Connect with us

The Dictatorship

A senator told the FBI to go after Texas Democrats. And then what?

Published

on

A senator told the FBI to go after Texas Democrats. And then what?

How do you prevent tyranny and preserve liberty? The framers of the U.S. Constitution set themselves this task when they convened nearly 240 years ago. Their solution — creating formally independent branches of government — rested on the assumption that a restless desire for power was an immovable fixture of human nature. By vesting shared powers in the rival branches like the president’s veto on legislation and Congress’ role in approving executive nominees and control over spending, they thought they could force the branches into conflict if any of them sought to impose its will on the others, or the country.

The abdications of the Republican Congress and conservativeSupreme Court in the past seven months have thoroughly discredited the framers’ assumption about human nature. Partisanship has proved more powerful than the separation of powers.

Presidents this historically unpopular would expect to see dramatic losses in Congress in any free and fair election.

So, it should not surprise us that the last remnant of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances is the one that remains partly in Democratic hands: state governments. The independent authority of state governments enshrined in the Constitution, which enables them to legitimately contest federal power, is what political scientists and legal scholars call federalism. Now it appears that Trump is seeking to extend his successful subversion of Congress and the Supreme Court to overcome federalism as well.

The president’s recent demand that Texas and other Republican-controlled states engage in an irregular mid-decade redistricting effort is an unprecedented incursion into state authority. In Texas, Trump aims to transmute five House seats held by Democrats into five that Republicans could win handily in 2026. Given the chamber’s narrow margin, these five seats alone could determine who controls the House after the midterm elections — regardless of who gets more votes.

This is the key to the entire plot. The president’s party usually loses seats in midterm elections. The Democratic lead on the generic ballot is currently small, but likely large enough to overcome Republicans’ razor-thin majority in the House. Trump is already the most unpopular modern president at this point in a new term — other than himself at this time in his first term. In fact, he is currently more unpopular than he was on the eve of the 2018 midterm election, in which his party lost control of the House. Presidents this historically unpopular would expect to see dramatic losses in Congress in any free and fair election.

But after his loss in the 2020 election and the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, Trump seems determined not to allow apparent election losses to again obstruct his power. Though gerrymandering is nearly as old as the United States, Trump is the first president to attempt a nationwide effort to secure his party control of the House by gerrymandering immediately before the election. In the context of the Congress and Supreme Court’s surrender to Trump and his record of election denial, this is best understood as an effort to secure what can only be characterized as autocratic control over all of American government.

Trump is seeking to shield himself from the will of the voters by having his allies redraw legislative districts. It is a familiar strategy of authoritarian governments that seek to masquerade as robust democracies. They change the rules of electoral competition to favor their allies and make it unfairly or impossibly difficult for the opposition to win power.

Trump is seeking to shield himself from the will of the voters by having his allies redraw legislative districts.

None of this is lost on the Texas Democratic legislators who fled the state to prevent the redistricting plan from going through, or the Democratic governors supporting them. California’s Gavin Newsom has clearly signaled he understands the stakes. In a meeting with some of the Texas Democrats, he said, “Donald Trump called up [Texas] Gov. Abbott for one simple reason: to rig the 2026 election.” He characterized the redistricting effort as an “undemocratic” effort to keep Trump in power without meaningful congressional oversight.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the effort was “nothing less than a legal insurrection” and that “if Republicans are willing to rewrite the rules to give themselves an advantage, then they’re leaving us no choice. We must do the same.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has probably been the most aggressive of the Democratic governors supporting the Texas legislators, promising not only to house them but also to shield them from potential arrest by federal agents. Though it is unclear how serious that danger is, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the FBI had agreed to assist in their return and Trump said the FBI “may have to” go get them.

It thus seems that the Texas gerrymander effort and the resulting flight of the state’s Democratic lawmakers may lead to a face-off between a Democratic-controlled state government, or several of them, and federal officials helping to indirectly carry out Trump’s gerrymandering directive. Moreover, all three governors, as well as state legislators in Marylandhave signaled a willingness to consider unprecedented (and often technically difficult) redistricting efforts in their own states to counter Trump’s push. This is federalism in dramatic form.

These governors are signaling that American federalism will not be overthrown as easily as the Congress and Supreme Court. It is impossible to predict how all this will be resolved, but there is considerable reason to think these states will not abjectly surrender like congressional Republicans or the Roberts Court. There’s still a fight to be had here. Thankfully for the Constitution, these Democrats seem willing to have it.

Kevin J. Elliott

Kevin J. Elliott is a political scientist at Yale University and the author of “Democracy for Busy People.” He teaches and does research on democratic theory, comparative institutional design, and the history of political and economic thought.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

US sanctions China-based oil refinery and 40 shippers over Iranian oil

Published

on

US sanctions China-based oil refinery and 40 shippers over Iranian oil

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration is placing economic sanctions on a major China-based oil refinery and roughly 40 shipping companies and tankers involved in transporting Iranian oil.

