While not even all that original (Taylor Swift has been sneaking around in a suitcase for security purposes for years), the lunacy is befitting the Trump era. Even the screenwriter of the iconic Harrison Ford movie, Air Force One, told the New York Times he couldn’t imagine scripting it.

But the shock value isn’t what gets me. It’s the wanton callousness that the whole episode exposes. Because even as Trump’s team assessed that it was so dangerous to fly on Air Force One he needed to be snuck out of there in a catering cart, they let everyone else on that flight take off.

As this White House tries to silence me, please help elevate my voice. Order my book, The Day After, and send Trump the message that I won’t be censored.

Order THE DAY AFTER

The decoy plane was packed with administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, along with the president’s aides, and members of the advance team.

What’s most chilling to me, though, is that the plane was also carrying journalists. That, right there, tells you everything you need to know about how Trump and this administration feels about the press. Shoot them out of the sky for all they care.

The journalists aboard Air Force One had no idea they were being used as a decoy amid a credible assassination threat. And if something had happened to them, I think we can guess how Trump would respond. It would be as horrifically unfeeling as his response to the deaths of service members during his pointless war in Iran— which, ironically enough, is why this threat existed in the first place.

This is maybe the most dramatic illustration of that attitude, but it’s certainly not the first. I’ve personally been on the receiving end of the administration’s disdain for anyone who dare speak up and tell the truth.

I wear it as a badge of honor.

All this week, I’ve been writing about the death threats and harassment I’ve dealt with since Trump put me on a list of “Media Offenders.” I’ve been fighting back by continuing to do what I’ve been doing for a decade as a creator in the independent media space. And most recently, I published my new book, The Day After, which is now available. If you order a copy, you send a message to this White House that their efforts to silence me are only affording me a bigger platform and a louder voice. Your support means I can keep going.

Order THE DAY AFTER

The number one question I got after all this? Why don’t you sue Donald Trump?

Let’s talk about the answer, because the truth is that it’s complicated.

As this White House tries to silence me, please help elevate my voice. Order my book, The Day After, and send Trump the message that I won’t be censored.

Order THE DAY AFTER

First of all, the government has the right to free speech, just like you and I do. And as mind boggling as it may be, their decision to include me on a list of enemies on the official White House website is likely within their constitutional rights.

Granted, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pay a political price. With everything this administration has to contend with - inflation, high gas prices, healthcare cuts, a raging war in the Middle East, the Epstein files - the White House has chosen to martial its resources to go after a content creator. Not make life better for voters. Not resolve the problems of their own making. Not seek accountability for victims. But to try and silence an independent media critic. It’s hard to argue they care about regular people when this is how they’re spending their political capital.

If I wanted to sue, however, I could make the argument that Trump’s decision to target me puts me in physical danger, which is objectively true; as I mentioned, there was a marked increase in threats and harassment that followed the publication of his Media Offenders list. But the cost of mounting that argument is steep— financially, mentally, and emotionally. Fighting a lawsuit against the government is a monumental task with no guarantee of success. It would cost me tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And it would drag on for months, if not years. The government knows that, which is why they wield that weapon so freely, even when they know they don’t have a case. The process alone is punishment unto itself.

So here’s where that leaves me. The harassment, cyber attacks, and death threats will continue. I might not be able to win in court, even if I had the wherewithal to go through with that process. But I can still win this fight. I do that by refusing to let this White House force me sit down and shut up.

If you’d like to support my work, my new book, The Day After, is now available. If you could order a copy, it would send a message to this White House that their efforts to silence me are only affording me a bigger platform and a louder voice.

Order THE DAY AFTER

The White House might have gotten the impression from law firms, universities, legacy media outlets, and tech CEOs that these fights are easy to win. But I have zero intention of rolling over.

I haven’t spoken publicly about the fallout. When Donald Trump targeted me, the harassment, death threats, and targeting online were instantaneous. Working in political media, I’m certainly no stranger to vitriol. But when the president weighed in, it reached a whole new level.

I actually have a vested interest in not talking about any of this publicly. I don’t want to incentivize bad actors and let them know that it has an impact. So why bring it up now?

I want you to know why the White House targets people with shoddy cases that are doomed to fail— like the ones against Jerome Powell, Letitia James, James Comey, the six Democrats who dared recite what the Uniform Code of Military Justice said about refusing to follow illegal orders, and even Sean Charles Dunn - the man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent.

They don’t bring these cases in good faith to secure a conviction. They exploit the legal system to crush these people: with astronomical legal bills, the anxiety and stress of dealing with a federal prosecution, and the full force of a mob of Trump supporters ready to do his bidding.

These people are being made examples of. These cases are a signal to everyone else: fall in line, or you’re next.

When Trump set his sights on me, I knew what could be coming, and I had every reason to lay low and stay quiet. But if I did, what kind of message would that send? How could I expect anyone else to fight back if I wasn’t willing to do it myself?

So, I haven’t stopped, even for a second, since my name showed up on that list. Because I want to show the administration that their intimidation tactics don’t work. And because I want to be an example to others.

And I will continue to speak out, no matter how uncomfortable it gets. If you’d like to support me in this fight, I’ll make one request. My new book, The Day After, is now available. I know that the day is coming when Democrats get back into power, and I hope they’ll act accordingly. The book is a roadmap, and it needs to get into as many hands as possible .

If you can, please order a copy. It’s worth noting that while my book is not on the New York Times best seller list, JD Vance’s book is. Help me send a message to this White House that progressive media is a powerful force that can’t be silenced.

Order THE DAY AFTER

Thank you for staying in this fight, no matter how hard it gets.

- BTC

Trump has confirmed nearly 60 of these people to judicial postings all over the country.

They’re following a script. When asked, point blank, who won the 2020 election, these judges have said “President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States,” or he “was declared the victor,” or “Joe Biden was certified the winner and served four years.” Not one of them has given the real, simple answer: Joe Biden won.

These statements aren’t just absurd, they’re blood oaths to Trump. Effectively, these judges are going on the record endorsing a lie that serves the President, and which signals that their loyalties lie with him and not with the Constitution or the rule of law.

