The Dictatorship
Donald Trump wasn’t charged with insurrection — and now we know why
Ever since Donald Trump was indicted in the federal election interference case in 2023, a lingering question has been why special counsel Jack Smith didn’t charge him under the Insurrection Act. We just got an answer in the volume of Smith’s report on the election case that was released overnight.
The federal insurrection law says that
[w]hoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
In his report, Smith observed that it didn’t appear that anyone had been charged with that crime in more than 100 years. Explaining why his office didn’t bring it against Trump, the special counsel wrote that cases interpreting that statute “are scarce and arose in contexts that provided little guidance regarding its potential application in this case.”
More specifically, Smith noted that he would’ve had to prove that the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof” and that Trump “incite[d]” or “assist[ed]” the insurrection, or “g[ave] aid or comfort thereto.”
The special counsel was mindful that courts have called the Capitol attack an insurrection, including the Colorado Supreme Court in the case that deemed Trump ineligible for office (until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state court and effectively ended nationwide challenges to Trump’s eligibility). Smith wrote that his office was “aware of the litigation risk that would be presented by employing this long-dormant statute.”
Among the reasons the special counsel held back, he wrote, was that Trump was trying to stay in power as the current president rather than overthrow the government from the outside. “The Office did not find any case in which a criminal defendant was charged with insurrection for acting within the government to maintain power, as opposed to overthrowing it or thwarting it from the outside,” Smith wrote, concluding that applying the law in this situation “would have been a first, which further weighed against charging it, given the other available charges, even if there were reasonable arguments that it might apply.”
Smith further noted that he couldn’t find a case in which anyone had been charged with inciting, assisting or giving aid or comfort to rebellion or insurrection. “The few relevant cases that exist appear to be based on a defendant directly engaging in rebellion or insurrection, but the Office’s proof did not include evidence that Mr. Trump directly engaged in insurrection himself,” he wrote.
He added that there were “reasonable arguments to be made” that Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 could qualify as incitement under Supreme Court precedent but that his office “did not develop direct evidence — such as an explicit admission or communication with co-conspirators — of Mr. Trump’s subjective intent to cause the full scope of the violence that occurred on January 6.”
So Smith declined to pursue the charge, given the potential legal challenges in doing so, as well as what he called “the other powerful charges available.” Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. He pleaded not guilty.
The case was set for trial last year but never made it that far, due in part to Trump’s pretrial appeal in which the Supreme Court granted him broad criminal immunity. Trump’s presidential victory cut short the pending litigation in the trial court over how much of Smith’s case survived the immunity ruling. After the election, the special counsel moved to dismiss the case, citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.
Ultimately, Smith’s explanation reflects a cautious approach. As his analysis concedes, reasonable minds can differ on the subject. With that said, it’s hard to see why the novelty of the situation is a reason not to proceed with a given charge; on the contrary, one could argue that the novelty of Trump’s conduct was reason to press forward. However, if there was any concern about the strength of the evidence — as Smith noted, in part, was the case — then that makes it a clearer decision in favor of not proceeding.
Of course, the wisdom of Smith’s charging decisions is a historical discussion at this point. The case is over. Had Trump been charged with and convicted of insurrection, then that could have strengthened the case for his disqualification from office — but that, too, is a hypothetical we’ll never know the answer to. Even though Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh suggested that a conviction under the insurrection statute could have barred Trump from office, had Smith brought that charge, Kavanaugh and his colleagues’ immunity ruling still would have kept a trial on that charge from going to a jury before the election.
Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The harsh realities of Arctic mining undercut Trump’s argument to take Greenland
Greenland’s harsh environment, lack of key infrastructure and difficult geology have so far prevented anyone from building a mine to extract the sought-after rare earth elements that many high-tech products require. Even if President Donald Trump prevails in his effort to take control of the Arctic islandthose challenges won’t go away.
Trump has prioritized breaking China’s stranglehold on the global supply of rare earths ever since the world’s number two economy sharply restricted who could buy them after the United States imposed widespread tariffs last spring. The Trump administration has invested hundreds of millions of dollars and even taken stakes in several companies. Now the president is again pitching the idea that wresting control of Greenland away from Denmark could solve the problem.
