We’re now over 80% of the way toward this year’s goal in our Annual TPM Journalism Fund Drive. We need your help to get to the final goal, at least $500,000. Right now we’re at $423,276. If you’ve been meaning to contribute but haven’t found the right moment yet, now is definitely that moment. Please take just about 90 seconds this moment and join us. Click right here. You’ll truly be glad you did and will have our undying appreciation.
With the prospect of another government shutdown looming, the Senate Appropriations Committee released the text of a continuing resolution (CR) on Sunday that would keep the federal government funded until Dec. 11 and punt the government funding negotiations until after the midterms.
In that stopgap bill, Democrats and a couple of Republicans included a significant provision that would ban, for now, the Trump White House and its Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from finalizing a grantmaking rule change it proposed in May.
Trump is Lucy. GOP senators are the football. D.C. political reporters are Charlie Brown.
For a decade now, the illusion that Republican senators in whole or in part would rise up against the outrages of the Trump presidencies has animated political reporting even as the Senate GOP conference has chronically failed to rise to the occasion.
The farcical effort required to sustain the illusion has required a willing disbelief and feigned innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So while the urge to pile on Senate Republicans like John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina for not driving a hard bargain with Trump over the nomination of Todd Blanche as attorney general is warranted, it must also be acknowledged, as painful as it is, that their pretend resistance actually works at yielding the headlines and reputational burnishing they’re looking for.
Most of this morning’s coverage of the overnight development bears this out.
After weeks of resistance, Blanche finally put in writing, in documents he posted to X, that the “anti-weaponization” slush fund is dead and that the IRS immunity for Trump is retroactive only. It was a limited concession, but it was enough for the two Senate holdouts, Tillis just confirmed on X.
The news coverage hailed this as a “formal” act by Blanche of rescinding the “anti-weaponization” fund. Some managed to cover the development without reference to Blanche’s disastrous anti-democratic run at a DOJ used as tool of retribution for the Trump White House.
This came after President Trump over the weekend continued to escalate his insistence that the “anti-weaponization” slush fund should still move forward. We’re supposed to belief Trump’s former personal lawyer and underling, not the president himself.
Just look at what Blanche did and did not do because it reinforces what a parody of a negotiation with the two senators this has been.
These vague assurances with no legal obligation are consistent with the weak demands Cornyn was making for his vote. For his part, Tillis gave away the game Saturday before Blanche’s written assurances, lamenting that Trump’s doubling down on the slush fund was hobbling Blanche’s confirmation (emphasis added): “It’s unfortunate that Todd Blanche, who I consider qualified for the job, will not be confirmed because of this reversal.”
In related news, Trump and his lawyers are appealing U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams’ finding last month that he engaged in a collusive lawsuit against the IRS. They’re also asking for Williams to pause the sanctions while their appeal plays out.
Rather than immediately ruling on that request, Williams has asked the outside lawyers she previously appointed as friends of the court — since there were no adverse parties in the case by the president against his own administration — to brief her on the request.
In what would normally be a dry procedural order, Williams got in one more jab at the lack of adverseness between the Trump plaintiffs and the Trump administration defendants, noting that the outside lawyers were needed “in light of the fact that Defendants do not intend to appear or file a response to the Motion.”
The Reflecting Pool liner prosecution spectacularly imploded Friday with an embarrassing motion to dismiss by D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro that deserves a hallowed spot in the annals of the depredations of the Trump DOJ
The two most notable aspects of the implosion:
For his part, erstwhile defendant David Hearn was just a pawn in this sordid affair, first when Pirro rushed to placate the president over the embarrassment caused by his crappy pool liner and now as she tries to extricate herself and her prosecutors from of the mess she created without getting hit with heavy sanctions or a civil lawsuit for the baseless prosecution.
As Chris Geidner notes, there’s a lot more to come in this case: “Friday’s motion to dismiss the David Hearn case is more likely an opening — rather than the closing — salvo in this matter.”
In another in a series of crumbling cases against ICE protesters, the Trump DOJ has offered plea deals to 29 of the 38 people charged in the January anti-ICE demonstration in a St. Paul, Minnesota, church that would reduce their charges from felonies to misdemeanors. Apparently, none of them has accepted the offer.
A previously undisclosed grand jury subpoena was served on a NYT freelancer way back in February over a story he co-wrote for the newspaper last fall about a failed 2019 Seal Team 6 operation in North Korea, the NYT revealed over the weekend:
The investigators are seeking his testimony about two years’ worth of information about Mr. Cole’s contacts and conversations, as they try to identify his sources for the article about the operation in North Korea, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear if the administration has also sought Mr. Cole’s phone and email data, as it has done in other cases.
Freelance reporter Matthew Cole has been quietly fighting the subpoena from a grand jury in Newport News, Va., using the same attorney as the NYT, which separately fought subpoenas of its reporters over their Air Force One reporting. Cole’s co-author of the piece, NYT staff reporter Dave Philipps, was reportedly not subpoenaed.
Expelled Rep. George Santos (R-NY) has settled a claim — without admitting wrongdoing — by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that he manipulated prediction market Kalshi over whether he would attend President Trump’s State of the Union address.
His alleged manipulation included instances like this one, via the NYT:
For example, on Feb. 22, Mr. Santos posted on X asking his followers whether he should “wear a muted serious suit to the SOTU or a bedazzled one?”
That query caused the value of betting on Mr. Santos’s attendance to shoot up. The next day, regulators said, Mr. Santos exited his position and made about $3,400 in profits.
Under the terms of the settlement, Santos will return $17,570 in ill-gotten gains and pay a $17,500 penalty.
I'm not sure folks have realized just how crazy the second half of 2026 and 2027 will be for global temperatures – on the back of a record-smashing El Niño event. Here is my latest estimate of where both years will end up compared to global temperatures since 1850. pic.twitter.com/uU5EYVXfZ2
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) August 2, 2026
News? Tips? Feedback? Please let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.
This story was originally reported by Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.
In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s second election, voting for legislation to boost immigration enforcement could have seemed like a safe choice to some Democrats, who tied Donald Trump’s second presidential victory to a rejection of their party’s handling of immigration.
Forty-six Democrats broke with their party to support legislation named after the murdered Georgia college student Laken Riley. Now, for some, that vote is a potential liability, as primary opponents say the votes cosigned Trump’s mass deportation agenda.
In Church, Merch, and State, Sarah Posner writes about the intersection of religion and politics in the United States. This column is part of Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
Following his attendance at the funeral of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and a meeting with President Trump about the Iran War, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with evangelical leaders at the historic Blair House in Washington last Wednesday. Among the participants were Christian Zionist leader Mike Evans; Larry Huch, a televangelist deeply embedded in the Christian Zionist world; MAGA evangelical influencer Lance Wallnau; and broadcaster Erick Stakelbeck, whose dispatches from the Middle East can be seen on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) and YouTube. Evangelicals and Jews, Netanyahu told the assembled group, are part of the same “Judeo-Christian heritage” that is “under attack from the rising tide of antisemitism and anti-Evangelicalism.” Our enemies, his message was, are the same. “It’s not accidental that the two are coming under a joint attack,” Netanyahu said, “because we are one.”
They are one, Netanyahu’s evangelical supporters believe, in a war not against the far-right antisemites and anti-Zionists who have both defined and rocked Trump’s coalition, the ones who admire Hitler and engage in Holocaust denial. The true enemy, they contend, are Israel’s critics on the left. Similarly, critics of Christian nationalism are, in evangelical thinking, solely from the left. They conflate criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and criticism of an American theocracy with anti-Christian bigotry.
An API built by Truth Social, offering financial institutions faster access to the most influential posts on the platform — Trump’s — for $100,000, has gone live. The company has struggled for years to find a business model that works. Now it proposes to distribute early access to the thoughts of the president, which move markets and which he makes exclusively available on the platform, which his family also has a stake in.
In a letter to Truth Media and Technology Group, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MA) called the program the “depraved essence of insider trading.” “A public official with access to the ultimate insider information — his own next actions and policies as the Chief Executive of the United States — is selling advance access to that market-moving information to the high bidders,” he wrote.
This story has captured our attention because it compounds the corruption that has become endemic throughout the executive branch with a new, ridiculous feature of our economy — Trump manipulating the markets through his bespoke social media platform, prompting sell-offs and rallies with his statements about the status of such things as tariffs or the Iran war, regardless of those statements’ grounding in fact.
The problem, however, is not limited to big global issues. The Truth API also compounds Trump’s ability to manipulate the market as it relates to specific companies he favors or disfavors, prone as he is to attack firms and individuals via social media with little notice.
The program appears targeted at the world of computerized, high-frequency trading, where firms take new positions rapidly in response to emerging information, aiming to do so before other actors in the market can catch on that something has changed. Even milliseconds can make a difference.
The Truth API has attracted attention from both the House and Senate. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) have urged the SEC to investigate. But under the Trump administration, that prospect seems unlikely.
“When you don’t have enforcement of the rules and regulations, when there are different legal outcomes for the president than there would be for any other market actor that acted this egregiously,” Corey Frayer, former senior advisor at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, told TPM’s Layla A. Jones, “it becomes hard to hold anyone accountable.”
The Trump administration dramatically dropped its troubled case against Olympian David Hearn amid a flood of finger pointing.
It’s Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who finally has his off-ramp! He’s ready to greenlight Todd Blanche for attorney general after receiving “assurances.” A vote on the nomination will be scheduled for Tuesday after a weekend of angst. David Kurtz will have more on what to make of this deal in Morning Memo.
A question with an evolving answer. After Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke with Trump this weekend, urging him not to attack Iranian infrastructure out of concern that the country would retaliate against Gulf States, Trump suddenly claimed a deal with Iran to be at hand, and later said talks would begin Monday. Iran said there are no talks. Regardless, whether we are at war or not at war, we are never at war, per Trump.
Trump: "This is the golden age of America. And we have a war that's going on. I call it a military operation."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-07-31T15:47:46.892Z
The barrage of testosterone-based attacks on Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico don’t seem to have done much. A new poll out this week from Slingshot Strategies shows Talarico up five points over Republican opponent Ken Paxton, and he’s been even or ahead in four of the seven polls conducted since Paxton secured the nomination in May and launched a general election ad accusing Talarico of being too “low-T for Texas.”
At the time, there was a multi-pronged, coordinated effort from state and national Republicans to paint Talarico as effeminate and, bizarrely, transgender. RNC chair Joe Gruters: “Tala-freako is a creep. He’s a vegan. He thinks God is nonbinary. He wants to mutilate children.” White House adviser and Famously Normal Guy Stephen Miller called him the Democrats’ “first transgender senate candidate” and told Fox News his blood was made of soy milk. President Trump himself referred to him as “this transgender, this guy running in Texas” who “wears a mask all the time.”
Interestingly, Republicans don’t really seem to have duplicated this messaging in other midterms races. Instead, they’ve used the electoral victories of several progressives and democratic socialists as an opportunity to wield the “Democrats are communists” cudgel. That’s the line Trump and co. have trotted out in swing states and against other high-profile Democratic candidates like Sen. John Ossoff (D-GA).
If all of this feels a bit desperate, that’s because it is. But voters don’t really seem to be buying it. Trump’s approval rating is at a record low. Ossoff is polling ahead in Georgia, while his Republican opponent Mike Collins and Paxton, both of whom likely owe their nominations to last-minute Trump endorsements, are mired in new scandals. Voters are angry about corruption, inflation, and the Iran War, and the Trump administration simply seems to be messing up on too many levels for voters to be distracted by the usual culture war red meat. Calling the libs “soy boys” and communists may get you a hit on Fox News, but it doesn’t necessarily resonate with regular people.
“People are catching onto the fact that these corny nicknames don’t lower the cost of groceries, don’t lower the cost of prescription drugs, don’t lower the price of gas,” as Talarico recently put it on MS Now. Not a bad line, nor was this: “When I first heard this low-T thing, I had to look it up. Guys my age aren’t really worried about that kind of thing.”
During the 2024 campaign, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz went viral for calling out Republicans’ “weird” obsession with policing people’s bodies. Zohran Mamdani relentlessly focused on his proposals to make New York City more affordable when he was asked about Israel every five minutes during last year’s mayoral campaign.
It seems like a good 2026 strategy for Democrats might just be leading with charisma, kindness and a focus on policies that actually benefit peoples’ lives, while letting Republicans obsess over Communist takeovers and testosterone levels.
By Allegra Kirkland
U.S. diplomats have long offered foreign countries that face rampant, elite corruption and impunity a solution: create a new, independent prosecutor’s office dedicated to going after large-scale graft.
In these countries, corruption had become so endemic that the institutions normally trusted to prosecute and try graft could no longer be trusted. Judges might be on the take; prosecutors too. Politicians might be accountable to businessmen; companies might be lavishing favors on judges for beneficial rulings. It all turns into one very fragile house of cards, in which nobody can hold another accountable for fear of causing a chain reaction that might bring everyone down with them.
The solution has been to create an independent anti-corruption prosecutor and, if need be, a specialized court. It’s been tried in Ukraine, where I saw that country’s anti-corruption organ develop firsthand. In Guatemala, an internationally staffed, UN-backed anti-corruption commission led to the arrest of a former president in that country. In Indonesia, an anti-corruption agency was paired with specialized courts. The point here is that they’re independent, but also dangerous: not only are they supposedly designed to be free from a corrupt system, but they have authority to prosecute and imprison people.
Now Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has proposed a version of this. Unveiled this week, it’s the Senate Minority Leader’s idea to combat massive, Trump II corruption. Under this idea, Congress would create an “Anti-Corruption Bureau.” In an irony lost on nobody at this point, its structure would partly mimic that used in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe: an expert panel would screen candidates to sit as commissioners who would run the agency.
The idea would abandon much of what has made these agencies successful overseas: criminal prosecution authority. Schumer’s agency could sue people via civil cases and refer matters to the DOJ for prosecution. It would take the Federal Election Commission, Office of Government Ethics, and Office of Special Counsel and combine them into one civil office.
The FEC has long been paralyzed due to a lack of commissioners; other agencies that have long been independent are no longer so after multiple Supreme Court rulings destroyed that concept. Schumer’s proposal offers something new: a three-judge panel of D.C. Circuit judges would appoint replacements if a commissioner seat stays open longer than 14 days, with a retired federal judge as the replacement.
The last idea included in this bill would allow people to sue over what they think is corrupt (this is also a boon to trial attorneys). The proposal would create a new cause of action under which private citizens and state attorneys general could sue senior executive branch officials and federal contractors for personal enrichment. For a messaging bill, it’s uniquely American: we might all be beset by rampant corruption, but at least we’d have the power to sue?
By Josh Kovensky
“When you’re at a Trump rally, you’re like, Oh I can definitely see how Hitler happened. … When you go to a Trump rally, it makes you question the sanity of everybody. Like Trump’s up there talking about ‘We’re going to throw people in jail for burning the flag.’ And dude I’m like I don’t know, like you shouldn’t do that but it’s like, you know, there is a fucking Constitution.” – UFC fighter Sean Strickland
By
Answers below
By
In his latest “fuck you” to the voters who elected him, Sen. John Fetterman this week published a Washington Post op-ed explaining why abolishing the filibuster would be bad, actually. It’s a reversal from the position he ran on in 2022 and a sentiment that has become increasingly unpopular among Democrats, most of whom realize that they have no hopes of passing any legislation with teeth so long as the GOP can simply kill it with the filibuster. The party fell two votes short of being able to pass a sweeping update to the Voting Rights Act and codifying Roe v. Wade during the Biden administration because Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) refused to use a “filibuster exception” that would’ve allowed those bills to pass with a simple majority. Fetterman, bafflingly, writes that Manchin and Sinema have been “vindicated,” and that it would be a damn shame to, as Manchin once phrased it, “put party power over everything else.” ‘Cause, you know, the GOP would never…
It’s just the latest indication that Fetterman is flirting with switching parties, beyond the incessant cozying up to Israel, his approval of Trump’s ballroom project, and his vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security amid ICE’s crusade against immigrants.
By
We had an absolutely lovely time at Crystal Lake Bar in Brooklyn on Wednesday with our pal Marisa Kabas! Thanks so much to the TPM and Handbasket readers who made it out to test your trivia skills, have some drinks, and hear Marisa, Joe Ragazzo and Josh Marshall talking midterms, Democratic strategy and the future of independent media. For those of you who live far away or couldn’t make it, we’ll release Marisa and Josh’s conversation as a bonus podcast episode soon.
Hunter Walker on MS Now’s “11th Hour”
Hunter joined Ali Velshi on MS Now’s “11th Hour” to talk Trump’s 2028 jokes at the (rescheduled) White House Correspondents Dinner.
“We are facing a new type of dictatorial leadership, and this is why it’s kind of hard to have a dinner where we’re all sitting there and clapping on cue with the Mentalist after the President talks about this illegal and dangerous threat to go for a third term, when we know, Occam’s Razor, the guy has never lost an election and left willingly.” Amen.
@huntersfeed Reacting to the White House Correspondents Dinner with @Alivelshi @11th Hour MS NOW #msnbc #dc #media #washington #politics
♬ original sound – Hunter Walker
David Kurtz on The Daily Blast podcast
“There are an increasing number of examples where we see [Trump] bumping up against the limits of his powers,” David told The New Republic’s Greg Sargent this week. David joined Greg’s podcast to talk about the barrage of new filings in the James Comey “86 47” case, in which Comey’s lawyers argue — quite convincingly! — that he’s the subject of a vindictive prosecution and should be thrown out. As David and Greg discuss, there’s evidence of Trump literally sitting on Air Force One tracking minute developments in Comey’s case
By
Trivia answers: `1) Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear 2) Ross Douthat 3) To attend Lindsey Graham’s funeral
By
A new report from Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) details shocking allegations about the conditions inside an ICE detention facility in Texas. The report, which was published on Friday, was based on interviews Senate staff conducted with “approximately 20 family units and approximately 40 women detained in the adult detention unit” at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, it said. In a statement released along with the report, Durbin described the findings as part of “an ongoing investigation into medical and mental health care” in immigration detention facilities. He also called for the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he is the ranking member, to hold a hearing on the issue.
“Children and their parents described a top-down culture of cruelty among Dilley staff, including guards deliberately disrupting children’s sleep at night, purposely entering rooms without knocking, and taunting children who are often provided with inedible food by eating candy and pizza in front of them,” Durbin said.
Steven Owen, the vice president of communications at CoreCivic, a private prison company that operates the Dilley facility, disputed the claims made in the report in an email to TPM.
“The critical characterizations of the Dilley Immigration Processing Center (DIPC) do not reflect the operations, standards or care provided at the facility. DIPC was purpose-built to meet the needs of families, and families are housed together in accommodations designed to support family unity, safety and children’s well-being,” Owen said, adding, “Claims that children are denied care or experience delayed medical assessment are false. DIPC maintains on-site pediatric expertise, and emergency services are activated when a child’s clinical presentation requires off-site care.” The children and their families at DIPC receive health care that is clinically rigorous, federally overseen and delivered with dignity. Residents receive:”
Owen also provided links to material CoreCivic prepared including a primer created response to prior critical reporting on conditions at the Dilley facility.
When reached by TPM, the White House referred all questions about the report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE did not respond to a request for comment, but an unnamed spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency, provided a statement. The DHS spokesperson stated “any claim that there are subprime conditions at ICE detention facilities is FALSE.” They also claimed “Dilley does meet federal detention standards and actually undergoes regular audits and inspections.”
“Another day and another hoax about the South Texas Family Residential Center. Nearly every single day, this office responds to media questions on FALSE allegations about illegal alien detention centers,” the DHS spokesperson said. “The media is clearly desperate for these allegations of inhumane conditions at this facility to be true.”
Along with the other disturbing claims, Durbin’s report alleges there is “substandard medical care” at Dilley.
“Poor medical care was the most urgent concern raised by both families and adult women. They described a range of unaddressed health issues and voiced that, because they were not receiving adequate care, those medical conditions are worsening,” the report said.
Specific issues detailed in the report include a mother and child who were ill yet allegedly “were repeatedly refused blankets to address the extremely cold temperatures in their unit.” The report also described multiple instances where detainees said they were not given care despite “extreme” pain and others who said chronic or troubling conditions were not addressed.
Along with the allegedly inadequate medical care, the report also claimed facility staff failed to provide detainees with proper meals.
“One family reported finding worms and a fingernail in their food. Several families said their children refused to eat facility meals entirely,” it said.
A lack of required educational programs is another issue detailed in the report, which said Judiciary Committee staffers found “no evidence that the facility was meeting … basic education standards.”
“One 16-year-old described the education offered at Dilley as ‘drawing in coloring books,’ which was not appropriate for students his age,” the report said.
The lack of school programs was described in the report as part of a pattern of “psychological harm to children” that included “demeaning, dismissive, and abusive behavior by Dilley staff.”
“One parent reported that guards who are perceived as ‘too nice’ are scolded by supervisors and told to be harsher. A guard told the parent: ‘You only have three rights here: drink, sleep, eat.’” the report said.
The report also said Dilley detainees face a lack of access to family members and attorneys.
“Many of them stated they have committed no crimes, have pending immigration cases, have minor children at home, and have lived in the United States for years. They stated repeatedly that they have followed the rules, and they are not criminals—and do not understand why they are being treated as if they are. They are desperate to be reunited with their families and spoke about their efforts to seek release through habeas petitions,” the report explained.
Dilley has been a hotbed for protests and activism that have taken place around the country in response to ICE and President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. Durbin claimed the Judiciary Committee staff had issues speaking to detainees as part of what the report described as “DHS obstruction.”
“My staff visited Dilley as part of an ongoing investigation into medical and mental health care, solitary confinement, and access to counsel in immigration detention. During that visit, in an attempt to curtail oversight, DHS imposed an arbitrary two-hour time limit on visiting the facility,” Durbin said in his statement.
Other members of Congress have similarly accused DHS and ICE of attempting to thwart lawmakers’ right to conduct oversight in what they have called a violation of legislation. The practice led to a successful lawsuit in federal district court. In his statement, Durbin also suggested some of the things Judiciary Committee staff observed at Dilley violate the Flores Settlement Agreement, a court ruling that sets standards for immigration detention.
Durbin has previously released reports on conditions at ICE detention facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Overall, his latest report blamed the issues in detention centers on Trump administration policies.
“The Trump Administration is intentionally subjecting longtime law-abiding residents of our communities and children who have grown up in our communities to neglectful and dangerous detention conditions,” the report said, adding, “In a desperate attempt to meet Stephen Miller’s quotas in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation campaign, immigration officials now target law-abiding families attending immigration
court hearings and ICE check-ins.”
Durbin’s report also predicted the issues observed at Dilley will have devastating consequences and that “more people will die in detention without necessary medical care.”
“Medical care in immigration detention is dangerously inadequate. Immigration detention facility staff routinely deny or defer necessary medical treatment, providing only minimal care until emergency care is required. Without better policies for quickly addressing urgent medical needs, including facilitating release, more individuals, including children, will die in Detention,” the report said. “Thirty-two people died in ICE custody in 2025—the highest number in more than two decades. Twenty-two people have already died in ICE custody thus far in 2026.”
This story was updated at 9:31 pm with a response from CoreCivic. It was also updated at 4:38 pm on August 1, 2026 with the statement from a DHS spokesperson.
In a social media post this morning, President Trump threw all of toys in the air and declared that he still thinks the “anti-weaponization” slush fund was the way to go after all.
While ostensibly calling for Todd Blanche to be confirmed as attorney general, Trump lost the thread and resumed defending his $1.776 billion slush fund, which would siphon money to Jan. 6 rioters and other supposed victims of the Deep State:
They are suffering still, many ruined, and I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them. …
I will always feel that these victims of government abuse should be paid back for what they were forced to endure, their lives have been ruined!
The only arguable nod to the legal cases challenging the slush fund, which remain pending, is that Trump described how he “felt” and “will always feel” — not what he will do to revive the fund over which he would exert control and for which there would be no guardrails. The official Trump administration position before Congress and in court has been that the slush fund is “dead” and that no amount of public pining for it by the president should make anyone think that it’s coming back once public attention drifts elsewhere.
With Blanche’s nomination stalled not over the slush fund but over a separate provision in the same bogus “settlement agreement” that gives Trump immunity from the IRS — a giveaway potentially worth as much as $100 million from Trump in his official capacity to himself in his personal capacity — it was comical for the president to come to Blanche’s supposed rescue by reasserting the righteousness of the slush fund.
The real target of Trump’s scorn in the social media blast was Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who is the main hold up on the Blanche nomination even though the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican only asking for the barest fig leaf to camouflage the corrupt IRS immunity provision (see below). Trump’s impulsive reaction to Cornyn’s opposition is to mock him for having his political career ruined by Trump, which is amusing in its own right.
All of this came the day after Trump improbably threatened in another social media post to pull the Blanche nomination until Cornyn and fellow holdout Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) are out of office next year — a weak-handed threat that miscalculates the chances of the Senate being more friendly to Blanche after the midterms. No one is fooled.
The NYT has some real talk that ratifies yesterday’s Morning Memo on how Sen. Cornyn is actually seeking to entrench — not eliminate — the immunity President Trump got in his “settlement” with the IRS:
The red line that Mr. Cornyn has drawn is fairly thin. He and Mr. Tillis are not seeking to kill the deal that Mr. Blanche negotiated with Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, which gave the president, his family and his businesses broad immunity, potentially saving them at least $100 million in penalties and drawing accusations from Democrats of self-dealing. They are merely demanding modifications — in writing. …
Mr. Cornyn’s request is fairly modest. He wants the Justice Department to guarantee what Mr. Blanche said under oath at his confirmation hearing: that the I.R.S. immunity would apply only to Mr. Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization, and that it would be limited only to audits of past tax returns.
“All we’re doing is asking them to put that in writing,” Mr. Cornyn said.
It’s telling, I suppose, that the White House refuses to make even this minor accommodation and instead attacks Cornyn.
“The fact that they’re balking at putting that in writing tells me that they were hoping to get by with this settlement agreement and his testimony, and then revitalize those provisions at a later date,” Cornyn told ABC News. “And that’s, I don’t think, good faith negotiations.”
Still, the news coverage of this collective hoodwinking has been abysmal and has allowed Cornyn to strut around like a dragon-slayer while actually giving away $100 million in potential tax liability forgiveness to Trump.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Baltimore this week held the Trump administration in contempt of court for violating two of her orders enforcing a settlement agreement in a long-running class action case over the rights of unaccompanied minors to seek asylum in the United States.
As TPM first reported, the administration has deported nearly 100 asylum seekers in violation of the court-approved settlement agreement in the case.
But Gallagher’s order gives the administration a chance to “purge” its contempt by refraining from any further unlawful deportations in violation of the agreement:
To do so, the administration will have to comply with a series of new requirements that Gallagher imposed in the same order intended to prevent more unlawful deportations of members of the settlement class, when numbers north of 70,000 people.
A quick update on the most significant legal challenge to Trump’s corrupt U.S. attorney scheme: The outside judge assigned to hear the lawsuit against the administration by fired U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff of Seattle has denied the Trump DOJ’s motion to recuse himself.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian, an Obama appointee, is the chief judge of the Eastern District of Washington, based in Spokane, and is a frequent visiting judge in Seattle. The Trump DOJ took issue with (i) how Bastian was assigned the case, arguing that the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should appoint an outside judge rather than the case being assigned to the usual visiting judge; and (ii) Bastian’s impartiality given his frequent work in the district.
Bastian found no legal basis for his recusal.
On a random Friday in March 2024, I first dropped into Morning Memo a musical segue into the weekend that began a semi-regular feature. It’s ebbed and flowed a bit, but your response has been remarkably gratifying, especially because am I very much a musical neophyte. In response to reader requests, I’ve put together a playlist of the songs that have appeared here. I’ll keep adding to it as we go along:
I did a parallel playlist on YouTube that’s nearly the same as the Spotify playlist above, but a few tracks are available only on one or the other of the two platforms, not both.
See you back here Monday.
News? Tips? Feedback? Please let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.
We held an event Wednesday evening at a bar in Brooklyn, co-hosted by TPM and Marisa Kabas’ indy site The Handbasket. I really enjoyed it and I wanted to thank everyone who came out. We have an expanding roster of in-person events. We’ve held events in Chicago, Boston and Austin over the last year or so — usually live podcasts — and we do them more frequently in our home bases in New York and D.C., where they’re easier to put on. Please join us for one of these when we do one in your area. They’re so much fun and it’s really special to meet and spend time with members of the far-flung or sometimes close-flung TPM community.
It’s become a cliche of the politics of this moment that the one thing that unites all Americans in our polarized age is that they hate data centers. But a dimension of this occurred to me during the discussion between Marisa and I that was moderated by TPM publisher Joe Ragazzo. I hadn’t thought of it before.
The right-wing media machine is salivating over its newest anti-trans storyline, served up by Sophie Cunningham, a guard on the WNBA’s Indiana Fever.
After the 2024 election, there was quite a bit of focus on the increasingly right-wing ecosystem of podcasts, streaming video and social media clips in which a vast number of Americans were stewing. But a fascinating New York Times analysis published this morning finds that world fraying, with right-wing influencers feuding with one another and audiences declining from early 2025 through today.
The article highlights the role that unpopular issues for Trump — the Iran war, the continually increasing cost of living — have played in making the whole thing less fun. Though the Times article does not go here, it strikes me too that Israel and Gaza have also confused this world, with various reactionary celebrities sorting themselves among those who are more antisemitic and those who are more Islamophobic and critiquing one another accordingly.
Much of this crew has tried to find an edge by continuing to criticize those with power — which now include many former ideological allies. Alex Jones, somewhat comically, called for Trump to be impeached over Iran this week. Tucker Carlson has been similarly critical of the war as he makes dark insinuations about Israel’s control of the U.S. government. Nick Fuentes has become deeply critical of Trump. And Candace Owens, famously, has spun up new narratives about how Charlie Kirk’s killing was an inside job orchestrated by Israel or fellow right-wing activists.
Part of what’s been hard for Democrats in recent years is the party is one supportive of institutions and, more broadly, the power of government to be a force for good. This can be a tough sell during a time when institutions racked up a long record of repeated failures and as many Americans see themselves backsliding. It’s a problem politicians from Chuck Schumer to Zohran Mamdani have had to contend with (and have done so with wildly different degrees of success).
But Trump has ironically now put right-wing podcasts in a similar position: Their guy runs the institutions, and he has used them to invade American cities and launch an unpopular and deepening quagmire in Iran. He refused to make public, and then only begrudgingly, sloppily and selectively released, the Epstein files. Podcaster-turned deputy FBI director-turned podcaster Dan Bongino illustrates this trajectory especially comically; he made his career boosting conspiracy theories, entered the government and declared many of his former ideas to be ill-founded; and now is attempting to establish himself, without much success, on the outside again. He “has seen his livestream views shrink by about half from their peak in 2024,” the Times writes.
The latest development in the Blanche confirmation saga came midday yesterday, with Trump threatening to pull the nomination until after the midterms, when Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, the two Republicans who want more reassurances from Blanche, will be gone from the Senate, thanks in large part to Trump. “I have no objection to temporarily withdrawing Todd’s name, if they do not do the right thing, and putting him back after Cornyn and Tillis are out of office,” he wrote.
Whichever AI enthusiast at the State Department is behind this headline: “US government map of Africa mislabels every country at global conference”
From the Reuters report:
The state department said it took “full responsibility” for the confusion caused and that the map had been produced by a team member who hastily changed the slide deck before the event.
Still at war.
Correction: This article originally erroneously stated that Tina Peters was advocating to transition away from, not toward increased use of, paper ballots.
The increasingly acrimonious Senate primary between Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and public health official Abdul El-Sayed draws to a close next week, and with it, the biggest battle yet of the moderates versus progressives proxy war.
In a scathingly-written regulatory filing posted on the Federal Communications Commission’s website on Thursday, ABC’s lawyers tore into Trump administration FCC head Brendan Carr for “attempted censorship” and accused Carr of helping President Trump in his retribution campaign against media that criticizes him.
Trump’s new Federal Reserve Board Chair Kevin Warsh took two missteps in two opposite directions during and after yesterday’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) rate decision. And it wasn’t necessarily the board’s choice to hold interest rates steady — a decision that was mostly expected given current economic conditions — that most rankled markets and economists. Rather, it was both what Warsh said, and also what he didn’t say, that put a diverse set of central bank stakeholders on alert.
When the FOMC on Wednesday issued its second rate decision since Warsh began leading the agency in May, the press release repeated information from the committee’s mid-June event.
“Productivity growth and capital investment are strong.”
But this time, there was more evidence than before that those assertions are not necessarily being borne out in the data.
Trump has continued to cast a resilient but stagnating economy in rosy hues, and engaged more aggressive and overt tactics to influence monetary policy at the Fed as he tries to force members of the central bank to cut interest rates. In tandem, Warsh’s pared-down approach to FOMC communications and use of the word “strong” to describe economic indicators showing weakness failed to fully reflect an economic reality which led three Fed governors to dissent from the majority decision and vote in favor of higher interest rates.
Labor productivity increased just 0.3% in the first quarter of 2026 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number was revised down by half a percentage point. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s survey of 33 economic forecasters projected U.S. gross domestic product would grow at a 2.1% annual rate in the second quarter of 2026, and revised down their growth projections for the remainder of the year, in a survey published in May. Then on Thursday, second quarter GDP came in even lower, slowing to 1.5% according to data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Investment growth was also lower than the BEA had previously projected.
“There is still no evidence of an AI-driven productivity boom after three consecutive quarters of weak productivity growth,” Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote in a brief published Thursday.
Baker also noted that growth in AI investment, while still strong, slowed.
“The economy is soft and vulnerable,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at economic research firm Moody’s Analytics, said on X.
The Federal Reserve Board declined to comment on which data the FOMC relied on for its statement about strong productivity growth and investment.
“It would be concerning if factual misrepresentations are getting elevated due to political convenience,” former Fed economist Skanda Amarnath, who has accused Warsh of political puppetry in past interviews with TPM, said on X.
There are still positive aspects of the economy. Unemployment has not spiked. Forecasters surveyed by the Philadelphia Fed revised their annual GDP growth projections upward beginning in 2028. And investment growth still represents a positive contribution to overall GDP growth.
On Wall Street, markets responded negatively to Warsh’s refusal not only to speak about what the Fed might do in the future, but to even acknowledge what kinds of economic conditions might warrant a future rate hike. A Thursday BEA release on personal consumption expenditures, measuring the price people in the U.S. pay for things, showed price inflation well above the Fed’s 2% target and the Iran War has spiked the cost of energy, among other goods and services.
“If inflation continues to be elevated through the forecast period, interest rates could well be part of that solution, but I wouldn’t say it’s in isolation,” Warsh said during a Wednesday press conference.
He went on to leave the door open regarding whether the Fed’s 2% inflation target will remain after January, when a series of expert-staffed committees established by Warsh to initiate his stated goal of central bank “regime change” return with their findings.
“In Warsh’s press conference, he once again failed to specify how he intended to achieve his stridently asserted inflation resolve,” Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan, reportedly said in a note.
Investor concerns about inflation sent the 30-year treasury bond to its highest yield in 19 years.
“[Warsh] also cast doubt on whether PCE inflation will remain the Fed’s inflation target in the medium run,” Feroli said in his note. “Both of these points raise questions about the new chair’s credibility in delivering lower inflation.”
I saw this tweet and it struck me as one of the more powerful indicators of the need to untether ideology from “fight” in intra-Democratic battles. The party is very united on fight, very divided on ideology. So you unite on “fight,” let different constituencies/states find their center of gravity on ideology.
Here in the U.S., we’re looking at the Iran War in terms of whether the U.S. should have started it in the first place, how it’s affecting oil prices, how it’s going to affect the midterms and a bunch of other things. But there’s another way to look at it, which is that Iran is putting on a global performance of standing head to head with the full might of the U.S. military and pulling it off. By their actions, we can see pretty clearly that the Iranian government does not fear Donald Trump. They’re not acting scared. If anything, they’re upping the rate of their provocations, as the state of war and effective stalemate transitions to a new normal of sorts.
It is fair to say that this is not actually the full might of the U.S. military in a theoretical sense. The president could order the U.S. military to mount a full scale ground invasion of Iran, occupy the country, dismantle the state’s system of command, control and repression. Those things are very likely possible, albeit at vast cost. But the real test of a military is not what it can do in some theoretical sense, the precise armaments it has and so forth but what the country which controls that military is able and/or willing to do in a specific economic, geopolitical, and political context. And the U.S. is clearly not willing to do those things. So in a practical sense — not the abstract power and capabilities of the U.S. military but the country’s ability to do those things — this is the full force of the U.S. military.
Hello, and welcome back to The Franchise!
Last week, a coalition of officials from 25 Democratic-led states and Washington D.C. filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, arguing that the administration is coercing states into complying with new unlawful election changes by withholding billions of dollars in disaster relief funding and homeland security grants if the states do not bend to President Trump’s demands around election administration.
Specifically, the lawsuit argues that the Trump administration is coercing the states into adopting a number of new election procedures that it is trying to unconstitutionally force on state election officials. That apparently includes demands to transition to a paper ballot system and a requirement for states to run their voter rolls through an unrelated and unsecure database, the Federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, to check voter rolls, among other things.