But Trump’s not just collecting sycophants for fun (even though I’m sure, to him, it is fun). By installing them in the judiciary, he’s building a standing army to do his bidding come election day. This is just another manifestation of his fear of losing the midterms. So instead of trying to win on the merits - which we all know he can’t - this is another way to rig the game.

This isn’t just some abstract anxiety (I have plenty of those; they’re somehow more existential). This could have tangible consequences coming down the pike. These judges will have real power the moment the polls close on election night. Here’s what they could do to interfere with the vote count, and either swing things in Republicans’ favor, or delegitimize the process wholesale.

Let’s say they see a slew of temporary restraining orders filed on election night. This was a popular move in 2020. More than 60 election lawsuits were filed, and Trump and the Republicans blitzed states with TROs to halt ballot counts and certifications. Let’s assume that was a test run and they’re going to double down this time.

These judges would probably salivate at the prospect of TROs, because they can be approved within hours, without the other party present, and without much scrutiny. By the time these would get turned over on appeal, whether they’re BS or not, deadlines might have passed, and we’ll have people questioning the legitimacy of the election anyway (read: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen”).

Preliminary injunctions might be even worse. If one of these judges issues one to halt a ballot count, it stays in place until a lawsuit plays out in court or is dismissed. Trump and Republicans filed these in Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania in 2020. They were dismissed in court by sane judges. But if they’re filed with this new batch of confirmed election deniers, they’ll be a lot more effective.

Whether or not these tactics actually work in the end is almost beside the point; they sow chaos and they undermine confidence in the electoral process, which is already hanging on by a thread. Trump learned from his last go around at trying to do this, and with these judicial appointments, he’s hoping to put what he learned into action.

What worries me, watching these sycophants parrot these lies, isn’t just that they’re willing to do it. It’s that they’re lying just enough to offer a wink and a nod to Dear Leader, while still preserving just enough plausible deniability to get confirmed. That means come election night, they’ll be sitting on the bench with a TRO in hand, ready to do his bidding.

So while legacy media focuses on infighting and online drama, I’m focused on these threats to our elections and democracy. No matter how many distractions get thrown my way, I will not look away. I hope you won’t either.

The DOJ accused the former Olympic canoeist of “forcefully and violently pulling up and removing the bottom liner with both hands,” based on “tremendous” evidence. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed up the claim saying he was “100 percent sure” vandals were responsible.

Cut to this past weekend, wherein Pirro conceded that Hearn had nothing to do with the damage and that the indictment was based on lies. Once she dropped the indictment, the agreed-upon Reflecting Pool story fell apart. And you know who hated that?

The story’s author, Trump.

Predictably, he raged against Pirro – one of his most loyal supporters. And the rage was, frankly, justified because she’d exposed him and everyone who went along with this for what they are: liars.

Now, in all the legacy media coverage of this story, guess what one word is conspicuously absent?

“Lie.”

Let’s take a look at some of the semantic gymnastics our nation’s top legacy media outlets put themselves through covering this story. You have “Trump Team Feuds Over Whether Reflecting Pool Was Hit by Vandals or Botched Work” from the Wall Street Journal. Olympic level use of the passive voice, there.

Then there’s “Trump insists vandals damaged Reflecting Pool, blasts DOJ for dropped charge” from the Washington Post. Thank goodness someone is transcribing what Trump insists.

If Trump’s own administration is admitting they’re lying, then why can’t the legacy media come out and say it, too? How is it that a decade into this nightmare circus, we’re still playing this game of both sides-ism?

Historically, journalists would avoid using the word “lie” or calling someone a “liar” to preserve objectivity. But this debate over whether the media is being sufficiently objective is a Titanic-deck-chairs-style exercise in futility, because regardless of what they say, the opposition has absolutely no problem calling them liars. Trump has branded journalists “enemies of the people,” (myself included, as it’s now been more than two months since he put me on his enemies list), attacked their intelligence and character, bombarded them with baseless lawsuits, and has convinced at least half the country that the media is not to be trusted.

I want to go back in time for a second to a pearl clutching moment in legacy media’s recent history. In 2016, the New York Times ran the front page headline, “Trump Gives Up a Lie but Refuses to Repent,” after he finally abandoned the Obama birth certificate conspiracy. From the time Trump came down the golden escalator in 2015 until the end of his first time, the Times ran only 50 articles where the reporter used the word “lie,” according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

The Times’ decision in 2016 to run with the word “lie” was such an event it merited a whole other story about why they chose to do it. The paper’s political editor Carolyn Ryan explained how the word gets clearance. It was about the liar’s intention, when they “knowingly” fail to tell the truth. I’ll concede that typically it’s a high bar to prove what someone does or doesn’t know. But with Trump’s birther claims, the facts were so fundamentally obvious, the Times could comfortably clear the bar.

That was ten years ago.

We’ve now had a decade to observe Trump’s behavior and it’s become clear that the truth is whatever serves him in any particular moment.

So my question is, why is legacy media clinging to an outdated set of ethics? We live in a different world than when the Times’ editorial board pulled that all nighter before clicking “send” on “lie.” The approach needs to evolve. These legacy institutions are playing by the rules of a game Trump rigged.

The tragic irony of legacy media’s insistence on neutrality is that our free press depends on the preservation of democracy to exist; if Trump got his way and ushered in the autocracy that he so desires, there would be no protections for a free press. I would contend that the media has an obligation to be biased— in favor of democracy.

So no, our hands are not and must not be tied by a ceremonial commitment to a set of vintage ethics divorced from reality. My commitment isn’t to conceptual “objectivity.” My commitment is to the truth. Even if that’s inconvenient for the Republican Party.

F.C.C. chair Brendan Carr called for a review of the broadcasting licenses, allegedly in response to ABC’s diversity and inclusion programs. But the threat came on the heels of some jokes Jimmy Kimmel told that angered the president.

The company’s court filing said, “The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: Accommodate the administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price.”

The irony is, ABC already “paid the price.” Last year, the company shelled out $16 million to settle a meritless libel lawsuit with Trump. I called that what it was: a bribe. Now, a little over a fiscal year later, ABC seems to be looking at the books and realizing that the ROI on that move is turning out to be less than zero.