“We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,” Trump said Friday.
But Greenland may not be able to produce rare earths for years — if ever. Some companies are trying anyway, but their efforts to unearth some of the 1.5 million tons of rare earths encased in rock in Greenland generally haven’t advanced beyond the exploratory stage. Trump’s fascination with the island nation may be more about countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic than securing any of the hard-to-pronounce elements like neodymium and terbium that are used to produce the high-powered magnets needed in electric vehicles, wind turbines, robots and fighter jets among other products.
“The fixation on Greenland has always been more about geopolitical posturing — a military-strategic interest and stock-promotion narrative — than a realistic supply solution for the tech sector,” said Tracy Hughes, founder and executive director of the Critical Minerals Institute. “The hype far outstrips the hard science and economics behind these critical minerals.”
Stay up to date with the news and the best of AP by following our WhatsApp channel.
Trump confirmed those geopolitical concerns at the White House Friday.
“We don’t want Russia or China going to Greenland, which if we don’t take Greenland, you can have Russia or China as your next door neighbor. That’s not going to happen,” Trump said
A difficult place to build a mine
The main challenge to mine in Greenland is, “of course, the remoteness. Even in the south where it’s populated, there are few roads and no railways, so any mining venture would have to create these accessibilities,” said Diogo Rosa, an economic geology researcher at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. Power would also have to be generated locally, and expert manpower would have to be brought in.
Another concern is the prospect of mining rare earths in the fragile Arctic environment just as Greenland tries to build a thriving tourism industry, said Patrick Schröder, a senior fellow in the Environment and Society program at the Chatham House think-tank in London.
“Toxic chemicals needed to separate the minerals out from the rock, so that can be highly polluting and further downstream as well, the processing,” Shröder said. Plus, rare earths are often found alongside radioactive uranium.
Besides the unforgiving climate that encases much of Greenland under layers of ice and freezes the northern fjords for much of the year, the rare earths found there tend to be encased in a complex type of rock called eudialyte, and no one has ever developed a profitable process to extract rare earths from that type of rock. Elsewhere, these elements are normally found in different rock formation called carbonatites, and there are proven methods to work with that.
“If we’re in a race for resources — for critical minerals — then we should be focusing on the resources that are most easily able to get to market,” said David Abraham, a rare earths expert who has followed the industry for decades and wrote the book “The Elements of Power.”
This week, Critical Metals’ stock price more than doubled after it said it plans to build a pilot plant in Greenland this year. But that company and more than a dozen others exploring deposits on the island remain far away from actually building a mine and would still need to raise at least hundreds of millions of dollars.
Producing rare earths is a tough business
Even the most promising projects can struggle to turn a profit, particularly when China resorts to dumping extra materials onto the market to depress prices and drive competitors out of business as it has done many times in the past. And currently most critical minerals have to be processed in China.
The U.S. is scrambling to expand the supply of rare earths outside of China during the one-year reprieve from even tougher restrictions that Trump said Xi Jinping agreed to in October. A number of companies around the world are already producing rare earths or magnets and can deliver more quickly than anything in Greenland, which Trump has threatened to seize with military power if Denmark doesn’t agree to sell it.
“Everybody’s just been running to get to this endpoint. And if you go to Greenland, it’s like you’re going back to the beginning,” said Ian Lange, an economics professor who focuses on rare earths at the Colorado School of Mines.
Focusing on more promising projects elsewhere
Many in the industry, too, think America should focus on helping proven companies instead of trying to build new rare earth mines in Greenland, Ukraine, Africa or elsewhere. A number of other mining projects in the U.S. and friendly nations like Australia are farther along and in much more accessible locations.
The U.S. government has invested directly in the company that runs the only rare earths mine in the U.S., MP Materialsand a lithium miner and a company that recycles batteries and other products with rare earths.
Scott Dunn, CEO of Noveon Magnetics, said those investments should do more to reduce China’s leverage, but it’s hard to change the math quickly when more than 90% of the world’s rare earths come from China.
“There are very few folks that can rely on a track record for delivering anything in each of these instances, and that obviously should be where we start, and especially in my view if you’re the U.S. government,” said Dunn, whose company is already producing more than 2,000 metric tons of magnets each year at a plant in Texas from elements it gets outside of China.
___
Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska, and Naishadham reported from Madrid.
The Dictatorship
Trump administration to send ‘hundreds more’ federal agents to Minneapolis
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that “hundreds more” federal officers are being sent to Minneapolis following the killing of a 37-year-old Minnesota woman by an ICE agent last week.
Noem told Fox News that the surge of federal forces are being sent “in order to allow our ICE and Border Patrol individuals working in Minneapolis to do so safely.”
The additional officers are expected to arrive on Sunday and Monday, Noem said.
The surge was announced after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday in an incident that has drawn large protests against the Trump administration’s widespread deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to major U.S. cities. The demonstrations continued through the weekend as thousands of people protested in Minneapolis and other cities across the country.
Local and state officials, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, D, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob FreyD, were outraged by the killing and have doubled down on demands for immigration officials to leave the city, arguing they are making the area less safe.
At a news conference after Good’s killing, Frey told immigration officials to “Get the fuck out of Minneapolis” and vowed to get justice.
Frey told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday: “I don’t want our police officers spending time working with ICE on immigration enforcement… You know what I want our police officers doing? I want them stopping murders from happening. I want them preventing car-jackings.”
Cellphone video said to have been taken by Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who fatally shot Good, was released Friday. The new video does not clearly demonstrate that Good was attempting to hit Ross with her car, as Trump officials have claimed.
Earlier bystander footage shows the wheels turned to the right as Good’s car pulls forward, away from Ross, who then shoots Good through the car’s windshield.
Noem and other Trump administration officials have called Good a “domestic terrorist,” and repeatedly claimed that she had tried to “run over” immigration officers.
Minnesota saw a massive 30-day surge of federal agents beginning earlier this month, with roughly 1,000 additional officers deployed to Minneapolis and St. Paul, including from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Minneapolis is one of many cities targeted by the administration in a nationwide crackdown on crime and immigration. Since President Donald Trump took office for a second term last year, immigration agencies and National Guard troops have been sent to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Charlotte, N.C., and Memphis.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Dictatorship
National Portrait Gallery changes Trump portrait, removes text about Jan. 6
The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., has swapped out a portrait of President Donald Trump and removed text about his two impeachments and the Jan.6 insurrection at the Capitol.
The White House announced the news on Saturday, sharing a photo of the black-and-white portrait of the president in the Oval Office with his fists on the desk taken by White House photographer Daniel Torok.
The previous phototaken by Washington Post photojournalist Matt McClain, showed Trump in a red tie with text on a nearby wall that read, in part: “Impeached twice, on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection after supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, he was acquitted by the Senate in both trials.
A spokesperson for the Smithsonian told MS NOW that it is “beginning its planned update of the America’s Presidents gallery which will undergo a larger refresh this Spring” and that “the history of Presidential impeachments continues to be represented in our museums, including the National Museum of American History.”
A White House spokesperson said that “for the first time in history, the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery has hung up an iconic photo taken by the White House honoring President Trump. His unmatched aura will be seen and felt throughout the halls of the National Portrait Gallery.”
The Colorado legislature agreed last year to remove a portrait of Trump from the state Capitol after he called the painting “the worst.” He also said his photo on the cover of Time magazine in 2025 was taken from an unflattering angel, calling it the “Worst of All Time.”
Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said that a federal law requiring Congress to hang a plaque in the Capitol honoring law enforcment officers who helped protect the Capitol on Jan. 6, was “not implementable.” But senators quickly passed a resolution to “prominently display” the plaque in the Senate wing of the building.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship4 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics11 months agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics11 months agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics11 months agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics9 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’









