Airstrikes

Many posts have discussed war powers and the US military.

Zachary Basu at Axios: 

No president in the modern era has ordered more military strikes against as many different countries as Donald Trump.He's attacked seven nations, three of which — Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela — had never been targeted by U.S. military strikes. He authorized more individual air strikes in 2025 than President Biden did in four years.
...
The big picture: Trump's strikes are historically distinctive not just in number but in kind.President Bush's post-9/11 campaigns and President Obama's drone wars were massive in scale — but concentrated in inherited or congressionally authorized theaters. Alongside traditional counterterrorism efforts, Trump has opened new fronts — a Christmas Day strike in Nigeria, drug boats sunk in the Caribbean, Nicolás Maduro snatched from Caracas. His preferred model is consistent: no boots on the ground, no lengthy entanglements, overwhelming force applied quickly and framed as essential to defending American interests.

 

Not Rallying Around the Flag

Many posts have discussed foreign policy, war powers and the US military. This weekend, the US snatched Maduro.

Bart Jansen at USA Today:

One in three Americans approve of the U.S. military strike to remove Nicolás Maduro from the presidency of Venezuela to face federal drug-trafficking charges, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Jan. 5.

In contrast, 72% of respondents worried about the United States becoming too involved in the South American country.

The two-day poll found a sharp partisan divide over the raid that President Donald Trump ordered, with his approval rating at 42%. The results found 65% of Republicans back the military operation, compared to 11% of Democrats and 23% of independents.

Distrust

Many posts have discussed public trust in institutions and political leaders.

Daniel Cox at the Survey Center on American Life:

Americans have a generally low regard for many of their political institutions, and most say they mistrust elected officials to act in the public interest. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Americans say elected officials mostly want to benefit themselves, while only one in four (25 percent) say officials care more about improving the country.

The belief that elected officials are more focused on their own personal gain than on improving the country is widespread among the public, cutting across lines of education, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Democrats are especially cynical: Nearly eight in 10 (79 percent) say elected officials are only in it for themselves, a view held by 64 percent of Republicans.

In his recent election, Trump may well have benefited from Americans’ low esteem for public officeholders. Few Americans believe Trump is honest or trustworthy, but many do not believe he is any worse than the average public official. Close to half (47 percent) of Americans say Trump is less trustworthy than most other elected government officials. But collectively, more Americans say he is more trustworthy (33 percent) or no different (20 percent). Even Americans with moderately negative views of Trump—specifically, those with a somewhat unfavorable opinion of him—do not view him as especially untrustworthy. Most (56 percent) say he is no different from the average elected government official.

Kafka and CECOT

  The Trump administration is snatching people without due process.

J.G.G. v. TRUMP  Order Date Filed: 06/04/2025 Court: District Court (D.D.C.) Affiliate: Washington, D.C.

One morning, Kafka’s Josef K. awakens to encounter two strange men outside his room.  As he gets his bearings, he realizes that he is under arrest.  When he asks the strangers why, he receives no answer.  “We weren’t sent to tell you that,” one says.  “Proceedings are under way and you’ll learn everything in due course.”  Franz Kafka, The Trial 5 (Breon Mitchell trans., Schocken Books Inc. 1998).  Bewildered by these men and distressed by their message, K. tries to comfort himself that he lives in “a state governed by law,” one where “all statutes [are] in force.”  Id. at 6.  He therefore demands again, “How can I be under arrest?  And in this manner?”  “Now there you go again,” the guard replies.  “We don’t answer such questions.”  Undeterred, K. offers his “papers” and demands their arrest warrant.  “Good heavens!” the man scolds.  “There’s been no mistake.”  “[O]ur department,” he assures K., is only “attracted by guilt”; it “doesn’t seek [it] out . . . . That’s the Law.”  Id. at 8–9.  “I don’t know that law,” K. responds.  “You’ll feel it eventually,” the guard says.  Id. at 9. 