The move, announced Friday and first reported by The Associated Press, makes good on Trump’s threat to impose secondary sanctions on companies and countries that do business with Iran. It’s also part of his Republican administration’s overall ramped-up campaign to cut off Iran’s key source of revenue — its oil exports.

Concurrently, the U.S. this month imposed a physical blockade on the Strait of Hormuzthe Persian Gulf waterway that is crucial to global energy supplies.

The sanctions, which cut off the companies from the U.S. financial system and penalize anyone who does business with them, come just a few weeks before President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping are due to meet in China.

Included in Friday’s sanctions is Hengli Petrochemical’s facility in the port city of Dalian, which has a processing capacity of roughly 400,000 barrels of crude oil per day, making it one of the biggest independent refineries in China.

The Treasury Department says Hengli has received Iranian crude oil shipments since 2023 and has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Iranian military.

The advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran said in February 2025 that Hengli is one of dozens of Chinese purchasers of Iranian oil.

China is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, importing 80% to 90% of Iranian oil before the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran broke out, though the crude — transported by a shadow fleet of vessels — often has its origin obscured but arrives in China as oil from countries such as Malaysia. Smaller refineries, known as teapot refineries, typically are the buyers of Iranian oil.

Iran has previously said that its demands for ending the war include the lifting of sanctions.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that his agency “will continue to constrict the network of vessels, intermediaries and buyers Iran relies on to move its oil to global markets.”

Earlier this month, Bessent’s department sent a letter to financial institutions in China, Hong Kong, the UAE and Oman threatening to levy secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran and accusing those countries of allowing Iranian illicit activities to flow through their financial institutions.

Bessent said during a White House press briefing on April 15 that the administration has told countries “that if you are buying Iranian oil, that if Iranian money is sitting in your banks, we are now willing to apply secondary sanctions, which is a very stern measure.”

The sanctions come as the global energy trade is in turmoil as war around the Persian Gulf chokes off oil and natural gas shipments, causing prices to soar.

Treasury has tried to quell the impact of rising oil prices issuing temporary sanctions waivers on Russia oil and a one-time waiver on Iranian oil already at sea.

The AP was making efforts to contact Chinese officials for comment on the sanctions.

China has disagreed with previous U.S. sanctions, but its major companies and banks still comply with U.S. sanctions because they are more exposed to the U.S.-dominated financial system.

After the U.S. earlier this month sanctioned a Chinese refinery accused of buying Iranian oil, Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for China’s embassy in Washington, said the use of the sanctions “undermines international trade order and rules, disrupts normal economic and trade exchanges, and infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies and individuals.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

DNC Chair says releasing full 2024 election autopsy would cause ‘navel-gazing’

Published

on

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin on Saturday defended his decision not to release a full autopsy of the party’s 2024 election losssaying it would “allow people to point fingers, place blame” instead of focusing on this year’s midterm elections.

Speaking to MS NOW’s “The Weekend,” Martin argued that “re-litigating” the 2024 presidential election would distract Democrats from their goal of winning the midterms in November and the 2028 presidential race.

He said Democrats are planning for what they expect to be an “unprecedented assault on our elections” from President Donald Trump, who has already signaled his intention to have federal officials “take over” the elections.

The party’s focus, Martin said, should be on protecting free and fair elections and defeating Republicans and Trump, rather than “engaging in a back and forth” over where it went wrong in 2024.

After then-Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Trump, the DNC ordered a review of where the party fell short. But 10 months later, Martin said the committee would not release the full 2024 autopsya decision that has prompted still-grieving Democrats — including potential 2028 candidates — to prescribe their own solutions to winning over voters.

Martin has repeatedly said that releasing the full report would distract Democrats from taking on Trump. But a growing number of DNC members, Democratic leaders and elected officials are urging him make those findings public, NBC News reported last week.

Martin said Saturday that he wants to keep the party’s focus on “the top lines” and that a 200-page report “allows people to sort of engage in navel-gazing.” He said it would not be helpful for people to harp on “what ifs” over the last election when “none of us have a time machine.”

“I’m not here to protect anyone, right? What I’m here to do is win elections,” he said, adding, “What we’re focusing on right now is the future, not the past.”

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump is preparing White House Correspondents’ Dinner jokes — while the real comedians stay home

Published

on

Breaking with decades of tradition, the White House Correspondents’ Association will not feature a comedian at its annual gala this Saturday night. Instead, “the world’s most celebrated mentalist,” Oz Pearlmanwill entertain the throngs of journos, politicos, corporate overlords and Beltway influencers at the Washington, D.C. Hilton.

