As judges continue to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders, the White House and the federal courts appear headed for an almost inevitable clash.
I’m so angry that I can’t see straight. I had conversations with so many trump supporters about things that he said he would do if elected. I did not get one response in return that said, whoa, maybe I should look into this further. Every single person said, he’s not really going to do that, he only says it to get you liberals riled up because it’s so easy to do. They said, only the “bad” immigrants will be deported. He’s not going after abortion rights, he’s concerned about the price of groceries and gas. He doesn’t want to stop people from voting, only the ones who are fraudulent. Etc, etc, etc.. This is the caliber of people we are dealing with. I wish the blue states could be absorbed into Canada. The United States is an embarrassment and a joke and the people who voted for don have no character or morals.
The alarm bell that rang the loudest for me was back in September, when 111 former national security officials from Republican administrations and former Republican members of Congress, drafted a letter outlining why they would not be endorsing Trump.
While I understand frustration and a desire for change, I will never comprehend how some truly believe that they know more than decorated generals, foreign policy officials, former secretaries of state and defense etc.. Educated, experienced, dedicated professionals (who were in the trenches with him the first time around) take the time to issue a warning- outlining their observations and concerns, but so-and-so dons a hat and purports to know more.
This is very well said Nicole, and I will also never comprehend how the opinions of such dedicated public servants (not to mention the lack of support from the extremely conservative former Vice President) are simply brushed aside. It is very confusing to me.
I also have the same questions about the rhetoric around “bureaucrats” (which has become a slur it seems) - many bureaucrats hold their positions because they’ve invested immense time and energy into becoming experts on a specific topic, and often topics that serve the public good (healthcare, transportation, food safety, etc), but yet some would have us believe they’re all lazy, corrupt, freeloaders - where is the intellectual humility?
My feeling is that evisceration is quite simply far less cumbersome than introspection or consideration.
In much the same way that I find hypocrisy to be akin to sleight of hand. Insidious. Trick the eye and there follows the mind. Trick the mind and there follow the beliefs.
Unfortunately, neither of these are optimal conditions for humility to flourish.
This has not been my experience. While some federal employees certainly are wonderful, dedicated servants, others ARE incredibly lazy freeloaders with poor job performance. The difference between private and public sector is it can be EXTREMELY difficult to terminate anyone employed directly by the federal government. I work in patient care (an area where you'd think high quality work is required, no?) and have sounded alarm bells about an employee who downright refused to do his job properly. The response I received: "no one can make him do his job." He continued to collect a paycheck until retirement, and yes, he was a proud and loud Democrat.
Anecdotal evidence is just that though. There are plenty of poor performing Republican public sector employees as well. And while it's difficult to terminate an employee it's not impossible. It doesn't mean we need to eliminate entire agencies to get rid of a few bad apples. That seems like poor management as well.
While I just included one example, I could list many more. I had a conversation with my coworker about this very thing no less than an hour ago. Her words: "GS employees are allowed to get away with murder." I agree with you that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily indicative of a larger problem, but this trend has held true between the two government organizations where I've worked. These stereotypes exist for a reason. "Good enough for government work."
Hey, your experience sounds challenging. However, I just don’t know if firing ALL federal workers is the solution (and I do believe the intent is to fire the majority of them). A bit “throwing the baby out with the bath water” in my opinion, especially considering the enormous harm done to good workers, their families, the communities and business their salaries support. I don’t think anyone on the left is against reduction of waste, better investment of government dollars and in fact, I don’t think anyone on the left wants bad government employees to be un-fireable (as a lefty I desperately want good, effective programs to succeed and ineffective ones to be canceled). I take issue with the blanket rhetoric that bureaucrats are bad and government spending is inherently bad.
I'm very sorry you've worked for two poorly managed government organizations. While I have experienced a few bad apples overall that has not been my experience at all. The people I have worked with have been hard workers who care about their jobs and the work they do.
This is the caliber of people we are dealing with?
"If your party overwhelmingly comprises the federal bureaucracy, you hold onto the levers of power even through electoral losses. This has been the story of The Democrats for my entire life. It's also the best explanation for the Democrats' current desperation and hysteria." - Abigail Shrier
I don’t understand this comment. Can you explain? How does the Democratic party comprise the federal bureaucracy? Where is the evidence that Americans holding federal jobs are all Democrats?
It’s also worth nothing the republican party has been cutting gov jobs for sometime. Most of us that have dedicated our career to civil service and understand its value, aren’t going to give money to a party that doesn’t believe is us or our work.
Of course they're not all Democrats and there's no way to know definitively, but just follow the money. Upward of 95% of all political donations from federal employees are to Democrat candidates.
Can you share your source? I found an article mentioning 95% of donations going to Hillary Clinton in 2016, but in 2020 it was only 60% to Biden. The same source says 84% to Kamala Harris in 2024. How many donated? Is it 84% of 20% of the workforce or 84% of 100% of the workforce? The n matters.
If I am understanding Kayla’s comments correctly between this thread and the thread in the “Is Bipartisanship Dead?” article, this is the link she shared to support her claim:
I asked for clarification because I truly don’t understand it, but I never received a response. I’d really appreciate an explanation because I am genuinely curious.
Thanks for sharing. The numbers in that do not make sense to me with regard to the percentages listed. For example, in 2024 if the total is over 2.6 million given but Dems gave 96.39% why does it say Dems accounted for about 800K. 96% = 2.5 million. Regardless, if you have a workforce of 100,000, and 100 gave $ and all that $ went to Dems then you might think all federal workers support Dems. In reality 1% of the workforce supported Dems. The n matters a lot, and the source doesn’t share how many individuals the $ amount represents. Therefore, one cannot conclude anything about the political affiliation of the workforce. If we want to play the game of follow the $ we could take a deep dive into Elon Musk. That would tell us a lot.
Thanks for this great context! Just reminds me how fragile democracy is; how its success really hinges on most of our elected officials acting in good faith most of the time. That it requires character, humility, and a desire to uphold our social pact to one another.
It really ties into how important it is for Trump to replace judges and civil servants with loyalists - he needs a critical mass of people willing to look the other way (or actively act in bad faith) to accomplish his goals. And my goodness, that list of other looming battles... the sheer volume of harm he's attempted to cause (and actually caused) in just a few weeks is shocking.
I was listening to a podcast where they stressed that we really do ultimately have a government built on the honor system in a lot of ways. It really underscores how important it is that we elect honorable people. And how much damage a dishonorable person can do.
That’s exactly what they *should* do. But sadly they (majority Republicans) have been rubber stamping his every wish. I wonder what it’s going to take to turn the tide.
So many of the non-MAGA Trump voters have started expressing extreme regret. (e.g. Latinx-Americans, Arab-Americans, etc.), and even some MAGA (e.g. Farmers/Rural Americans). And, quite honestly, we still haven't felt the effects of Trump's actions. When that happens over the next few months...Look out. The mid-terms are coming. Trump's only hope at maintaining majority support in Congress is to start now, and 1) Back off; 2) Follow the orders of the court(s). I could be completely wrong about this--but my prediction is that the Dems (beginning in January, '27) will gain control of Congress...and keep relative control for many years to come. We've seen this before........about a hundred years ago.
Interesting perspective. I see it differently. I believe the democrat party won’t win elections for awhile- unless they change directions and start to reflect and work on their own beliefs and how they reach voters, rather than blame Trump and his supporters. I believe we are headed into a long stretch of Republicans in the majority.
An interesting substack - The Liberal Patriot- has a few posts that provide healthy critique of the democrat party.
I know that you shared links previously where regrets have been shared (about voting for Trump) but they were all from left leaning publications. From non-partisan and right leaning- I haven’t seen wide spread regrets (or any regrets). I’m sure there are some regrets- but I am not sure regrets translate into voting blue in the mid term election.
I don't disagree about messaging within the Democratic party. I do think that Trump is going to give them a lot of fuel to use over the next two years and how they use that will help decide those elections. I do think that regrets *could* lead to voting blue in the mid-terms. It just depends on what the economy among other things looks like by that point. I don't think that the old playbook will work.
I think the fact that the last time Trump won there was a blue wave right afterwards. I do understand that some who voted for him are in a vacuum where they only hear things for their perspective. Obviously that happens on the left too. I will say anyone who is personally hit might change their mind on who they vote for as that’s just how that goes. I will also say some people sat out the election because of the overall stance on Gaza, but they might be motivated to come back in. Even voting in reasonable Republicans could have the effect of making our government strong again.
Well said Amy. If the progressives continue with the same rhetoric of 1)Trump is bad, (2) his voters are dumb and (3) daily spreading untruths about components of revisions being sought ie., SAVE act and married women, 504 and funding being cut for people with disabilities, they will continue on the hamster wheel they’ve been on. Oh well.. as my favorite elementary teacher taught me, “a word to the wise is sufficient”.
Hi Robn. I'd like to learn more about what you mean regarding the untruths of the 504 plans, because a number of articles I've read, including from Forbes, quote the text of the lawsuit directly.
The lawsuit does indeed start with complaints alleged that gender dysphoria doesn't belong in the definition of Section 504.
However, the lawsuit does then go on to state that it believes Section 504 itself, in its entirety, to be unconstitutional.
I am not a lawyer, so I am very willing to be told by a lawyer that I am misreading this. However, the text of the requested relief is on page 42, and is in plain English. Request d states that they request that the Court declare Section 504 (which can be found at 29 U.S.C. § 794) unconstitutional, for the reasons they outline on page 37.
Yes, Stefanie. I just caught Sharon’s IG story a few minutes ago. In a few frames, she explains that Georgia’s denial response to inquiries regarding its participation in a lawsuit, attempting to dismantle Section 504, is “Patently False” because it specifically asks the court to rule that the entirety of Section 504 be ruled unconstitutional. She provides images and links as well.
One of my own senators, John Cornyn, has been posting things on FB like, "I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: President Donald J. Trump is entitled to his team. Senate Democrats have tried to delay & obstruct the process, but Senate Republicans are moving full steam ahead to get the President his team." He's also posted some REALLY nasty things about his own constituents who have been protesting outside of his Texas offices.
Unfortunately, the Republican-led Congress is not interested in upholding SCOTUS rulings, the Constitution, or the rule of law.
It’s so disheartening, because the Republicans have the majority in Congress and will side with Trump; however, if Trump is impeached and convicted, we get Vance, so we’re still in the same boat. I think all we can do is pray that the country holds together long enough to make it to the midterm election next year, and hopefully shift the balance of power.🙏🏻
Prayers are one option. We can also call, write, visit our representatives, protest, and organize for the midterms. There is a lot of work to do right now, and there is something for everyone to do.
As a retired judge, the forthcoming constitutional crisis is of major concern. I fear for the constitutional protections the founding fathers thought they created . The entire concept of separation of powers seems to be at risk . At the risk of repeating the obvious , those you forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.
I think it’s very important to remember the actual text of the Supreme Court ruling here! The court only gave a president full immunity for actions that fall within their exclusive authority - I think it would be a very hard case to make that, for example, deciding what money to spend falls under a president’s exclusive authority, considering it arguably doesn’t even fall into their authority at all.
The Worcester story is another one that would make a great movie.
The way the government tried to keep missionaries from advocating for Indians reminds me of the faith based orgs siding with the marginalized today and coming under attack. I’m thinking of USAID-funded orgs and churches that had been sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
Part of me feels like this is going to open a Pandora’s box of civil compliance issues if the executive branch continues to essentially spat “Make me!” like a playground upstart as often as they seem to be
I’m trying understand if what is happening now is actually on the same level as anything that has happened in this country in the past with one single president. Has any single president attempted to use the executive branch in the exact manner Trump is? While also having first laid the groundwork for there to be zero accountability and repercussions? 1) fanning the flames of division, 2) eroding trust in the media and all public institutions, 3) lying constantly about almost every topic, 4) firing government employees and replacing them with loyalists, 5) firing federal prosecutors, FBI agents, and CIA agents and replacing them with loyalists, 6) threatening anyone who attempts to uphold laws, 7) ignoring court rulings, and 8) clearly no one is going to step in to enforce any law he doesn’t agree with. And this is only a partial list. While we can point to many troubling situations our country has faced over the decades, have we actually faced anything of this magnitude?
I think the structure of our media system made it much easier to do. Before social media the only way people got news was television, newspapers, radio, or word of mouth. It was easy to not really be in the know about politics and politicians couldn’t use outrage as a way to run their campaign.
My concern is that the Republicans are no where to be seen. They’re not in the House. Senator Cornyn’s voicemail is turned off. So how do we go anywhere when they’re hiding in a room planning who knows what? And our courts are slow. So by the time all these things move up the ladder who knows what will have happened. I love that we’re engaged in commenting, yet we need to step out of our comfort zone and get visible. At 66, I need a plan.
Work on voting them out. They are our representatives. Made your voice heard to them. Ask others to do the same. Calling, email, appointments. Don’t let up. They are going to continue to bank on their constituents being too worn down to vote them out.
Jennifer ... I do ALL of that and have since COVID. Unfortunately, I live in Texas and even though the Dallas area is blue, most of Texas is red and there is no limit to how many times the governor serves. It's a horrible mess. But yes, I'm tired. And just calling won't cut it. We need to be visible. Cornyn has shut down his phones - no voicemail for weeks now. :/
Seriously, how did Biden hide? And we are talking about Congressional Representatives and not Trump. No, Trump is on TV 14 times a day signing useless pieces of paper with his huge Sharpie. Redrawing maps with his huge Sharpie. Renaming countries with his UGE Sharpie.
Biden had far, far fewer press conferences and media interviews than his predecessors. The release of the audio of his interview with Robert Hur regarding classified documents was blocked despite the already available transcripts. Reports revealing Biden was in cognitive decline as early as 2021. The Democratic Media Complex lied to the American people Biden's enter tenure, had the audacity to encourage him to seek a second term, and then they criticize Trump and his administration's lack of transparency. I'm sorry, but it's laughable.
I was glad that he didn’t have the narcissistic behavior of Trump and want to be in front of the camera 24/7. I’d much rather the president and VP be working than mugging the camera. And when Biden did speak - everyone was allowed to listen. Now, only maga journalists can listen and report.
Oh, Jane…surely you jest about Biden hiding?? How many press conferences did he hold? And how many questions were truthfully provided on a regular basis by his press secretary? You’re are correct on one thing though. I guess all those times he spent on the beach he was hiding in plan sight, so there is that.
But Trump is darn happy to enforce and live by the ruling that gives him immunity from "official actions". Because rules for thee and not for me seems to be the theme of this administration.
Do we honestly think at this point laws will stop Trump for doing anything?
Please don't misconstrue this to mean that it is an *additional* cost. These folks are all already on the payroll, so-to-speak. The true cost comes from the fact that they have to spend time prosecuting cases based on frivolity--which undermines their ability to serve the public in other ways. If Trump respected the "rule of law"...these folks wouldn't have to focus on his 'antics.'
I have yet to see any verifiable proof of fraud, waste, or abuse. The only thing I’ve seen are tweets which I don’t consider a direct or trustworthy source. Especially when musk himself said “some of the things I say will be incorrect.”
And who is musk and his 20year old techies to even understand what is or is not prudent government spending? They aren’t accountants, elected officials, or have any sort of relevant qualifications to be funneling or cutting off our tax payer money to anywhere.
They know how to decipher the systems and follow the money trails. The financial situation of our nation is beyond troubling. I am excited that someone is finally in office that is willing to put people in place that will locate the waste. Tough cuts and choices will probably be necessary to get us on a better path. The US cannot be everything to everyone. Would you like me to ask you to use your over-extended credit card to donate to my charity? Why do we expect our country to always do the same. As for the age of the “techs” you reference - do you recall the ages of the framers of our constitution and many of our founding fathers? Many were in their late teens and early twenties.
Every government entity that Elon and the DOGE-bros have targeted so far are either investigating Tesla or Space X or are about to investigate Tesla or Space X. USAID helped end apartheid in South Africa, which was a financial blow to Musk Senor.
So far DOGE is following the Project 2025 playbook (you know that thing that Trump swore he had no knowledge of) to the letter.
Musk cost-cutting targets agencies disliked by conservatives, not major budget contributors
DOGE claims $37.69 billion savings to date - a fraction of its $2 trillion target
Nine of the government agencies in Musk's sights were mentioned in Project 2025 report, including Education Department
So if an idea was mentioned in P2025 and simultaneously Trump decides to implement something similar , does it mean all of P2025 was Trumps’s plan all along?? Can the two not be mutually exclusive or is he only allowed to implement something if it isn’t contained in P2025? Have you actually read the document? Perhaps if you have/did you might agree with some of the ideas within.
Decipher systems and follow money trails? That does not explain a qualification for what is and is not prudent spending.
And you realize Trump himself is responsible for 8 trillion of that debt during his first term?
You know a good way to get some money to pay off that debt?? Taxing corporations and the ultra wealthy ? Why doesn’t Trump do that if he cares so much about lowering the deficit? Instead, he is working to DECREASE their tax rate.
I completely understand we can’t be everything for everyone, but what we can do is start holding our own and our own corporations liable for paying in their fair share, instead of taking away resources from the lower classes.
No one is against cutting frivolous government spending by social security, medicaid & Medicare, and biomedical research is not it.
It would be a much better approach to go in with accountants and actuaries and chip away where needed, not just go in with a sledgehammer and bust up entire agencies.
However, Some people are such rabid supporters of Trump they literally do not care about democracy so long as they get their favored outcome. But the leopards will come to eat their faces, too.
But where are the facts and data? I’ve looked, and haven’t seen any reporting. If the waste was rampant it would be easy to show very clearly all the waste that’s been eliminated and the new processes put in place to avoid future waste and streamline workflows and make the work more efficient.
Joe Biden defied the Supreme Court when he kept on forgiving student debt. The court specifically said it was unconstitutional to do so, but Biden did it anyway. And all of the judges trying to block Trump are partisan hacks, btw.
Steve Vladek (a law professor who specializes in constitutional law & the courts) addressed this in his One First Substack this week: Biden did not defy the Supreme Court on student loans. “Losing in the Supreme Court on one legal theory (that the program was authorized by the HEREOS Act), and attempting to achieve a comparable policy outcome through a different legal theory (that a different version of the program could be tied to the SAVE Act), isn’t defying anything (indeed, changing the legal arguments is exactly what Trump did with the travel ban during his first administration—the third iteration of which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court)…Nor, at any point, did President Biden, Vice President Harris, or anyone else in the administration even insinuate that it would not abide by an adverse court ruling in one of those cases—or that a ruling against the administration would be ‘illegal.’”
Thanks for this detail! It's important that we remember that ALL presidents get challenged in court. The true test is what happens when their proposals get shot down. Biden was persistent in finding various avenues to provide student loan relief, but he definitely didn't defy court rulings. I won't fault a president for knocking on several different doors trying to get a different answer - I will fault a president for shoving his way into the door after being told no.
How insular and individualistic your world must be to find forgiving others' unreachable debts to be as egregious as firing people just for doing their jobs. I urge you to put yourself in the shoes of others no matter which "partisan" president made the decision — would you rather see your loans forgiven at no cost to others or lose your job and all of your funding because the head of your country believes you are unnecessary and demonizes your life's work?
Partisan hacks? This is really dangerous rhetoric. The judges blocking the lawlessness of many of the EOs were appointed by Raegan, Obama, George W. Bush, Trump, and Biden.
The American Bar Association even released a heartening statement on the importance of following the law.
Which forgiveness specifically? Some was under PSLF which is under a separate program. The ones he tried were stopped. His last attempt, the SAVE repayment program, is currently stopped and they are working to figure out next steps.
You either aren’t understanding because multiple people have explained this now, or you are intentionally misleading others by continuing to say he defied the courts.. He did not defy the courts. When told his argument didn’t pass, he tried other arguments. He didn’t ignore their ruling, he tried other avenues to accomplish a goal. The issue is a President being told the legal argument for an executive order doesn’t work, and that President saying too bad, I’m going to do it anyway. That’s NOT what Biden did, when one legal avenue for providing tuition relief didn’t work, he tried another. He was persistent, but he wasn’t defiant. There is a difference.
I’m so angry that I can’t see straight. I had conversations with so many trump supporters about things that he said he would do if elected. I did not get one response in return that said, whoa, maybe I should look into this further. Every single person said, he’s not really going to do that, he only says it to get you liberals riled up because it’s so easy to do. They said, only the “bad” immigrants will be deported. He’s not going after abortion rights, he’s concerned about the price of groceries and gas. He doesn’t want to stop people from voting, only the ones who are fraudulent. Etc, etc, etc.. This is the caliber of people we are dealing with. I wish the blue states could be absorbed into Canada. The United States is an embarrassment and a joke and the people who voted for don have no character or morals.
The alarm bell that rang the loudest for me was back in September, when 111 former national security officials from Republican administrations and former Republican members of Congress, drafted a letter outlining why they would not be endorsing Trump.
While I understand frustration and a desire for change, I will never comprehend how some truly believe that they know more than decorated generals, foreign policy officials, former secretaries of state and defense etc.. Educated, experienced, dedicated professionals (who were in the trenches with him the first time around) take the time to issue a warning- outlining their observations and concerns, but so-and-so dons a hat and purports to know more.
It would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic.
This is very well said Nicole, and I will also never comprehend how the opinions of such dedicated public servants (not to mention the lack of support from the extremely conservative former Vice President) are simply brushed aside. It is very confusing to me.
I also have the same questions about the rhetoric around “bureaucrats” (which has become a slur it seems) - many bureaucrats hold their positions because they’ve invested immense time and energy into becoming experts on a specific topic, and often topics that serve the public good (healthcare, transportation, food safety, etc), but yet some would have us believe they’re all lazy, corrupt, freeloaders - where is the intellectual humility?
My feeling is that evisceration is quite simply far less cumbersome than introspection or consideration.
In much the same way that I find hypocrisy to be akin to sleight of hand. Insidious. Trick the eye and there follows the mind. Trick the mind and there follow the beliefs.
Unfortunately, neither of these are optimal conditions for humility to flourish.
This has not been my experience. While some federal employees certainly are wonderful, dedicated servants, others ARE incredibly lazy freeloaders with poor job performance. The difference between private and public sector is it can be EXTREMELY difficult to terminate anyone employed directly by the federal government. I work in patient care (an area where you'd think high quality work is required, no?) and have sounded alarm bells about an employee who downright refused to do his job properly. The response I received: "no one can make him do his job." He continued to collect a paycheck until retirement, and yes, he was a proud and loud Democrat.
Anecdotal evidence is just that though. There are plenty of poor performing Republican public sector employees as well. And while it's difficult to terminate an employee it's not impossible. It doesn't mean we need to eliminate entire agencies to get rid of a few bad apples. That seems like poor management as well.
While I just included one example, I could list many more. I had a conversation with my coworker about this very thing no less than an hour ago. Her words: "GS employees are allowed to get away with murder." I agree with you that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily indicative of a larger problem, but this trend has held true between the two government organizations where I've worked. These stereotypes exist for a reason. "Good enough for government work."
Hey, your experience sounds challenging. However, I just don’t know if firing ALL federal workers is the solution (and I do believe the intent is to fire the majority of them). A bit “throwing the baby out with the bath water” in my opinion, especially considering the enormous harm done to good workers, their families, the communities and business their salaries support. I don’t think anyone on the left is against reduction of waste, better investment of government dollars and in fact, I don’t think anyone on the left wants bad government employees to be un-fireable (as a lefty I desperately want good, effective programs to succeed and ineffective ones to be canceled). I take issue with the blanket rhetoric that bureaucrats are bad and government spending is inherently bad.
I'm very sorry you've worked for two poorly managed government organizations. While I have experienced a few bad apples overall that has not been my experience at all. The people I have worked with have been hard workers who care about their jobs and the work they do.
I see you edited your comment to add the snide and condescending remark at the end. Way to stay on brand, Krause Kim.
This is the caliber of people we are dealing with?
"If your party overwhelmingly comprises the federal bureaucracy, you hold onto the levers of power even through electoral losses. This has been the story of The Democrats for my entire life. It's also the best explanation for the Democrats' current desperation and hysteria." - Abigail Shrier
I don’t understand this comment. Can you explain? How does the Democratic party comprise the federal bureaucracy? Where is the evidence that Americans holding federal jobs are all Democrats?
It’s also worth nothing the republican party has been cutting gov jobs for sometime. Most of us that have dedicated our career to civil service and understand its value, aren’t going to give money to a party that doesn’t believe is us or our work.
Of course they're not all Democrats and there's no way to know definitively, but just follow the money. Upward of 95% of all political donations from federal employees are to Democrat candidates.
Can you share your source? I found an article mentioning 95% of donations going to Hillary Clinton in 2016, but in 2020 it was only 60% to Biden. The same source says 84% to Kamala Harris in 2024. How many donated? Is it 84% of 20% of the workforce or 84% of 100% of the workforce? The n matters.
If I am understanding Kayla’s comments correctly between this thread and the thread in the “Is Bipartisanship Dead?” article, this is the link she shared to support her claim:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-federation-of-government-employees/totals?id=D000000304
I asked for clarification because I truly don’t understand it, but I never received a response. I’d really appreciate an explanation because I am genuinely curious.
Thanks for sharing. The numbers in that do not make sense to me with regard to the percentages listed. For example, in 2024 if the total is over 2.6 million given but Dems gave 96.39% why does it say Dems accounted for about 800K. 96% = 2.5 million. Regardless, if you have a workforce of 100,000, and 100 gave $ and all that $ went to Dems then you might think all federal workers support Dems. In reality 1% of the workforce supported Dems. The n matters a lot, and the source doesn’t share how many individuals the $ amount represents. Therefore, one cannot conclude anything about the political affiliation of the workforce. If we want to play the game of follow the $ we could take a deep dive into Elon Musk. That would tell us a lot.
Thanks for this great context! Just reminds me how fragile democracy is; how its success really hinges on most of our elected officials acting in good faith most of the time. That it requires character, humility, and a desire to uphold our social pact to one another.
It really ties into how important it is for Trump to replace judges and civil servants with loyalists - he needs a critical mass of people willing to look the other way (or actively act in bad faith) to accomplish his goals. And my goodness, that list of other looming battles... the sheer volume of harm he's attempted to cause (and actually caused) in just a few weeks is shocking.
I was listening to a podcast where they stressed that we really do ultimately have a government built on the honor system in a lot of ways. It really underscores how important it is that we elect honorable people. And how much damage a dishonorable person can do.
If he refuses to comply with so many supreme court rulings, how would Congress rationalize not impeaching him?
That’s exactly what they *should* do. But sadly they (majority Republicans) have been rubber stamping his every wish. I wonder what it’s going to take to turn the tide.
Julie, replacing the majority Republicans.
So many of the non-MAGA Trump voters have started expressing extreme regret. (e.g. Latinx-Americans, Arab-Americans, etc.), and even some MAGA (e.g. Farmers/Rural Americans). And, quite honestly, we still haven't felt the effects of Trump's actions. When that happens over the next few months...Look out. The mid-terms are coming. Trump's only hope at maintaining majority support in Congress is to start now, and 1) Back off; 2) Follow the orders of the court(s). I could be completely wrong about this--but my prediction is that the Dems (beginning in January, '27) will gain control of Congress...and keep relative control for many years to come. We've seen this before........about a hundred years ago.
Interesting perspective. I see it differently. I believe the democrat party won’t win elections for awhile- unless they change directions and start to reflect and work on their own beliefs and how they reach voters, rather than blame Trump and his supporters. I believe we are headed into a long stretch of Republicans in the majority.
An interesting substack - The Liberal Patriot- has a few posts that provide healthy critique of the democrat party.
I know that you shared links previously where regrets have been shared (about voting for Trump) but they were all from left leaning publications. From non-partisan and right leaning- I haven’t seen wide spread regrets (or any regrets). I’m sure there are some regrets- but I am not sure regrets translate into voting blue in the mid term election.
I don't disagree about messaging within the Democratic party. I do think that Trump is going to give them a lot of fuel to use over the next two years and how they use that will help decide those elections. I do think that regrets *could* lead to voting blue in the mid-terms. It just depends on what the economy among other things looks like by that point. I don't think that the old playbook will work.
I think the fact that the last time Trump won there was a blue wave right afterwards. I do understand that some who voted for him are in a vacuum where they only hear things for their perspective. Obviously that happens on the left too. I will say anyone who is personally hit might change their mind on who they vote for as that’s just how that goes. I will also say some people sat out the election because of the overall stance on Gaza, but they might be motivated to come back in. Even voting in reasonable Republicans could have the effect of making our government strong again.
Well said Amy. If the progressives continue with the same rhetoric of 1)Trump is bad, (2) his voters are dumb and (3) daily spreading untruths about components of revisions being sought ie., SAVE act and married women, 504 and funding being cut for people with disabilities, they will continue on the hamster wheel they’ve been on. Oh well.. as my favorite elementary teacher taught me, “a word to the wise is sufficient”.
Hi Robn. I'd like to learn more about what you mean regarding the untruths of the 504 plans, because a number of articles I've read, including from Forbes, quote the text of the lawsuit directly.
The lawsuit does indeed start with complaints alleged that gender dysphoria doesn't belong in the definition of Section 504.
However, the lawsuit does then go on to state that it believes Section 504 itself, in its entirety, to be unconstitutional.
It begins on page 37, under the section entitled "Section 504 is Unconstitutional". Here is the text of the lawsuit, from the Texas AG's website. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/HHS%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20Complaint%20Filestamped.pdf
I am not a lawyer, so I am very willing to be told by a lawyer that I am misreading this. However, the text of the requested relief is on page 42, and is in plain English. Request d states that they request that the Court declare Section 504 (which can be found at 29 U.S.C. § 794) unconstitutional, for the reasons they outline on page 37.
Here is 29 U.S.C. § 794. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794
Please, what am I missing?
Yes, Stefanie. I just caught Sharon’s IG story a few minutes ago. In a few frames, she explains that Georgia’s denial response to inquiries regarding its participation in a lawsuit, attempting to dismantle Section 504, is “Patently False” because it specifically asks the court to rule that the entirety of Section 504 be ruled unconstitutional. She provides images and links as well.
Well said Amy. And I recently discovered the Liberal Patriot, too!
One of my own senators, John Cornyn, has been posting things on FB like, "I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: President Donald J. Trump is entitled to his team. Senate Democrats have tried to delay & obstruct the process, but Senate Republicans are moving full steam ahead to get the President his team." He's also posted some REALLY nasty things about his own constituents who have been protesting outside of his Texas offices.
Unfortunately, the Republican-led Congress is not interested in upholding SCOTUS rulings, the Constitution, or the rule of law.
It’s so disheartening, because the Republicans have the majority in Congress and will side with Trump; however, if Trump is impeached and convicted, we get Vance, so we’re still in the same boat. I think all we can do is pray that the country holds together long enough to make it to the midterm election next year, and hopefully shift the balance of power.🙏🏻
Prayers are one option. We can also call, write, visit our representatives, protest, and organize for the midterms. There is a lot of work to do right now, and there is something for everyone to do.
As a retired judge, the forthcoming constitutional crisis is of major concern. I fear for the constitutional protections the founding fathers thought they created . The entire concept of separation of powers seems to be at risk . At the risk of repeating the obvious , those you forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.
Something else concerning---didn't the SC also rule he has full immunity? So how are there any repercussions for his defiance of the courts?
I would also love to hear Gabe or Sharon speak on this.
I think it’s very important to remember the actual text of the Supreme Court ruling here! The court only gave a president full immunity for actions that fall within their exclusive authority - I think it would be a very hard case to make that, for example, deciding what money to spend falls under a president’s exclusive authority, considering it arguably doesn’t even fall into their authority at all.
Thank you for responding!
The Worcester story is another one that would make a great movie.
The way the government tried to keep missionaries from advocating for Indians reminds me of the faith based orgs siding with the marginalized today and coming under attack. I’m thinking of USAID-funded orgs and churches that had been sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.
Part of me feels like this is going to open a Pandora’s box of civil compliance issues if the executive branch continues to essentially spat “Make me!” like a playground upstart as often as they seem to be
I’m trying understand if what is happening now is actually on the same level as anything that has happened in this country in the past with one single president. Has any single president attempted to use the executive branch in the exact manner Trump is? While also having first laid the groundwork for there to be zero accountability and repercussions? 1) fanning the flames of division, 2) eroding trust in the media and all public institutions, 3) lying constantly about almost every topic, 4) firing government employees and replacing them with loyalists, 5) firing federal prosecutors, FBI agents, and CIA agents and replacing them with loyalists, 6) threatening anyone who attempts to uphold laws, 7) ignoring court rulings, and 8) clearly no one is going to step in to enforce any law he doesn’t agree with. And this is only a partial list. While we can point to many troubling situations our country has faced over the decades, have we actually faced anything of this magnitude?
I think the structure of our media system made it much easier to do. Before social media the only way people got news was television, newspapers, radio, or word of mouth. It was easy to not really be in the know about politics and politicians couldn’t use outrage as a way to run their campaign.
My concern is that the Republicans are no where to be seen. They’re not in the House. Senator Cornyn’s voicemail is turned off. So how do we go anywhere when they’re hiding in a room planning who knows what? And our courts are slow. So by the time all these things move up the ladder who knows what will have happened. I love that we’re engaged in commenting, yet we need to step out of our comfort zone and get visible. At 66, I need a plan.
Work on voting them out. They are our representatives. Made your voice heard to them. Ask others to do the same. Calling, email, appointments. Don’t let up. They are going to continue to bank on their constituents being too worn down to vote them out.
Jennifer ... I do ALL of that and have since COVID. Unfortunately, I live in Texas and even though the Dallas area is blue, most of Texas is red and there is no limit to how many times the governor serves. It's a horrible mess. But yes, I'm tired. And just calling won't cut it. We need to be visible. Cornyn has shut down his phones - no voicemail for weeks now. :/
They are busy working…I believe you are mistaken on the “hiding” part. That was the last commander in Chief!!
Seriously, how did Biden hide? And we are talking about Congressional Representatives and not Trump. No, Trump is on TV 14 times a day signing useless pieces of paper with his huge Sharpie. Redrawing maps with his huge Sharpie. Renaming countries with his UGE Sharpie.
Biden had far, far fewer press conferences and media interviews than his predecessors. The release of the audio of his interview with Robert Hur regarding classified documents was blocked despite the already available transcripts. Reports revealing Biden was in cognitive decline as early as 2021. The Democratic Media Complex lied to the American people Biden's enter tenure, had the audacity to encourage him to seek a second term, and then they criticize Trump and his administration's lack of transparency. I'm sorry, but it's laughable.
I was glad that he didn’t have the narcissistic behavior of Trump and want to be in front of the camera 24/7. I’d much rather the president and VP be working than mugging the camera. And when Biden did speak - everyone was allowed to listen. Now, only maga journalists can listen and report.
This is patently absurd.
Oh, Jane…surely you jest about Biden hiding?? How many press conferences did he hold? And how many questions were truthfully provided on a regular basis by his press secretary? You’re are correct on one thing though. I guess all those times he spent on the beach he was hiding in plan sight, so there is that.
But Trump is darn happy to enforce and live by the ruling that gives him immunity from "official actions". Because rules for thee and not for me seems to be the theme of this administration.
Do we honestly think at this point laws will stop Trump for doing anything?
Are taxpayers funding all of these lawsuits?
The state prosecuting attorneys filing the lawsuits and judges hearing the cases are government employees, so yes.
Please don't misconstrue this to mean that it is an *additional* cost. These folks are all already on the payroll, so-to-speak. The true cost comes from the fact that they have to spend time prosecuting cases based on frivolity--which undermines their ability to serve the public in other ways. If Trump respected the "rule of law"...these folks wouldn't have to focus on his 'antics.'
Yes exactly.
Just like taxpayers have been funding all the ridiculous spending DOGE has uncovered already!
I have yet to see any verifiable proof of fraud, waste, or abuse. The only thing I’ve seen are tweets which I don’t consider a direct or trustworthy source. Especially when musk himself said “some of the things I say will be incorrect.”
And who is musk and his 20year old techies to even understand what is or is not prudent government spending? They aren’t accountants, elected officials, or have any sort of relevant qualifications to be funneling or cutting off our tax payer money to anywhere.
Just an FYI, if you haven’t read of any waste perhaps you should expand your sources of reference.
Happy to. Can you share some of your resources you’re seeing that have documented waste ?
I would like to see this documentation as well.
They know how to decipher the systems and follow the money trails. The financial situation of our nation is beyond troubling. I am excited that someone is finally in office that is willing to put people in place that will locate the waste. Tough cuts and choices will probably be necessary to get us on a better path. The US cannot be everything to everyone. Would you like me to ask you to use your over-extended credit card to donate to my charity? Why do we expect our country to always do the same. As for the age of the “techs” you reference - do you recall the ages of the framers of our constitution and many of our founding fathers? Many were in their late teens and early twenties.
Every government entity that Elon and the DOGE-bros have targeted so far are either investigating Tesla or Space X or are about to investigate Tesla or Space X. USAID helped end apartheid in South Africa, which was a financial blow to Musk Senor.
So far DOGE is following the Project 2025 playbook (you know that thing that Trump swore he had no knowledge of) to the letter.
Musk cost-cutting targets agencies disliked by conservatives, not major budget contributors
DOGE claims $37.69 billion savings to date - a fraction of its $2 trillion target
Nine of the government agencies in Musk's sights were mentioned in Project 2025 report, including Education Department
So if an idea was mentioned in P2025 and simultaneously Trump decides to implement something similar , does it mean all of P2025 was Trumps’s plan all along?? Can the two not be mutually exclusive or is he only allowed to implement something if it isn’t contained in P2025? Have you actually read the document? Perhaps if you have/did you might agree with some of the ideas within.
Decipher systems and follow money trails? That does not explain a qualification for what is and is not prudent spending.
And you realize Trump himself is responsible for 8 trillion of that debt during his first term?
You know a good way to get some money to pay off that debt?? Taxing corporations and the ultra wealthy ? Why doesn’t Trump do that if he cares so much about lowering the deficit? Instead, he is working to DECREASE their tax rate.
I completely understand we can’t be everything for everyone, but what we can do is start holding our own and our own corporations liable for paying in their fair share, instead of taking away resources from the lower classes.
Who pays when corporations pay more $$ for anything?
No one is against cutting frivolous government spending by social security, medicaid & Medicare, and biomedical research is not it.
It would be a much better approach to go in with accountants and actuaries and chip away where needed, not just go in with a sledgehammer and bust up entire agencies.
However, Some people are such rabid supporters of Trump they literally do not care about democracy so long as they get their favored outcome. But the leopards will come to eat their faces, too.
Oh, no! Not the leopards!!🐆
But where are the facts and data? I’ve looked, and haven’t seen any reporting. If the waste was rampant it would be easy to show very clearly all the waste that’s been eliminated and the new processes put in place to avoid future waste and streamline workflows and make the work more efficient.
This disruption to the government does not result in the cost savings that Musk alleges.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/02/12/elon-musk-is-failing-to-cut-american-spending
It seems checks and balances in a constitutional democracy only work if our leaders respect and uphold them. *sigh*
Is anyone concerned about the tax payer dollars it will cost the White House to fight all of these lawsuits?
And then what happens if he Trump defies the court and does what he wants? What’s going to stop him then?
Joe Biden defied the Supreme Court when he kept on forgiving student debt. The court specifically said it was unconstitutional to do so, but Biden did it anyway. And all of the judges trying to block Trump are partisan hacks, btw.
Steve Vladek (a law professor who specializes in constitutional law & the courts) addressed this in his One First Substack this week: Biden did not defy the Supreme Court on student loans. “Losing in the Supreme Court on one legal theory (that the program was authorized by the HEREOS Act), and attempting to achieve a comparable policy outcome through a different legal theory (that a different version of the program could be tied to the SAVE Act), isn’t defying anything (indeed, changing the legal arguments is exactly what Trump did with the travel ban during his first administration—the third iteration of which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court)…Nor, at any point, did President Biden, Vice President Harris, or anyone else in the administration even insinuate that it would not abide by an adverse court ruling in one of those cases—or that a ruling against the administration would be ‘illegal.’”
Thanks for this detail! It's important that we remember that ALL presidents get challenged in court. The true test is what happens when their proposals get shot down. Biden was persistent in finding various avenues to provide student loan relief, but he definitely didn't defy court rulings. I won't fault a president for knocking on several different doors trying to get a different answer - I will fault a president for shoving his way into the door after being told no.
That was a really great piece by Vladek!
Many law professors and the Supreme Court think what Joe Biden did regarding student loan forgiveness is unconstitutional. AND, the vast majority of Americans oppose it. https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-76-americans-oppose-student-debt-cancellation-it-drives-price-college-64-oppose-it
Johnathan Turly, constitutional law professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI2IROEtR94
Didn't the courts stop it though? Or am I reading it wrong? That would be the check on his power there?
The judges are partisan hacks? Including the ones appointed by Trump himself?
How insular and individualistic your world must be to find forgiving others' unreachable debts to be as egregious as firing people just for doing their jobs. I urge you to put yourself in the shoes of others no matter which "partisan" president made the decision — would you rather see your loans forgiven at no cost to others or lose your job and all of your funding because the head of your country believes you are unnecessary and demonizes your life's work?
Partisan hacks? This is really dangerous rhetoric. The judges blocking the lawlessness of many of the EOs were appointed by Raegan, Obama, George W. Bush, Trump, and Biden.
The American Bar Association even released a heartening statement on the importance of following the law.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/02/aba-statement-re-remarks-questioning-judicial-review/
Girl what
Which forgiveness specifically? Some was under PSLF which is under a separate program. The ones he tried were stopped. His last attempt, the SAVE repayment program, is currently stopped and they are working to figure out next steps.
I'm confused by your logic. Was it okay for joe Biden to defy the courts?
You either aren’t understanding because multiple people have explained this now, or you are intentionally misleading others by continuing to say he defied the courts.. He did not defy the courts. When told his argument didn’t pass, he tried other arguments. He didn’t ignore their ruling, he tried other avenues to accomplish a goal. The issue is a President being told the legal argument for an executive order doesn’t work, and that President saying too bad, I’m going to do it anyway. That’s NOT what Biden did, when one legal avenue for providing tuition relief didn’t work, he tried another. He was persistent, but he wasn’t defiant. There is a difference.