Was that movie about us?

I’ve purposely avoided spoilers (for a 2,700 year-old story I read in 9th grade). My friend Julie had urged me to see it, thinking it’d be helpful for the next season of my show (which is about civics and democracy).

Now I see why.

I don’t know how many of the following things were intended, but seeing as the film was flush with American accents, I assume they were. So what was Nolan saying?

Subscribe now

THE SYMPATHETIC CYCLOPS

Things kicked off when Odysseus and his men enter a cyclops’s cave. Right away, the ‘monster’ we expect for our good/evil framing is too large for it. Does this creature grab soldiers and eat their heads? Yes. Does he solemnly tend to his sheep and make cheese? Also yes.

Right away, we’re conflicted. The soldiers trespassed into his home with weapons. So who’s really breaking Zeus’s law? Isn’t the monster just acting in self-defense? And he gets blinded for it?

THE TROJAN HORSE

It’s not just the film’s moral quandary — it’s how it speaks to us.

At first glance, the siege of Troy is tactically brilliant. But over time Odysseus has regrets. Why did Agamemnon order it? Personal revenge and ‘trade’ benefits? Later, when we see the events unfold, who looks good and evil?

The clearest symbol is the beheading of Athena’s statue — god of wisdom, justice, and (righteous) defense. Her ‘ghost’ (Zendaya) haunts Odysseus for the rest of the film. For anyone unaware, Athens (the Greek capital) is named for Athena. Athens is also the birthplace of democracy, a century or two after The Odyssey was penned. But what we see in Troy isn’t democracy — it’s men, convincing themselves that they’re righteous, brutally murdering the innocent for a powerful ruler’s grudge (and when we later hear Agamemnon’s voice, he sure doesn’t sound powerful — a Wizard of Oz moment). Did all those women and kids need to be slaughtered? Is that what ‘the heroes’ do?

And then there’s Odysseus’s sacrifice of Sinon (Elliott Page). He uses him as bait for the Trojans so they’ll take in the horse. And the casting of a trans actor to play this role speaks to how we sacrifice this group with our inaction in the face of their injustice. We let them to be harmed, as if their safety is detached from our own.

Again, Nolan’s uses the film to quietly convey his ideas — its own sneak attack.

CIRCE AND THE PIGS

Another atypical villain, Circe has a (justified) fear of being raped and killed. So she turns Odysseus’s men into pigs — and before that, her sister into a bird. She says it’s to reveal their true form. But at her core, she’s really using her magic to avoid conflict, unable to handle intra-family relationships. Which sounds like many of us.

Her island is littered with men who have been turned into animals. But amid the reveal, there’s a gentler argument being made — if people are animals, then are animals not people? And the way we treat them inhumane?

It’s also worth noting that in the storm scene, Zeus drowns all of Odysseus’s men over their slaughtering of the sun god’s (Helios’s) cows.

Subscribe now

HADES

One of the coolest shots in the movie, filmed practically (they buried stuntmen!). Odysseus and his men come face-to-face with the souls of the dead. Nolan implies that, as hard as we try to forget our misdeeds, they’re always just below the surface. It’s here that Odysseus is made to confront what he did to Sinon (Page). So are we ready to confront what we do — with our inaction — when we see things like this?

Maybe hell isn’t a physical place, but the guilty conscience we endure — forever — when we don’t atone for our misdeeds.

REFERRALS TO ZEUS’S LAW

The basics of decency. Be kind to strangers of any stripe. Similar to Jesus’s teachings, and how we should be treating those who flee hardship for safe harbor.

THE FINAL BATTLE

The room is filled with cowards and opportunists. But Queen Penelope is loyal to Odysseus — or to what he (the film version) stands for: Strength, bravery, brilliance, compassion, principle, justice, vulnerability. Someone who makes mistakes but acknowledges them (e.g., Sinon). Who fights for others’ life and liberty beyond his own (emphasis on liberty and the fact Penelope wore green in the scene).

DIALOGUE

I’ll be honest — some of it was unimpressive. But every now and then? Banger. Like Odysseus, reflecting on Troy: “Ten years of rage, all pouring into that city in one night.” I wonder what city (capital?) and what night, ten years ago, Nolan could mean.

Also, “the clearest view of a man is from below.”

CALYPSO

Odysseus could have ignored his reality and stayed in a foggy state. The past seven years are our own version: The pandemic, its fallout, elections — we’re dazed, confused, traumatized. But like Odysseus, Nolan is telling us to get back to the fight.

Subscribe now

IN THE RESTROOM, AGAIN

Like those suitors, all kinds of men were in there — silently confronting whatever role they’ve played in the past decade’s events. Help? Inaction? Cowardice? How hard should we be fighting to defend others who need our help?

“I try to be the person you’re expecting”, sang Sombr from above. That could’ve been Odysseus addressing Penelope (or his people), regretting his actions in Troy. Or any of us who fail to rise to the occasion in our civic role. In a country that’s revoking women’s rights and immigrants’ freedom, who among us is righteously stepping up?

The opening lyric to the song is, “It’s the Fourth of July”. On the 250th anniversary of that holiday, The Odyssey gives us a necessary pep-talk. The Greeks should’ve upheld Zeus’s laws and we should uphold our own God-inspired ones — the seeds of which are in the Declaration. You know, freedom and equality — for all.

Perhaps Nolan thinks that, if we’re shown this, we’ll ultimately course-correct. Stop mistaking the villains for heroes. Find our way back home.

Or, if TL;DR:

Yes.

Can the president cancel the midterms?

No, the president can’t cancel elections. Per the Constitution (Article I, Section 4), he doesn’t oversee them. He has no role in them. And no one who oversees them works for him. I can’t stress this enough: State governments are separate from the federal government. The president cannot dictate their action. That would be like a Morton’s manager trying to fire an Applebees waiter (which kinda sounds like a Morton’s move).

But didn’t he recently fire a bunch of election workers?

Yes; in July, the president fired members of the Election Assistance Commission. That’s bad for election logistics and feasibility, but it’s not a death sentence. That’s because the EAC doesn’t oversee our elections. They can offer help, guidance, and funding — which states and counties appreciate — but that’s as far as it goes.

So who DOES run our elections?

A hodgepodge of state and local officials.

At the state level, your state lawmakers (the members of your state house and senate) write election laws. Your governor and secretary of state implement those laws. Sometimes your state has an elections board that helps. (You can find the chief elections official in your state here.)

At the local level, you have an official (like a clerk), perhaps a county elections board, and county commissioners and executives to handle things like election equipment, ballot printing, and polling locations. And election disputes are mainly handled by state and county judges.

To be clear, none of these people work for the federal government. They can’t be hired, fired, or legally pressured by the president.

…so the federal government isn’t involved in elections?

Correct! With one exception: Congress can make laws for congressional elections (U.S. House and Senate). And — because states save money by having their state and local elections on the same day as congressional ones — those congressional election laws end up affecting the whole ballot.

Okay, but what about presidential elections?

Those are still up to the states, although Congress may establish:

a) Election Day
b) the day the Electoral College votes
c) the day the electoral votes are counted

But, that’s it! Congress doesn’t oversee presidential elections and can’t directly make laws for state and local elections.

Wild. So what CAN the president do?

Yell about elections. Push Congress to pass laws like the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to vote (which the Senate just refused to even vote on). He can sign election bills into law. He can try to withhold federal funds from states until they do what he says, like share their voter rolls (lists of registered voters). Some of these things may be illegal and will be challenged. But saying, “hey, if you don’t give me your voter rolls, I’ll make it harder for you to get money for elections” is much different than “you MUST give me your voter rolls”. Trump can do the first — not the second.

I see. What about ICE?

It’s already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal or state elections. According to the Heritage Foundation, non-citizen voting is practically nonexistent. If you go to their Election Fraud database and search ‘ineligible’ voters with the ‘alien’ (noncitizen) subcategory, you’ll see that 99 noncitizens cast ballots between 1982 and 2025. During that time roughly 2.23 billion citizens cast ballots. Ninety-nine out of 2.23 billion. That’s 0.000004%. Therefore, ICE has no reason to be at the polls. But if they are — and they intimidate voters — that’s a crime (and they can be held accountable).

Thanks. Only mildly reassuring. So, the president doesn’t run elections and can’t cancel them?

Yep. Our elections are run by ~10,000 people across America, most of whom you’ve never heard of or thought about before. Many are on your ballot this year. The winners will help oversee the 2028 election.

The State + Local Election Alliance (SLEA) helps elect these officials. If you care about them following the law, you should support SLEA.

Cool, I’ll check them out. And he can’t steal our elections either?

The U.S. has 50 states and 3,000+ counties. Each has its own election system. The decentralization makes it extremely hard to hack. And the vast majority of voting machines are not connected to the Internet.

There are other things he could attempt, though. He has been unsuccessful in trying to limit vote-by-mail (because he has no power to affect it), but he will likely keep trying. He could try to duplicate what the FBI did in Fulton County, GA (though Fulton County is fighting back), where agents took ballots related to the 2020 election (six years after they were cast).

