Pardoning Supporters

Previous posts have discussed the president's pardon power.

Dan Merica and Matthew Choi at WP:

Trump began his presidency by issuing a blanket pardon to virtually all Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants, but his use of the pardon power has only intensified since then. Here is an incomplete list of all the people to whom Trump has granted clemency in his first months as president:

• His most prominent allies involved in the effort to overturn the 2020 election results, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani
• A former Tennessee House speaker and his top aide who had been convicted of corruption-related charges
• A retired New York police sergeant convicted of stalking and acting as an unregistered foreign agent in a Chinese government plot
• The founder of cryptocurrency exchange Binance, Changpeng Zhao, who pleaded guilty to enabling money laundering in 2023
• New York Mets great Darryl Strawberry, who pleaded guilty to a felony after he failed to report $350,000 in income from autographs, personal appearances and sales of memorabilia
• Former representative George Santos (R-New York), whose sentence for identity theft and wire fraud was commuted
• Ross Ulbricht, the founder of online drug market Silk Road who was sentenced to life in prison in 2015 on charges related to his website
• Twenty-three people who were convicted of blocking access to reproductive health clinics
• Rod Blagojevich, the disgraced former governor of Illinois who was convicted on multiple charges of corruption in 2011
• Todd and Julie Chrisley, the former stars of USA Network’s “Chrisley Knows Best,” who were found guilty of fraud and tax evasion
• Michele Fiore, a former Republican Las Vegas City Council member convicted of fraud last year for using money meant to honor a slain police officer for plastic surgery, rent and her daughter’s wedding
• Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, who was convicted of federal bribery and fraud charges in December

(You can see the complete list from the Justice Department here.)

The list highlights just how much Trump relishes one of the clearest powers of the presidency, as he grants pardons for crimes like fraud, bribery and corruption. The people granted these pardons are often Trump supporters, many of whom have close ties to the president and his movement.

“No MAGA left behind,” Ed Martin, Trump’s pardon attorney, tweeted this year following Jenkins’s pardon.

Foreign Trolls

 Many posts have analyzed how foreign governments try to influence American politics and policy. Russia and China are prominent influencers.

Jack Revell at The Daily Beast:

Elon Musk’s social media site X has rolled out a new feature in an effort to increase transparency—and unwittingly revealed that many of the site’s top MAGA influencers are actually foreign actors.

The new “About This Account” feature, which became available to X users on Friday, allows others to see where an account is based, when they joined the platform, how often they have changed their username, and how they downloaded the X app.

Upon rollout, rival factions began to inspect just where their online adversaries were really based on the combative social platform—with dozens of major MAGA and right-wing influencer accounts revealed to be based overseas.

“This is easily one of the greatest days on this platform,” wrote Democratic influencer Harry Sisson.

“Seeing all of these MAGA accounts get exposed as foreign actors trying to destroy the United States is a complete vindication of Democrats, like myself and many on here, who have been warning about this”.

Dozens of major accounts masquerading as “America First” or “MAGA” proponents have been identified as originating in places such as Russia, India, and Nigeria.

In one example, the account MAGANationX—with nearly 400,000 followers and a bio reading “Patriot Voice for We The People”—is actually based in Eastern Europe.

...

The use of fake accounts to bolster the MAGA movement is something The Centre for Information Resilience, an independent, nonprofit research organization, flagged during the 2024 election.

With many of the MAGA influencer accounts revealed to originate in Eastern Europe or Russia, users are questioning the ongoing interference in American politics by foreign adversaries.

 

Two Military Oaths

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Mark Hertling at The Bulwark:

Enlisted members swear to support and defend the Constitution, and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” And the UCMJ makes crystal clear that the service member’s obligation is to obey “lawful” orders, and that no enlisted member is permitted to carry out an unlawful order. But the enlisted oath is also intentionally anchored in obedience of the chain of command. The accountability lies one level up.

Which brings us to the officer oath—shorter in words, heavier in weight. Officers swear to “support and defend” the Constitution; to “bear true faith and allegiance” to it; and to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of their office. They also affirm that they “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What they do not swear to do is equally important: Officers make no promise to obey the president and the officers above them.

That omission is not an oversight. Officers give orders, evaluate legality, and act as the constitutional circuit breakers the Founders intended. They are expected—by law, by professional ethic, and by centuries of tradition—to exercise independent judgment when presented with a questionable directive. Officers are duty-bound to refuse an unlawful order. It is not optional. It is not situational. It is their job.

Posting Lies, Deleting Facts

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute."   -- George Orwell, 1984

A number of posts have discussed presidential documents, official data, and government websites.