“Last year, DHS and FEMA embarked on an unprecedented campaign to leverage the billions of dollars in federal funding that they administer to coerce States into adopting the Administration’s preferred policies,” the lawsuit states.
The SAVE system, as TPM has reported, has been co-opted by the Trump administration and used as a way to purge alleged non-citizens from the voter rolls. The issue, however, is that there is evidence to suggest that the system has actually been removing eligible voters from the rolls, the states outline in their complaint.
It’s worth noting too that the use of the SAVE system to purge voters from the rolls was blocked by a federal judge just last month.
“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit says.
“The Constitution grants the States the power to administer and set the rules governing federal elections, and pursuant to that grant of authority the States have adopted a range of systems for ensuring that votes are counted fairly and accurately. Defendants, however, seek to upend those laws and policies and—using hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds as a cudgel—impose the current Administration’s preferred policies in their place,” the plaintiffs argue.
We’ll keep you updated as this challenge progresses. As always, there’s a lot more to unpack into this week, so let’s dive in.
Close to 150,000 mail ballots were rejected in California’s primary last month — the highest number of rejected ballots in recent years. According to data from the California Secretary of State’s office, a total of 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected, which is 1.7 percent of all the mail-in-ballots cast.
The majority of the rejected ballots — 93,497 to be more precise — were scrapped due to reportedly not being received on time. In California, all mail-in ballots need to be postmarked on or before Election Day, and they need to be received up to seven days after Election Day in order to be counted. Another 52,000 ballots were rejected due to signature verification issues, meaning either there was no signature on the ballot or there was an issue with non-matching signatures.
“I believe we saw an increase in the number of ballots rejected for being too late to count due primarily to voters holding on to their ballots longer than they might otherwise because of the volatile nature of the race for Governor and many groups encouraging voters to wait,” Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation said in an email to TPM.
And while this is a larger number of rejected ballots than usual, “it’s a comparatively small percentage,” Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Marymount University told me.
“People keep forgetting, California is huge,” he said.
And Levitt said the incident actually provides evidence that election integrity is alive and well in California — despite what the Trump administration and election deniers might want you to believe.
“It, to me, is part of the evidence that California takes the integrity of its election incredibly seriously,” he said. “California puts a thumb on the scale for bending over backward in its legal rules to help ballots get counted. But if you’re outside of those legal rules, it’s not going to count the ballots.”
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill is pushing back on the DOJ’s demand to hand over the names of close to 6,600 noncitizens who were reportedly accidentally added to the state’s voter rolls due to a software error in the state’s automatic voter registration program in 2023 and 2024.
Last week, Sherrill announced the error which originated at the state’s Motor Vehicle Commission. As a result of the glitch, 400 noncitizens voted in at least one election since 2023. And although Sherrill has said that these noncitizens were removed from the voter rolls and that these ineligible votes did not impact the results of the elections in which they participated, it’s been good news for the Trump administration’s years-long quest to find evidence of any kind to support the myth that non citizens are voting in our elections.
In response to this revelation, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon, sent a letter to Sherrill last week demanding that she hand over data (including names and addresses) on all these noncitizens. Sherrill, however, is refusing to comply with this demand.
“We are not in the practice of turning over this kind of personally identifying data over to the federal government because we have seen them weaponize it, I’ve seen it personally,” she said last week. “They are working to weaponize personal data, and they don’t have a reputation for keeping it private either.”
Of course, this whole unfortunate episode is now being used by the Trump administration as a way to help bolster its failing campaign to seize sensitive voter data from the states. The DOJ has, for months now, been demanding unredacted voter files from at least 44 states and Washington, D.C. Few states have complied, and the DOJ has sued in response — and it has lost every single case that has gone to court.
On the same day that it sent the letter to Sherril, the DOJ also filed a notice of additional basis in court to help its New Jersey voter roll case, arguing that the incident is evidence that the DOJ truly does need the state’s unredacted voter rolls.
“The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice sent Defendant the Additional Basis Letter because the Civil Rights Division learned of Governor Mikie Sherrill’s announcement on X on July 21, 2026, that ‘roughly 6,600 people who indicated that they were not U.S. citizens between June 2023 and June 2024’ were in fact ‘registered … anyway’ by New Jersey election processes—and roughly 400 of those people voted,” the notice reads.
TPM: Jay Clayton Confirmed As DNI — A Position Trump Warped to Feed His Election Conspiracy Theories
Democracy Docket: Trump DOJ said some states ‘cooperated’ with voter roll grab by providing public information. It sued other states for doing the same
AP: Trump’s attacks on mail balloting and concerns over delays turn midterms spotlight on Postal Service
We’re right on the cusp of a big Drive milestone – $400,000, 80% of the way toward our goal of raising at least $500,000 in this year’s Annual TPM Journalism Fund Drive. Who can help us cross this threshold today? You can be that person by clicking right here and making a contribution in any amount. $3,017 to go! Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far!
Update: Now just $546 to go!
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at Balls and Strikes.
Kash Patel, the conservative podcaster whom President Donald Trump appointed as the director of the FBI in 2025, is currently suing The Atlantic for $250 million over its reporting that his predilection for drinking “to the point of obvious intoxication” has been a “recurring source of concern across the government.” In a lawsuit he filed in federal court on April 20, Patel characterized the article as a “sweeping, malicious, and defamatory hit piece.” In an interview on April 23, the writer, Sarah Fitzpatrick, said that in the days since The Atlantic published the story, she’d been “inundated” with new sources corroborating it.
Login