I will never understand why these huge corporations refuse to acknowledge objective reality: paying Trump doesn’t buy you anything. All it does is teach him that you’re willing to pay, and next time, he’ll get you to pay more. ABC probably thought last year’s settlement was an investment in favorable treatment by the Trump administration. But they got the same bang for your buck as an investment in anything Trump slaps his name on. Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Bibles, Trump Watches… they’re all scams. Why would this be any different? ABC is learning this now, the hard way. Too bad they didn’t figure it out $16 million ago.

This fight with ABC is a sideshow to the main event: it’s just one more front in Trump’s war on free and fair elections. The F.C.C. is threatening to pull broadcast licenses in eight local markets: New York, L.A., Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham, and Fresno. These are huge media markets. Cutting them off from one of the few major news providers ahead of the midterms makes it that much harder for voters to make informed decisions about who to cast a ballot for in November.

The reason for all this is obvious: Trump is scared. He knows he can’t win this election on the merits, so he’s trying to rig the game. Going after the media is of a piece with his other obsession: passing the SAVE Act, which would gut voting rights and make it much harder to vote. When you can’t win fairly, you try to win unfairly.

I feel like a broken record calling this textbook authoritarianism, but it’s important that we continue to call it out when we see it. And that’s not just symbolic; there’s evidence that it actually makes a difference. Just Security reported this week that challenging an authoritarian regime’s information control - censorship and clamping down on free speech - is actually more effective than sanctions, diplomacy, and military exercises.

The single most important thing a regime needs to do to survive is to control the narrative. That’s why in Russia, you see journalists murdered and disappeared. In China, they throttle the internet. In Iran, they crack down on protests. Autocrats do not mess around when it comes to neutralizing threats to the approved narrative.

And those countries absolutely hate when they get called out on it. Just Security’s report showed that criticizing Russia’s media censorship ratcheted up state-sponsored propaganda there even more than conducting military exercises. That’s just how important it is for these autocrats to control the narrative.

So Trump is showing his ass here. It’s obvious that the reason he’s siccing Brendan Carr on ABC in an attempt to take their news off the air is to prevent anything he doesn’t like from being reported. He needs to control the narrative, or he risks losing the election. And he knows it.

In the meantime, while ABC learns a lesson that they should’ve understood 18 months ago, independent media continues to serve as an effective bulwark against this administration. I have now been on Trump’s enemies list for nearly two months, but unlike legacy media, I will never capitulate to this White House. I answer solely to readers like you who demand more of those with platforms than kowtowing to autocrats for self-preservation.

“During that time you have cast zero votes, engaged in no official activities, and aside from two photos and corresponding statements, have made no effort to communicate with your Kentucky constituents or the nation,” he wrote.

I appreciate his tone: straight to the point. And the point is that if McConnell can’t prove that he’s fit to serve, he needs to resign so that someone else can step in and serve the people of Kentucky. A doctor’s note isn’t going to cut it. No more questionable proof-of-life photos that may or may not be AI generated. We need McConnell on the mic.

Beshear went a step further, asking Senate Majority Leader John Thune to investigate McConnell’s condition and, pending the findings, begin the process of replacing him.

The irony of the whole situation is almost too much.

For 38 years, Mitch McConnell’s signature move has been rewriting the rules. The guy defies the laws of physics with the way he’d bend - but, crucially, not break - institutional rules to his will. Think back to when he blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate couldn’t confirm justices in an election year. Cut to: months later, he pushed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation just weeks before the same election. He wielded a pen like a sword to chop up Senate norms whenever it served his - and the Republicans’- interests.

Back to that irony: 43 days into a major health crisis, he’s at the mercy of those same institutional norms that might force him out, only this time he’s not there to work them over.

But, of course, he and his party planned for this.

Republicans have a vested interest in keeping McConnell trapped in purgatory. His Senate seat remains technically occupied, maintaining the Republican majority, and blocking a costly (and potentially cataclysmic) special election. That’s why you’re not hearing anything from Republicans on this. They’re content with a couple of photos, which frankly prove nothing, and some boilerplate statements, because they preserve the status quo.

Beshear isn’t a fan of the cheap theatrics. He’s demanding the GOP to essentially shit or get off the pot: either produce evidence McConnell can do the job or cop to the fact that they’ve turned a veteran politician into a glorified seat filler, all to entrench their Republican majority.

That said, Beshear’s ultimatum lacks teeth - and that’s thanks to Kentucky Republicans, with an assist from McConnell himself. Because of a new law passed in 2024, the Democratic governor can’t appoint a replacement; Kentucky mandates his seat be filled by special election— but only if it’s vacated before August 3. And McConnell’s office knows this, which is why they’re running out the clock with as little information as possible. It’s a fitting end to Mitch McConnell’s career (and life)— conferring unfair advantage onto Republicans, no matter how cynical it looks.

Thank you to everyone who preordered the book, bought a copy, recommended it, or helped spread the word. Your support made this possible, and I’m incredibly grateful.

This is just another reminder that independent creators can thrive because of audiences like this one. Thank you for believing in this work and for making it possible for me to keep doing it.

Now I’d like to pay it forward by highlighting a new book by a fellow independent creator whose work I think you’ll enjoy.

My friend and fellow White House “Media Offender,” David Pakman, has a new book coming out called Pay Attention: How the Algorithms and Media Wars are Suppressing Truth and Rewiring Your Brain.

If you’ve followed David’s work over the years, you already know he has a talent for cutting through noise and explaining not just what’s happening in politics, but why it’s happening. Pay Attention takes that idea even further, exploring how today’s media environment, social platforms, and algorithms shape the information we consume, the beliefs we form, and ultimately the decisions we make.

It’s an important book for anyone trying to make sense of the modern information ecosystem, and I think you’re going to get a lot out of it.

If you’re planning to read it, I’d encourage you to preorder a copy.

People often don’t realize just how important preorders are for authors. They help build momentum before a book launches, signal demand to retailers, increase visibility, and ultimately put the book in front of readers who might not have discovered it otherwise.

It’s one of the most meaningful ways to support an author before publication day arrives.

You can preorder Pay Attention here:

Pre-Order Now

✍️ Signed copies of Pay Attention are still available while supplies last. So grab one while you can!