Among those luminaries will be President Donald J. Trump who, in his capacity as president, has previously boycotted the event. This time around he’ll deliver an address. The president seems to be feeling confident about his performance, as evidenced by this social media post:

In honor of our Nation’s 250th Birthday, and the fact that these ‘Correspondents’ now admit that I am truly one of the Greatest Presidents in the History of our Country, the G.O.A.T., according to many, it will be my Honor to accept their invitation, and work to make it the GREATEST, HOTTEST, and MOST SPECTACULAR DINNER, OF ANY KIND, EVER!

According to his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, he’s even been working with joke writers to prepare for the occasion.

Last year the WHCA disinvited Amber Ruffin. Many felt the association was caving to pressure from MAGA world.

All of which raises three interrelated questions. First, as the New York Times wonderedwhat could possibly go wrong? Second, will Trump dump on the countless media figures in attendance whom he has already disparaged, threatened, and even sued? And third, why is it that Trump can crack jokes about everything from the pope to unloading sludge on No Kings protestors, but won’t stand for a little comedic ribbing himself?

As for the mentalist, maybe he’ll ask the WHCA’s members to think of a number — like the number of cowardly decisions they’ve made in Trump’s second term. The non-profit, which describes its mission as helping “to facilitate robust coverage of the presidency,” has already sacked a comedian; last year the WHCA disinvited Amber Ruffin. Many felt the association was caving to pressure from MAGA world.

Ruffin certainly thought so. In 2025, she claimed that her dismissal was due to  “talking s—” about Trump. “I think it’s a good thing that I lost the gig,” she added, “because I was going to show up there and act all the way out.”

The same strategy of appeasement appears to be in play this year, which would account for the unusual choice  of a mentalist as host. The press organization, presumably under pressure from the same White House it’s supposed to cover, has thus gone beyond merely cancelling a comedian — no, this feels like a move to cancel comedy itself at its signature event.

There are a number of important things that happen during the event, including bestowing awards and scholarships to members of the media. And I don’t mean to blow my nose in the First-Amendment-inscribed pocket handkerchiefs that some attendees plan to wear to protest the administration’s anti-free speech policies, but I will say this: If you remove comedy from the WHCA Dinner, that leaves the high-profile entertainment up to a lot of HR-non-compliant afterparties and a mushroom cloud of Trump’s Victory 45-47 cologne.

My point is that the country needs Ruffin’s “acting all the way out.” America needs comedians to poke the powerful right in their grimacing faces. A liberal democracy that permits that sort of subversion makes itself stronger.

Since 1983, the WHCA dinner has deputized assorted clowns to preside over this quirky but vital ritual (only in 1999, 2003 and 2019 did an entertainer other than a comedian perform at the event).

Most WHCA comic headliners have executed their patriotic duties with verve and venom. Liberal or left-leaning stand-ups have lit up Republicans. Stephen Colbert in 2006 reminded America that George W. Bush “stands for things,” but also, “on things like aircraft carriers and rubble, and recently flooded city squares.” In 2017, Hasan Minhaj joked he did “not see” (which he pronounced as “Nazi”) Steve Bannon. A year later, Michelle Wolf referred to an absent Trump as “the one p—- you’re not allowed to grab.”

Since 1983, the WHCA dinner has deputized assorted clowns to preside over this quirky but vital ritual.

But liberal or left-leaning comedians are comedians first. As such, they’ve rarely missed an opportunity to dunk on Democrats as well. In 2013, Conan O’Brien taunted Barack Obama that he only won the presidency because Mitt Romney was his opponent. In 2016, Larry Wilmore made everyone in the room extremely uncomfortable by directing a racial slur at the nation’s first Black commander in chief. Roy Wood Jr. in 2023 reflected upon how odd it was that 80-year-old Joe Biden was begging for four more years of work.

I can think of one way to rebut the charge that WHCA is canceling comedy: Invite a humorist with RedState street cred to entertain at next year’s “nerd prom.” The right-wing comedy sector is booming. Many conservatives are devoted fans of stand-up and they have no shortage of skilled humorists to follow. Instead of a manosphere-adjacent mentalist like Pearlman, the WHCA should have platformed a manosphere-adjacent stand-up like Shane Gillis, Tony HinchcliffeAdam Carolla or countless other seasoned acts that could have easily played the gig.

All of these more conservative comedians, I surmise, are also comedians first. Had the WHCA invited them, Trump and his crew would have invariably been rinsed and roasted, patriotically. No one would have claimed that “liberal bias” motivated the barbs — have you ever listened to Hinchcliffe? Had WHCA simply done that, a weird and sloppy democratic tradition would have persevered. Life would go on, as it always does.

So would Trump’s wars, deportations, voter suppression schemes, corruption, lies and so forth. But the jokes would linger like funny prayers to ironic gods, permitting us to at least collectively recognize how absurd our predicament has become.

Jacques Berlinerblau is a professor of Jewish civilization at Georgetown University.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending