Really? Have you not followed this person’s behavior over his entire career? There is nothing this amoral, damaged person won’t do. He’s never shown a willingness to follow norms - his ugliness has been on full display forever
I think the point is that Chris and many others didn't realize how many things ran on norms rather than laws that the chief executive couldn't effectively ignore.
The Constitutional remedy to all this is impeachment. All else is coping with the failure of Congress to do so.
Exactly! Chris, you gotta stop being so naive. Authoritarianism doesn't arrive with a clap of thunder. It oozes out of dark corners until it consumes the body politic. Ask folks in DC these days about fascism. We're seeing it on the streets.
To be fair, a lot of the items on the list in the post are not gray areas--legal scholars, attorneys, and even judges have identified those actions as flagrantly unconstitutional/illegal.
I think this is valid but I want to join the pushback against Trump's framing that legal=possible. It isn't. Courts including SCOTUS declare things non-justitiable or illegal but non-fixable not uncommonly.
But there have been legal rulings on many of these, including from the Supreme Court. The first item on the list regarding birthright citizenship was a famous example. This is why I included "judges" on my list of people who have found Trump's actions to be unconstitutional/illegal. Try to keep up.
It’s a different argument he’s making on birthright citizenship and rulings have been made have been changed layer by the Supreme Court. So you are mostly wrong, try to do better
I disagree with the executive branch that it isn't a real ruling until it's from SCOTUS. I understand there are practical reasons for that understanding, but I think it's unconstitutional and degenerative to the rule of law.
With this admin it is just anothet stalling tactic in order to continue doing whatever they want until the SC either declines to hear the case, or hears the case and then decides it months later.
Nope. Notice the argument has changed. So it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional. He’s not ending brithright citizenship, he’s saying it needs to be interpreted to mean people have to legally be in the country to fall under the category.
I know that might be hard for you to grasp. You need to do more thinking and less talking. No better way for him to get clarification than making the change and getting challenged.
In fact it is settled case law. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Of course this lawless Supreme Court treats stare decisis as a bad joke, so there's no telling what they'll do.
Actually, at the Supreme Court this admin only argued the birthright citizenship case by saying nationwide injunctions by judges are wrong. They did not try to defend their claim to end birthright citizenship.
Incorrect. In July and August of this year, a judge ruled it as unconstitutional, as did a 3-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Since then, other judges in other Circuits have agreed. If your argument is that SCOTUS has not yet ruled on this case, that's great, but that's not what I said, so you're changing the rules of the game and then declaring victory. You wouldn't happen to be related to Dutch, would you? 😂
The abortion rulings must have messed up your mind 😂😂 Thoughts like. “Why do states keep putting limitations on it, it’s decided”. “Why are they changing laws to go to the courts to get a ruling”. “It’s already decided and what they are doing is unconstitutional”
I can't tell if you're responding to me here. Are you stating what I'm thinking and then trying to refute that?? I'm guessing you hear voices, but it worries me that you think they're mine.
SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue of birthright citizenship. The case will likely be heard in the next term. What they did was block any nationwide injunctions on the issue, which leaves only class actions as a possible remedy for those in that class. Until the case is adjudicated, the citizenship status of children born to certain non-citizen residents is uncertain.
I am aware of the recent SCOTUS ruling, but please read my responses to Pete for more detail as to my thoughts. Of note, SCOTUS may never rule on the case. They may choose not to take it up if they agree with a lower court’s finding (i.e. that Trump’s EO is unconstitutional).
WE MUST make sure that invading cities with his military will bring his end before Christmas..
Chicago is calling....
For sure, Governor Pritzker has a plan - we are ready for the felon's "army" in Chicago - we (at least 3 million of us) will surround them in their little citadels in and around the city - they will NOT have a chance to get on our streets in the "beautiful friendly city on the lake".
Anyone in a mask with or without a gun will be immediately caught, and locked up in our own secret jails - if they still resist our DEMOCRACY, a place in the deep Lake Michigan is waiting for them.
But it could effectively end the country, which you need to recognize. Once laws are at the whim and impulse of the autocrat, protected by his sympathizers (and now the military), then we're on a foundation of sand.