Once again, thank you for making The Day After a New York Times bestseller and for continuing to support independent creators. None of this happens without readers like you, and I’m grateful to have you along for the journey.

— Brian

If you like this kind of thing, I do way more of it at The Bulwark. My colleagues and I cover politics, economics, immigration, public health, breaking news, foreign policy, books, movies, and more—all through the prism of fighting to save democracy. Check it out.

–Catherine

This piece originally appeared in The Bulwark.

A vaguely ominous but little-noticed regulatory filing issued in late June could have a profound impact on business, immigrants, and the balance of power in our country.

The filing was a notification that the Trump administration had drafted new rules governing the decennial census. The actual specifics of those new rules remain scant. But from conversations I’ve been having with people close to the process, it is widely expected that the administration will try to recategorize millions of immigrants (both unauthorized and legal) as not actually living here in the United States.

Why would they do that? For several reasons.

The first is a longstanding animus that the president and his top aides have to the immigrant population. The administration has unleashed unprecedented border crackdowns and interior enforcement measures, in the service of a vast project of mass deportation. Through the census, it can continue the spirit of that campaign. Put another way: If you can’t deport every immigrant, you can at least remove evidence they exist.

The second is power.

An “actual Enumeration” of the entire U.S. population is required by the Constitution’s Census Clause. It’s pretty clear that the Constitution requires counting the full population, based on the use of the word “Persons” in this spot in the original text (rather than “Citizens” as used elsewhere), and similar language—“the whole number of persons”—in the Fourteenth Amendment.¹

The resulting census is hugely important to the functioning of our government. It determines how many congressional representatives each state gets and how districts are drawn. It thereby also affects how many votes each state has in the Electoral College process used in presidential elections. And it plays a role in how trillions of federal dollars are allocated each year, since census data are used to calculate funding levels for health care programs, nutrition, highways, housing, school lunches, etc.

The stakes, in other words, are incredibly high. Which makes this rules submission process so profoundly important.

And here’s the kicker: So far, virtually no one has noticed.²

Let me warn you that this issue gets a little weedy. That’s by design; the administration wants you to not understand what they’re doing, so you won’t notice you’re being disenfranchised and robbed until it’s too late.

What MAGA learned in Trump 1.0

Let’s be clear: President Trump has been trying to ratfuck the census for years.

Most of the time, though, he has failed. You may recall that in his first term, he tried to jam a last-minute question about citizenship into the 2020 census. The administration claimed this was necessary to help the Department of Justice enforce federal voting rights laws. But that was BS; files discovered on a dead GOP operative’s computer revealed that the real reason was politics.

This consultant had written a secret study determining that a citizenship question “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” while being “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” during the redistricting process. The Census Bureau’s own senior staff likewise pointed out that adding the question would intimidate Latinos (and other minorities) into not participating, leading to major population undercounts. This is a problem because participation is supposed to be mandatory—that’s how you get “the whole number of persons.”

Ultimately the Supreme Court blocked the citizenship question in 2019, saying the government’s rationale was clearly “contrived” and “pretextual.”

But importantly, the justices didn’t say this question could never be added, only that the government needed to do a better job of dotting its i’s and crossing its t’s. Or hiding its i’s and obscuring its t’s, as it were: Trump officials had been a little sloppy in showing their partisanship and racism.

Trump 2.0 has been different: Just as partisan and racist, but far more professionalized.

Even before taking office, the current administration developed a playbook in Project 2025 (which prioritizes adding a citizenship question to the 2030 census, among other changes to the decennial count). After Trump’s win, his team hired an army of loyalists who understood pesky bureaucratic obstacles like the Administrative Procedure Act, which tripped them up so many times in Trump’s first term (including in that failed attempt to add a citizenship question).

“Before, they just didn’t know how to run the government,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF, a Latino civil rights organization that has challenged multiple GOP attempts to mess with the census. “That’s still a little true today, but this administration, because of the first experience from the first one, is better—more competent at doing evil, if you will.”

That’s true for deportation policy, for backdoor budget cuts, and for this imminent rule change.

What we know so far

All that’s officially public right now about that proposed rule change is the title, which was published on an Office of Management and Budget website: “Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions” (emphasis added). (I have been trying to obtain a copy of the actual draft rule text; if you have it or know someone who does, please reach out through The Bulwark’s confidential tips line.)

Even so, people who depend on the decennial census³ are already sounding the alarm.

The widely held understanding—as detailed in panicked webinars, newsletters, and direct email pleas I have seen⁴—is that this coming rule will change the technical meaning of who “resides” in the United States to exclude some or most immigrants from being counted as living in the country.

That is, people who are foreign nationals would be categorized not only as citizens of their home countries but also residents of their home countries—and therefore (poof!) no longer part of the U.S. population.⁵

In a way, this is a brilliant idea.

After all, “residence criteria” sounds so . . . benign. It’s a thing that usually matters only to the bean-counters within the Census Bureau, who occasionally need guidance about how to categorize where someone lives on the official day of the decennial enumeration, known as “Census Day” (always April 1, in a year divisible by ten).

The Census Bureau decides lots of ambiguous residence cases, like a college student who lives on campus in a different state from their “home” for nine months out of the year, or a family who might be on vacation on April 1, or an executive on a business trip, or someone incarcerated in a prison, or a military service member deployed abroad. This nitpicky question came up a lot in the last decennial census—that is, spring 2020, when lots of people were temporarily displaced by the pandemic.

Since the early days of the republic, the Census Bureau has generally resolved such cases in the same way—by deferring to where someone usually lives and sleeps, rather than where they vote or have legal status (at least in circumstances where these things are not aligned). Here’s how it explained its residence criteria in 2018:

The state in which a person resides and the specific location within that state is determined in accordance with the concept of “usual residence,” which is defined by the Census Bureau as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time. This is not always the same as a person’s legal residence, voting residence, or where they prefer to be counted. This concept of “usual residence” is grounded in the law providing for the first census, the Act of March 1, 1790, expressly specifying that persons be enumerated at their “usual place of abode.” [Emphasis added.]

So what’s the evidence that the Trump administration is scheming to change all this—to bureaucratically “disappear” immigrants, even those who “live and sleep most of the time” in the United States?

First, of course, Trump and his underlings have publicly said they plan to find ways to exclude some immigrants from the 2030 census. Their targets have certainly been undocumented immigrants; but maybe others too.⁶

But the real tell that they would use “residence criteria” as a tool to erase immigrants came in a recent court filing.

You see, some red states have sued the Department of Commerce (which administers the census) because they also want immigrants to be excluded from the decennial census, and they want federal courts to make it happen. The states argue that counting everyone who’s foreign-born in the official census unfairly ends up apportioning more congressional seats to states with bigger immigrant populations.⁷

And literally the day after the Trump administration filed that OMB regulatory notice, it asked a judge to pause one of these ongoing lawsuits. Why? Because Trump was . . . maybe about to do something that would make the lawsuits brought by those red states moot.

According to the court filing, the Trump administration has “reached a significant stage of the rulemaking process for a 2030 Residence Rule . . . which may ultimately obviate or significantly narrow many of the issues at the heart of this litigation.”

Again, we do not know what this not-yet-public rule actually says. But we do know what the states’ demands are.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit that Trump officials were responding to—a case filed by Missouri—had requested a ruling that would exclude “illegal aliens and temporary visa holders” from being counted in the census. As examples of “temporary visa holders,” the plaintiffs included people in the country on student visas or temporary work visas, according to Lauren Miller Karalunas, a lawyer with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program.

In another case filed by a group of states and led by Louisiana, the plaintiffs similarly asked the judge to rule that the census should exclude “illegal aliens and aliens holding temporary visas.” Once again, the implication was anyone who doesn’t have a green card.

We don’t yet know how closely the states’ requested restrictions match whatever the Trump administration is cooking up. And we don’t know exactly when the rule text will be released.⁸ But note that if the Trump administration does change the residence criteria to exclude non-green-card-holding immigrants, it would need to do so by adding increasingly menacing questions to the census: Do you have a green card? What kind of visa are you on? Are you here legally?⁹

As that dead GOP operative could have told us, this would almost certainly depress participation from ethnic minorities—even those who are citizens, or who are here legally—given that they might rightfully fear the administration’s track record of harassing nonwhite people.

Again this would result in undercounts in certain places, which means that under the cloak of boring technical guidance, the Trump administration could steal congressional seats and redirect potentially hundreds of billions of federal dollars. Worsening the quality of the data is also a major problem when you consider that basically every other human-related data series we have in the United States is calibrated against the census, precisely because it’s a mandatory, complete count. As I’ve written before, worse data makes it fundamentally harder to assess the world around you and hold political leaders accountable for broken promises and bad outcomes.

None of this is settled yet. Litigation is still unfolding in real time.¹⁰ And meanwhile, statisticians and civil rights groups have begun organizing. If the Trump administration has gotten more professionalized this time around, so, at least, have the data nerds.

Footnotes

1

The original text of the Constitution uses the word “Citizen” or “Citizens” eleven times. But for the census, it specified that the population to be counted was “the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” The last clause was made moot following the Thirteenth Amendment’s abolition of slavery. New language added in the Fourteenth Amendment confirmed the original text’s mandate to count “persons” instead of “citizens” in the census: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

2

Well, no one except the hardcore data nerds. Always listen to the data nerds—they’re the Cassandras you didn’t know you needed.

3

This is basically everyone who uses federal data of any kind, for any purpose. Which in theory should mean all of us, but in practice it’s mostly statisticians, demographers, civil rights attorneys, etc. So far.

4

Thank you to the Bulwark reader, and fellow data nerd, who first alerted me to this issue. See, I read your emails, even (especially) the panicked ones!

5

This would not even be the first time the Trump administration has attempted to erase immigrants’ existence from administrative records or federal data of some kind. See this effort at the Social Security Administration to categorize immigrants as dead, for example.

6

Note that Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which has been blocked by the Supreme Court, attempted to exclude not only the children of undocumented immigrants but also the children of non-green-card-holding legal immigrants (such as those on student visas or work visas). “In some ways, the birthright citizenship decision is an important precedent” for understanding what the Trump administration is planning, Saenz told me. “They are different provisions of the Constitution, but both of them are modified by the Fourteenth Amendment and there are many parallels.”

7

While some blue states, such as New York and California, benefit from including immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) in the census, some red states do, too. For whatever reason, Republicans in Texas and Florida have not made much of a fuss about all this, even though the Missouri/Louisiana/Trump preference to exclude immigrants would hurt them too.

8

The OMB filing indicates the rule will also include changes to how other demographic categories are listed or determined. This was also listed as a priority for the decennial census in Project 2025, because “there are concerns among conservatives that the data under Biden Administration proposals could be skewed to bolster progressive political agendas.”

9

Plaintiffs in the Louisiana case have proposed affirmative language in the form of questions that they’d like the court to require for the 2030 census and subsequent censuses: “1. Is this person a United States Citizen? 2. If this person is not a United States Citizen, is this person a lawful permanent resident of the United States?”

10

On Wednesday, in the Missouri case, the judge declined to pause the litigation. The Louisiana case has been stayed since March 2025.

So instead, Donald Trump had the final word, offering up gems such as these:

“Ilhan Omar and her brother are thinking about moving together.”

“[Kaitlan Collins] never smiles. Do you ever smile?”

“Pritzker—don’t call him a fat pig, okay?”

“James Tala-freako… he hates sex, hates women.”

“People wanted me to apologize to Elizabeth Warren. I ended up apologizing to the real Pocahontas.”

“What about Bruce Springsteen? What the hell happened to that guy? He looks like hell.”

“I’m pleased to announce my intention to run for a fourth term as president of the United States.”

I understand the WHCA not wanting an act of violence to “have the final word.” But thinking that offering Donald Trump the final word instead is somehow going to uphold the sanctity of the event, the institution, or a free press is not only naive, but frankly, unacceptable for journalists who - of all people - should know better.

In effect, what Trump got was yet another platform from which he could undermine the very institution that the WHCA thought they were bolstering. Trump stood at the podium and spent the bulk of his remarks attacking the very people in that room. The only thing more irresponsible than allowing him to once again disparage the free press is thinking that this time he would be different.

The White House Correspondents Dinner is supposed to symbolize something bigger than any one president — a night where the press and the White House can occupy the same room, roast each other, and still walk out with mutual respect for the First Amendment intact. It’s not supposed to be a MAGA rally. It’s not supposed to be a campaign stop. But to the surprise of no one, Trump used it as another stage from which he could further erode trust in the First Amendment. Trump doesn’t care about the press; he hates the press (unless of course it’s completely loyal to him). But he’s more than happy to have a platform from which he can destroy them. And the WHCA granted him exactly that.

I would ask when legacy media will learn, but they won’t. There is no recognition that conferring favor onto Trump or Republicans buys you exactly zero goodwill. But still, they will roll out the red carpet, give him a primetime speaking slot, genuflect at his altar— they will put him on a pedestal, and he’ll stand up there and destroy them from it.

None of this helps journalism. None of it protects reporters doing their jobs under increasing hostility, growing threats, and vanishingly thin protections. What it does is teach every strongman-curious politician watching that you can walk into the belly of the free press, mock it to its face, and still get invited back next year while these journalists pretend that everything is fine— just fine. Politics as usual. Nothing to see here.

But you cannot do politics-as-usual with a guy who, if he got his way, would eliminate the ability of a free press to exist.

Look, I understand that journalists want to be neutral. But if you are a journalist in the United States of America, you have an obligation to be biased— in favor of democracy. And Trump’s movement is anti-democratic. Autocrats like Trump do not want a free press. He has broadcast as much on a daily basis. He has issued subpoenas to reporters for the crime of reporting on his lies and corruption. He has blocked journalists from entering the Pentagon. He has sicced his FCC on comedians who commit the cardinal sin of making fun of him. The longer the press pretends that Trump is not an enemy of their profession, the more runway he has to undermine them.

If you’re tired of a legacy media that outright refuses to acknowledge the dangers that Trump poses, that refuses to recognize that this is not politics as usual, please consider subscribing to this newsletter. Unlike the legacy outlets, I cannot be leveraged by the federal government. I don’t need approvals for any mergers or acquisitions. I am not owned by some rightwing billionaire. Hell, Trump is so threatened by me and independent media that he put me on his enemies list. I will continue to speak out and I will not pretend that any of this is normal. Because it’s not.

I’ve asked a lot of you these past few weeks — to pre-order it, to help promote it online, and of course, to contend with the barrage of self-promotion. I’m not going to keep doing that indefinitely, because at some point it starts feeling like noise, and that’s not what you signed up for. So today will be my final ask, and then I’ll go back to focusing exclusively on what’s actually happening in this country, which is the reason you signed up for this in the first place.

So why today? Today, Saturday, marks the “official” end of the first week of sales— and the end of the first week that the New York Times uses for its best seller list compilation. A book’s best shot at hitting the list is on week one. The list really shouldn't matter— but as an English major and an author, of course it’s important to me.

But that’s not why I wrote this book, and it’s not why I’ll continue to advocate for its message long after any list is published. I have dedicated my life to doing whatever I can to ensure that we can see a progressive agenda enacted. When the left’s biggest shortfall was its unwillingness to support independent progressive media, I used my platform to advocate for it relentlessly. Now, the moment calls for Democrats who are willing to fight to achieve our goals. I’m now using my platform - and this book - to advocate for that.

So here’s my very, very humble ask.

If you haven’t picked it up yet: now’s the moment, while it’s still fresh and still being talked about.

If you already have: thank you, genuinely — and if you’re willing, a copy for someone else in your life, or a quick review, or just telling one person who hasn’t heard of it, all helps more than you’d think.

None of this works without you, and I don’t say that as a rhetorical flourish. Independent media, the ability to say the things I say on this newsletter and on video without a network telling me to soften them — all of that exists because people like you decided to show up for it.

👉 Get your copy of THE DAY AFTER

Thank you for reading, for showing up, and for putting up with these emails these past few weeks. Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

— Brian

The point of the whole charade was, of course, to create a pretext for Trump to eventually declare (read: invent) extraordinary powers granting himself control over our elections ahead of midterms. He likely views this move as a necessary first step to ultimately shoehorn through sweeping changes that Republicans have thus far been unsuccessful at implementing. Every Big Lie starts as a little one.

Please order my new book, The Day After, here. And if you live in Los Angeles, grab tickets to my final live show with Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett on Saturday, July 18 here.

Rather than trying to turn the tide (by, you know, governing), Trump is opting to rig the rules the game. On the one hand, it’s a damning indictment of our politics that we’ve gotten to this point. On the other hand, it’s a pathetic act of cowardice that betrays the president’s abject weakness. That’s not to say we shouldn’t take him seriously; if nothing else, the speech showed that Trump will stop at nothing to wield power, even power that he doesn’t have, to get what he wants.

What we saw last night should be a blinking red light for Democrats to continue to fight this anti-democratic MAGA movement on every front. But it should also serve as a lesson for Democrats to recognize the opponent we’re contending with. Trump will stop at nothing to win. We have to see this mentality, take it seriously, and mirror it— not for self-enrichment or vanity projects, but to deliver for Americans. Enough blind deference to our norms and traditions and institutions. Enough symbolic victories and messaging votes. It’s time to wield power like we mean it. It’s time to wield power to secure meaningful, lasting wins. It’s time to wield power like democracy is at risk, because it is.

My new book, The Day After: How To Wield Power in a Post-Trump World, which demands that Democrats finally wield power in office, is out now, and it is meant to serve as a blueprint for how to do exactly that. It’s a roadmap so that we enter 2028 with a plan to not just win power, but keep it. I’m humbly asking you to buy this book, ask your communities online to do the same, and use what you learn from it in the fight for democracy. Because the midterms might still be just over the horizon, but the fight for the future of the republic is already underway.

Well, this week, he got one step closer to the edge of that cliff when Judge Kathleen Williams issued a 56-page order tearing apart the IRS settlement his Justice Department brokered on Trump’s behalf. She referred Blanche for a disciplinary investigation for his trouble.

If you’d like to support my work, my new book, The Day After, is now officially released. Please order a copy today! And tickets are available for my book tour: July 15 in NY and July 18 in LA. Thanks so much.

A quick recap: Trump performed some impressive legal gymnastics to sue his own government – meaning himself – for $10 billion over the IRS leak of his tax returns. Then he oh-so-generously “settled,” opting instead for a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund along with permanent immunity from audits, prosecution, or enforcement for him, his sons, and his businesses, for any returns filed up to the settlement date. Todd Blanche was in charge of the Justice Department that set up the fund and the immunity. If that sounds like malpractice, it sure would be for someone tasked with upholding the law and the Constitution. But that’s not what Todd Blanche does. He has one client, and that’s Donald Trump. He was just doing his job.

Judge Williams ruled that the lawsuit was bogus, because it didn’t fulfill the basic requirement of actually being a lawsuit: having a distinct plaintiff and defendant.
“There was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” she wrote in her ruling. Blanche tried to create a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario for Trump, and the judge wasn’t buying it.

Now Blanche could face the same sort of consequences that took down so many of his predecessors. And he wouldn’t be alone in this one. The ruling threatens four lawyers. Alejandro Brito, Trump’s lead counsel, was referred to the Florida Bar for discipline. Stanley Woodward was referred to the D.C. Bar. Daniel Epstein is banned from appearing in the Southern District of Florida for one year. And Blanche himself was referred to the New York State Bar. Not an ideal headline on the eve of a big job interview to become the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

Every single one of Trump’s lawyers looks at the cold dead bodies of those who came before and seems to think it won’t happen to them. But defending Trump never works out well in the end. Todd Blanche is just the latest— but by no means special.

He’s done some fine work sucking up to Trump in order to get here: protecting him from the fallout from the Epstein files, setting up Trump’s January 6 slush fund, bringing politically motivated cases and investigations against Trump’s perceived enemies, and generally weaponizing the Justice Department to be Trump’s personal cudgel. But if I were him, I’d set up a plan B. Because if the past is any indication, Todd Blanche’s future is far from certain.

Subscribe now

Order The Day After

Donald Trump has shown that our institutions are not sacrosanct. He barrels through them to get what he wants— the law, the Constitution, the courts, the other branches of government be damned. But he does it for self-enrichment. He does it to build vanity projects. He does it to consolidate power for himself. Democrats can - and, I argue, must - learn from the GOP’s refusal to abide by norms and traditions— but for virtuous reasons! To deliver healthcare for all Americans, to expand voting rights, to combat climate change, to expand the Supreme Court, to deliver a just economy, and so much more.

I think it is essential to have this debate now, so that when we get into power - and I believe we will get into power - we don’t waste that precious time talking about wielding power, but rather simply doing it. With so much disillusionment in politics (on the right and the left), if we don’t take advantage of whatever opportunities come our way, we risk losing a generation of Americans forever. And it is in that vacuum of trust and faith in government where autocracy thrives. The moment that we’re living through right now, today, is a testament to why we must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening.

This book, The Day After, is a blueprint for how Democrats must govern in the future. It doesn’t seek to entrench the status quo, but rather usher in a new kind of government that works for Americans. A government that doesn’t allow the smallest obstacle stand in its way. A government that isn’t in place to defend its own institutions, but rather one that focuses on outcomes for its people.

If you agree with this message, then I humbly ask you to support my work and order The Day After: How to Wield Power in a Post-Trump World at any of the retailers at this link. You can also come to my book tour. I’ll be in Washington DC tonight, July 14, with Jim Acosta (tickets here), in New York City on July 15 with Don Lemon (tickets here), and with Jon Lovett in Los Angeles on July 18 (tickets here).

Thank you so much.

Once you’ve pre-ordered, you must fill out this form. Once you’ve submitted that form, my publisher will be sending hand-signed bookplates out (only to US addresses) shortly after the book arrives. Once you receive the bookplate, you can remove the back to expose the sticky side and stick it inside the book.

Pre-order The Day After

And, importantly, if you live in or near Washington DC, New York, or Los Angeles, I’ll be signing books in person on my book tour. So please grab tickets to join me on July 14 with Jim Acosta in DC, July 15 with Don Lemon in NY, or July 18 with Jon Lovett in LA. There are still tickets available, and I’d love to meet you in person, so if you’re free during my book tour, please grab tickets as soon as you can!

A little background on the book. The Day After is a blueprint for how Democrats can and must wield power in a way that doesn’t simply restore the status quo, but seeks to rebuild our government with a focus on outcomes. If there’s one lesson that we can learn from Trump, it’s that our institutions are not as sacrosanct as we once believed. But unlike Trump, we can overcome those barriers not for self-enrichment and vanity projects, but for virtuous reasons. We must deliver universal healthcare, we must combat climate change, we must expand voting rights, we must create a just economy, we must expand the Supreme Court, and we must reimplement the rule of law. But we need to have this debate now, so that when we take power back, we can hit the ground running by actually wielding power, not just talking about wielding power.

Finally, a heartfelt thank you— for supporting my work, for giving me a little bit of your time each day, and for your trust in an era of such rampant mis- and disinformation. I appreciate it.

While the passage of a bipartisan bill in this political climate is nothing short of a miracle, this one really was a no-brainer. It lowers home prices, speeds up building, and reins in the corporate landlords buying up single-family homes. Democrats called it the biggest housing bill in decades, Republicans called it a win for families. Trump called it a “yawn.”

Here’s a special offer for Substack readers. If you pre-order my new book, The Day After, you can get a signed bookplate by filling out this form. The offer is only valid until July 13. And please come see me on my book tour on July 14 in DC, July 15 in NY, and July 18 in LA.

The bill sailed through both chambers of Congress before reaching Trump’s desk on June 29th— where he defiantly refused to sign it, opting instead to use it as leverage to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump’s fever dream legislation which ultimately amounts to a federal takeover of elections. Yesterday, he reiterated his refusal to budge, explicitly saying on Truth Social that it’s in “protest” of the Senate not passing the SAVE America Act. He’s made it crystal clear to Americans that he’d rather housing be unattainable than give up his crusade to gut voting rights.

His critics claim he’s blowing the midterms. But that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the Trump psychology. He is, in fact, laser focused on the midterms— because the SAVE America Act would help him rig them. He doesn’t want to earn votes, which he could legitimately do by signing this housing bill; he wants to rig the rules of the game before a single vote is even cast.

