This article is part of Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

Donald Trump fancied himself an expert on television long before parlaying his titan-of-industry image, forged by “The Apprentice,” into politics. But his “reality-TV presidency” — complete with cliffhangers, confrontations, and eliminations — increasingly resembles a once-popular show in its later seasons, resorting to gimmicks as it scrambles to sustain an audience.

As someone who chronicled Trump’s primetime success and absorbed his claims (invariably false) about titanic ratings long after “The Apprentice” slipped off its lofty perch, there’s an odd familiarity to the desperate push toward the 2026 midterms. Trump’s shtick mirrors the tricks and traps of an aging reality show, from poorly vetted, swing-for-the-fences casting decisions to escalating levels of violence and risk, to, finally, lavish cash giveaways. (The main difference, actually, is that TV shows have to make good on their payout promises.)

In just the last few weeks, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans for a live-streamed execution, only to see the president retreat from the idea, despite his initial endorsement of it; Trump chose Katie Zacharia as his press secretary with scant due diligence before firing her after a half-Scaramucci; and the president touted a variety of prize incentives to voters, including a $5,000 pledge to all adults — but only if the election results go his way — and to-be-determined cash awards to whistleblowers to advance his anti-fraud obsession.

Based on the polling, nothing really appears to be moving the needle. Among students of television, that really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, since once a “show” enters this phase, there’s often not much that can be done to stave off the inevitable decline, as fickle viewers begin looking for something new, gravitating toward the next big thing.

Trump remains fond of pointing out when women are beautiful as an act of nose-thumbing rebellion against “woke” culture, but his recent gushing about the appearance of various men, and their bodies, has become a new source of fascination, as well as a gift to late-night comics. But it all fits the pattern of Trump as the producer of his own show, where he’s invariably the hero surrounded by enemies on all sides. Within that aura of showmanship, Trump also views himself as a casting genius uniquely able to identify star power, underscored by his repeated references going back years to “central casting.”

Although “Survivor” producer Mark Burnett was the ostensible mastermind behind “The Apprentice,” Trump clearly felt like he internalized the tools of the trade. But these recent examples underscore the challenges of such sleight of hand, as well as how trying to bend an existing format can blow up in one’s face.

To those who might see the reality-TV analogy as strained, remember how Trump got here. The way “The Apprentice” carefully crafted Trump’s persona through creative editing, which was necessary to make sense of his behavior, is a story that’s been told and retold, primarily via confessionals and apologies from former staffers and the NBC marketing guru who helped launch the series.

Bill Pruitt, an early “Apprentice” producer, acknowledged in a 2024 Slate piece that he and his colleagues “played fast and loose with the facts,” creating “the myth” of Trump, beginning with the glittering boardroom built to stand in for the rundown space in his real-life offices.

Nor should it come as a shock that Trump harbors an inflated sense of his reality-TV acumen. Another producer, Jonathon Braun, recalled how Trump would make out-of-left-field choices about who to fire, forcing the producers to retrofit the entire episode to justify his chosen outcome. “Our job then was to reverse engineer the show and to make him not look like a complete moron,” Braun told New York Times reporters Russ Beuttner and Susanne Craig for their book “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.”

John Miller, the now-retired NBC executive, titled his 2024 essay/mea culpa “We Created a Monster: Trump Was a TV Fantasy Invented for ‘The Apprentice.’” As he told me in an interview in 2025, the qualities that Trump prized above all else were “loyalty and being telegenic,” adding, “Experience and competence are well down that list.” He also observed that Trump was both “manipulative,” and “extraordinarily easy to manipulate.”

Trump is gambling on a different, more serious playing field, but the inherent strategy is the same. For a president who sees himself as the ultimate showman, breathing life into a tiring act has notably led to some very rare backpedaling.

Zacharia offered a textbook illustration of those priorities, having effusively praised Trump on television — another attractive mouthpiece on the surface, appointed without evidence of the customary concerns about her qualifications or resume. 

Such corner-cutting can be perilous, and again, reality TV provides ample precedent. Take “The Bachelorette,” which picked Frankie Taylor Paul for the last edition despite questions about off-screen issues, then wound up having to shelve the entire season after TMZ posted video pertaining to a 2023 domestic-assault allegation.

Television producers regularly talk about “raising the stakes,” and stoking conflict or the perceived threat of violence is a go-to means of seeking to juice ratings. That might explain Hegseth’s tough-guy talk about a live-streamed execution, before the collective disgust over what the Daily Kos called a government-sponsored “snuff film” prompted the White House to back down.

Still, as critic Matthew Gilbert pointed out, televised executions seem less far-fetched than when “Network” satirized them 50 years ago. While daredevil televised stunts are as old as Evel Knievel, the possibility of seeing someone die — live! — has become another threshold for standing out amid a sea of content, such as “Free Solo” free climber Alex Honnold’s January special scaling a Taiwan skyscraper live on Netflix.

A less bloodthirsty gambit involves simply throwing extra prize money around, as “Survivor” did by doubling the potential payout for its 50th edition. Like physical altercations and tossed wine glasses, that usually feels like an exercise prone to yielding diminishing returns, to be pursued after exhausting most other options. 

Students of television, of course, will tell you that once a show enters this part of its lifecycle, there’s not much that can stave off the inevitable declines. Hit shows usually blaze hot, then fade, even if they endure for a long time like “Survivor,” like “The Apprentice” a  Burnett production, or “Dancing With the Stars.” That explains why something like “The Bachelor” franchise would roll the dice by selecting a bachelorette that ended up costing ABC and parent Disney millions in unused (so far, anyway) episodes.

Trump is gambling on a different, more serious playing field, but the inherent strategy is the same. For a president who sees himself as the ultimate showman, breathing life into a tiring act has notably led to some very rare backpedaling. And despite how effective the maestros at “The Apprentice” were in stitching together a better Trump, facing an angry electorate, he might be confronting his limits, finally, in terms of shaping reality.

There’s a lot to pay attention to this year. With Democrats putting up seemingly fantastical numbers in the polls, the map is expanded in ways that no one thought possible a year ago. Is Texas in play? Is Kansas? Looming over it is Trump’s cult of personality, and the lie that any election in which he or his allies run, they win.

This list is an attempt to pinpoint races that tell the story of where America is at this November, explain why, from TPM’s perspective, these races matter, and look ahead to the conversation we’ll be having in coming months.

