Whisper Network

Many posts have discussed social media. 

Melanie Mason and Jeremy B. White at Politico:

Five months before Arielle Fodor, better known on social media as “Mrs. Frazzled,” helped set in motion the downfall of Rep. Eric Swalwell, she was singing his praises on Instagram.

“You know how I love to tell you when I meet a politician who acts like a normal human and not a robot!” she posted the day after the California Democrat launched his campaign for governor. “Eric is that.” 

It was a fairly anodyne post for Fodor, a prodigious professional poster. But it drew an unusual response: Three people privately warning her that Swalwell was no good.

Those messages were the embers of a firestorm that in short order incinerated Swalwell’s campaign, and is now engulfing what remains of his political career.

Swalwell suspended his campaign Sunday, days after multiple news outlets reported on allegations that he sexually harassed women, had sexual relationships with subordinate staff and, in two cases, committed sexual assault. Swalwell has denied accusations he had nonconsensual sex with anybody, though he acknowledged “personal failings.”

The broad contours of Swalwell’s alleged behavior, if not the specifics, did not come as a surprise to many working in and around politics, especially in Washington. The 45-year-old cable news darling and Trump antagonist had developed a reputation for unsavory and sometimes unwanted behavior toward women. Those warnings were shared in whisper networks but rarely traveled outside the circle of political insiders.

That is, until Swalwell sought a promotion to lead the nation’s most populous state and a pair of content creators worked to spill that open secret into public view. His breakneck undoing is a testament to the striking power of a new media ecosystem in which influencers with huge audiences can not only publicize politicians, but control the political conversation. Their growing clout has thrust campaigns into a new digital Wild West, where long-buried allegations and unsubstantiated rumors can find their earliest stages of vetting, a warning for politicians at all levels, including in the run-up to 2028.

On paper, it was a lopsided matchup. Swalwell had a national profile and support from many in the Democratic Party apparatus. Fodor and another content creator, Cheyenne Hunt — along with behind-the-scenes help from Hunt’s friend, a woman who alleged she had been personally harassed by Swalwell and still remains anonymous — had their keyboards and iPhone cameras.

Blockade

Many posts have discussed war powers and the US military.

 Mark Nevitt at Just Security:

CENTCOM has clarified that the U.S. blockade targets Iranian ports along the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman — not the Strait itself. That distinction matters legally, but the blockade remains an act of war. Further, CENTCOM stated that “forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports.” CENTCOM’s clarification appears to supersede President Trump’s earlier social media post announcing a blockade of the Strait itself. The blockade announced in specific terms by CENTCOM ratchets up pressure on Iran while creating enormous operational risks.

For a blockade to be legally valid, it must meet certain criteria.

First, the blockade can be established only by the government of a belligerent State. Blockade is not a peacetime operation. By establishing the blockade, the United States is exercising a belligerent right under the laws of war, effectively ending the ceasefire.

Second, it is customary for the State establishing the blockade to notify all affected States of its imposition. The form of the notification is not material, so long as it is effective. CENTCOM has announced the blockade via social media and has stated that “[a]dditional information will be provided to commercial mariners through a formal notice before the start of the blockade.”

Third, to be valid, the blockade must be effective. This means that blockading forces must exert force to render ingress or egress of the blockaded area dangerous. While the Commander’s Handbook on Naval Warfare states that “effectiveness does not require every possible avenue of approach to the blockaded area be covered,” an ineffective blockade is an illegal blockade under the law of naval warfare and the San Remo Manual. This will be challenging. This blockade is a massive undertaking for the U.S. Navy, which appears to be operating without naval partners. After all, the Iranian coastline stretches roughly the coastal distance from Boston to Savannah —about 1,100 miles.

At the time President Trump’s version of the blockade had been announced (not the modified CENTCOM version), Admiral James Stavridis, former head of European Command, estimated that an effective blockade would require two full aircraft carrier strike groups as well as a dozen destroyers. That would represent a substantial commitment of naval firepower, and even then, effectiveness would not be guaranteed — a threshold that matters legally, not just operationally. It’s fair to assume the scope of the blockade announced by CENTCOM will also require a very substantial force. These operational realities bear directly on whether the blockade can satisfy the legal effectiveness requirement under the law of naval warfare — a threshold that, if not met, renders the blockade itself unlawful.

Further complicating matters, warships may have to position themselves along the Iranian coastline. If so, that will require several ships to navigate the Strait of Hormuz itself, a risky proposition made even riskier with the ceasefire ending and unaccounted-for mines lurking about.

Fourth, a blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels and aircraft of all States.

Finally, the blockade must not bar access to or departure from neutral ports and coasts. This requirement may become salient if the blockade has the practical effect of restricting neutral access to regional ports.