As was true for King Lear... "Nothing will come of nothing". Being so negative creates the assumption that you are a member of "both sides now" - is that really your "gig"?
In today’s column, Heather Cox Richardson provided a large amount of Gov. Pritzker’s speech yesterday. It was a barn burner, tour de force, model for other blue state governors. Hit just the right notes…very impressive.
C'mon, Dutch, you can do better than that. I can easily say that Republicans want babies to die in states with high maternal and infant mortality rates (I live in one of them and we are totally pro-life). We all know the solutions are much more complicated than that. People don't *want* any of these things.
Wait a moment, listen to the mayor in Chicago, that’s exactly what he is saying. In fact, he’s threatening don’t you come into this city and significantly reduce our violent crime rate. It’s a totally ridiculous argument! What’s next, Dems campaigning on higher taxes….. 😂
He targets blue states only - not where violent crime is necessarily happening. Even in DC they are doing more immigration raids than fighting crime. Not going to the wards with the highest crime rate.
Go ahead and laugh. Oklahoma is returning significant federal money designed to assist with public health. Are we, a bottom-5 state, under the impression that we have it all covered? Ours is just a slower-rolling series of bad decisions. Btw, our crime rates are actually pretty high, but no one pays attention to rural folks and our narrative of God-fearing good people.
Never has a gun killed anyone. I have many. They are very safe. It is the actions of the individuals who possess them. It’s all about personal responsibility. Period.
No, we have a mental health epidemic in this country. I own two AR15 rifles, neither one has ever injured anyone. Again, this is 100% personal responsibility. Guns do not kill people. People kill people using guns.
I'm not going to claim it's good politics. But the simple fact is that more can always be done to deter crime, and that doesn't mean that anything that is done to deter crime is feasible, desirable, or just.
Any non-natural death could have been prevented somehow. But no one is willing to do everything it takes to make that happen, largely because we can't.
Not, again, claiming that this is a winning message anywhere in the country.
You’re a smart guy you can see what President Trump is doing politically. He’s making Democrats choose crime and mayhem over law and order. he’s making them defend the indefensible. Love him or hate him. He’s a smart politician.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a 1878 federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force from acting as a civilian law enforcement "posse" to enforce domestic laws.
Yes. But there is no insurrection, yet., not until he invades red states as well as blue I think. Or, when he cancels elections due to an "emergency" or restricts who can vote. Or, when he redefines insurrection as not following all djt's whims with a smile and a salute.
(I have been wondering where are all the armed militias who were preparing and training to resist and defend when the "deep state" federal govt invaded and tried to take over their safe spaces? Not a peep from them. Oh well, I guess they had fun playing soldiers anyways)
No objections here on the framing. I'm interested in calling it out as Bad for a variety of reasons - the blatant bad faith on the admin's part, the sharing of the American belief that guns and soldiers are inherently positive for a community, the use of overt fear, the seating of second and third grand juries to secure felony indictments - but I can't call it out as "politically unsavy" because I don't think that's true.
There is an argument to be made that the numbers of deaths in the cities and the lack of resources cities have makes the federal government acting reasonable to keep citizens safe. When the city and state are failing. I mean we regularly see headlines of hundreds of people shot / killed over a weekend in Chicago.
Much higher murder rates in red states, and yet the MAGAts aren't calling for troops in the streets in any of those places. This isn't about crime, it's about politics.
It shouldn't require a federal takeover. DC is still waiting for one billion dollars that is being held up by Congress that would go a long way in helping fight crime.
What DC didn’t wait on was passing law to lessen punishment on all crimes including rape and murder. It was so lax that Republicans and Democrats came together under Biden to void it.
So giving them money means nothing. They have shown they actively want to not prosecute and attack crime/
And I'm not knowledgeable to speak to city's alternatives. I appreciate your framing that there is an argument to be made. I'm not persuaded by the argument, and I don't think the city selection evinces a good-faith concern for public safety, but I understand the position, I think.