Alexandra Banner at CNN:

Scientific information on the CDC's website was replaced this week with anti-vaccine talking points, including false claims that link autism and vaccines. It's the latest move by the Trump administration to alter longstanding US vaccine policy and cast doubt on vaccinations. "We are updating the CDC's website to reflect gold standard, evidence-based science," Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said Thursday. But abundant evidence has shown that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. In a CNN interview, a former top CDC official called the website changes "a national embarrassment" that could leave parents confused.

Catherine Rampell at The Bulwark:

In August, Trump’s decision to fire Erika McEntarfer, the BLS commissioner, grabbed headlines,2 but the top job is hardly the only hole this administration has blown in that agency. At the time of McEntarfer’s firing, a third of senior BLS leadership positions were already vacant. (That’s still the case, in fact.)

The rest of the agency has been swiss-cheesed too. Some regional field offices—such as the consumer price index offices in Buffalo, New York; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Provo, Utah—have been shuttered entirely. Meanwhile, post-COVID, the agency was already struggling with reduced survey-response rates, which have made its numbers noisier and more susceptible to big revisions. The administration’s response has been to disband the task force working to fix these problems.

The result is that federal data are being degraded—or deleted altogether. And deletion is especially common when statistical series measure issues that this administration would rather not track.

In September, for instance, the administration canceled a three-decade-old annual survey that measures how many Americans struggle to get enough food. A few months earlier, HHS eliminated the team that produces the poverty guidelines, which determine how we count the number of people in poverty and eligibility for benefits such as SNAP, Medicaid, Head Start, and childcare subsidies. But hey, if you never determine who’s eligible for benefits, maybe that means no one is.

Over the past ten months, I’ve been tracking similar cuts to federal data collection on substance abuse, natural disasters, children’s literacy, climate change, race, crime, immigration, gender identity and other issues. (My non-exhaustive, running list lives here; please send me examples I may have missed.)

Social Media Use 2025

Many posts have discussed social media. 

Jeffrey Gottfried and Eugenie Park at Pew:

YouTube and Facebook remain the most widely used online platforms. The vast majority of U.S. adults (84%) say they ever use YouTube. Most Americans (71%) also report using Facebook. These findings are according to a Pew Research Center survey of 5,022 U.S. adults conducted Feb. 5-June 18, 2025.

Half of adults say they use Instagram, making it the only other platform in our survey used by at least 50% of Americans.

Smaller shares use the other sites and apps we asked about, such as TikTok (37%) and WhatsApp (32%). Somewhat fewer say the same of Reddit, Snapchat and X (formerly Twitter).

This year we also asked about three platforms that are used by about one-in-ten or fewer U.S. adults: Threads, Bluesky, and Truth Social.

Center studies also find that YouTube is the most widely used online platform among U.S. teens, like it is among U.S. adults.

Pocket Rescissions

Previous posts have discussed budget cuts.

 Oriana González at NOTUS:

The Office of Management and Budget’s director, Russell Vought, is the mastermind behind the administration’s pocket rescissions strategy which involves a request from the president to withhold money already appropriated by Congress. But the request comes so late in the fiscal year that Congress doesn’t have enough time to act within the allotted timeframe. and the administration considers the money rescinded once the fiscal year ends.

The Trump White House had so far used pocket rescissions once, when it withheld nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid in August. The Supreme Court allowed the move, effectively greenlighting Vought’s strategy for the near future.

But in July, Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the 12 so-called “cardinals,” quietly added a provision to the fiscal 2026 bill for the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee — which funds the agencies most impacted by Trump’s two rescissions requests — that would have addressed pocket rescissions.

The clause, Sec. 7065, would have given Congress an extra 45 days to consider rescissions requests submitted late in the fiscal year.

After the bill text was released, Vought reached out to Díaz-Balart, explaining that the White House was concerned about the provision, one senior White House official told NOTUS. The official said that after Vought relayed the issue, Díaz-Balart removed the provision.

The White House did more than just reach out to Díaz-Balart. Republican appropriators started receiving pressure from the White House to not support the bill if the provision remained, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Expatriation 2025

Many posts have discussed citizenship and expatriation.

Benedict Vigers and Julie Ray at Gallup:

For the second straight year, about one in five Americans say they would like to leave the U.S. and move permanently to another country if they could. This heightened desire to migrate is driven primarily by younger women.

In 2025, 40% of women aged 15 to 44 say they would move abroad permanently if they had the opportunity. The current figure is four times higher than the 10% who shared this desire in 2014, when it was generally in line with other age and gender groups.

The percentage of younger women wanting to move to another country first rose decisively in 2016, the final year of President Barack Obama's second term. That year, Gallup surveyed the U.S. in June and July, after both parties’ presumptive nominees were set for the November election, which Donald Trump went on to win. Desire to migrate continued to climb afterward, hitting 44% in President Joe Biden’s last year in office and remaining near that level in 2025. This suggests a broader shift in opinion among younger women, rather than a solely partisan one.