Such was the situation into which Frengel Reyes Mota, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, and scores of other Venezuelan noncitizens say they were plunged on March 15, 2025.  In the early morning hours, Venezuelans held by the Department of Homeland Security at El Valle Detention Facility in Texas were awakened from their cells, taken to a separate room, shackled, and informed that they were being transferred.  See J.G.G. v. Trump, 2025 WL 1119481, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2025); ECF Nos. 44-9 (Karyn Ann Shealy Second Decl.), ¶¶ 7–8; 44-10 (Stephanie Quintero Decl.), ¶ 3; 44-11 (Grace Carney First Decl.), ¶ 11; 44-12 (Melissa Smyth Decl.), ¶ 13.  To where?  That they were not told.  See ECF No. 101 (Am. Compl.), ¶ 69; Smyth Decl., ¶ 13.  When asked, some guards reportedly laughed and said that they did not know; others told the detainees, incorrectly, that they were being transferred to another immigration facility or to Mexico or Venezuela.  See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 10; Quintero Decl., ¶ 3; ECF Nos. 67-6 (Grace Carney Second Decl.), ¶ 3; 67-11 (Abigail Beckman Decl.), ¶ 9; 102-8 (D.A.R.H. Decl.), ¶ 8. 

Before long, Reyes Mota, Hernandez Romero, and the other detainees were shuttled onto buses, driven to a nearby airport, and loaded onto planes.  J.G.G, 2025 WL 1119481, at *2.  As the planes waited on the tarmac, many passengers aboard reportedly began to panic and beg officials for more information, but none was provided.  See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 10.  The planes eventually departed that evening and, after a stop in Honduras, landed in El Salvador.  J.G.G., 2025 WL 1119481, at *4.  Upon their arrival, the detainees were transferred into a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).   

...

  Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act.  Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members.  But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so.  Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made.  And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.  See, e.g., Sánchez Decl., ¶ 6 (Reyes Mota); D.A.R.H. Decl., ¶¶ 6–7 (Hernandez Romero); ECF Nos. 67-10 (Paulina Reyes Decl.), Exh. A (Hernandez Romero); 102-9 (M.Z.V.V. Decl.), ¶ 6 (J.A.B.V.); 102-10 (M.Y.O.R. 

...

   In short, the Government must facilitate the Class’s ability to seek habeas relief to contest their removal under the Act.  Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings.  Although the Court is mindful that such a remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns within the exclusive province of the Executive Branch, it also has a constitutional duty to provide a remedy that will “make good the wrong done.”  Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946). 

Religion and Abortion Opinion

Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.   

PRRI:

Majorities across most religious traditions say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, including Unitarian Universalists (93%), Jewish Americans (81%), Buddhists (79%), other Catholics of color (73%), Black Protestants (71%), white mainline/non-evangelical Protestants (68%), white Catholics (62%), Muslims (60%), Hispanic Catholics (57%), and other Protestants of color (52%). By contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses (25%), white evangelical Protestants (27%), Latter-day Saints (30%), and Hispanic Protestants (40%) are the only major religious groups in which less than half of adherents support the legality of abortion. Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, 87% say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Student Protest

Jon Keller at CBS Boston:

You've seen the crowds and heard the rhetoric. But what impact is all the campus turmoil over the war in Gaza having on public opinion?

Not much, according to Dritan Nesho, co-director of the nationwide Harvard Center for American Political Studies (CAPS)/Harris poll, where monthly surveys have found "support for Israel has been fairly consistent." Among the striking findings of their April survey:

• While 59% think Muslim students face Islamophobia on campus, the 69% who see antisemitism there has come on strong. "That number wouldn't have been stratospherically high, and it is very high, even as recently as one year ago," said Nesho.
• Two-thirds of voters today believe that it's not safe to be openly Jewish on university campuses, and a huge majority favor suspension for students or teachers who call for violence against Jews, which is what many onlookers hear in common protestor chants. "The majority of the public, and the majority of voters, are not with the protestors," Nesho said.
• Among the 64% who believe there's a "problem" with what higher ed institutions are teaching students these days, 40 percent identified racially divisive theories, 34 percent cited a lack of political diversity, 33 percent deplored the promotion of anti-Americanism, and 27% cited teachings that promote antisemitism.

Even if they're isolated incidents, says Nesho, every time a protestor praises or excuses Hamas, it's a public relations disaster.

"Public opinion is pro-Israel, and public opinion is pro-Palestinian, but public opinion is anti-Hamas," he noted.

Remember the old Beatles song "Revolution"? There was a line in it: "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

Garfield on Congress

A number of posts have discussed congressional capacity, legislative productivity, and deliberation.