The cities haven’t done it yet. Same cities, lots of death. I’d be more for that than getting the federal government involved. But since that’s not happening, I’m okay with (though it’s not my preference) Federal force coming in to reduce crime and death
Crime in the cities has always been a problem but it is much less of a problem than it was in the past. Why is there suddenly the need to federalize local law enforcement now?
Congress cut 1 billion dollars from the DC city budget. DC is short 600 police, and yet the crime rate is still at a 30 year low.
This is only about a show of force, it is not about dealing with crime.
Military in the streets does not reduce crime, and when or if they leave, the crime will still be there.
Do you propose the US becomes a militarized state with military patrolling every city? Because there is crime in every city and always has been crime in every city since time began.
Also, there are other cities, at least 10, with far higher crime rates than in DC , but they hapoen to be in red states and are red cities so T is not threatning to invade them with the US military. He is only threatning blue cities, but don't feel secure, once he starts sending the military to enforce his wishes it won't be only in blue cities.
Also, I've been waiting for a direct "The next election is around the corner" so I can not passively aggressively ask you directly:
Do you like that Trump is President until 2029, and if so, why? I don't because I: Want the President to follow the law (TikTok ban, birthright citizenship, habeas petitions), want racial profiling in policing to be recognized as illegal (LA Latino papers-pleasing), want to make decisions for my business with a good idea of what expenses will be in 3 months (tariffs), and I could go on. Thus far, I've gathered that you like that Trump is President because: the stock market has continued its trend or growing over time rather than shrinking. Is there more to it than that, because your refrain of "Vote for someone else next time" suggests that you are just really pleased with the status quo, and I'm curious why that is.
See, but that's the hitch. We elected him "to do" what he's doing in D.C. because what's he's doing is within his remitt because of D.C.'s unique structure. But we don't and can't elect him to do something beyond that remitt, which is largely what the post is about. Even if he gets away with something that is illegal, it was not something he was elected to do because the Constitution cannot grant power to break itself.
You keep on saying that this one thing isn't the end of democracy.
You're right.
It's all the things.
At some point it's going to be gone. And while you sit, silenced from expressing yourself, you're gonna tilt your eyes back and try and figure out when it went south.
I think you are 100% right. Very few of us realized how much of anything is done by norms and not laws or rules.
The question: does this change your thought on the rubber band? Does this realization make you think that he is going to break the rubber band instead of just deform it?
Chris, I really appreciate your writing, but I think you're (finally) just starting to see the big picture. Is it possible that the Never Trumpers have TDS? Of course. But nobody I read (The Bulwark, PodSave, Steve Schmidt) has said that these were inevitable steps into authoritarianism. Rather, they indicate a tendency, a desire. And that the tail risks are crazy huge.
He is doing what he is doing and what no one ever did before BECAUSE SCOTUS TOLD HIM HE COULD. That's it. A lot of what he is doing used to be a crime and is definitely unconstitutional, but he doesn't care and SCOTUS essentially said "Do what you want to do."
And that is where we need new limits on presidential power. We do not have a normal president. We have to spell out his limits and next time we have control of the process we will 😆!
We need a constitutional amendment that states "The office of President of the United States, and the person occupying that office, shall be subject to all duly enacted laws of the United States of America." It's a pipe dream, we'd never get such an amendment ratified, but it would be a good step forward. And, then we need (or maybe we back door this by doing this first) to enact laws making various norms now laws. I know, I know. It'll never happen. But, don't criticize me for dreaming.
In 2016 I sent a memo to my clients that Trump is so new that he would be operating outside of all norms that we understood Presidents would operate. Few believed me. Much of American politics has operated within norms and the leaders had forbearance to follow them. Trump has destroyed them. The big thing that many did not see is the absolute collapse of the GOP congress to check him as well as the Maga scotus that enabled him.
Seems like Democrats are incapable of meeting this moment Chris - they’re bringing a knife to a gunfight. Not everything is a diversion from the Epstein story, nor does everything have to be ‘kitchen table issues’ to be worth discussing. No question coming, more of a rant lamenting a rudderless opposition party
Under the Radar: MILITARIZATION OF THE NATION--Executive Order Signed 8/25/25:
Yesterday (8/25/25) Trump signed an executive order instructing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to create a “specialized unit” within DC’s National Guard “dedicated to ensuring public safety and order.”