Presidential Power

Many posts have discussed the presidency.

Bruce Mehlman:

 

SO WHAT: However the Iran War ends, it has already changed the world. Every government now faces the same calculation: spend heavily on resilience — energy, infrastructure, defense industrial base — or accept dependence on rivals. Most will spend. Expect higher debt, harder borders, and a louder nationalism in every capital.

Stare Decisis Really Sticks

Many posts have discussed the judiciary.

Mia Hennen at Pew:

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to overrule two of its own long-standing legal precedents – one about presidential power over federal agencies, which has been in place for over 90 years, and another about campaign financing by political parties.

These cases follow the court’s high-profile decision in June 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that had guaranteed the right to an abortion nationwide for nearly five decades.

Since the Supreme Court’s founding in 1789 through its most recent full term in 2024, fewer than 1% of all rulings (236 of 29,202) have overturned an earlier high court decision, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court Database at Pennsylvania State University.

Overturning precedent hasn’t been very common in recent decades, either. Between the 2005 and 2024 terms, only 21 of 1,471 rulings (1.4%) overturned one or more earlier decisions.

 

Melania Is Really Unpopular

Mike Bedigan at The Independent:

New polls have revealed that Melania Trump is the least popular First Lady ever, with her popularity ratings described as “historically awful.”

Analysis by CNN shows that FLOTUS currently has an approval rating of -12, having dropped from a rating of plus three just over a year ago in January 2025.

Results of the poll came out before Melania delivered a remarkable White House address to the nation on Thursday, in which she denied any connections to disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The polling numbers are not related to her statement or Epstein.

“I would say that the American people really don’t care for Melania Trump,” CNN Senior data analyst Harry Enten said, speaking on CNN News Central before her surprising statement was made.

“This is the worst at this point in a presidency as well. Melania Trump breaking records in the way that you don’t want to break records. Historically awful… The American people really don’t care for her.”

In recordings and videos, Melania's mask has often slipped. 

Most Big-City Mayors Are Democrats

Many posts have discussed local government.

Briana Ryan at Ballotpedia:

Ahead of this year's mayoral elections, we found that more Democrats than Republicans are mayors of the 100 most populous U.S. cities.

At the start of this year, 67 of the 100 most populous cities had a Democratic mayor. Eleven of those cities are holding mayoral elections this year. Twenty-two of the 100 most populous cities had a Republican mayor. Seven of those cities are holding mayoral elections this year.

The following chart shows the partisan affiliations of all mayors among the top 100 most populous cities.

Based on 2020 population estimates, 81% of people who live in the top 100 cities have a Democratic mayor. Fourteen percent live in cities with Republican mayors. The chart below shows the partisan breakdown of the top 100 cities from largest to smallest. Since 2016, the number of Democratic-led top-100 cities has ranged from 61 to 67, and the number of Republican-led cities has ranged from 22 to 30. Currently, there are the most Democratic mayors and the fewest Republican mayors in the top-100 cities since 2016. Ten state capitals are holding mayoral elections this year, including eight capitals that fall outside of the top 100 cities. At the start of this year, 33 state capitals had a Democratic mayor. Six of those are holding mayoral elections this year. Seven state capitals had Republican mayors. Two of them are holding mayoral elections this year. Click here to see our analysis of partisanship in this year's municipal elections.

The World Does Not Like US Leadership

 Many posts have discussed international public opinion about the United States.

Julie Ray, Benedict Vigers and Zaccary Ritter at Gallup:

While neither country commands broad support, China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36% approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31% for the U.S. China’s five-percentage-point advantage over the U.S. is the widest Gallup has recorded in China’s favor in nearly 20 years.

The recent shift reflects a decline in U.S. ratings alongside an increase for China. Median approval of U.S. leadership fell from 39% in 2024 to 31% in 2025, returning to earlier lows, while China’s approval rose from 32% to 36%.

At the same time, disapproval of U.S. leadership rose to a record-high 48%, while China’s disapproval rating remained flat at 37%.

...

Approval of U.S. leadership declined by 10 points or more in 44 countries between 2024 and 2025, while it increased by a similar amount in only seven. The declines were concentrated among U.S. allies, including many NATO partners.

Germany led the world in declines; its approval of U.S. leadership fell by 39 points, followed closely by Portugal (down 38 points). Several other long-standing U.S. partners — including Canada, the United Kingdom and Italy — also showed substantial decreases.

U.S. standing improved by more than 10 points among Israelis, marking an exception among U.S. allies. Approval of U.S. leadership in Israel, which surged after the October 2023 Hamas attack and then fell sharply in 2024, rebounded to 76% in 2025 after Trump’s return to the White House — a 13-point increase, among the highest levels globally.