Short of ICE agents at polling places and continued (likely unsuccessful) attempts to limit voting, the likeliest interference attempts would be after Election Day. But again, state officials — not federal ones — certify our elections. Congress could possibly try to refuse to seat members from certain districts or states, but the Constitution says that new congressional terms must start on January 3rd at noon (ET). The options to make things go awry are truly limited.

Gotcha. So how can I help protect our elections this November?

Sign up to be a poll worker! Look out for state and local election officials on your ballot. And support SLEA, which works to make sure the officials running our elections believe in democracy.

SLEA is focused on the most powerful election offices in swing states and counties, which could be under the most pressure by the administration (which, again, has no formal role in our elections). Go to state-elections.org to support their work.

Cool. Thanks!

Anytime. Feel free to re-stack/share with anyone similarly concerned about November.

To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It keeps this newsletter free (paid subscribers also attend private AMAs). And you can support me by ordering my book, What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, or its kids version. This article was made in partnership with the State + Local Election Alliance.

Been a few months. I’m in the middle of writing Season 2 of my PBS show. I’m so excited for you to see it (first episode drops October 18th). Season 1 is here if you’d like to check it out (we just crossed 4 million cross-platform views).

If you’re a paid subscriber, you can access next Wednesday’s AMA below. If you’d like to upgrade (in order to join), you can do so here. If you upgrade by noon on August 12th you’ll be able to attend (as well as all other AMAs going forward).

Just a reminder, these AMAs are never recorded. We meet on Zoom. We see each other’s faces. It’s a community. Everyone’s nice! It’s a chance to ask me anything, directly, with zero embarrassment. You should already have none (because we don’t teach civics enough). But if you do have some, this is where you leave it at the digital door. There’s no shame in wanting to make the world a better place. By being engaged, you are doing that.

Thanks for reading and considering. Hope to see you there.

Read more

Weeks ago, I shared a list of every congressperson seeking re-election who voted to give ICE tens of billions of dollars. Since then a few members have lost their primaries, announced their retirement, or died (or might have died? Check Kentucky). Thirty-nine members of Congress fit those categories, leaving 206 ICE-funding members still on the ballot (64 of whom still need to win their August primary).

To be clear, 200 of these people voted to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement $113 billion, and Border Patrol (CBP) $91 billion, making them the most well-funded federal law enforcement agencies in U.S. history (and because there’s additional money generally earmarked for the Department of Homeland Security, the total is likely higher).

If I’m giving these members the benefit of the doubt — very, very generously — I can understand voting to fund ICE and CBP, witnessing the murders of Renée Good and Alex Pretti six months later, then regretting that vote and choosing not to fund the agencies further. But 204 of the 206 names on the list chose to give ICE and CBP tens of billions of dollars more after witnessing those murders. They watched two U.S. citizens (and many noncitizens) have their most fundamental constitutional rights violated and said, you know what, let’s keep going.

It’s cruelty — and madness.

But, thankfully, you can do something about it. These 206 names — across 41 states — are on the ballot. They are running for House (182), Senate (18), or governor (6). I think their ICE- and CBP-funding votes — especially considering the additional deaths of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Joan Sebastián Durán Guerrero (and the semi-recently discovered murder of U.S. citizen Ruben Ray Martinez, age 23, back in March 2025) — should disqualify them from another term in office. Our taxes should not be used to hire hastily trained officers in unaccountable agencies to violate our rights — specifically those in the Bill of Rights that allow us to peacefully protest (First Amendment), legally carry a firearm (Second Amendment), not be searched and seized unreasonably (Fourth Amendment), and not have our life, liberty, or property deprived without due process (Fifth Amendment). And that list is incomplete.

Why not make these 206 people famous? Everyone should know who they are — and we should definitely know if they’re on our primary/general election ballots this year. In the next three weeks, 64 of these people are fighting to win their primaries on August 4 (Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, Virginia), August 6 (Tennessee), August 11 (Alabama, Minnesota, Wisconsin), and August 18 (Alaska, Florida, Wyoming). The rest can be voted out in the November 3 general election.

Here is the list — please share it far and wide (full Google Sheet here.) And if you want to share an Instagram post with the names, click here. (Click the arrows at the top right — above the image below — to see more names.)

I found 206 names — 13 senators and 193 representatives.

Most are seeking re-election. Some are running for new office. But all are running, for something, this year.

Here is why they don’t deserve another chance to serve the public.

In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That bill contained $75 billion for ICE and $65 billion for CBP (through January 2029). Lots of money.

Fast-forward six months, when two U.S. citizens (Renée Good and Alex Pretti) were killed by ICE and CBP agents in Minneapolis. The agencies claimed the citizens were trying to injure or kill the agents. Videos showed otherwise.

That should give Congress pause about sending more money to these agencies, right? The normal thing would be to add restrictions to the existing funds while holding the responsible agents accountable.

Nope.

Instead, many congresspeople voted to give ICE and CBP more cash— $38 billion and $26 billion, respectively. That’s $204 billion total — $113 billion for ICE and $91 billion for CBP. They are now the most well-funded federal law enforcement agencies in American history.

It may sound like I’m coming at this from a partisan place, but I’m not. I’ll explain.

I’m a student of, and an expert on, the Constitution. And what Republicans and Democrats agree on, with that document, is that the most important part is the Bill of Rights. We may have different preferred amendments — but the protections against federal infringement of our natural, God-given rights is the document’s crowning achievement. Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The right to bear arms. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to not be killed or imprisoned without a fair legal (due) process. A lawyer to defend us. The right to a jury trial of our peers. Protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Leaving the door open for additional rights. And a cap on the federal government’s power.

ICE and CBP are violating all of this. Detaining peaceful protestors. Grabbing Alex Pretti’s lawfully-carried firearm. Arresting people without warrants. Murdering people in the street. Not giving detainees their day in court, instead making them languish in detention centers. Treating them so badly they’re doing hunger strikes to highlight the cruelty. And stretching the federal government’s power — via these agencies — beyond its limits, where agents can kill innocents with impunity.

This is a five-alarm fire for the Bill of Rights. Those who don’t see it are not paying attention — or worse, cheering it on.

Six months after Minneapolis, and a month after more federal funding, public killings are back. On July 7th, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was murdered by ICE agents in Texas. They had been looking for someone else, by the way. Again, video evidence discredited ICE’s account. And six days later, Joan Sebastian Guerrero was murdered in Maine. He also wasn’t their target. ICE claimed he tried to run over their officers. Videos show him calmly trying to flee. Per eyewitnesses, his daughter — a toddler — saw her father’s killing in her Bluey pajamas.

Both victims were hard-working family men. They weren’t U.S. citizens, but they embodied the American Dream. But their citizenship status doesn’t fucking matter — the Bill of Rights applies to everyone regardless. There are certain constitutional rights for citizens only (e.g., holding federal office) — but James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, didn’t restrict his amendments’ rights to citizens on purpose.

Now, 18 months into Trump’s second term, eleven people have been killed by ICE or CBP in public. Another 22 have been shot and injured. More than 50 detainees have died in ICE custody. This is in addition to 27 detainees who died in the second half of Trump’s first term and 26 who died during Biden’s whole term.

The picture is now clear. A decade’s worth of data shows that ICE is an increasingly lawless agency. You don’t throw $113 billion at lawlessness, without any restrictions, and expect it to mend. That money — our money — is fuel on the fire.

And Congress controls fuel. Which brings me to the list.

The following 206 people voted to give as much as $204 billion to two lawless agencies. They are running for office this year. They’re on the ballot.

Not only should they lose, but their ICE and CBP funding votes should end their political careers.

If Congress can’t protect our rights, we need new members of Congress.

I have organized the following names by state; you can scroll to see who’s running in yours. I’ve also noted the upcoming primary elections. While I have concerns about the fall (safety/integrity of elections), you don’t have to wait ‘til then! You can throw 69 people on this list out of office in the next few weeks. By August 18th!

Feel free to DM or comment. And if you appreciate this work — making civics accessible so politicians can be held accountable — I’d appreciate your becoming a subscriber (free or paid).

And lastly, you can always support me by ordering my book, What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, or its kids version.

A Houston man, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, was driving to work. He builds homes. He has three U.S. citizen sons. He has no criminal record. He has lived here for 35 years.

He was shot and killed by ICE.

Like the last two times (Reneé Good and Alex Pretti), ICE made claims about the victim’s aggression without showing evidence. It follows the same, predictable pattern.

Read more here. I won’t rehash the details. Instead, I’m going straight to the actions.

Here’s a fact:

ICE has become a $113 billion organization. That’s the amount money it has through January 2029. It got it from Congress (House and Senate).

And here’s my point:

Most of the representatives and senators who funded ICE, without tying any meaningful guardrails to the money, are on the ballot this year.

Their names are below, alongside the money they’ve successfully voted to give ICE in just the past year alone.

In the Senate

These 13 senators are running for re-election:

And these nine senators aren’t running, but their seats are on the ballot (they’re retiring or they lost their primary):

In the House

Every Republican member has voted to give ICE between $38 billion and $113 billion through January 2029 (again, with minimal guardrails). All are either on the ballot, or their seat is on the ballot. If you want to see how your member voted click here for the vote to give ICE $75 billion and here for the vote to give ICE $38 billion.

Conclusion

More than 200 members of Congress — mostly representatives, all Republicans — voted to fund ICE without attaching any meaningful restrictions. As a result, ICE is operating with $113 billion through January 2029. The agency is largely unchecked. It is not holding agents accountable for the killing of innocent people. Agents are not clearly marking themselves, or their vehicles, as part of the government. They are operating with minimal oversight and maximum impunity.

It is not possible to hold ICE accountable, directly, this year. But it is possible to fire the congresspeople who have allowed this to happen — by funding the agency, not holding it to account, or both.

Enforcing immigration laws is normal. What ICE is doing, however, is different. It’s an unchecked militarized force. It’s violating our rights.

TL;DR: You have a four-month window to hold members of Congress accountable for their votes on ICE funding. You won’t get this opportunity for another two-and-a-half years. Do not let it close without taking action.

Make a plan to vote in the primary (if your state hasn’t held its yet) and in the general election on November 3rd.

It’s simple. If you funded this chaos and didn’t reform the agency when you had the chance — twice — then you shouldn’t have this job.

If you like this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It keeps this newsletter free (paid subs also attend Zooms where you can ask me anything). You can also support me by ordering my book, What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, or its kids version.

When we think of the First Amendment, we think freedom of speech. Religion. Press. The right to peacefully assemble. But there’s a fifth right, buried at the end, that only 12 percent of us can name.

‘Petition’, or ‘petitioning the government for a redress of grievances,’, means complaining about the government to the government without fear of punishment, and with the hope that, as a result, things will change. This includes actions like writing and calling your reps. Attending town halls to speak to them face to face. Basic civic engagement built into our founding document.

It’s what the suffragists did, petitioning Congress and marching in the streets before winning the right to vote in 1920. Or the organizers of the March on Washington in 1963, who petitioned lawmakers into passing the Civil Rights Act the following year. Petition isn’t just nice, it’s how change has actually happened here. It is dissent that is not a threat to the country but a way to improve it. A feature, not a bug.

You may not feel very patriotic this Fourth of July. Pride in America has fallen to a 25-year low. Maybe it’s because we spend so much time arguing politics online with strangers, which is kind of pointless because no one changes their mind after getting dragged in the comments by someone they don’t know. If anything, they double down.

At the same time, technology has decreased our capacity for friction. Everything’s automated. If we want a burrito, shampoo, a ride to the airport, we tap our phone and it appears. We are spoiled, and social media makes this worse because now we’re being served things we agree with all the time. Reducing friction only serves to keep us on platforms longer, so we can see more ads, so we can buy more shampoo.

But the less friction we encounter, the more we can’t handle it. And that’s a problem since friction isn’t just part of our lives, it’s the core of democracy. The dissent before the change. Democracy is a government by majority consensus, and building that consensus requires engaging with those who see things differently. If we can’t handle friction, we can’t convince people to share our views and then…nothing changes.

But there’s an opportunity here. I don’t mean conceding points to those whose views are genuinely violent, or that we should minimize real threats. But it is easier to convince someone of something if they know and like you. A shared history is an opening. You’re not a stranger online, you’re a familiar face IRL.

I’m politically left-of-center, though I’ve voted for both Democrats and Republicans in my life. But if we take into account my family - aunts, uncles, cousins - most of them vote the opposite way from me, as do many of my college friends.

These people follow me on social media. They see my posts, but because I know them and they know me, it’s different. And if I don’t engage with them, where will they get a different POV? And the same holds true for them, with me. It’s more productive to understand why my uncle or former roommate feels the way they do than to attempt to pry it from a stranger on the Internet via text, from an account that may not even be a real person.

Today, we live in a dangerous world for many reasons. But one is that we don’t just have different opinions, which is normal, but different facts. That’s especially a problem on social media. When the business model is attention, and only that, accuracy takes a back seat to whatever gets you to stop scrolling. As a result, the other side is often reduced to a caricature.

I’ve had many people tell me that they’ve strained relationships with their family and friends over politics. And I get it. If someone doesn’t support your lifestyle or your identity, what do you do? I’m not saying people who are targets of bigotry themselves have to bear the responsibility of changing hearts and minds. But for those of us who do have the energy, and the patience, and the luxury of knowing people who like us, trust us, but think differently, it’s a moment to seize. Shared interests, experiences, memories - they’re a gift. We are leaving something on the table if we ignore those bonds. And if those people in your life don’t get counterpoints from you, where will they get them, if at all? If they do get them, will that dissent be accurately presented?

That is the real exercise of petition. Not just yelling into the void, but doing the hard work, closer to home, with the people in your life. So that dissent and pressure on our leaders is both real and growing. Just ask the suffragists. The Civil Rights Marchers. Friction, and dialogue, matter.

So on the 250th Anniversary of our founding let’s make a resolution: To listen more, be more open-minded, and be more curious.

Because if history has taught us anything, it’s that change for the better depends on it.

Happy 4th.

Earlier this year, hundreds (thousands?) of you called your congresspeople to oppose additional funding for ICE and CBP (Customs and Border Protection). You were horrified by the killings of Reneé Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

And it worked! Your engagement stopped ICE and CBP from getting more money for…four months.

Let’s recap.

In February, congressional Democrats refused to fund ICE and CBP. Their leaders published a list of demands for any additional funds — agents must display ID, not hide behind masks, and obtain a judicial warrant to enter a home. Basic stuff implied, or explicitly mentioned, in the Bill of Rights. And when congressional Republicans balked, their Democratic counterparts shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Eventually, they came to an agreement on FEMA, the Coast Guard, and TSA — but not on ICE or CBP.

Fast-forward to two weeks ago, when congressional Republicans successfully passed additional funding for ICE and CBP with zero of the proposed reforms or safeguards.

Now ICE has $113 billion — and CBP $91 billion — through January 2029 (the end of Trump’s term). The One Big Beautiful Bill (passed July 2025) gave ICE $75 billion and CBP $65 billion. The Secure America Act (passed June 2026) gave ICE $38 billion and CBP $26 billion. The vote was highly partisan — supported exclusively by Republicans and opposed by every Democrat and a few Republicans (Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski).

But wait. What about the filibuster? Weren’t Democrats using it successfully?

Initially, yes. But thanks to a special process called ‘budget reconciliation’, if a bill only involves money-related things (e.g., budgeting, taxing, spending) then the filibuster isn’t applicable. Both parties have used reconciliation several times, but the Secure America Act is the first time it was used to fund government agencies across multiple years in lieu of the normal funding process. As a result, ICE and CPB now have a combined $200+ billion for the next 31 months.

To be clear, I am not someone who believes in open borders and zero immigration law enforcement. We should absolutely remove all violent criminals, who are here illegally, from our country. But I also live in Los Angeles and I see what nonviolent (AKA the vast majority of) undocumented people add to our community — invaluable cultural contributions and a place in our workforce. They’re also our neighbors, classmates, colleagues, and friends. For ICE and CBP to enter their communities and terrorize them— people whose only infraction is coming here without paperwork (a misdemeanor) — is amoral and wasteful. The rational thing would be to close all physical border gaps, offer a non-automatic path to citizenship for those here, and continue accepting asylum seekers at a manageable rate. That’s surely better than a gestapo-like police force scaring parents into staying inside their home, right?

Today (literally), the problem is worse. An appeals court just ruled that the Trump administration can use a border-specific expedited removal process throughout the country. This allows for faster deportations for those who have been in the U.S. less than two years. The appellate judges also ruled that immigration agents don’t need to inform migrants of their ability to avoid this deportation if they can prove they’ve been in the U.S. continuously for two years. Pretty un-Miranda rights to me!

But, back to the money.

Unfortunately, the $200+ billion for ICE and CBP is unlikely to be clawed back — even if Democrats win Congress. They’d need a veto-proof majority to rescind or review it, which is 2/3 of the House and the Senate (very hard). If they do win back Congress, Democrats can attach restrictions to future funding bills (which would restrict some of the ICE and CBP money) — but this assumes the president will negotiate with (and not just ignore) Congress. (Of course, there’s a mechanism called ‘impeachment and removal’ for when the president regularly ignores the legislature.)

To be fair, the new head of Homeland Security — Markwayne Mullin — says ICE is implementing reforms: It will now seek judicial warrants (not administrative ones) and increase training days for agents from 42 to 72. That’s good, but none of the other reasonable demands were included — not even detention center inspections. There have been dozens of detainee deaths at ICE facilities over the past 18 months (a 3x jump in 2025 alone). Inmates are hunger-striking against the horrid conditions at facilities in New Jersey and California. How much of that $200+ billion will improve their care? Again, we’re talking about people who are largely nonviolent: Per the Cato Institute, 65% of those taken by ICE have no criminal convictions and 93% have no violent convictions (additional data from TRAC Immigration here).

This is infuriating. Your civic engagement did work, for a bit. But the vast majority of Republicans in Congress waited four months and passed ICE and CBP funds while you (we) were distracted with the World Cup, NBA Finals, summer break, and Iran.

They think we’ve all lost interest.

Unfortunately for them, there is something we can do. Most of those responsible for the added funding are on the ballot this year: Thirteen Senate Republicans and ~200 House Republicans. You can see how your senator voted here and how your house member voted here.

I am not someone who seeks to attack Republicans, but this is cause and effect. We all watched as two federal agencies (ICE and CBP) behaved abhorrently, without recourse. Instead of disciplining them, Republicans in Congress funded them — with more money than they’ve ever received — and applied zero new restrictions.

Register to vote here. Plan to vote in the fall. And if your primary hasn’t happened yet, please vote in those elections too (few of us actually do).

It’s one thing to be amoral and abhorrent. It’s another to be wasteful and reckless (with our tax dollars). But both?

I hope it’s where we rational Americans draw the line.

If you like this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It keeps this newsletter free (paid subs also attend Zooms where you can ask me anything). You can also support me by ordering my book, What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, or its kids version.

In short, my Long COVID has been flaring up — partly from a minor electrocution accident (I’m okay) and partly from over-exertion.

But I also got a jarring test result.

A few weeks ago, I did a Viome test. You mail in your blood, stool, and saliva (samples, to be clear) and they run tests via RNA to see what’s happening in your cells.

And…the results are in! My cells say I’m 50. Unfortunately, time says that I’m 41.

Before getting sick in March 2020 I had perfect health. I regularly played basketball, baseball, golf, and ran. I pushed myself in the gym. My only health nuisance was dermatological — persistent, mild/moderate acne (which probiotics have helped).

But discovering I’m biologically nine years older than my numerical age? That’s brutal.

My doctor says to take it with a grain of salt (he ordered the test). It’s not exact. But it is directionally accurate; I may not be 50, but I’m absolutely older than my years.

It’s hard to process. Pre-2020, I’d manage my stress with exercise — but Long COVID complicates that (I still do mild activity). Thankfully there are other ways to calm down; for starters, I’ve stopped watching and listening to the news (replacing it with classic albums I’d never given a chance). I also spend less time on social media. I get my news mainly from morning emails (The New York Times, Axios, The Washington Post, Politico, Punchbowl, CalMatters). You know, we don’t need 24/7 news — once a day is enough. (And please don’t give hyperbolic social media accounts your engagement — they don’t deserve it at the cost of your mental health.)

At the same time, good things are happening in my world. Professionally I’m working on Season Two of my PBS show (and Season One just won a Webby). I recently recorded a pilot for a major podcast network. I’m revamping my YouTube channel. I signed a deal to contribute to a bestselling Substack (a top five account in U.S Politics). My sponsorships and speaking engagements are up. As a hyper-vigilant person, staying busy distracts me from the big health problem I can’t help.

…or can I?

Earlier this year I felt stuck. My off-label trial of Truvada/Maraviroc (combination antivirals) didn’t work. Then I saw a post on X (I know, I know) from someone claiming that AI cured their Long COVID. I’m deeply skeptical of AI, especially when it comes to creative supplementation and energy usage. But I gave it a whirl — I plugged a few lab results into ChatGPT and got some thoughtful feedback. I told a friend and he suggested I switch over to Claude. At his urging I took every blood test, EKG, ECG, MRI, hearing test, and whatever else I had — hundreds of data points — and hit send.

Minutes later, my jaw hit the floor.

Claude traced my entire documented health history — from pre-COVID baselines up through 2026 — and pinpointed the likeliest causes of my symptoms based on high quality, peer-reviewed research. It identified five unique potential drivers:

1. Viral persistence (I have very high, and increasing, COVID antibodies)

2. Reactivated HHV-6 and EBV (I have high antibodies and a positive PCR test)

3. Secondary adrenal insufficiency (my hormones have decreased over time)

4. Reactive mast-cell activation syndrome (or MCAS, based on positive test results)

5. Dysautonomia (I did fail an autonomic nervous system test)

Claude sifted through, organized, and parsed out a clear, evidence-backed story. I’ve since run the synopsis by several national experts in Long COVID, ME/CFS, and chronic viral infections. Even the most jaded ones were impressed. (It wasn’t 100% accurate, but 90-95% is ridiculously impressive.)

As a result of these findings, I’m now about to try a second combination antiviral (under the supervision of the good doctors at RHTM): Valganciclovir (for HHV-6/EBV reactivation), Paxlovid (for persistent COVID antigen), and high-dose curcumin (as a supporting anti-inflammatory). It’s a modified version of the ‘Pridgen protocol’ developed by Dr. William Pridgen — the idea is that your immune system is exhausted from fighting multiple viruses at once, so this antiviral combo helps to lessen the burden (and normalize your immune system).

I’m tempering expectations, but it’s the first time I’ll be trying something thoroughly supported by my own data. Even if it doesn’t work, there’s much left to try. And there’s no indication, at least not yet, of my symptoms being permanent.

But now comes the frustrating part:

Recently, Wired put out this article, arguing that Long COVID can be cured by thinking positively. It’s written by someone with no medical degree and no firsthand experience with Long COVID. It features no clinical data from legitimate studies and trials and includes no interviews with leading experts. It’s a level of gaslighting I’d expect from The New York Post. But Wired? I thought this was a real outlet. Guess not!

Six years later, we still don’t have any FDA-approved treatments for Long COVID. Tens of millions of people in the U.S. are suffering (as are hundreds of millions around the world). The last thing we need is click-bait, outrage-inducing pseudo science. If it weren’t for doctors and researchers like David Putrino, Amy Proal, Michael Peluso, Akiko Iwasaki, William Pridgen, Nancy Klimas, Jennifer Curtin, Stuart Malcolm, Jordan Vaughn, Resia Pretorius and others — plus funders like the Schmidt Initiative for Long COVID and the PolyBio Research Foundation — us long haulers would be lost. The federal government, under Biden’s HHS Secretary and potential California governor Xavier Becerra, mostly squandered that $1 billion for Long COVID research. The Trump administration has moved away from funding Long COVID studies altogether. My hope is that current HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and acting FDA commissioner Kyle Diamantas can turn something around (perhaps allowing existing drugs to be approved for Long COVID). At the same time, many exciting developments from biotech firms are out there — like Anktiva (ImmunityBio) and VYD2311 (Invivyd) among them (in full transparency, I own stock in both companies as I believe in what they’re doing). And countless other doctors and researchers are helping around the world.

Also, just to address the AI thing, I fully acknowledge the problems with data centers and the technology. I hate that AI is taking creative jobs away from my friends. But at the same time, when it comes to investigating chronic illness — especially for those of us who have been dismissed and/or are unable to afford fancy clinics — there has never been a bigger gift than Claude. It does not replace doctors — but it can research and identify patterns much faster than them. It’s an unbelievable new partner. So, if you have a chronic health issue AND lab tests at your disposal, definitely try it out.

So, that’s the update. My health is basically a part-time job. But I do want to reiterate how much I appreciate you subscribing to, and supporting, my work. And I promise to (mostly) stick to explaining government, civics, and politics going forward.

Lastly, if you know anyone who’s suffering from Long COVID, please share this with them (or even have them reach out to me). I’m more than happy to share what I’ve learned over the past last six years — but especially in the past six weeks — all backed up by real, actual, legitimate sources.

Concerned about the midterms? Same! But not everything is palpitation-worthy. False info abounds. We can’t get distracted. For mental health’s sake, let’s focus on reality.

So here goes: No rage bait, no conspiracies — just the real threats.

Let’s dive in…

DON’T WORRY: The president can’t cancel the midterms.

There is no law, court ruling, or constitutional provision that lets the president cancel elections. States and counties run them. The president isn’t involved. There’s no emergency power waiting to be unlocked. In U.S. history, no election has ever been canceled — not even during war. Yes, the president can issue executive orders, but they must enforce existing federal laws, court rulings, and constitutional provisions. If they go beyond that they’ll get challenged and blocked by a judge — like these. Also, the midterms have begun! Primaries are over in five states and the rest are happening between May 5th and September 15th. It’s already underway. Don’t forget to vote!

DON’T WORRY: Congress won’t pass the SAVE America Act.

That bill requires ID to vote (fine), proof of citizenship to register (a burden), and states to send their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security to scrub for noncitizens (worrisome). Noncitizens aren’t voting in meaningful numbers — they’ve accounted for just 77 out of a billion votes cast between 1997 and 2023. But the Save America Act would complicate voting for U.S. citizens — especially young people, married women, poor people, and racial minorities (all of whom are less likely to have documentary proof of citizenship).

The House did pass the bill, but there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster — nor are there 50 Republicans willing to ignore the filibuster to pass it (and it’s not close).

I’m not saying they won’t try weaken it and try to re-pass it, but it’s dead for now.

DO WORRY: The Supreme Court is mucking things up.

Yesterday’s ruling will make it very hard to challenge racial gerrymandering (a high burden to prove discrimination). Basically, the justices said that racial discrimination is over, gerrymandering is meant to hurt Democrats (not Black people), and drawing districts to protect minorities is as unconstitutional as disenfranchising them. It’s the same logic the Court used to end affirmative action — helping, and hurting, are both bad. We won’t know how many districts will be affected this fall — but as many as 19 congressional districts could flip to the GOP by 2028.

On top of that, the Court could block states from accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day, even if postmarked before Election Day. Normally this is up to each state, but the Trump administration wants no wiggle room. This could create headaches for states who rush to change their laws before November.

DO WORRY: Post-Election Day disputes may get ugly.

The Constitution requires new congresspeople to meet, and start, on January 3rd (at noon ET). But if states can’t certify their results by then, problems may arise. The House could refuse to seat members, which may affect who controls the House. States should plan for the results to be contested — and to have disputes resolved by 12pm ET on January 3rd, 2027.

DO WORRY: Ballots and machines could be confiscated post-Election Day.

Recently the Trump administration sent the FBI to Fulton County, Georgia to confiscate ballots and machines from the 2020 election in search of ‘fraud’ (none has been found). The administration also confiscated materials in Maricopa County, Arizona (via grand jury subpoena) and is trying to do it in Wayne County, Michigan (for 2024 ballots). Whether ‘fraud’ or ‘foreign interference’, the Trump administration could attempt this in other large Democratic counties in swing states, especially those with competitive Senate elections this fall (Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas).

If this happens, county officials and poll workers will need legal training. Officials will need to save the vote tallies and secure paper trails (if machines are seized). States could also sue the government preemptively to ensure that materials aren’t taken without firm proof of wrongdoing. And federal officials should only be able to view the questionable ballots — not take possession of them.

DO AND DON’T WORRY: Federal agents can’t police the polls.

Federal law prohibits agents (ICE, Border Patrol, et al) from being sent to polling places to intimidate voters. States can also pass their own version of the law if it applies to both federal and state officials. States could arrest agents for violating it.

DO AND DON’T WORRY: Gerrymandering is unpredictable.

Who knows how California’s, Virginia’s, and Florida’s maps will land. Ohio, North Carolina, Utah, and Missouri have also redrawn their districts. The Supreme Court has upheld Texas’s map — but it’s unclear which others will get upheld (or struck down) before November. It’s not that you shouldn’t worry, but there are just too many moving parts to predict the result. Even then, the risk of ‘dummy-mandering’ (gerrymandering that backfires) is real — and funny.

Now that I’ve scared (reassured?) you, here’s what you can do to prevent chaos:

Check your voter registration often. This will stop you from being kicked off of the rolls and not realizing until it’s too late.

Go to the polls with friends. If someone you know is worried about agents at polling places, accompany them! Voting is only for citizens, so you shouldn’t have an issue with ICE or CBP (theoretically). But, if you’re concerned, vote in groups.

Become a poll worker. The front lines! Get trained in responding to illegal attempts to seize ballots and machines. PowerThePolls.org is great for this. Be your own hero.

Vote as early as possible and have your state start counting votes ASAP. The sooner results are certified, the less of a chance the DOJ or FBI will interfere. Once a state certifies its elections it’s much harder to contest.

Feeling better? No? Well, I tried. We need to separate real from fake. Too many creators are fear-mongering and spreading misinformation — they want clicks, but democracy needs smarts. You being an informed American is the first step, and best defense, to protecting our elections.

DM or comment with questions, and if you have friends or family worried about what could happen in November, share this article with them.

See you at the polls!

Hopefully the judges support a show that tries to teach everyone how the government works. But right now, you can help with the other award.

The ‘Best Series’ category (Public Service & Activism) is VERY close. Civics Made Easy is 4% away from 1st. Yesterday it was 6% away — we’re closing the gap!

If you like the show, or my other content, or you’re willing to support this work — it’d mean a lot if you voted. It takes no time at all — this is how you do it:

Here is the link. Click that, then click ‘VOTE’ (on Civics Made Easy). It will prompt you to make an account. That takes 30 seconds. After that, you’ll get an email — just click the ‘verify’ button in that email.

That’s it. And if you want to vote in our other category too, you can do so here.

This show was a lot of fun to make. Here’s a photo of us in D.C. right before interviewing Senator Angus King (I-VT) and former head of the FEC Ellen Weintrub.

I’ll also share something that didn’t make the final cut. The FEC is aware that $16B was spent on the 2024 election at the federal, state, and local levels. But they also believe another $16B was secretly spent that cycle and unaccounted for. That’s…insane.

Unfortunately, PBS does not have $16B. No big ‘For Your Consideration’ marketing campaign. Just basic, grassroots begging. But, instead of money, I’m asking for clicks and time! Two minutes of it.

Voting ends at midnight tonight (PT). If you can vote here, it’d really mean a lot.

And here are some other BTS pictures for you:

Thanks again for all your help and support. Really appreciate it. Fingers crossed!

For most of the 80s, 90s, and 00s, California had a Republican governor. But since the state moved to a Top Two system, it has only had Democratic governors…

…until now?

The idea behind California’s nonpartisan ‘jungle’ primary (the result of a 2010 ballot measure) was thoughtful. The candidates with the largest appeal, regardless of party, would advance to the general. Theoretically this would produce candidates with broad support. But in a crowded field, a small plurality is all it takes to advance.

California has 61 candidates currently running for governor. Most are unserious — but not all. Here are the Top 10 contenders, according to polling averages:

• Steve Hilton (Fox News host who snagged Trump’s endorsement) - R
• Chad Bianco (Sheriff of Riverside County) - R
• Eric Swalwell (seven-term congressman and 2020 presidential candidate) - D
• Katie Porter (well-known former congresswoman) - D
• Tom Steyer (hedge fund billionaire and 2020 presidential candidate) - D
• Xavier Becerra (former congressman, CA attorney general, and Cabinet member) - D
• Antonio Villaraigosa (former mayor of Los Angeles) - D
• Matt Mahan (current mayor of San Jose) - D
• Betty Yee (former CA controller, basically the state’s auditor) - D
• Tony Thurmond (current head of California’s public schools) - D

Hilton, the overall frontrunner, is polling between 15-17%. Swalwell is between 13-14%. Bianco is 12-13%. Steyer is 10-12%. Porter is 10-11%. The rest are low single-digits, but everything is within the margins of error.

At this rate, the candidates advancing to the general could combine for just 27% of the electorate. In a system meant to better represent us, that’s pathetic.

To further complicate things we’re less than eight weeks from the June 2nd primary. Debates are already set for April 22nd and May 5th. Several candidates are (likely) hoping that if one of the frontrunners shits the bed at the first one, a spot will open for the second (candidates have until April 27th to qualify for the debate, on CNN).

That’s a pretty short window to rise through a crowded field in a pricy media market.

There’s also the calendar: Ballots are mailed to overseas voters by April 18th and all voters by May 4th (when early voting starts). That means hundreds of thousands of Californians will have already voted before that May 5th debate.

Newsom could somewhat clear the field with an endorsement, but there’s no indication that one’s coming — and the candidates are ignoring pleas to drop out from the state’s Democratic party chair.

All in all, one thing is clear: The longer these eight Democrats stay in the race, the higher the chance of a general election between Hilton vs. Bianco (two Republicans).

This isn’t your average governor’s race, either. California is home to 40 million Americans (12% of the U.S. population). With a GDP (gross domestic product) of $4 trillion it’s the fourth-largest economy in the world (trailing only the U.S., China, and Germany). It has a $350 billion budget, on par with Saudi Arabia and Switzerland.

If Democrats blow the governor’s race in a state with Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the legislature (assembly and senate) it’d be pretty embarrassing (just ask Republicans in Kentucky and Kansas). But, on the flip side, if a Republican wins then he won’t be able to veto bills.

So what could he do?

Appoint judges. Issue executive orders. Pardon crimes. Declare a state of emergency and redirect funds to Republican priorities. Appoint a temporary (Republican) senator if there’s a vacancy for U.S. senate. Activate the National Guard to monitor protests, even peaceful ones. When Californians protested ICE in January Trump sent federal agents and thousands of National Guard troops. Newsom sued and blocked the troops’ deployment. But what if the new governor welcomes them with open arms?

Perhaps this is why low-polling Democrats are staying in: They want the optics of fighting a potential Republican governor to raise their profiles. But also, the real frontrunner is ‘undecided’ at 25% — a lot of people left to sway.

The last thing that makes this race competitive, of course, are the Swalwell allegations.

A damning, detailed story broke on April 10th about the congressman’s alleged sexual misconduct and criminal behavior. For weeks content creators who are lawyers, policy experts, and nonprofit heads have referenced it. There are rumors of additional articles in the works. Staff members on the Swalwell campaign have begun to quit en masse. On April 7th, I was on a call for content creators with Swalwell’s campaign manager who reiterated the denial. I’ve met Eric once through a mutual friend and he’s been supportive of my work, but make no mistake — these allegations are horrific.

Separately, I recently attended a Steyer event for creators and I consulted for a nonprofit in 2024 that was founded by Tom’s brother. I have a friend who works on the Mahan campaign and I met Antonio Villaraigosa once, briefly, a decade ago. I say all this to be upfront about my personal connections to the candidates (I live in Los Angeles County and have worked in politics and entertainment for years, so the odds of meeting someone running for governor are high.)

But, on a personal note, I want to express how much I truly love this state. Ever since I was a kid in Maryland and D.C. I’ve wanted to move here. My earliest exposure to the west coast was 90s alternative rock, much of which came from Los Angeles (Sublime, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rage Against the Machine, Stone Temple Pilots, Incubus, et al). I loved the comedy shows and horror movies made here (anything that subverts expectations, I guess). As a teenager the longest I spent away from home was at UCLA summer camp. The first time I ever performed solo was singing “Under the Bridge” while playing guitar, at 16, at the camp talent show (I related to the loneliness and not the heroin). I was super introverted and bullied, but that summer helped me find my interests, come out of my shell, and stop caring what others thought. I also fell in love with California’s weather, creativity, dream-chasing, and misfits. Despite the Fox News-bashing, California is an incredible place with empathetic people. My friends are here, my wife is here, and I’m raising my child here.

But these past few years — COVID, the strikes, the fires, the rapid technological shifts affecting entertainment and media — have hit California hard. The state’s tax policies are driving one of its biggest industries — production — to other states and countries (which is inexcusable). Housing costs are astronomically high and there’s a mass shortage. Gas and groceries are expensive. Yes, there are earthquakes and droughts (the latter is improving) — but the state offers world-class education, technology, doctors, constant sunshine, incredible food, culture, and history.

Part of why I care about this race is because the governor can change the state for the better. But we can’t have someone of ill character, or corrupted by influence — or who sees the job as a stepping stone (and not a destination). A ‘career’ politician has experience, but is beholden to donors. We need someone looking out for everyone.

Maybe someone will emerge soon as ‘the choice’. But the fact that we’re eight weeks out, and here, is sad. Right now, a former Oath Keeper is points away from a 50/50 shot at the governorship. This isn’t a game or a show. It’s home, and it’s our lives.

I trust Californians will make the right decision. But in a state that excels at storytelling, perhaps we could use a governor with a less drama and more competence.

In the words of one Californian, “It’s hard to believe that there’s nobody out there.”

Hi! Last year, Trump issued an executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The order said that babies born in the U.S. after February 19th, 2025 are not citizens if neither parent is a U.S. citizen nor a legal permanent resident (e.g., green card holder) at the time of the birth. That denies U.S. citizenship to the babies of undocumented people and those here on student/work visas.

Huh. Then what happened?

Lawsuits were filed. Lower-level judges blocked the EO. The Trump administration appealed. On April 1st, 2026, the case arrived at the Supreme Court. The justices heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. Trump was there, becoming the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court hearing.

Weird! What if the Supreme Court sides with him?

Then hundreds of thousands of children born in the U.S. after February 19th, 2025 will lose their U.S. citizenship.

Wow. Okay, dumb question — where does birthright citizenship come from?

That’s not dumb! It’s from the first sentence of the 14th Amendment (1868):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It was written to make former slaves U.S. citizens but wasn’t restricted to that (the amendment says ‘all persons’). So if you’re born in the U.S. and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’, you get birthright citizenship. That first part is clear (born in the U.S.). But the ‘jurisdiction’ part? That’s what the administration is challenging.

So what does ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ mean?

Since the Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ has meant those subject to U.S. laws and authority. It’s everyone except the kids of:

A) Foreign diplomats

B) Soldiers from an invading army (which doesn’t sound baby-making conducive)

C) Foreign citizens born on public ships in U.S. water

And other niche scenarios. But the common thread here is that all these babies — and parents — aren’t subject to U.S. law. So they aren’t citizens.

(NOTE: People born in American Samoa also aren’t citizens, but for different reasons. The territory is unincorporated and Congress hasn’t authorized U.S. citizenship there. But kids born in the other four permanently-inhabited territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam — are U.S. citizens at birth.)

So what is Trump arguing? How is the administration justifying it?

Solicitor General John Sauer (who represents the administration before the Supreme Court) argues that ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ has been misinterpreted. Two years before the 14th Amendment’s ratification, birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (America’s first civil rights law) — but it only applied to babies born in the U.S. who were “not subject to any foreign power”. That excludes babies whose parents are here illegally or on visas.

Sauer also argues that because the 14th Amendment says that people born in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. and “of the state wherein they reside”, this implies that babies — or, really, parents — must be permanent U.S. residents. In Wong Kim Ark, a baby born in America to Chinese citizens was ruled a U.S. citizen, but the parents also happened to be permanent U.S. residents (‘domiciled’).

Got it. I think. How did the justices respond to Trump’s lawyer?

Not well. The three justices Trump nominated (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett) seemed skeptical. Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson) were incredulous. The only ones seemingly open to Sauer’s logic were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Some of the justices felt Sauer’s point about the parents being permanent residents in Wong Kim Ark was irrelevant. They felt Sauer spent too much time on the parents’ status — and parents aren’t mentioned in the 14th Amendment.

What do you think will happen?

Trump leaving early shows how he felt it went. I think Kavanaugh made a strong point that, if the wording of the 14th Amendment differs from the 1866 Civil Rights Act (which it does), it’s for a reason. Also, the Constitution takes precedence over a law.

What about foreigners who travel here — not on a visa, but for a short trip — to have a kid and claim U.S. citizenship?

You mean ‘birth tourism’? The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in 2023 70,000 babies in America were born this way. The CDC estimates it was only 9,000 in 2024. That accounts for 0.3-2.0% of U.S. births. If we assume the average, that’s 1.15%. It’s also worth noting that the State Department and Border Patrol lets agents deny visas/entry to foreign pregnant women suspected of wanting to give birth in the U.S.

Okay, so birthright citizenship applies to anyone born in the U.S. who isn’t in one of those highly specific scenarios — diplomats, armies, ships?

Yes. Also, Trump’s executive order is on pause until the Supreme Court issues its ruling. And to make things more confusing, birthright citizenship applies to people not born in the U.S. too. As long as one parent (at least) is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth, the baby is a U.S. citizen. That means birthright citizenship — per our Latin-loving legal system — is “jus soli” (born on U.S. soil) and “jus sanguinis” (born to a U.S. citizen by blood). If this weren’t the case then Ted Cruz wouldn’t be a U.S. citizen (he was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother).

I’m surprised he wasn’t born in Cancún because he spends so much time there. Anyway, what happens now?

The justices will likely rule in late June. It will not only be the biggest citizenship ruling in a century but one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions of all time.

Wild! Okay, last question: Why are you explaining birthright citizenship using a Q&A with an imaginary person?

I spend a lot of time answering questions from real followers and subscribers, so it felt natural? You don’t have to be so judgy.

I’m not judgy. I’m made up.

Oh, right. I guess that makes you a citizen OF MY MIND.

Just schedule the email, dude.

If you liked this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It keeps this newsletter free (paid subscribers also attend Zooms where you can ask me anything). You can also support me by ordering my book, What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, or its kids version. And if you haven’t yet, please vote for my show Civics Made Easy to win the Webby here and here!

We submitted for two categories and landed both of them:

1. Video & Film - Public Service & Activism - Media & Entertainment for Episode 6 (“Why Do So Many Americans Not Know How Their Government Works?”)

2. Video & Film - Public Service & Activism - Series & Channels for the whole show

The Webbys are the premiere award for Internet-based content, so to be honored twice is cool (especially since CME almost didn’t get made). However, the Webbys are unique in that there are two awards — one from the Webbys organization (the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences) and one from the people (The People’s Voice). That means you, the viewer, can vote for winners — and there’s a two week window (March 31st to April 16th) to do so.

If you’re inclined to vote for Civics Made Easy, I’d be so grateful. To do that just click the links below — you’ll be prompted to create an account (and vote).

1. Click this link for Category #1

2. And this link for Category #2

That’s it. If you have questions, just DM or leave a comment.

Thanks to PBS, Second Peninsula, and all of you for watching. And thanks for any/all help with voting!

(Don’t worry, I’ll be posting a normal Substack later this week — a deeper dive into Nick Cannon’s claim about the Democrats and the KKK. Turns out the parties swapped places after the Civil Rights Act passed. Kind of a helpful detail to note!)

• Require ICE agents to be unmasked (it’s being revised per a judge)
• Require ICE agents to wear ID; it also bans the use of bounty hunters in immigration enforcement

Yes, you read that right: ICE is using our taxes to pay people (ordinary civilians) under the table to help ‘catch’ undocumented people.

Senator Pérez’s bill ends that. Thankfully, it’s holding up in court (the Trump administration is challenging both bills).

Other things to know about Sasha Renée Pérez (SRP, if she wants to use it). She’s:

• The youngest state senator in California
• The second-youngest female senator in the state’s history
• The former mayor of Alhambra, a job she assumed at 28 (the youngest mayor in the city’s history)
• The first in her family to attend college
• Openly LGBT (B)
• A DJ on the side (although maybe it’ll take off)
• An Oasis fan
• Was 3 when (What’s the Story) Morning Glory came out, which make me feel ancient

Senator Pérez’s district — District 25 — encompasses Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta-Montrose, Altadena, Pasadena, South Pasadena (separate city — bet you can guess why!), San Marino, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Monrovia, Claremont, Rancho Cucamonga, Glendora, Alhambra (home to the best breakfast), and more. It also has the Angeles National Forest.

In our interview we cover immigration (ICE and Border Patrol), AI, and the wildfires. We also get clarity on how many calls it takes from constituents to make a state legislator take note of an issue. It’s five. That’s it!

Our chat also comes on the heels of Congress failing to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. The bill the Senate did pass — which the House rejected — didn’t include any of Democrats’ demands (to rein in ICE). Which is even more of a reason to push back on ICE through your state.

I hope you watch — it’s a dose of hope amidst the chaos.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Watson v. RNC. The case stems from a 2024 challenge over a Mississippi election law pertaining to mail-in ballots. During the pandemic, Mississippi counted ballots that arrived up to five days after Election Day if they were postmarked before Election Day.

Normal, right? There are a million voters living abroad. Due to international shipping, a grace period seems fair (and domestic USPS can also be delayed).

But not to the Republican National Committee.

I listened here to some of the hearing. Here’s what stood out:

1. States have had grace periods for mail-in ballots for more than a century

2. The laws in question (here and here) set the day for presidential and congressional elections respectively (in 1845 and 1875), but don’t mention vote-by-mail

3. When asked for proof that late-arriving ballots facilitate voter fraud, the RNC lawyer couldn’t provide any

I’m not a lawyer — but when suing for damages I think you have to…show damages.

Here’s the truth: Elections, even federal ones, have always been up to states. It’s right there in Article I, Section 4. Congress can override state laws for congressional elections only (and can set the day for presidential elections). That’s it.

In other words, Congress and the Constitution are silent on grace periods, mail-in voting, and early voting. Per the 10th Amendment, that makes them state matters.

Conservatives usually love the Constitution, states’ rights, and the 10th Amendment. And the military — nearly a million of those stationed or living abroad vote by mail. As do 47 million other Americans.

The Supreme Court may eliminate grace periods for all of them.

Beyond Mississippi, 13 other states have grace periods for all mail-in voting: Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. (As points out, 16 other states have grace periods exclusively for ballots from citizens/military living abroad).

If SCOTUS strikes down the Mississippi law in June (when they’re expected to rule), the other states would likely have to change their election laws before November too.

These 14 states are home to more than 114 million eligible voters. That’s 45% of the voting-eligible population. (Most of those 14 states are ‘blue’ and have Senate elections and competitive House elections this year).

Why would the RNC want to change mail-in voting for half of the country?

Is it because the president has attacked vote-by-mail, despite personally voting by mail? Who else mails in their ballot?

According to the States United Democracy Center, it’s:

1. White People

   

2. Old People (65+)

   

3. Citizens living abroad

Oh, and:

4. Democrats

If the Supreme Court strikes down these grace periods it would especially affect voters in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as these states conduct elections entirely by mail (as do Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, and Vermont — but they don’t offer grace periods to all voters). And it would affect those 114 million eligible voters in those 14 states (and hundreds of thousands of military and abroad voters).

Call me crazy, but I think we should be making voting more convenient for people, not less. That’s the entire reason we made Election Day the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November — to accommodate farming schedules for mid-19th century Americans (I did a whole episode on this for my PBS show.)

So, what can states do in advance of this ruling? They can send mail-in ballots earlier. They can expand early in-person voting. They can eliminate needing an ‘excuse’ to vote early or by mail.

When you fear losing an election, the obvious remedy is to adopt broader ideas. The other is to limit who votes in that election.

Between this, the SAVE Act, and FBI investigations into large ‘blue’ counties in swing states, the RNC has made their choice.

Make yours too — by voting as early as possible by mail or in-person (and not relying on SCOTUS and USPS).

In an interview with Fox News, Senate Majority Leader John Thune admitted how doomed the SAVE Act really is.

“There are a majority of Republican senators who don’t want to go down that path,” he said, referring to sidestepping the filibuster to pass the bill.

A majority? That’s 27 (at least) of 53 Republican senators.

Let’s pause for a moment. You need 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate, but 60 votes to end debate. If debate never ends, the bill never gets a vote. That’s the filibuster. (Watch this episode of my PBS show, Civics Made Easy, for an explainer.)

There are really three ways to circumvent the filibuster:

1. Get to 60 votes, AKA ‘invoking cloture’, which stops debate and allows a vote

2. Remove the filibuster from the rulebook, which requires 67 senators (two-thirds)

3. Tweak the filibuster — or suspend it temporarily — which requires 51 votes (or 50 plus the VP as a tie-breaker)

In short, if you can’t do one of those, you can’t vote on a bill.

To clarify, the SAVE Act (read here) passed the House on February 11th. It’s supported by at least 50 Republican senators. But 50 aren’t willing to circumvent the filibuster to pass it. And there’s no chance Republicans get seven Democrats and Independents to join them in reaching 60 (in the bill’s current form).

Why? Because Democrats would be harming their own reelection prospects. And the stated goal of the bill — to prevent noncitizens from voting — is bullshit.

Noncitizens already can’t (and don’t) vote in federal elections. There’s a federal law against it. There’s been state law against it, in every state, since 1926. Top elections officials in Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas recently analyzed noncitizen voting. So has the Heritage Foundation. None found that noncitizens were registering to vote, or voting, in meaningful numbers. (I say ‘meaningful’ because, since 1982, there have been a handful of cases — 1,620 — of 1.8 billion votes cast).

As it stands, you just need to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury when registering. That means noncitizens who do vote risk deportation and criminal penalties. So, they don’t.

In that Fox News interview, Thune admits the SAVE Act is about making Democrats look bad. He wants videos of them opposing photo ID to vote, or citizenship proof to register, for campaign ads. Thune also doesn’t want to use the ‘talking’ filibuster to pass the bill, which would require senators to actually stand and debate (rather than threaten to do it). This would allow Democrats to propose unrelated amendments to the bill around Iran and Epstein. Republicans would have to take tough votes where they would look bad.

Politics aside, the bill solves a nonexistent problem — but it would cause real problems for people without documentary proof of citizenship (a passport, military record, birth certificate with matching current ID, or Real ID showing citizenship — which is only available in five states). Anyone who lacks proof would be unable to register. Studies also show this would affect women, people of color, young people, and low-income people — all groups needing their own constitutional amendment to protect their voting rights.

But there’s another part of the bill that isn’t getting enough attention.

The SAVE Act requires you to show photo ID to vote. Ten states do this already. Yes, if the ID costs money, that’s a poll tax (poll taxes are banned by the 24th Amendment). But strict photo ID already exists in 20% of states. It’s not that controversial.

In fact, it’s a decoy. Here’s the real point of the SAVE Act:

The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. That would require time and money to obtain (10% of American adults don’t have documentary proof of citizenship.) There could be delays, shutdowns, mail issues — all sorts of reasons your documents could take longer than expected to arrive.

But here’s the kicker: A clause in the bill requiring states to run their voter rolls (lists of registered voters) through one of three databases:

1. The Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE system

2. The Social Security Administration

3. A state-created system

These databases would search the rolls for noncitizens. If found, states would have to remove those people from the rolls. Sounds simple, right?

If it was accurate. If it wasn’t, it could remove citizens from the rolls.

Which the DHS system is already doing.

Texas and Missouri have chosen to preemptively run their rolls through DHS. They found an error rate of 14-50% (as many as half of those flagged as noncitizens are, actually, citizens).

The bill would also require states to submit their voter rolls quarterly to DHS. That means March 31st (Q1), June 30th (Q2), September 30th (Q3), and December 31st (Q4).

Of these, Q3 stands out.

If DHS erroneously flags a citizen for removal, they’d have to reregister. September 30th is around when early voting begins and when voter registration windows start closing. A citizen who’s ‘accidentally’ removed may not realize it until mid-October. By then it may be too late to re-register; if it isn’t, the person might not be able to get the necessary documents in time.

It’s kind of (evil) genius. And I haven’t heard a single person or outlet mention this.

This week, the Senate began debating the SAVE Act. There’s still time for GOP senators to change their mind about the filibuster, especially given the intense pressure from paid social media influencers (like Scott Presler, one of the oddest people on the Internet) and the president.

Trump says the SAVE Act is his “#1 priority” and could “guarantee the midterms” for Republicans. He won’t sign any bills until Congress passes it. He’s withholding his endorsements of Republican senators for reelection unless they agree to sidestep filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. He’s determined.

Among sitting Republican senators, Mike Lee (UT) supports revising the filibuster to pass the bill. Senators Josh Hawley (MO) and Ted Cruz (MO) are also onboard. But Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Curtis (UT), Kevin Cramer (ND), and Thom Tillis (NC) are not. If just four Republican senators oppose sidestepping the filibuster, that sinks the bill. Thune says that at least 27 GOP senators oppose it (if he’s telling the truth).

That’s more than four.

If the SAVE Act does somehow pass, Americans will need documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. They’ll need to monitor their registration status to make sure they aren’t kicked off of the rolls. They’ll need to present photo ID at the polls (and mail a photocopy of their ID along with their ballot if voting by mail). The sheer number of people it would affect — in all states — also gives Republicans pause, because they aren’t sure who would be most suppressed.

As for which states may embrace running their rolls through DHS, 26 already do it. The system’s high level of inaccuracy is very much cause for concern.

Thankfully, the SAVE Act seems doomed. But if you’re worried, call your two senators (202-224-3121) and tell them to oppose the bill and sidestepping the filibuster to pass it. In general, make sure you have documentary proof of citizenship. Check your registration regularly to make sure that you aren’t kicked off.

It’s a lot, I know. But Senate Republicans seem to be doing the work for you (for now). Of course, nothing’s guaranteed.

Better to be safe then unregistered.

Well, he did it. The president followed through on his threat. The Iranian government doubted him. They were wrong.

Cue the opening credits to a familiar movie.

I’ll start with this: Ali Khamenei, the former supreme leader of Iran (whom the U.S. and Israel killed), was horrible. He funded violent proxies throughout the region (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Islamic Jihad, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, et al). He opposed free speech. Criminalized dissent. Abhorred women’s rights. Public executions were frequent. Khamenei brutalized Iranians across three decades. He even killed as many as 30,000 Iranians in January 2026 alone. He was evil.

But what happens when evil people die?

Not, like, philosophically. I mean, who replaces them as leaders?

Let’s look at the past 25 years. Under George W. Bush, the U.S. ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001. So, who runs it today? The Taliban, even more violently, thanks to Biden’s sloppy 2021 troop withdrawal.

The U.S. also ousted Saddam Hussein in 2003; a man who, like Khamenei, killed his own people (by hundreds of thousands). Bush’s other war, based on intentionally false info, led to 200,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Like Afghanistan, Iraq is still unstable; millions are displaced, and needing humanitarian assistance, while violence and kidnappings abound.

And the U.S. helped oust Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Where is Libya in 2026? One of the most dangerous countries in the world, code-red ‘Do Not Travel’ from the U.S. State Department due to its dueling governments and widespread violence.

Since 9/11, every Middle East incursion by the U.S. has ended disastrously. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

And probably Trump.

Readers know that I disagree with most of the president’s, and MAGA’s, positions — but not all. When the president campaigned on not starting new wars, I was pleased. When Tucker Carlson attacks ‘forever wars’ and their wasted money, which he’s long been doing, I applaud. Even Matt Walsh, who espouses cruel rhetoric against trans people, opposes the Iranian incursion.

The attack’s justification is murky. Last year, the administration bombed multiple Iranian nuclear sites. They claimed the program was destroyed. Now they say this attack was needed to destroy it. Which is it? What’s the real rationale?

Oil? Iran has the third-largest reserves in the world (behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia). Does classified intel show a threat? Members of Congress just left briefings with more questions than answers. Is it because Iran attacked U.S. military bases previously? A June 2025 attack on a base hardly rises to ‘national emergency’ levels in March 2026 (under the War Power Resolution, the U.S. must be attacked for the president to initiate military action without congressional approval).

Or, per Secretary of State Marco Rubio, we may have been forced into it by Israel. Or perhaps Trump’s ego made him do what no other president would.

But my concern isn’t just that we bombed Iran. Or that more than a dozen countries are involved. It’s that we did it with:

1. No apparent plan for what comes next

2. No international coalition beyond a single pariah state (Israel)

3. No UN Security Council approval

4. No war declaration, or authorization, by Congress

Even Tucker Carlson sees the recklessness. Iran isn’t just another Libya or Iraq — Russia and China, our biggest adversaries, are key allies. It has a huge missile stockpile. It’s the 17th largest country in land mass and population. It feels like we poked a bear we inaccurately sized up. As it rears on its hind legs, we feel regret.

If this was to distract from price hikes, voter suppression, and the Epstein files, it was short-sighted. Also, gas prices are now up because of this war. With shipping throttled in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil (the main ingredient in gasoline) passes, supply has dropped. Low supply? High demand? Econ 101 professors tell us price spikes are here (they’re right).

Two things can be true: Iranians (the 80% who don’t support the regime) are thrilled about their best shot at freedom in 47 years. At the same time, the attack wasn’t ours to make. Israel’s? Maybe — they do benefit from attacking the mothership that funds proxy armies against them. But did we need to join? We already have a proxy war in Ukraine (with Russia). And the campaign in Gaza, which was basically a proxy war with Iran. But did Americans look at those and go, you know what? Let’s add direct war with Iran.

No. Which is why one in four Americans supports these strikes.

It’s frustratingly familiar. Being told that we don’t have the money for healthcare and child care, but have it for our fourth Middle East regime change in 25 years, is maddening. Also, none of these regime changes helped us; if anything, they made things worse! At a cost of trillions of dollars!

We’ve now seen three installments of this franchise since 2001. We didn’t need a fourth. In true Hollywood fashion, Iran could be the costliest yet.

We’ll have to wait and see. But, so far, the Rotten Tomatoes score is pitiful.

I’ve previously covered ‘how elections work’ here. I also recommend watching two episodes of my PBS show, Civics Made Easy — on elections and voting rights (really, voter suppression). After viewing, I promise you’ll have a better idea of why Trump’s executive order on elections has no chance of making it through the courts (state attorneys general, across the country, are ready to sue).

Besides the clear constitutional issues, the legal justification is odd. When election lawyer Marc Elias asked the lawyer pushing this executive order, Peter Ticktin, for his reasoning, he shared this memo (it’s boring so I’ve bolded the relevant parts):

The President of the United States may invoke emergency powers in response to an election emergency involving foreign interference, provided certain statutory and procedural requirements are met. The authority to do so primarily derives from the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Under the NEA, the President is authorized to declare a national emergency if an extraordinary situation arises that necessitates the use of special or extraordinary powers conferred by Congress. Such a declaration must be transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register. 50 USCS § 1621, 50 USCS § 1631. The NEA also requires the President to specify the statutory provisions under which emergency powers will be exercised, either in the declaration itself or through subsequent executive orders. 50 USCS § 1631.

The IEEPA further grants the President authority to address “unusual and extraordinary threats” originating outside the United States that impact national security, foreign policy, or the economy. This authority includes the ability to regulate or prohibit transactions involving foreign property or interests, provided the President has declared a national emergency under the NEA. 50 USCS § 1702, 50 USCS § 1701, United States v. Anvari-Hamedani, 378 F. Supp. 2d 821 (2005). For example, Executive Order 13848, issued under the IEEPA and NEA, declared a national emergency to address foreign interference in U.S. elections, citing such interference as an extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy . Appendix A to Part 579— Executive Order 13848, EO 14024 Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021 Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Judicial precedent also underscores the constitutional limitations on the President’s emergency powers. In, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). [T]he Supreme Court held that the President does not possess inherent emergency powers absent statutory authorization, emphasizing the need for congressional approval to exercise extraordinary authority. 50 USCS § 1622.

In conclusion, the President may utilize emergency powers to address foreign interference in elections, provided the requirements of the NEA and IEEPA are satisfied, and the actions taken fall within the scope of statutory authority. These powers are subject to procedural safeguards and judicial review to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory limits.

I’ll respond quickly:

1. Neither the National Emergencies Act — nor the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — let the president regulate, oversee, or change elections. These laws give the president additional powers in emergency situations, but nowhere in the laws are elections mentioned. At all.

2. The author of the memo, Peter Ticktin, admits this. He says the laws permit emergency powers for national security, foreign policy, and the economy. If the laws granted election powers, he would’ve said so (since it’s his whole argument).

3. Ticktin also says the Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have no inherent emergency powers unless authorized, specifically, by Congress. As of this writing, that authorization doesn’t exist (and I don’t see it happening soon, thanks to the filibuster and the GOP’s hesitance to scrap it).

4. Ticktin acknowledges that, like any executive order, this would be subject to judicial review. “Judicial review” lets federal courts strike down laws and executive orders if judges find them unconstitutional. And the Constitution says, clearly, that elections are up to states (unless Congress wants to alter congressional elections, presidential Election Day, or the day the electors meet).

The irony is that, just days ago, the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA, the same law being cited here. Why? Because the justices noted the IEEPA doesn’t let the president set tariffs (only economic sanctions like freezing assets, halting imports/exports, or blocking transactions). If the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t apply to tariffs — which are very much economic — then it sure as hell doesn’t apply to elections (which are very much not).

If you want to know what I think (since you’re reading this, maybe you do), my gut is that the administration will try to use the Fulton County, GA election office raid to claim foreign interference as justification for the order. But again, neither of the laws cited in the memo mention elections. And it’s precisely because the IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs that SCOTUS struck it down.

Lastly, if you think my bias is getting in the way of my thinking, here’s the Cato Institute — a very conservative think tank — saying the same.

As I mentioned on Substack yesterday, that Washington Post article ran hours after John Thune, the Senate majority leader, reaffirmed that Senate Republicans will not mess with the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. Maybe the timing’s coincidental…or not.

DM me or comment with any questions. And if you want to support my work of deciphering the news in normal-person-speak (so we can all participate in our democracy and hold the government accountable), become a paid subscriber here (or just subscribe for free). Paying subscribers get access to invite-only Zooms and can email me personally with government questions.

Have a great weekend — and let me know what you think of the PBS episodes.