Under this same executive order, Hegseth is also charged with ensuring “the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force” for “rapid nationwide deployment” for “quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety [sic] and order whenever the circumstances necessitate.”
To read the relevant language in its entirety (which I highly recommend), see the White House webpage deceptively entitled "ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE CRIME EMERGENCY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA", Section 2(d)(i) and (ii) at this link:
We are in the middle of a perfect storm: electing a president who is not interested in laws and norms, a friendly Supreme Court, and a disappeared Congress. The guardrails are gone. Turns out much of what we have relied on is pretty much an honor system, so we should thank Trump and company for pointing this out to us. We are also learning, we comfortable people, that our documents and life stories are only useful if the people evaluating them accept them. So we need to get used to that, don't we?
It's kind like having traffic lights that only some people adhere to.
Trump's kangaroo court prosecution of Lisa Cook is the latest proof that irony is not dead. He accuses her of making false statements on mortgage documents in order to get a better rate. Yet, making false statements on financial documents is precisely what Trump and his namesake company were accused of in New York. He repeatedly misstated relevant information on loan applications, insurance paperwork, tax records, etc. It was so bad that his accounting firm publicly disavowed statements they had made based on his false data and they dropped him and his firm as clients. Trump got a pass on his many instances of financial fraud, so you would think he would extend the sale grace to Lisa Cook for her alleged minor infractions. But, of course, there is one standard for Trump and another for everyone else.
“Broader approach to the presidency “? Just say it outright, the guy is a crook with no principles except self-aggrandizement.
Really? Have you not followed this person’s behavior over his entire career? There is nothing this amoral, damaged person won’t do. He’s never shown a willingness to follow norms - his ugliness has been on full display forever
I think the point is that Chris and many others didn't realize how many things ran on norms rather than laws that the chief executive couldn't effectively ignore.
The Constitutional remedy to all this is impeachment. All else is coping with the failure of Congress to do so.
>I assumed that there were a series of laws and regulations that would limit Trump’s ability to follow some of his worst instincts in office.
Chris, I'm pretty sure we've been screaming at you about this over the past year when you said you didn't think Trump was a threat to democracy.
Exactly! Chris, you gotta stop being so naive. Authoritarianism doesn't arrive with a clap of thunder. It oozes out of dark corners until it consumes the body politic. Ask folks in DC these days about fascism. We're seeing it on the streets.
To be fair, a lot of the items on the list in the post are not gray areas--legal scholars, attorneys, and even judges have identified those actions as flagrantly unconstitutional/illegal.
My point is that there isn’t a ton of case law in many of these circumstances because no president has ever even tried to do them.
I think this is valid but I want to join the pushback against Trump's framing that legal=possible. It isn't. Courts including SCOTUS declare things non-justitiable or illegal but non-fixable not uncommonly.
If the courts won’t enforce the laws, then “illegality “ is immaterial.
😭
Which mean NOTHING unless there is a legal ruling on whether something is illegal or an interpretation is correct
But there have been legal rulings on many of these, including from the Supreme Court. The first item on the list regarding birthright citizenship was a famous example. This is why I included "judges" on my list of people who have found Trump's actions to be unconstitutional/illegal. Try to keep up.
It’s a different argument he’s making on birthright citizenship and rulings have been made have been changed layer by the Supreme Court. So you are mostly wrong, try to do better
I disagree with the executive branch that it isn't a real ruling until it's from SCOTUS. I understand there are practical reasons for that understanding, but I think it's unconstitutional and degenerative to the rule of law.
With this admin it is just anothet stalling tactic in order to continue doing whatever they want until the SC either declines to hear the case, or hears the case and then decides it months later.
"...and rulings have been made have been changed layer [sic] by the Supreme Court."
So you agree that courts have ruled that what Trump is trying to do is in fact illegal and/or unconstitutional. Good talk.