In April 1877, Representative (and future President) James A. Garfield wrote at The Atlantic:

And this leads me to say that now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand those high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. Congress lives in the blaze of “that fierce light which beats against the throne.” The telegraph and the press will to-morrow morning announce at a million breakfast tables what has been said and done in Congress to-day. Now, as always, Congress represents the prevailing opinions and political aspirations of the people. The wildest delusions of paper money, the crudest theories of taxation, the passions and prejudices that find expression in the senate and house, were first believed and discussed at the firesides of the people, on the corners of the streets, and in the caucuses and conventions of political parties.

The most alarming feature of our situation is the fact that so many citizens of high character and solid judgment pay but little attention to the sources of political power, to the selection of those who shall make their laws. The clergy, the faculties of colleges, and many of the leading business men of the community never attend the township caucus, the city primaries, or the county convention; but they allow the less intelligent and the more selfish and corrupt members of the community to make the slates and “run the machine” of politics. They wait until the machine has done its work, and then, in surprise and horror at the ignorance and corruption in public office, sigh for the return of that mythical period called the “better and purer days of the republic.” It is precisely this neglect of the first steps in our political processes that has made possible the worst evils of our system. Corrupt and incompetent presidents, judges, and legislators can be removed, but when the fountains of political power are corrupted, when voters themselves become venal and elections fraudulent, there is no remedy except by awakening the public conscience and bringing to bear upon the subject the power of public opinion and the penalties of the law. The practice of buying and selling votes at our popular elections has already gained a foot-hold, though it has not gone as far as in England.

Grassroots and Grasstops

At WSJ, Brody Mullins and Luke Mullins report on the outside game of grassroots and grassroots lobbying.  Things really took off in 2011 when Google and other tech companies pushed back hard against IP legislation.

Today’s most effective corporate lobbying no longer involves wooing members of Congress with Chateau Margaux, five-star meals or tickets to professional sporting events. K Street’s elite now works in secret to influence lawmakers with the help of an unlikely ally: you.

Though appealing to the public has long been part of the lobbying playbook, it has taken a much more sophisticated form in the years since lobbyists were banned from using the traditional tools of their trade to curry favor with elected officials. They recognized that, given the new restrictions, the best way to influence members of Congress was through the people who sent them to Washington in the first place.

In 2021, the focus was on proposed tax hike.

The oil-and-gas industry killed their proposed tax increases by getting voters in Texas and Louisiana to tell their members of Congress that the tax increases would kill jobs back home. Lobbyists for tobacco companies and convenience stores worked to persuade Black Americans that a new $100 billion tax on tobacco products would drive up illegal tobacco sales and increase the likelihood of conflicts with the police, like the violent encounter that led to the death of 43-year-old Eric Garner on Staten Island in 2014. Black lawmakers responded by striking the tobacco taxes from the bill.

The private-equity industry, meanwhile, got even more creative. Months before Biden proposed a $1 billion-a-year tax increase on private-equity investors, its lobbyists quietly launched a public-relations campaign to convince a few dozen centrist Democrats that increased taxes would lower the amount of money invested in small businesses and real-estate development in their states. A key target of the effort was Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

To win her over, the private-equity lobby identified her top political advisers, staff and campaign donors. The industry purchased advertisements on Twitter and Facebook pages targeting this inner circle, stating that higher private-equity taxes would lower investment and jobs in her state. “Private Equity is directly supporting 138 small businesses in Arizona,” read one social-media post from the industry’s Washington trade association. The lobby also paid for advertisements in Arizona that encouraged voters to call Sinema’s office and urge her to oppose the tax increase.

Industry lobbyists contacted Arizona business leaders and got them to sign opinion pieces in local media outlets to catch the senator’s attention. Most of the pieces were written by lobbyists, according to one of the private-equity strategists involved in the campaign. “Raising taxes on individuals and small businesses who contribute funds or sweat equity to a project will diminish the incentive to take on risk,” read one piece.

Facing pressure from her constituents in Arizona, Sinema came out against the tax increase, and it was dropped from Biden’s plan before it was called up for a vote.

When The Wall Street Journal reported that industry lobbyists had persuaded Sinema to oppose the tax increases, her spokesman said it was impossible because the senator never spoke with any lobbyists for the industry. But the private-equity lobby didn’t have to speak to Sinema. They spoke to her constituents back home.

 

Old Oppo Handbook

Many posts have discussed opposition research.   Joseph Rodota quotes a 1972 opposition research handbook from a progressive organization:

Although the Handbook went to print in 1972 — well before oppo research moved online — it has some useful tips that are relevant today:

In most cases you are looking for contradictions; turnabouts on key issues, speeches which don’t jibe with votes, telling one group one thing and another something else.

When digging into campaign contributions, oppo researchers should ask themselves:

…who are your opponent’s friends (are any of them disreputable), did your opponent get a lot of money from a single group or groups (how did he serve that special interest in the Congress), and how did he raise and/or spend the money in the last election (in conformity with campaign laws or not).

The Handbook also suggests looking for any failure to bring federal spending back home:

you should evaluate your opponent’s effectiveness in bringing programs and business to your district. In many cases, Congressmen do nothing to secure available funds or inadvertently block grants through sheer incompetence… Believe it or not, there is plenty of federal money passed up each year.

And offers a word of caution:

We recommend you speak to as many people as possible about your opponent, but there is a problem: you may not want it known that you are investigating his background… You are risking disclosure when you talk with journalists, associates of the Congressman, his staff, or supporters.

Reagan Birthday

 Ronald Reagan was born on this date in 1911.  From his 1992 address to the Republican National Convention:

And whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way.

My fondest hope for each one of you — and especially for the young people here — is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism.

And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

Dianne Feinstein, RIP

 President Biden:

Senator Dianne Feinstein was a pioneering American. A true trailblazer. And for Jill and me, a cherished friend.

In San Francisco, she showed enormous poise and courage in the wake of tragedy, and became a powerful voice for American values. Serving in the Senate together for more than 15 years, I had a front row seat to what Dianne was able to accomplish. It’s why I recruited her to serve on the Judiciary Committee when I was Chairman – I knew what she was made of, and I wanted her on our team. There’s no better example of her skillful legislating and sheer force of will than when she turned passion into purpose, and led the fight to ban assault weapons. Dianne made her mark on everything from national security to the environment to protecting civil liberties. She’s made history in so many ways, and our country will benefit from her legacy for generations.

Often the only woman in the room, Dianne was a role model for so many Americans – a job she took seriously by mentoring countless public servants, many of whom now serve in my Administration. She had an immense impact on younger female leaders for whom she generously opened doors. Dianne was tough, sharp, always prepared, and never pulled a punch, but she was also a kind and loyal friend, and that’s what Jill and I will miss the most.

As we mourn with her daughter Katherine and the Feinstein family, her team in the Senate, and the people of California, we take comfort that Dianne is reunited again with her beloved Richard. May God Bless Dianne Feinstein.

Participation, Education, and News Consumption Do Not Ease Polarization

Many posts have discussed partisan polarization and aversive or negative partisanship.

James Davenport at NonDoc:

Our disdain for one another leads us to separate from one another, which, in turn, leads us to misunderstand one another. Worse yet, many of the social sciences’ presumed solutions to reduce this polarization might not actually work. The YouGov/More in Common research discovered that political participation does not help reduce the perception gap. Instead, they found that the more ideological and politically active one may be, the larger their misperceptions about those in the other party may become. Conversely, the politically “disengaged” had the smallest perception gap among those in the survey.

Similarly, news consumption helps reduce polarization much less than the journalism world would hope. Those who followed the news “most of the time” had a much larger misunderstanding of their political opponents than those who did not pay attention to the news, according to the study. In fact, these researchers found that only the traditional and national network television news had a positive impact on how accurately partisans viewed one another. When one considers the ideological segmentation of the news media and its subsequent reinforcement of political polarization of the public, this finding may not be surprising, but it is nonetheless depressing.

Another surprise from the YouGov/More in Common study was that education does not help reduce the perception gap either. These researchers discovered that while increased educational attainment among Republicans did not reveal a difference in how they perceived Democrats, tiers of Democrats with higher education levels showed significantly increased misunderstanding of their Republican counterparts.

“This effect is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree,” the study’s authors wrote. In examining the data, they speculated that this outcome was due, in part, to highly educated Democrats reporting less ideologically diverse friendship networks than more educated Republicans.