The fact that he wouldn’t sign his own party’s bill in accordance with his own campaign promise goes to show that he feels absolutely no need to deliver for the people to whom he pandered on the campaign trail. When a president would rather blow up his own party’s legislative win than let a real election happen on a level playing field, that tells you he’s not preparing to win the midterms. He’s preparing to make sure it doesn’t matter whether he does.

Because the 10-day clock ran out at midnight last night and Trump didn’t explicitly veto the legislation, the housing bill automatically became law. He won’t get to take credit for it, and his tantrum effectively neutered the Republicans’ ability to celebrate its passage. Instead, we’re having a national conversation about how Trump attempted to sacrifice his own campaign promise in his desperation to consolidate political power for himself. Which, ultimately, is the perfect microcosm for the MAGA movement over which he presides.

A reminder: please pre-order my new book, The Day After, and grab tickets to my book tour on July 14 in DC, July 15 in NY, or July 18 in LA.

A week from now, the guy responsible will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking to be confirmed as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Given everything that just went down, in addition to his long track record wielding the law as a partisan cudgel, I’d say that guy, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, is uniquely unqualified for the job. Which, in this timeline, means he’ll almost certainly get it.

Here’s a special offer for Substack readers. If you pre-order my new book, The Day After, you can get a signed bookplate by filling out this form. The offer is only valid for US addresses until July 13. And please come see me on my book tour. Tickets are still available on July 14 in DC, July 15 in NY, and July 18 in LA.

That’s because Blanche isn’t auditioning to be the nation’s top lawyer, or to defend the Constitution, though that’s what the job interview is nominally about. Blanche already has a client, and even though your tax dollars are paying his salary, he’s certainly not working for you. Todd Blanche is in this position for the exact same reason he should be disqualified from it: he’s loyally served as Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney. Clearly, he’s never stopped, even as he rose to the rank of acting Attorney General. He remained loyal to his client, only now with access to Justice Department resources.

When Blanche takes his seat next week, he has a lot to answer for. There’s the issue of the redactions in the Epstein files. Why are the victims’ names published while the perpetrators’ identities are protected? Why was Ghislaine Maxwell moved to a minimum security prison after Blanche personally interviewed her? Why haven’t three million documents been released?

Then there’s another one of his glaring conflicts of interest, in Trump’s suit against the IRS. Trump sued the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Todd Blanche, acting as the government’s lawyer, despite having formerly been Trump’s lawyer, negotiated against himself and lost spectacularly: no tax enforcement against Trump, his family, or his businesses, ever, plus a $1.776 billion slush fund as a parting gift. That loss was a win, though, in the eyes of his once and future king, Donald Trump.

Of course, a commitment to the weaponization of the law against political enemies should be yet another disqualifying factor for Blanche. But as he’s always performing for an audience of one, it’s in fact the reason he’s the perfect candidate. Blanche has a pattern of political prosecutions, including indicting James Comey (a judge threw that one out), going after John Brennan for looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and investigating Cassidy Hutchinson after she implicated the President in the January 6 riot during House testimony.

Blanche isn’t exactly coasting on this one. He needs the support of every single Republican on the judiciary committee to be confirmed. But neither Thom Tillis nor John Cornyn have committed to backing him. Caveat: both are leaving the Senate. The only Republicans free to offer even an ounce of dissent are the ones who don’t need Trump anymore. If Blanche does make it through to the next round, he can only afford to lose three Republican votes (of which the aforementioned Tillis and Cornyn are included).

The Catch-22 here is that even if he were to lose the vote, it might not cost him the job. Trump can just leave him in place as acting attorney general, where he is free to continue doing what he’s been doing. The hearing is a formality. The upshot won’t really be whether Blanche runs the DOJ; he will - at least for a while. It’ll be whether the Senate co-signs it.

Blanche is in the position he’s in because of his die-hard fealty to Trump. He’s defended the President in two federal cases and a hush money trial in New York. That resume is not insignificant. But he’s just one in a long line of Trump’s personal lawyers who got drunk on proximity to power, and ended up burned. Rudy Giuliani was disbarred. John Eastman’s disbarment is pending. Jenna Ellis’ license was suspended. Michael Cohen is a convicted felon. Blanche is just the latest in this long line of casualties to survive long enough to be handed the keys to the castle before his past catches up with him. And if history is any indication, it will eventually. The question is, how much damage can Blanche do before it does?

So while the rest of team USA and their fans should be celebrating having their star player back on the field, Trump’s forcing everyone to make it about him.

Sure, a corrupt guy did corruption with one of the most famously corrupt organizations on earth. That’s the least surprising part of the story.

The sharper headline is that Trump’s gloating about it puts the stink of politics on something that has been a respite from politics for a nation - or, frankly, a world - that has been relentlessly bombarded by the toxicity of politics for what feels like an eternity.

If you enjoy my work, please join me on my book tour on July 14 in DC, July 15 in NY, or July 18 in LA. Otherwise, please pre-order my upcoming book here.

The World Cup has been an absolute joy across the board, the rare thing we can all agree on. We love it because it is everything Trump is not. It’s not hateful or divisive, it’s joyous and inclusive. You have teams from around the world garnering home team support across America, expressly because this is a nation of immigrants – a fact Trump has done everything in his power to erase.

And then there’s the irony of all ironies: Trump pulled strings to reverse the red card suspension for Balogun, who is a birthright citizen. Balogun only qualified for the US team, becoming its top scorer, because of the 14th amendment, which Trump has been working overtime to destroy. Let the record show that this is probably the first time Trump has advocated for an immigrant’s rights.

Trump pulled this same kind of move when the US Men’s Hockey team won gold at the Olympics. The country was unilaterally thrilled with their win, the first for the team in 40 years. Then Trump forced his way into the chat, gratuitously insulting the Women’s team in a congratulatory phone call to the men’s team, and taking a dump all over their victory lap and our national discourse. And just like that, it was all about him.

Am I surprised? Frankly, I may be physiologically incapable of surprise at this point. This is what Trump does. He can’t stand to let anything dominate the headlines if it doesn’t include him. It doesn’t help that the World Cup has outshined the flop that was Trump’s America 250 (™) celebration. He simply won’t let us have something that isn’t tainted by his insatiable need for attention.