public’s attention.
Ornstein supports the impeachment of some Trump Cabinet members — starting with Hegseth. Republicans are already so terrified of having to take a stand on Hegseth that after renegade Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie introduced articles of impeachment against him on Sept. 16 and demanded a vote, Speaker Mike Johnson chose to call an early recess instead.
“For the vast majority of Americans who have no clue what horrors have been inflicted upon the country by these monstrous people, you’re going to actually be able to shine a light on them,” Ornstein said. “You can shine a light on what Pete Hagseth has done to get us into this disastrous war, to hollow out the military, to undermine American national security.”
And, Ornstein said, “I would also, at minimum, make clear that there’s no statute of limitations for this” and that “we can promise you that [he] will be charged in 2029.”
Next on his list would be Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Collins, which would create yet more heartache for Republicans. “Are you going to side with people undermining food safety, people taking away Alzheimer’s research, and causing measles outbreaks and deaths? Or are you going to do the right thing?” Ornstein said.
If the administration keeps ignoring congressional budget appropriations, Manley said, “then Russell Vought goes to the top of the impeachment list.”
Impeachment hearings also force the media to pay attention. “You’re going to embarrass them and you’re going to highlight the fact that the terrible things happening to people are being caused by the Trump administration,” Ornstein said. “Which, mind you, the press should have been telling them very clearly over the last several years, but they haven’t, and with the hook of the Democrats conducting these hearings, they will.”
Ornstein said the future for a Democratic congressional majority is uncertain. “They’ve made these promises. But they don’t have the power to implement them. They’re on the firing line and people may blame them. And Trump and billionaires will put a lot of money into blaming them for everything bad that happens. And then the question becomes: Are they able to use tough leadership over the power of the purse to bring about some changes? And I don’t know the answer to that.”
It should come as no surprise that wars break armies. The chaotic, destructive nature of battle tends to wound even the most highly trained armed forces. Today, however, the U.S. military is being impaired not by some determined overseas enemy but rather by its own leadership in a fratricidal war against imagined cultural bogeymen. The harm has become so discernible that Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., called this week for an impeachment vote on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Massie’s push for removal, while unexpected, is not without merit. In his crusade to decontaminate the ranks from the supposed virus of “DEI” — diversity, equity and inclusion — Hegseth is waging a malicious campaign against his own troops with little, if any, precedent in American history.
True, there have been moments in the nation’s martial past when social progress and military resistance sat in uneasy tension. The Truman administration’s desegregation of the armed forces or President Bill Clinton’s desire to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve openly exemplified clashes when the very meaning of American democracy seemed to be negotiated among those in uniform.
Previous American wars equally have highlighted both the fraught nature of serving in higher-level leadership roles and in lower ranks where war’s injurious effects are most grievously felt.
During the Second World War, for instance, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall gained a harsh reputation for firing senior officers who didn’t pass muster in the crucible of combat. Yet the future secretary of state — and architect of the Marshall Plan — was most concerned with competence and candor leading to military effectiveness. As one account suggests, Marshall “was not looking for conformists. He believed in the respectful, confidential expression of dissent.” In a time of war, personal ideologies mattered little to national security.
If young Americans serving in uniform during World War II were unaware of how Marshall approached general officer accountability, they certainly felt war’s ravages up close and personal. Marine Eugene B. Sledge, a Pacific theater veteran, marveled at “the incredible cruelty that decent men could commit when reduced to a brutish existence in their fight for survival amid the violent death, terror, tension, fatigue, and filth that was the infantryman’s war.”
The Cold War experience would prove just as injurious, and on more than just the personal level. While veterans of the American war in Vietnam, like Lieutenant Philip Caputo, remembered his men being in a “permanent state of exhaustion,” more senior officers worried about the conflict’s impact on the very health of the U.S. military. Future Lt. Gen. Harold G. Moore, who commanded a cavalry unit at the late 1965 Ia Drang battle, fretted how the war was “devastating to the morale and effectiveness of every American unit in combat.” Might the armed forces not survive the ordeal of Vietnam?
Such existential questions endured throughout the post-9/11 global war on terrorism. While pundits and correspondents alike compared the war in Iraq to Vietnam, soldiers and Marines on the front lines struggled to find meaning in their combat tours. As journalist C.J. Chivers, who interviewed scores of fellow veterans, wondered: “Had it been worth it? Have they helped? Why had they been ordered to fight the way they fought?” In such convoluted wars, easy answers were hard to come by.
As in Vietnam, larger questions about the impact of war on military readiness accompanied veterans’ soul-searching. Some wrote anxiously about the “strain . . . being felt throughout the services, in terms of wear and tear on the troops, their families, and their equipment.” Others opined that American strategy lay “dead,” the victim of a hyper-focused counterinsurgency approach that favored tactics over the more important challenge of matching national resources to policy aims.
If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had “broken” some American servicemembers serving overseas, making for a difficult reintegration back home, they apparently also had fractured the very organizations to which those in uniform belonged.
While the ongoing war in Iran consumes strategic military reserves for ostensibly little strategic gain, the defense secretary persists in targeting the very men and women tasked with carrying out the president’s foreign policy objectives.
Hegseth’s cultural war, however, is far different — and, potentially, far more damaging. While the ongoing war in Iran consumes strategic military reserves for ostensibly little strategic gain, the defense secretary persists in targeting the very men and women tasked with carrying out the president’s foreign policy objectives. The fratricide is nearly all-encompassing.
Unlike any defense secretary before him, Hegseth has inserted himself into promotion board decisions, especially when it comes to selection of officers for promotion to major general. By one account, he has blocked the advancement of more than 80 generals and admirals. His flurry of cashiering officers appears based on little more than targeting those who are not ideologically aligned with the secretary’s worldview.
On another front, his anti-diversity and inclusion crusade continues unimpeded. In a fiery speech to the West Point graduating class in May, Hegseth railed against “woke” and “anti-American ideologies” while castigating those who “embraced the DEI craze.” The message was clear: Only “warriors” need apply to the newly reconstituted profession of arms. Perhaps not coincidentally, adverse promotion decisions have fallen most heavily on Black and female officers.
The secretary’s constant refrain on what we might call “tactical masculinity” oversimplifies the true nature of modern warfare, which is far more complex and multifaceted than his vision of tough and fit infantrymen engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The increasing use of military drones is but one example. But Hegseth’s scorched-earth policies also run the long-term risk of weakening the nation’s armed forces by narrowing recruiting possibilities for an all-volunteer force. An all-white, all-male military is hardly representative of American democracy.
All wars damage the armies that fight them. And, without question, some wars see armies turn against themselves, most infamously in Vietnam, when some 900 “fragging” incidents — attempts on the lives of fellow soldiers — resulted in the deaths of 99 American uniformed personnel.
Yet the current fratricidal war against the U.S. armed forces, championed by its own defense secretary himself, is a phenomenon unlike any other in the nation’s history.
Evaluating the present without the benefit of perspective from the past can be a risky business. At very least, though, Americans today should insist that their civilian leaders don’t wage war against those citizens who have pledged their service for no other cause but the nation’s defense.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is being accused of running away from a bipartisan effort to hold an impeachment vote on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Login