Nope. Notice the argument has changed. So it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional. He’s not ending brithright citizenship, he’s saying it needs to be interpreted to mean people have to legally be in the country to fall under the category.
I know that might be hard for you to grasp. You need to do more thinking and less talking. No better way for him to get clarification than making the change and getting challenged.
In fact it is settled case law. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Of course this lawless Supreme Court treats stare decisis as a bad joke, so there's no telling what they'll do.
Actually, at the Supreme Court this admin only argued the birthright citizenship case by saying nationwide injunctions by judges are wrong. They did not try to defend their claim to end birthright citizenship.
"So it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional."
Incorrect. In July and August of this year, a judge ruled it as unconstitutional, as did a 3-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Since then, other judges in other Circuits have agreed. If your argument is that SCOTUS has not yet ruled on this case, that's great, but that's not what I said, so you're changing the rules of the game and then declaring victory. You wouldn't happen to be related to Dutch, would you? 😂
At least 2 maybe 3 justices to be confirmed in the next 3 years…. 😎
🐦 The pigeon has entered the chat!
The abortion rulings must have messed up your mind 😂😂 Thoughts like. “Why do states keep putting limitations on it, it’s decided”. “Why are they changing laws to go to the courts to get a ruling”. “It’s already decided and what they are doing is unconstitutional”
I hope you figured that out by now too.
I can't tell if you're responding to me here. Are you stating what I'm thinking and then trying to refute that?? I'm guessing you hear voices, but it worries me that you think they're mine.
SCOTUS has not ruled on the issue of birthright citizenship. The case will likely be heard in the next term. What they did was block any nationwide injunctions on the issue, which leaves only class actions as a possible remedy for those in that class. Until the case is adjudicated, the citizenship status of children born to certain non-citizen residents is uncertain.
I am aware of the recent SCOTUS ruling, but please read my responses to Pete for more detail as to my thoughts. Of note, SCOTUS may never rule on the case. They may choose not to take it up if they agree with a lower court’s finding (i.e. that Trump’s EO is unconstitutional).
Yes, and read your original comment, which I've already addressed.
😭
WE MUST make sure that invading cities with his military will bring his end before Christmas..
Chicago is calling....
For sure, Governor Pritzker has a plan - we are ready for the felon's "army" in Chicago - we (at least 3 million of us) will surround them in their little citadels in and around the city - they will NOT have a chance to get on our streets in the "beautiful friendly city on the lake".
Anyone in a mask with or without a gun will be immediately caught, and locked up in our own secret jails - if they still resist our DEMOCRACY, a place in the deep Lake Michigan is waiting for them.
We stopped Capone - we will stop them!
Nothing is going to bring about his end. I think Democrats need to stop thinking that way.
But it could effectively end the country, which you need to recognize. Once laws are at the whim and impulse of the autocrat, protected by his sympathizers (and now the military), then we're on a foundation of sand.
As was true for King Lear... "Nothing will come of nothing". Being so negative creates the assumption that you are a member of "both sides now" - is that really your "gig"?
Are you still living in 2016?
In today’s column, Heather Cox Richardson provided a large amount of Gov. Pritzker’s speech yesterday. It was a barn burner, tour de force, model for other blue state governors. Hit just the right notes…very impressive.
Crime in the streets is what you want!
What an inspirational message!!
C'mon, Dutch, you can do better than that. I can easily say that Republicans want babies to die in states with high maternal and infant mortality rates (I live in one of them and we are totally pro-life). We all know the solutions are much more complicated than that. People don't *want* any of these things.
Wait a moment, listen to the mayor in Chicago, that’s exactly what he is saying. In fact, he’s threatening don’t you come into this city and significantly reduce our violent crime rate. It’s a totally ridiculous argument! What’s next, Dems campaigning on higher taxes….. 😂
He targets blue states only - not where violent crime is necessarily happening. Even in DC they are doing more immigration raids than fighting crime. Not going to the wards with the highest crime rate.
Remember prior to this initiative the homicide rate in DC was approximately one per day one every other day
If he is avoiding the high crime areas, how do you explain the fact that there’s been no homicides in 12 days 14 days something like that?