---

1. Peggy Flanagan (D) / Michelle Tafoya (R) — Minnesota Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism. 

What to know:

Michelle Tafoya (R) has been doing well in polls in recent months, showing her within a few points of Peggy Flanagan (D) in what is normally a solidly blue state. That’s inspired the Trump administration to pull out all the stops to put its finger on the scale, rebooting the racial panic it tried to stoke last winter over the state’s Somali population. The capstone of that effort is the administration’s legal gambit to deport Rep. Ilhan Omar (D). It seems unlikely that this is going to land well in a state still recovering from this year’s federal invasion, which claimed the lives of two U.S. citizens. If Flanagan wins, as it still seems she will, Minnesota could end up as a prime candidate for Trump to target with his expected election interference. 

What do the polls say?

It’s close. 

---

2. The Five Congressional Seats Texas Republicans Redrew Their Map to Win

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Voting rights. 

What to know:

There were few congressional districts in Texas that went untouched by the legislature’s late-2025 redistricting bonanza, carried out, at Trump’s behest, in a mid-cycle gerrymandering bid to help Republicans hold the House regardless of voters’ wishes. Texas Republicans were the first to answer Trump’s call, and the party salivated over the boon they could extract from the giant state. Now, however, it appears that the Texas GOP may have overplayed its hand. In two heavily redrawn districts along the border, Texas’ 28th and 34th, Democrats stand a real chance. After all of Republicans’ work, Cook Political Report rates one, the 28th, represented by Vicente Gonzalez (D), as a “toss-up,” and another, the 34th, represented by Henry Cuellar (D), as “leans Democrat.” GOP spending patterns show that they are not taking the other three — the 9th, the 32nd and the 35th — for granted either. In order to create those five, theoretically pro-GOP districts, many other districts had to give up some Republican votes, ironically turning much of the state into a battleground where Democrats, in the right cycle, could snatch back some seats . 

What do the polls say?

As usual with House races, there aren’t many public polls. But following the Republican money suggests that they are getting uneasy here. 

---

3. Troy Jackson (D) / Susan Collins (R) — Maine Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Separation of powers, expanding Democrats’ map. 

What to know:

Sen. Susan Collins (R) has been Democrats’ white whale for multiple cycles now, a talented politician who has defied political gravity and hung on in a state that’s only getting bluer. When Democrats’ first choice, Graham Platner, imploded after he was accused of sexual assault, they desperately grappled around for a replacement, landing on former state Senate leader Troy Jackson (D), who put together a lightning-fast nomination campaign. Jackson has not quite made up for lost time, with his truncated campaign and lack of Platner’s charisma keeping this race tight enough to make Democrats nervous.   

He’ll hope to get a boost from ballot mate Hannah Pingree (D), who seems comfortably bound for the governor’s mansion.

What do the polls say?

Recent polls have given Jackson a small edge, but it’s a nail-biter. 

---

4. Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson (D) / Marshall Rawson (R) — Florida House District 10

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism.

What to know:

Even in today’s Republican Party, it’s rare that you have someone who attended the Charlottesville white supremacist rally run for a state House seat. But Marshall Rawson (R) is one such candidate. Rawson activism with a neo-Confederate group called League of the South has been known for a decade, but it didn’t emerge until after he won his primary that he had attended the biggest white supremacist rally in a generation, at which participants famously chanted “Jews will not replace us.” TPM broke the story of Rawson’s attendance in September. 

What do the polls say?

The Florida House district is extremely Republican, and Rawson will likely win. 

---

5. Jon Ossoff (D) / Mike Collins (R) — Georgia Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, election denial. 

What to know:

This race is one of several that will determine control of the Senate. But it also features perhaps the most extreme candidate running for the chamber this cycle, Mike Collins (R), who not only is slavishly loyal to president Trump, but has joked about killing immigrants, retweeted a video of white university students making monkey sounds at a Black woman, and cheered the January 2026 FBI raid on Fulton County’s election office with a since-deleted post on X: “Go get ‘em Kash.” Given this, it may not be surprising that he has constantly been asked to explain why so many white nationalist and anitsemitic figures have turned up in his campaign, congressional office, and family. What has been surprising, though, is his complete inability to answer for it. In recent debates, Collins has fumbled through questions about these connections, and refused to concede Trump lost the 2020 election.

What do the polls say?

Collins’ opponent, incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff (D), is ahead. 

---

6. Sherrod Brown (D) / Jon Husted (R) — Ohio Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Expanding Democrats’ map. 

What to know:

There was a time when Ohio picked the president. That broke down in 2020 when Trump won the state by 8 points despite losing reelection. It has trended increasingly red in recent years, raising the question of whether a Democrat can still win statewide. If one can, the conventional wisdom goes, it is Sherrod Brown (D) in 2026. His opponent, Jon Husted (R), has struggled to distance himself from the many data centers he brought to Ohio during his time as lieutenant governor, and that the public now adamantly opposes. If Democrats can’t pick up this seat with an optimal candidate in an optimal cycle, it’s hard to see when they ever would. 

Elsewhere on the Ohio ballot, the contest for governor between former state health department director Amy Acton (D) and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (R) is also competitive. Ramaswamy has struggled throughout his campaign to connect with voters and to hit baseballs. Some polls have Acton up by as many as nine points. The race is wrapping up on a particularly nasty note, with an attack ad featuring Acton’s mother — long estranged from the candidate after she stayed with the man who sexually abused Acton when she was a child — to paint Acton as a liar. The Ramaswamy campaign doubled down amid the ensuing outrage, calling Acton a “serial fabulist.”    

What do the polls say?

Acton is running a tick ahead of Ramaswamy, but both that race and the Senate one are extremely close, the Democrats having a slight edge.

---

7. Secretaries of State races, including in New Mexico, Arizona and Georgia

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, voting rights, election denial. 

What to know:

The secretary of state’s office may have gone without much attention before the Trump era, but no longer. The official who oversees elections in key states is in the cross-hairs of those who believe the myths that election was stolen in 2020, and that widespread fraud and non-citizen voting continues to help Democrats. In Arizona and New Mexico, two election denial activists are themselves on the ballot, running for the role. In Georgia, the Republican candidate has reportedly said there were “irregularities” in the 2020 election but has stopped short of claiming Trump won. That candidate, Tim Fleming (R), has also repeated false claims about mail-in ballots being used to commit voter fraud and has been evasive about whether he would be ready to do as his would-be predecessor, Brad Raffensperger (R), did and stand up to Trump. Fleming did tout that he has voted for the president six times during a debate in May. When you have a Republican administration that has shown it is hellbent on seizing the constitutional right to administer elections from states, it’s pretty crucial to have people who are not election deniers serving in those roles in the lead up to 2028. 

What do the polls say?

Too little polling to say anything conclusive.

---

8. Adam Hamilton (D) / Roger Marshall (R) — Kansas Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Expanding Democrats’ map. 

What to know:

Though everyone is surprised that a Democrat may be on the cusp of winning a Senate election in Kansas, the party has experienced electoral success in the state before — and relatively recently. Current, term-limited Gov. Laura Kelly (D) won in 2018 and again in 2022, riding, the first time, the backlash to Trump and, the second time, the backlash to Dobbs. Now, Democrats could strike gold again with popular Methodist minister Adam Hamilton (D), who is up against the uniquely unlikeable and scandal-hobbled incumbent senator, Roger Marshall (R). This is the kind of race where Democrats will need everything to go right, but they at least have secured themselves a candidate compelling enough to put the state into play, and possibly to give Democrats a blueprint for other deep red state races. Elsewhere on the ballot, polling shows a competitive gubernatorial contest between state senators Ty Masterson (R) and Cindy Holscher (D).

What do the polls say?

Hamilton v. Marshall is as close as can be. Holscher is running a few points behind Masterson.

---

9. David Crowley (D) / Tom Tiffany (R) — Wisconsin Governor

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, voting rights, election denial.

What to know:

Tom Tiffany (R) is a weird character, and Wisconsin is important. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) announced last summer that he would not seek a third term in office, creating an open race for governor in Wisconsin for the first time since 2010. Tiffany, a member of Congress, has done nothing to engender confidence that he would support free and fair elections in the state. The main problem with the Trump-backed Tiffany is the extent to which he threw his weight behind overturning the results of the 2020 election. Tiffany didn’t just vote against certifying President Biden (D) as the winner of the election in Arizona and Pennsylvania (he vowed to do the same for Wisconsin but that vote was interrupted by the mob of Trump supporters that stormed the Capitol), he also joined a Ken Paxton (R)-led effort to throw out Wisconsin’s election results after Trump lost. His election denialism continues to this day, too — in June he embraced the FBI’s investigation into the 2020 election in Wisconsin. 

But Tiffany is no exception to the trend that’s emerged in recent weeks, as Republicans try to distance themselves from the deeply unpopular president who is not on the ballot but wants voters to pretend he is. In September, Tiffany’s campaign conceded “Joe Biden won” when asked about the 2020 results. Even then, his campaign still involuntarily offered to “cooperate with law enforcement on investigations” into Wisconsin elections.

What do the polls say?

Close, but Crowley seems slightly ahead. 

---

10. Phil Weiser (D) / Viktor Marx (R) — Colorado Governor

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism.

What to know:

Viktor Marx (R) is a unique character well-suited to our unique political moment. Over his years as a Christian nationalist leader, author, and self-described “high risk missionary,” the Republican Party nominee for governor in Colorado has boasted of having personally rescued thousands of people from conflict zones and of attaining multiple black belts in various martial arts. His impressive resume is not limited to the earthly realms, however: he has also, in his telling, battled demons and faced down Satan himself, biographical details TPM has covered with interest. Critics have questioned Marx’s claims. He’s likely to lose to the Democratic nominee, Phil Weiser, potentially dragging fellow Colorado Republicans down with him. 

What do the polls say?

Marx is almost certainly going to lose. 

---

11. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D) / Tom Smith (R) — Michigan’s 8th Congressional District

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, election denial. 

What to know:

This is a weird one. The Republican candidate Tom Smith won his nomination by accident, likely due to racism. (Smith actually dropped out of the race in July and a different Republican, a Navy veteran and former law enforcement officer, had earned Trump’s endorsement in the primary. The Trump-backed candidate’s name was Amir Hassan, and, well, as one GOP strategist put it to Politico in August, the “GOP base was reluctant to support a dude named Amir Hassan.” Hence, Michigan voters elected the white-bread sounding Tom Smith, who was no longer running.) TPM later learned and was first to report that Smith attended protests in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021 and live-tweeted the whole experience from “Jar Head Salsa,” a Twitter account for the food company he runs with his son. 

What do the polls say?

There aren’t many polls of this race, but things are not looking good for Tom. For starters, Kristen McDonald Rivet (D) has wildly out-raised him. As of the beginning of this month, the Democrat had raised about $5 million in donations and contributions to her campaign. Tom’s raised about $250,000. 

---

12. Missouri ballot amendments 

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Voting rights, abortion. 

What to know:

You may recall one of the few bright spots to come out of the 2024 elections was the passage of an amendment that enshrined the “right to reproductive freedom” in the Missouri Constitution. The measure passed 52% to 48% and protected abortion in a state led by politicians who would outlaw it if given the chance. Now, the Missouri General Assembly is asking voters to repeal that same constitutional amendment that they voted into law just two years ago. Amendment 3 would ban abortion in Missouri with exceptions only for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly, rape and incest. The measure would also ban gender-affirming care for minors. Missouri Republicans are gambling that some mixture of low turnout and confusing ballot language will help them thwart the clearly articulated desire of their constituents.

That perversion of democracy will sit alongside its triumph, as Missouri voters will also get the chance to vote up or down a maximal Republican gerrymander, despite state officials’ best efforts. The legislature passed the map last year, gerrymandering Black and Democratic voters in the Kansas City area out of electoral power, then tried to shield the new map from the state’s referendum voting process. They failed, due mostly to the still-normal Missouri Supreme Court — which, as we predicted, those same politicians are now looking to dismantle and MAGA-fy. 

What do the polls say?

There’s limited polling of these measures.

---

13. Matt Dunlap (D) / Paul LePage (R) — Maine’s 2nd Congressional District

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism.

What to know:

Paul LePage (R) is an old school TPM character: He was Trump before Trump, he often jokes. A trailblazer on the hard right, he denounced immigrants as “the enemy” and labeled one political opponent a “socialist cocksucker” a full decade ago. He looms large in Maine, where he served as governor from 2011 to 2019. The district in which he is now running — Maine’s 2nd — covers a huge portion of the state, the largely unpopulated north. Republicans often win it, though for the last several years it’s been held by Jared Golden (D), a conservative Democrat who is retiring. Matt Dunlap (D), a much more mainstream Democrat, is running against LePage to replace Golden. It’s been conventional wisdom that Dunlap is too progressive for this district, though a big enough blue wave could net the seat anyway. Recent polls show Dunlap ahead. Cook Political Report rates it “lean Republican.”

What do the polls say?

Dunlap seems to have a slight lead. 

Josh Kovensky, Hunter Walker and Christopher Mathias contributed reporting.

This article is part of Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

The Overton window on expanding — or packing or unpacking — the Supreme Court is now wide enough that it’s worth revisiting one inevitable part of the conversation: FDR’s Court-packing proposal in 1937. Misconceptions about the events abound in popular discussions.

Here’s the short version of the story you’ve probably heard: In 1935 and early 1936, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court handed down several decisions whose doctrines threatened important parts of FDR’s New Deal economic policies. After his overwhelming reelection in November 1936, he decided to pack the Supreme Court with six new justices, using the excuse that the sitting justices over the age of 75 weren’t able to handle the Court’s work effectively. Announced in January 1937, the Court-packing plan came as a surprise to political Washington, and immediately met strong resistance. FDR slogged on but the plan suffered several severe blows, including a letter from Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes endorsed by liberal justice Louis Brandeis saying that the Court was completely up to date with its work. Other developments undercut the urgency for the president and his allies, including a decision favoring New Deal economic policies in March 1937 in which swing justice Owen Roberts cast the deciding vote and the retirement in May of conservative justice Willis Van Devanter. When the plan was formally interred in a mid-summer Senate vote, a New York journalist called Roberts’s vote the “switch in time that saved the nine,” and the phrase — and Roberts’s vote — have come to dominate today’s understanding of the episode.  

That version isn’t completely inaccurate and it isn’t a caricature, but it does contain some misconceptions, the most important of which is probably the focus on the captivating “switch in time” phrase. If we think that the story of the Court packing plan has some lessons for us today, it’s important to clear up these misconceptions. Historians have written books about the events surrounding the Court-packing plan and this essay won’t be able to explore all the ins-and-outs of a complicated set of events. Even more, the story has many moving parts, most of which are connected to others, so you can pick pretty much any place to start.

Was the Court-packing plan a surprise?

Yes and no. After one important decision in May 1935 going against the New Deal, FDR held a press conference and said that the Court wanted to take the country back to the horse-and-buggy days. Almost from the start of his first term FDR groused about the possibility that the Supreme Court would stand in the way of what he thought were programs needed to recover from the economic crisis the nation faced. Ideas about “doing something” about the Court floated around Washington starting in 1933, leaked from the administration to favored reporters and discussed at Georgetown dinner parties.

Still, FDR hadn’t directly targeted the Supreme Court during his 1936 reelection campaign. Instead, he regularly attacked the American Liberty League, an advocacy organization founded and funded by wealthy opponents of the New Deal. The League produced a series of pamphlets designed as templates for legal briefs laying out the constitutional arguments against a host of New Deal programs. When FDR went after the League, he was really taking on reactionary legal arguments he feared the Supreme Court would adopt. So, in the guise of the American Liberty League, the Supreme Court was part of the 1936 presidential campaign.

Supreme Court reform of some sort was in the air after FDR’s massive victory in November 1936. The development of the Court-packing plan was a closely held secret within the administration. The content of the announcement on February 5, 1937, was something of a surprise. But no one was surprised that FDR wanted to move some sort of Court reform through Congress.

Was there a switch in time?

No, but maybe yes. On June 1, 1936, the Supreme Court held a New York statute setting a minimum wage for women workers unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4, with Justice Roberts in the majority. Then, on March 29, 1937, the Court held an essentially identical Washington state statute constitutionally permissible by a vote of 5-4, with Roberts in the majority. Coming less than two months after the Court-packing plan’s announcement, Roberts’s “new position” is the switch in time.

It’s been known for decades, though, that Roberts actually cast his deciding vote in mid-December 1936, before the Court-packing plan was announced. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone was absent because he was recovering from a near-fatal illness. The justices divided four-to-four, with Roberts voting to uphold the Washington statute. Stone’s vote was necessary for the new majority but everyone knew that he’d vote to uphold the Washington statute (he’d joined the dissent in the New York case).  The case was essentially over when the Court took its initial vote. The formal vote was delayed until February 6, 1937, the day after the Court-packing plan was announced. Justice Felix Frankfurter later reported that Roberts came up with a lame explanation for his switch, saying that New York’s lawyers hadn’t explicitly asked the Supreme Court to overrule a controlling precedent but Washington’s lawyers did. (The excuse was lame because New York’s lawyers had indeed asked the Court to overrule the precedent, though in a short and somewhat cryptic paragraph.)  Whatever the reason, it didn’t come “in time” — that is, it didn’t come as a response to the February 5, 1937, unveiling of the Court-packing plan.

Remember, though, that Court reform was in the air. Maybe Roberts was picking up what we’d now call “vibes” about a threat to the Court, and maybe the lameness of his explanation was just a cover story for a change induced by the general atmosphere of threats to the Court as an institution.

Was the plan doomed from the start?

No. Vote counters knew that the House of Representatives would accept the plan. All the action was in the Senate, where there was fierce opposition from conservative Republicans and some Democrats, and unease among other Democrats. 

An adept politician, FDR held an ace in his hand, and everyone knew it. He promised one of the seats on an expanded Supreme Court to Senate majority leader Joseph Robinson of Arkansas. Robinson found the offer irresistible. He called in all the chits he had with his colleagues, putting together a potential majority for the plan one vote at a time. Political observers at the time weren’t sure what the outcome would be but they were inclined to think that Robinson could pull off a victory for FDR.

The final vote was scheduled for mid-July in an exceptionally hot (and un-airconditioned) Washington. Robinson held a meeting–social gathering where he continued to lobby wavering colleagues. The combination of heat and stress gave Robinson a fatal heart attack. The possibility of a majority for the Court-packing plan in the Senate always depended on personal ties between Robinson and other senators, and, with his passing on, the plan failed. 

Did FDR lose the battle but win the war? How?

Yes, yes, and maybe no. FDR lost the battle over expanding the Court but reached his main war goal — having a Court that wouldn’t completely obstruct his favored programs. As with almost all successful military campaigns, the path to the goal wasn’t straight. The war wasn’t over on March 29 when the nation learned that Roberts had voted to uphold Washington’s minimum wage law. FDR’s legal team worried that Roberts wasn’t going to be a reliable ally going forward — and indeed he wasn’t: a careful modern statistical study shows that Roberts reverted to his conservatism within a year.

The war wasn’t over on May 18, either, the day Justice Willis Van Devanter announced his intention to retire even though the retirement seemingly gave FDR the opportunity to replace a conservative with a reliable supporter of the New Deal. 

Van Devanter had wanted to leave the Court for years, mostly so that he could take care of his medically compromised wife. The obstacle was financial. Van Devanter was something of a penny-pincher, once complaining that he had been overcharged five cents for a package of seeds. With some reason, he worried that his financial condition would deteriorate if he left the Court. As the statutes stood at the beginning of 1937, lower court judges could either retire from the bench and continue to receive their judicial salaries or they could resign and take their pensions. The rules for Supreme Court justices were different. They had to resign, not retire — they could take their pensions, but not their salaries. And that mattered because judicial salaries for retired lower court judges couldn’t be reduced, but judicial pensions for them and for Supreme Court justices could be — and they were, as part of the austerity programs Herbert Hoover and FDR pursued at the Great Depression’s outset. That was what worried Van Devanter, because the statutes didn’t give him the retirement option. He would have to resign and be at the mercy of congressional decisions about judicial pensions. 

Hatton Sumners, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, had long thought that treating Supreme Court justices worse than lower court judges was silly. Some lawyers worried that “retirement” required that the judge be available to serve as needed — something now known as “senior status” — and that the Constitution didn’t allow that for Supreme Court justices. Sumners disagreed. In 1936 he introduced a bill to eliminate the difference. It failed. The next year, with Supreme Court reform on the table, he tried again. With some misgivings, and aware of the important role Sumners would play in shepherding the Court-packing plan through the House, FDR’s lawyers decided that Sumners’s bill wouldn’t undermine support for Court-packing.  The House passed the bill on February 10, the Senate on February 26, and FDR signed it on March 1, whereupon Van Devanter decided to leave the Court.

Why wasn’t the ability to appoint a justice enough to get FDR to abandon the politically costly Court-packing campaign? The answer: Senator Joe Robinson, to whom FDR has promised a court seat. Despite that promise, Robinson wasn’t a full-throated New Dealer and FDR’s lawyers worried that he might end up as unreliable as they feared Roberts would be. FDR took his time filling the vacancy Van Devanter created, with the excuse that Robinson was still needed to push the Court-packing plan through the Senate. A month after Robinson died, FDR nominated Senator Hugo Black to the Court, giving him a reasonably solid five-to-four majority. The next year conservative Justice George Sutherland, who like Van Devanter had wanted to leave the Court for several years, retired, and FDR nominated Solicitor General Stanley Reed to succeed him. 

By then the war really was over. The Supreme Court didn’t invalidate any major New Deal programs after 1937, although it did sometimes interpret major statutes — especially the National Labor Relations Act — in ways less friendly to labor than FDR’s labor allies would have liked. Democrats suffered severe losses in the 1938 midterm elections, mostly because the nation was in a severe economic recession induced by FDR’s too-rapid return to the orthodoxy of balanced budgets — but maybe the Court-packing episode made it easier for some voters to abandon the Democratic Party.

In the even longer sweep, the conservative war against legal liberalism continued. Liberals liked to describe a “New Deal settlement” that coupled judicial deference to legislatures on matters of economic policy with judicial activism on civil rights and civil liberties. Recent scholarship has made the case that conservatives never really accepted the so-called settlement, making some tactical concessions while biding their time — which came toward the end of the 20th century.

Did 1937 set a “precedent” for Court expansion?

Maybe yes, but a lot depends on how you describe the precedent. Focus on the politics of Court size and the answer is that the 1937 episode might have created what the British call a constitutional “convention” against changing the size of the Supreme Court simply to affect predicted outcomes — but that kind of convention can itself be changed when politicians think that it stands in the way of getting something important done. And focus on the politics of the federal courts more generally and the answer is that changing their powers to advance partisan goals is standard practice.

The Court’s size has been fixed at nine since 1869. Before that the Court grew to accommodate national growth — a “good government” reason for changing its size. Sometimes the timing of expansion was affected by partisan concerns. And in the decade of the Civil War, Congress expanded the Court, shrank it, and expanded it again mostly for partisan reasons but with some real “good government” explanation as well. 

FDR’s Court-packing plan was packaged in “good government” terms — too many of the Court’s justices were old and unable to keep up a work pace adequate to needs. That was a fig-leaf covering the partisan motivation and FDR and his allies quickly abandoned it. The fig-leaf that’s offered in today’s discussions is “thirteen circuits, thirteen justices,” but no one really thinks that there’s a strong good-government reason for having one justice for each circuit. The Court-packing plan’s failure might be understood as establishing a convention against changing the Court’s size unless there’s a real “good government” reason for doing so. 

Unwritten constitutional conventions like that are always up for grabs. One problem is distinguishing between practices that persist because no one cares enough to challenge them and practices that persist because people think they ought to follow them. The complicated politics that account for the failure of FDR’s Court-packing plan — Robinson’s death, Roberts’s change in vote, Sumners’s bill and Van Devanter’s retirement — weaken the case for saying that 1937 shows that there’s a convention against changing the Court’s size to affect predicted outcomes. Since then, the issue of the Court’s size didn’t matter enough for anyone to try to do something about it — until now. So maybe having a Court with nine members results from a practice rather than a convention.

Even more, conventions can be fragile — certainly they’re not as robust as provisions written into the constitutional text. A scholar writing in 1925 offered an example. From Washington’s presidency to the early 20th century American presidents stayed on American soil (broadly defined, it turns out). U.S. presidents stayed on the U.S. side of the Mexican border when they met their Mexican counterparts on the bridge connecting El Paso and Juarez. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson reluctantly declined an invitation to England to celebrate the anniversary of the treaty ending the war of 1812. Within five years he went to Versailles, and the convention disappeared. 

The picture is much more clear when we look at the politics of the federal courts generally. Congress has adjusted their powers for good government reasons, of course, but it also has routinely tinkered with the federal courts to change predicted outcomes. When Congress feared that the national courts would rule against workers seeking compensation for injuries, it shunted those cases to state courts. When Congress feared that state courts would treat Blacks badly, they allowed the cases to be shifted into the federal courts. The list goes on and on. Seen in that light, changing the Court’s size is just another example of treating the federal courts as one of the many tools politicians can use to achieve their goals.

Lessons from the past?

One of the first things graduate students in history are told is that they should be wary about drawing lessons from the foreign country that is the past. If lessons are to be drawn, though, they should be drawn on the basis of as full an understanding as possible of what really happened — an understanding informed by the story I’ve told, and of course by the even more complete story that can be found in the historical record.

Bernadette Greene-Placentia would like you to know the story of her rape is not an “October Surprise.” 

She did not conspire with the media to publish the graphic details of her sexual assault on the same day early voting ballots were sent out to voters in Arizona. Her harrowing account of being bludgeoned and violated by two men in the middle of the night in a suburban parking lot is not a “hoax” she concocted to win over voters’ sympathies. Her fragmented memories of the attack, and her initial reluctance to go to authorities, are not evidence of an elaborate lie, nor of a nefarious Democratic plot to wrest control of Congress, as some right-wing influencers have suggested. It was hard enough coming forward to say she was raped, she told TPM. Now she has to contend with all these men, with millions of followers online, loudly asserting that maybe she wasn’t. She can’t help but remember that these men publicly trying to poke holes in her story have mothers. “Is this really how you were raised?” she wants to ask them.

Most American households were not eagerly awaiting a set of tax data that was supposed to come out from the Internal Revenue Service in July. Now the data is missing, with little explanation — and that’s attracting growing attention.

In Rough Edges, Mike Rothschild writes about fringe groups, conspiracy theories and how the Internet broke our brains. This column is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

People love a grand conspiracy. The bigger the scheme is, the more people get drawn into it. And the more details and players that are involved, the more believable it seemingly becomes. After all, who would go to the trouble of making up something so complicated? It must be true.

And nobody loves a conspiracy more than President Trump. He and his inner circle especially seem to have fallen in love with what has literally been dubbed “The Grand Conspiracy.” It’s a hopelessly complex, entirely unevidenced theory claiming that a high-ranking group of political figures have been plotting in the shadows for years to stop Donald Trump from making America great again through investigations, indictments and impeachments. It has all the hallmarks of the type of grandiose schemes that Trump supporters especially fall for: countless players, sprawling plots, intricate secrets, and a total lack of evidence that it actually took place.

Despite lacking cogent answers to foundational questions such as “what it is” and “who is doing it,” revenge for the Grand Conspiracy has been a driving force in the administration, prompting an investigation that has trundled along over the last year and a half, involving dozens of officials looking for some reason to indict the president’s enemies.

And there are many, many enemies. They include a greatest hits of Trump’s obsessions and grievances, from former special counsel Jack Smith to minor players like former FBI agent Peter Strzok, and even former President Barack Obama himself. According to Grand Conspiracy believers, they are all powerful Deep State figures who supposedly worked together in a single, years-long scheme to destroy Trump and undo the will of the people. 

Precisely what these conspirators have actually done remains unclear — even, seemingly, to the prosecutors themselves, who, per the Wall Street Journal, complained to the Justice Department that they weren’t getting much guidance from the local U.S. attorney. The probe is now being run out of Washington, where it continues to baffle those assigned to move it forward. 

In the last few weeks, there have been a host of indications that DOJ efforts to prosecute these figures — and tie them all together into one grand scheme — are falling apart. And, as the Grand Conspiracy prosecution flails at DOJ, the claims also aren’t doing much in the court of public opinion, where Republicans are looking for anything they can find to shore up their crumbling midterm prospects.

This article is part of Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

Significant polling errors most often result when late-deciding voters break differently from historical patterns. That’s likely to happen this year, and not in a way that favors Republicans. 

Start with the observation that the current midterm environment is utterly unlike any in recent history. The CNN average of recent polls pegs the proportion of voters who disapprove of Trump at 65 percent, and a recent You/Gov Economist poll found that of those who disapprove, 84 percent of them disapprove of him “strongly.” We’ve had no recent midterm cycle in which most American voters strongly disapprove of the president. 

If we look at the distribution of Trump disapprovers, the implications for Republicans become even more ominous. Let’s say that Trump’s most loyal MAGA voters make up 30 percent of the electorate and assume, plausibly, that most of them associate largely with Americans of similar views. Since this group is largely devoid of Trump disapprovers, the upshot is that an overwhelming majority of voters not in this group — some 70 percent of the electorate — are Trump disapprovers. And since there are also almost no undecided voters among Trump loyalists, the portion of the electorate that describes itself as “undecided” also must consist almost entirely of Trump disapprovers.

To see how this may matter, consider the observation that most of us are more heavily influenced than we realize by the behavior and beliefs of peers. (This was the core premise of my 2019 book, Under the Influence: Putting Peer Pressure to Work.) As decades of careful studies have shown, peer behavior strongly influences almost everything we do and think — what we eat, how much we exercise, whether and how much we smoke and drink, how much we weigh, and which candidates we support.

Now imagine the decision facing an undecided voter. She’s almost surely not a Trump loyalist, and virtually all of her close friends and relatives are likely to disapprove of Trump, a majority of them strongly. They’re unhappy about gas prices, the cost of groceries, corruption, the war in Iran, the behavior of ICE, and more. Herself a likely Trump disapprover, she’s almost surely unhappy about many of these things as well. Late deciders in past elections often tended to break toward candidates who share their political identity. If this year’s late decider is a conservative, that would predict she’d vote Republican. But given everything we know about human behavior, casting that vote would be difficult in the current environment. It would mean bucking the views of almost everyone she knows and cares about.

How much might all this matter? A recent generic ballot poll estimated that 8 percent of likely voters remain undecided. If these voters would have split 4D-4R in a normal midterm environment, a 6D-2R split in today’s climate would hardly seem unlikely. And that four percentage point swing would almost surely be more than enough to erase any pro-R polling bias from other sources.

But there’s more. Peer influences shape not only the decision about whom to vote for but also the decision about whether to vote at all. This influence will of course cause current polling averages to further understate Democratic strength.

In a recent interview with MS NOW host Jen Psaki, former Obama adviser David Plouffe was understandably reluctant even to discuss the possibility that current polls might be understating Democratic strength. Acknowledging this possibility could of course encourage some people to slack off, thinking the prize already in hand. 

But understating Democratic prospects also entails risk. As we’ve seen, Republican seats are vulnerable in many areas that earlier Democrats would never have thought to contest. There’s reason to believe that the playing field may yet warrant further expansion. 

The Trump administration has flailed at each of its major priorities. That includes, so far, its attempt to instill effective authoritarian rule: the Alien Enemies Act removals, the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, the occupations of Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, and others — they’re all marred by the same incompetence.

The buffoonery on display would be funny were it not so dangerous: it’s left lives ruined, and people killed. In the case of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), it’s threatening to strip naturalized citizens of basic constitutional rights.

This article is part of Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

Donald Trump’s ability to jail millions of people without even a bond hearing depends on what the Supreme Court thinks about one man’s case. 

This book excerpt is part of Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

On June 25, 2013, the Roberts Court handed down their decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The 5-4 decision gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965’s “preclearance” condition, which required states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices to get permission from the federal government before they could change any policy related to their elections. The country had changed dramatically, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority; the “strong medicine” of the Voting Rights Act, he argued, was no longer needed, let alone justified. But Michael G. Miller and I show throughout our new book, An American Problem: How the Country Built – and the Supreme Court Broke — The Voting Rights Act just how misguided that reasoning was. In the parts of the country freed from preclearance by Shelby County, our electoral institutions have grown demonstrably less open to Americans of color.

When Mike and I started working on what would become An American Problem, a promise made by Justice Roberts in Shelby County still held. “Section 2” of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, he wrote — the section containing the tools allowing litigators to attack election laws and policies that disproportionately harmed voters of color ± “is permanent and applies nationwide.” Although the Shelby County majority was happy to invalidate the preclearance regime that June morning, they told the country that tools remained still for removing discriminatory laws from the statute books.

But this is no longer the case.

A Calculated Delay

The Trump Justice Department has mapped out its coming attack on mifepristone — much thirsted for by anti-abortion advocates, but deliberately delayed to avoid midterm backlash — in a new court filing. 

The first step to imposing new restrictions (or reimposing ones previously lifted) is to conduct a “safety review.” Experts often point out that there are few drugs that have been studied and scrutinized as much as mifepristone, making the pretense of discovering some heretofore unknown risk factor fairly absurd.  

“FDA is on track to obtain study results by mid-December 2026,” DOJ wrote of its review. “FDA will then need to review and evaluate/interpret the results and draft a report. FDA expects to complete that process not later than March 2027.” 

The agency will then use those “findings” to justify a change to mifepristone’s REMS — Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy — or restrictions meant to police the use of highly dangerous drugs. Mifepristone’s safety profile has never justified these restrictions, but the anti-abortion movement’s decades of smearing the drug as unsafe has successfully made it harder to get under Republican and Democratic FDAs alike. 

The Biden administration took the largest strides yet in removing some of these barriers. Most importantly, it lifted the in-person dispensing requirement, which has allowed patients even in red states to be prescribed the medicine over telehealth by doctors in blue ones, and receive it in the mail. So far, blue state shield laws have protected those providers from prosecution by red states, though a massive legal reckoning on these state jurisdictional issues is certainly coming. 

That Biden-era REMS change is the crux of a Louisiana lawsuit against the FDA seeking to restrict mifepristone, with the state arguing that allowing the drug to be remotely prescribed and mailed undermines its abortion ban and forces it to expend money on Medicaid patients that have mifepristone-related complications. This week’s filing is part of that lawsuit. Historically, these lawsuits have struggled to amass legitimate examples of such mifepristone-related injuries, and Louisiana’s complaint leans heavily on state sovereignty. 

The DOJ filing stated that the FDA is looking at the in-person dispensing requirement in particular. 

“Following completion of its study and review, FDA will decide whether changes to the Mifepristone REMS Program are necessary and, if applicable, initiate any such changes in accordance with established processes,” it said. “FDA anticipates that it will be able to provide an update to its estimated date of completion as more information becomes known, particularly in March 2027 when it expects to complete its report on the final study results.” 

This filing is as much a signal to the anti-abortion movement as it is an attempt to get Louisiana to cool it until the midterms are safely finished and the FDA can do the dirty work itself. Activists have been outraged at the lack of movement in President Donald Trump’s second term, though they were somewhat assuaged when he nominated Heidi Overton — who has called mifepristone “dangerous to women” and celebrated Dobbs — as the new FDA commissioner. She has not yet received a confirmation vote. 

The alarm bells are ringing. Five House Democrats appeared at a shadow hearing on Wednesday during which they warned that President Donald Trump and his allies are actively trying to interfere with next month’s midterm elections. While the members of Congress were clearly concerned about Trump’s ongoing efforts to suppress voting, they also touted their work to confront the issue and expressed optimism the president will not, ultimately, be able to derail the democratic process. 

“We know this playbook. We know his personality. He’s a cheater. He’s tried it before. He’ll continue to try it,” Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) said to TPM following the event. “We are prepared. … We have a collective legal team to push back.”

Other representatives emphasized to TPM the importance of voter awareness, and of turnout, and expressed optimism that those two factors together would blunt efforts to undermine democracy. 

“As Donald Trump continues to try to prevent people from voting and to reduce voter turnout, that’s gonna reverberate where the American people will be more determined to come out to vote, to make sure that they have a voice,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said. Trump’s actions, he said, make “it clear to them every day who is a threat to our democracy and they will want to reverse that.”

The shadow hearing, which took place in Meng’s Queens district, was convened by Democrats on the Committee on House Administration, who have put together an election security task force led by Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-NY). That task force, which was put together at the behest of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has been focused on wargaming potential threats to the vote and coordinating with legal and civil rights groups. As part of that work, Morelle has been barnstorming the country holding shadow hearings, which are unofficial proceedings convened by members of the House minority, to hear from local experts about their concerns and to raise public awareness. 

Meng praised Morelle for “traveling the country to spread the word,” checking in with local election boards, and helping to build a “collective legal team.” While Meng noted Trump’s dramatic attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election, she is confident the work being done to prevent similar threats this year will succeed. 

“I’d be shocked if he didn’t try to cheat, right? Like, that is literally his M.O.,” Meng said of Trump, adding, “We saw it in Georgia. We saw it on January 6th. But again, democracy will prevail.”

Morelle took a similar tack as he opened the hearing, which was also attended by Meeks , Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y), and Rep. Paul Tomko (D-N.Y.), and congressional candidate Brad Lander. While he noted Trump and his allies — many of whom were directly involved in the various plots and schemes to reverse the result in 2020 — have actively worked to block mail in ballots, to spread false claims about the election, and even to consider plans to avoid seating new members of Congress, Morelle also pointed out the administration has lost every single court case related to their efforts to curb voting. 

“In my view there is nothing more urgent in this moment than protecting American democracy. … Ballots must be counted fairly and accurately and the House that is reflective of the will of the American people must be organized and seated properly on January 3, 2027. … In this fight for a free and fair election we are winning. So, for people who are concerned about threats, we are winning every time.”

Morelle rattled off several things the Trump administration has done that could affect the voting process, including threatening to deploy ICE agents at polls, which is a clear violation of federal law, and defunding cybersecurity agencies that combat foreign election interference. In the face of this, Morelle also encouraged people to “make a voting plan,” to be aware of their polling places and deadlines, and to sign up as a poll worker or watcher if they are able.

The members heard from several experts including Bethany Li, who is executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), and who explained how Asian voters can be harmed by the “misinformation around non-citizen voting” that is being spread by President Trump and other Republicans. 

“Already we have been hearing from local community partners across the country about how this administration’s misinformation has created confusion and fear among naturalized citizens who are unsure if they are eligible to vote as a result of the federal government’s attacks on birthright citizenship,” said Li. 

Li said her organization is doing poll monitoring in Asian-American communities in ten different states. Asians make up approximately 44 percent of the population in the Queens district where the shadow hearing took place. AALDEF is part of a coalition of civil rights groups that filed a lawsuit against the potential deployment of ICE at the polls. Li further explained the impact of those threats.

“For Asian American communities, the potential consequences of such encounters really are not an abstract concern,” she said, adding, “Our communities include millions of immigrants. Just the insinuation that immigration enforcement could be near a polling location can create fear and confusion about who’s safe to vote.” 

The members and experts who spoke at the hearing also emphasized voter turnout as a way to counter election threats. In response to a question from Meeks, John Cusick of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, stressed that the public has the ability to resist attempts to “sow distrust” in the voting process.

“Turnout is that solution. People should continue to show up,” Cusick said. “They’re expecting voters to not turn out.”

Meeks echoed that notion when TPM asked him about Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with election conspiracy theorist Tina Peters, a former Colorado county official who was convicted of multiple felonies for her role in efforts to overturn the 2020 vote. Peters, who helped her fellow election deniers access election systems, was released after just a quarter of her sentence amid pressure from Trump. Meeks said he hoped people would react to learning about Trump’s efforts to interfere by turning out in strong numbers. 

“What we’re doing and what we think will happen as a result of the work is that the American people see what’s happening also,” he said. “My confidence is in the American people.”

For his part, Morelle said the coalition of politicians, local officials, lawyers, and advocates who are confronting this issue are making progress. Thanks to the legal victories and other progress, he said the number of dangers being monitored by the task force is ticking down. 

“We have monitored over 150 threats. The good news is: that threat list is getting shorter. By no means is it all gone away, but it gets shorter every day and we’re watching every single day as well,” Morelle said. “And I want to, you know, shout out to all the unsung heroes. I mean, there are thousands of people daily working throughout this country, attorneys, community activists, communicators, influencers … there’s so many people engaged in this effort.”

TPM asked Lander, who is in the midst of his first campaign for Congress, about one consequential Trump administration change to voting that has not gone away. Recent cuts to the Postal Service are continuing to cause delays to postmarking that could affect voter registrations and even ballots. Lander noted that’s another area where public awareness matters since people need to know they might need extra time for their paperwork. 

“There’s no silver bullet here to protecting the integrity of our elections, but making sure people are paying attention is critical,” Lander said. “All we can do is  make sure people know their rights.”

Along with the efforts of advocates and the task force, another reason for the Democrats’ optimism about turnout swamping Trump’s interference efforts is the president’s record low poll numbers. In his comments after the hearing, Espaillat suggested those could have the biggest impact of all. 

“The way to stop a bully is to punch him in the nose,” Espaillat said with a laugh. “And the American people are punching Trump right in the nose.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has already demonstrated his Department of Health and Human Services has no concern for disparities. 

To the degree that a “respectable” or “moderate” right exists today in America, Christopher Rufo is considered part of it. He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, the tony midtown think tank that holds black-tie galas; he recently enjoyed a polite sit-down interview with Ezra Klein on Klein’s massively popular New York Times podcast; and he has over 120,000 subscribers on Substack, a publishing platform whose owners have celebrated Rufo as one of their “best” political writers who readers can “trust.” 

TPM has found fairly definitive evidence proving Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) misread text messages when he attempted to corner former special counsel Jack Smith during a congressional hearing on Tuesday. 

Leadership at the Census Bureau has ordered staff to halt all external events related to the 2030 Census amid the agency’s release of a controversial, unprecedented rule proposal aimed at excluding immigrants from the U.S. population count, according to a copy of an email obtained by TPM.

President Donald Trump painted a terrifying picture during his rally in North Carolina on Wednesday night. Standing on stage at Gastonia Municipal Airport, Trump offered a dramatic retelling of a brutal murder that took place in the state last August. Iryna Zarutska’s death made headlines around the country, but the killing that Trump weaved into the Republican Party’s midterm pitch has also emerged as a persistent fixation and rallying cry for racist extremists on the far right. 

As he told Zarutska’s story, Trump spared no gory or dramatic details.

This week I asked 28 current and former Republican Party officials in Florida whether they would denounce an unrepentant white supremacist in their ranks, a man who will appear on the ballot this November as a member of the GOP.