The same way we explain that between February 25 and March 12 (16 days) there were no homicides in DC...
Go ahead and laugh. Oklahoma is returning significant federal money designed to assist with public health. Are we, a bottom-5 state, under the impression that we have it all covered? Ours is just a slower-rolling series of bad decisions. Btw, our crime rates are actually pretty high, but no one pays attention to rural folks and our narrative of God-fearing good people.
Looney Tunes. Meanwhile, DC hasn’t had a murder in 13 days and Democrats let their citizens die
But guns keep killing children.
Laura,
Never has a gun killed anyone. I have many. They are very safe. It is the actions of the individuals who possess them. It’s all about personal responsibility. Period.
We have a gun problem in this country. No need for automatic military style guns that have been used to massacre kids, church goers, etc.
No, we have a mental health epidemic in this country. I own two AR15 rifles, neither one has ever injured anyone. Again, this is 100% personal responsibility. Guns do not kill people. People kill people using guns.
People with mental health issues are far more likely to be victims of crime, not perpetrators.
The high gun death rate in the US is not because of health, its because of the prevalence and easy access to guns.
No other nation on earth has gun deaths at the rate of the US. They have mental health issues at the same rate as the US. You figure it out.
So we're just supposed to take your word that no one has ever been injured by your guns? Good lord, I hope you don't live in the DMV...
It's actually 12 days.
February 25 to March 12, a 16-day period where no homicides were committed in DC.
I'm not going to claim it's good politics. But the simple fact is that more can always be done to deter crime, and that doesn't mean that anything that is done to deter crime is feasible, desirable, or just.
Any non-natural death could have been prevented somehow. But no one is willing to do everything it takes to make that happen, largely because we can't.
Not, again, claiming that this is a winning message anywhere in the country.
You’re a smart guy you can see what President Trump is doing politically. He’s making Democrats choose crime and mayhem over law and order. he’s making them defend the indefensible. Love him or hate him. He’s a smart politician.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a 1878 federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force from acting as a civilian law enforcement "posse" to enforce domestic laws.
The Insurrection Act will negate that, so wait for it.
Yes. But there is no insurrection, yet., not until he invades red states as well as blue I think. Or, when he cancels elections due to an "emergency" or restricts who can vote. Or, when he redefines insurrection as not following all djt's whims with a smile and a salute.
(I have been wondering where are all the armed militias who were preparing and training to resist and defend when the "deep state" federal govt invaded and tried to take over their safe spaces? Not a peep from them. Oh well, I guess they had fun playing soldiers anyways)
No objections here on the framing. I'm interested in calling it out as Bad for a variety of reasons - the blatant bad faith on the admin's part, the sharing of the American belief that guns and soldiers are inherently positive for a community, the use of overt fear, the seating of second and third grand juries to secure felony indictments - but I can't call it out as "politically unsavy" because I don't think that's true.
There is an argument to be made that the numbers of deaths in the cities and the lack of resources cities have makes the federal government acting reasonable to keep citizens safe. When the city and state are failing. I mean we regularly see headlines of hundreds of people shot / killed over a weekend in Chicago.
It’s obviously a stop gap measure
Much higher murder rates in red states, and yet the MAGAts aren't calling for troops in the streets in any of those places. This isn't about crime, it's about politics.
Murder rates in the states or in the cities? Are you comparing cities to states?
And childish insult to MAGA, lol. Trump owns so much of your brain
Memphis has a higher murder rate than Washington. St. Louis has a higher murder rate than Washington. Stop making excuses for Trump's fascism.
And your orange idol is the king of childish insults. MAGAts is how you're widely referred to. Deal with it.
It shouldn't require a federal takeover. DC is still waiting for one billion dollars that is being held up by Congress that would go a long way in helping fight crime.
https://wtop.com/liveblog-today-on-the-hill/2025/08/dc-still-waits-for-congress-to-restore-1-billion-in-funding-during-crime-crackdown/
What DC didn’t wait on was passing law to lessen punishment on all crimes including rape and murder. It was so lax that Republicans and Democrats came together under Biden to void it.
So giving them money means nothing. They have shown they actively want to not prosecute and attack crime/
I’m calling you and others on insults and sarcasm. Those don’t win debates
Congress pulled one billion worth of funding for DC and the AG loosened gun laws
DC isn’t in the top 20 most violent cities. Eight of those cities are republican
And I'm not knowledgeable to speak to city's alternatives. I appreciate your framing that there is an argument to be made. I'm not persuaded by the argument, and I don't think the city selection evinces a good-faith concern for public safety, but I understand the position, I think.
It does seem that we could find a "stop gap measure" that doesn't involve federalizing local law enforcement.
The cities haven’t done it yet. Same cities, lots of death. I’d be more for that than getting the federal government involved. But since that’s not happening, I’m okay with (though it’s not my preference) Federal force coming in to reduce crime and death
Crime in the cities has always been a problem but it is much less of a problem than it was in the past. Why is there suddenly the need to federalize local law enforcement now?
Cities are underfunded and under policed
Instead of telling lies the government could do a better job of funding and the DOJ could come up with helpful suggestions
Congress cut 1 billion dollars from the DC city budget. DC is short 600 police, and yet the crime rate is still at a 30 year low.
This is only about a show of force, it is not about dealing with crime.
Military in the streets does not reduce crime, and when or if they leave, the crime will still be there.
Do you propose the US becomes a militarized state with military patrolling every city? Because there is crime in every city and always has been crime in every city since time began.
Also, there are other cities, at least 10, with far higher crime rates than in DC , but they hapoen to be in red states and are red cities so T is not threatning to invade them with the US military. He is only threatning blue cities, but don't feel secure, once he starts sending the military to enforce his wishes it won't be only in blue cities.
False argument.
This admin has cut billions of dollars from programs that are designed to reduce crime. And which had been reducing crime this the lower crime rates.
If this admin wanted to really fight crime it would not have decimated the abilities of states and cities to fight crime!
It’s a winning message to the 10 or so people who statistically would be dead right now but are in fact alive and doing fine!
It's a good thing we don't let 10 random civilians decide what we do in national politics.
Correct!
We elected President Trump to fill that role!
Those 10 people are the beneficiaries of that leadership!
Psst, 2029 right around the corner…..
Also, I've been waiting for a direct "The next election is around the corner" so I can not passively aggressively ask you directly:
Do you like that Trump is President until 2029, and if so, why? I don't because I: Want the President to follow the law (TikTok ban, birthright citizenship, habeas petitions), want racial profiling in policing to be recognized as illegal (LA Latino papers-pleasing), want to make decisions for my business with a good idea of what expenses will be in 3 months (tariffs), and I could go on. Thus far, I've gathered that you like that Trump is President because: the stock market has continued its trend or growing over time rather than shrinking. Is there more to it than that, because your refrain of "Vote for someone else next time" suggests that you are just really pleased with the status quo, and I'm curious why that is.
See, but that's the hitch. We elected him "to do" what he's doing in D.C. because what's he's doing is within his remitt because of D.C.'s unique structure. But we don't and can't elect him to do something beyond that remitt, which is largely what the post is about. Even if he gets away with something that is illegal, it was not something he was elected to do because the Constitution cannot grant power to break itself.
Your stmt about Ds is ‘looney tunes’ and you know it. Rs have been using various versions of this lie for 60 years.
Not true then or now. And Rs should look to themselves to see that they let our citizens die with their policies.
Blaming Ds for what Rs do is all you folks have.
DC has had 13 days without a murder earlier this year, and many other times.
The military on our steets, or in DC's case, in high traffic tourist areas and not in the neighborhoods where crime is high, does not reduce crime.
You keep on saying that this one thing isn't the end of democracy.
You're right.
It's all the things.
At some point it's going to be gone. And while you sit, silenced from expressing yourself, you're gonna tilt your eyes back and try and figure out when it went south.
Today. Yesterday. And every day in between.
I think you are 100% right. Very few of us realized how much of anything is done by norms and not laws or rules.
The question: does this change your thought on the rubber band? Does this realization make you think that he is going to break the rubber band instead of just deform it?
I still don't think so. But I have to admit that I don't know for sure! Anyone who says they do is lying or forecasting the future!
Chris, I really appreciate your writing, but I think you're (finally) just starting to see the big picture. Is it possible that the Never Trumpers have TDS? Of course. But nobody I read (The Bulwark, PodSave, Steve Schmidt) has said that these were inevitable steps into authoritarianism. Rather, they indicate a tendency, a desire. And that the tail risks are crazy huge.
He is doing what he is doing and what no one ever did before BECAUSE SCOTUS TOLD HIM HE COULD. That's it. A lot of what he is doing used to be a crime and is definitely unconstitutional, but he doesn't care and SCOTUS essentially said "Do what you want to do."
And that is where we need new limits on presidential power. We do not have a normal president. We have to spell out his limits and next time we have control of the process we will 😆!
Just another stretch of the rubber band in the Trump presidency! Can't believe it's only been 7 months. His terms feel like an eternity.
We need a constitutional amendment that states "The office of President of the United States, and the person occupying that office, shall be subject to all duly enacted laws of the United States of America." It's a pipe dream, we'd never get such an amendment ratified, but it would be a good step forward. And, then we need (or maybe we back door this by doing this first) to enact laws making various norms now laws. I know, I know. It'll never happen. But, don't criticize me for dreaming.
In 2016 I sent a memo to my clients that Trump is so new that he would be operating outside of all norms that we understood Presidents would operate. Few believed me. Much of American politics has operated within norms and the leaders had forbearance to follow them. Trump has destroyed them. The big thing that many did not see is the absolute collapse of the GOP congress to check him as well as the Maga scotus that enabled him.
Seems like Democrats are incapable of meeting this moment Chris - they’re bringing a knife to a gunfight. Not everything is a diversion from the Epstein story, nor does everything have to be ‘kitchen table issues’ to be worth discussing. No question coming, more of a rant lamenting a rudderless opposition party
They are going to be forced to respond at one point, let’s be sure to contribute to the candidate of your choice!
At least once a day my 84 year old mom says "... But he can't do that." I have to tell her that it doesn't matter. There are NO constraints on Trump.
Under the Radar: MILITARIZATION OF THE NATION--Executive Order Signed 8/25/25:
Yesterday (8/25/25) Trump signed an executive order instructing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to create a “specialized unit” within DC’s National Guard “dedicated to ensuring public safety and order.”
Under this same executive order, Hegseth is also charged with ensuring “the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force” for “rapid nationwide deployment” for “quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety [sic] and order whenever the circumstances necessitate.”
To read the relevant language in its entirety (which I highly recommend), see the White House webpage deceptively entitled "ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE CRIME EMERGENCY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA", Section 2(d)(i) and (ii) at this link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/additional-measures-to-address-the-crime-emergency-in-the-district-of-columbia/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
We are in the middle of a perfect storm: electing a president who is not interested in laws and norms, a friendly Supreme Court, and a disappeared Congress. The guardrails are gone. Turns out much of what we have relied on is pretty much an honor system, so we should thank Trump and company for pointing this out to us. We are also learning, we comfortable people, that our documents and life stories are only useful if the people evaluating them accept them. So we need to get used to that, don't we?
It's kind like having traffic lights that only some people adhere to.
That last part sounds a whole helluva lot like driving in Dallas!
Trump's kangaroo court prosecution of Lisa Cook is the latest proof that irony is not dead. He accuses her of making false statements on mortgage documents in order to get a better rate. Yet, making false statements on financial documents is precisely what Trump and his namesake company were accused of in New York. He repeatedly misstated relevant information on loan applications, insurance paperwork, tax records, etc. It was so bad that his accounting firm publicly disavowed statements they had made based on his false data and they dropped him and his firm as clients. Trump got a pass on his many instances of financial fraud, so you would think he would extend the sale grace to Lisa Cook for her alleged minor infractions. But, of course, there is one standard for Trump and another for everyone else.