The Dictatorship
If Trump is contemplating defying the Supreme Court, he should remember Nixon first
President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders seems destined for a showdown at the Supreme Court. Members of Trump’s administration — including Vice President JD Vance and tech billionaire Elon Musk — are already raising the possibility of defying the court should it rule against the administration. This raises the stakes for the court: a ruling against Trump risks the executive branch’s defiance, which could damage the court’s legitimacy.
Will Trump comply with its rulings? What will be the consequences of defiance? These are questions not only of law, but also of politics.
There are many historical examples that shed light on what the political fallout might look like, but perhaps the best comes from the final months of Richard Nixon’s presidency, in 1974.
Forced into a corner, Nixon complied with the court’s ruling.
Nixon had secretly taped conversations in the Oval Office, with some of the recordings containing evidence about the Watergate cover-up. In April 1974, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski subpoenaed the recordings as part of his investigation. In U.S. v. Nixonthe Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes.
The court’s opinion, written by Nixon-appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger, left the president with two options. He could comply with the court and deal with the fallout. Or he could defy it and send the country into a constitutional crisis — something he apparently did privately consider.
The political context is important. By the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Nixon’s political capital had collapsed. His approval rating hovered around 24%and his fellow Republicans in Congress had abandoned him. Everyone — including the justices — knew that ignoring the court would probably result in Nixon’s impeachment and removal.
This put the court in a strong position politically, and Nixon in a weak one. Forced into a corner, Nixon complied with the court’s ruling. He reluctantly handed over the tapes and resigned two weeks later.
Nixon’s story makes clear that, in a possible confrontation between a president and the Supreme Court, public approval and congressional support are enormously important. Nixon had neither: everyone knew that defying the court would likely have led to impeachment and removal. Trump, on the other hand, retains strong support from Republican voters, even as his overall favorability has declined since assuming office. While Nixon’s co-partisans on Capitol Hill hung him out to dry, Trump’s are standing behind him. Congressional Republicans have bent the knee time and time again, seemingly allowing his administration to exercise even those powers, such as the power to appropriate funds, that the Constitution grants to the legislature.
Unlike Nixon, Trump will not face the threat of congressional impeachment and removal if he defies the court. Barring an extraordinary political event — such as an unprecedented rout in the 2026 midterms — that will remain the case for the rest of his term. That reality could embolden him.
If public consensus remains firm, a blatant defiance of the Supreme Court could be politically perilous for Trump.
But there is a second important issue: people’s expectations. Not only did Nixon have abysmal public support, but roughly half of Americans wanted him to leave office entirely. Fast-forward to today, Trump himself is not unpopular, but many of his policies are not particularly well liked. Ending birthright citizenship, abolishing executive agencies and expansions of presidential power have proved unpopular. And large shares believe that Trump is overstepping his presidential authority. Would enough of the Supreme Court’s swing votes, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, stick their necks out to save policies that Americans dislike?
Most important is the fact that Americans firmly believe that presidents must obey Supreme Court rulings — for example, a recent poll showed that 83% of Americans(including 77% of Republicans) believe this. That is a striking level of bipartisan public consensus in a deeply polarized era. People want the president to comply with rulings, and they fully expect him to do so.
If public consensus remains firm, a blatant defiance of the Supreme Court could be politically perilous for Trump. This expectation may also influence the court itself, making it feel more emboldened to rule without fear of being ignored.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does offer guidance. Nixon was a politically weak president pushing unpopular views; he could not realistically survive a conflict with the court given the credible threat of impeachment from Congress. As for Trump, even though his policies are not popular, Congress is currently no check on his power. This all suggests that if Trump defied the court, he would probably survive in the sense that he would not be impeached. But it could be a pyrrhic victory: he could emerge severely politically damaged, perhaps cripplingly so.
The deeper worry is this: Trump has tested the boundaries of executive power like few presidents before him. Even if defying the Supreme Court carries significant political costs, those costs may be relatively meaningless — especially if the standoff involves elections or an expansion of his own authority. Political damage after the fact would mean little if defying the court works to secure more presidential power at the expense of democratic norms. And in the end, the most significant check would be a credible threat of congressional impeachment and removal — something that was historically present, but for now remains absent.
Maya you
Maya Sen is professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
The Dictatorship
Truth Social leadership shake-up: Kevin McGurn steps in amid stock collapse
NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump business behind Truth Social is replacing a former congressman and big supporter of the U.S. president as the leader of the social media platform after a stock collapse that wiped out billions in investor wealth.
Devin Nunes, a former California congressmen in Donald Trump’s first term, is being replaced temporarily by digital media executive Kevin McGurn as chief executive officer. The company, Trump Media & Technology, didn’t give a reason for Nunes leaving or provide a timeline for his permanent replacement.
After soaring shortly before Trump’s re-election in November 2024, stock in the company plunged 67%, wiping out more than $6 billion in investor wealth.
Trump Media was formed by the Trump family as an alternative to social media giants that had barred him from posting on their platforms after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots. It said it would not only take on Facebook and Twitter as a “free speech” alternative, but eventually could become a media giant competing with streaming services such as Netflix.
AP AUDIO: Trump media company replaces ex-congressman Nunes as CEO after stock plunge that wiped out billions
AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on a leadership shuffle at the Trump media company.
The stock soared, but it never gained traction with a wide audience despite the president’s frequent use of it for major political announcements, slammed by government ethics experts as a conflict of interest with the presidency.
Since it went public two years ago, Trump Media has lost more than $1.1 billion. Nunes got total compensation of $47 million in 2024, the last year for which figures are available.
The new CEO McGurn said in statement that the company was “poised to take off.”
“In carrying President Trump’s unique, singular vision and message, Truth Social stands for the most powerful brand and voice in history of social media and beyond,” he said.
The Trump Organization didn’t immediately responded to a request for comment.
The company has recently branched into cryptocurrency and another hot business, prediction markets. The latter are online betting venues where people can wager on sports, entertainment and political events.
Both cryptocurrencies and prediction markets have gotten boosts from the Trump administration, in terms of lighter regulation and outright promotion. Last year, for instance, the Trump established a national bitcoin reserve, pushing up the value of that currency.
McGurn, has worked at NBC Universal, Hulu and DoubleClick, among other companies, according to his LinkedIn profile. He is also the CEO of a new shell company that Trump’s two oldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, joined last year to buy U.S. manufacturers. That company originally stated in regulatory filings that it would be targeting businesses hoping to tap federal contracts, which would be awarded by the same government run by their father.
The Trump Organization and the White House have repeatedly denied that there are conflicts of interest between Trump’s role as president and the family business.
The Dictatorship
What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about
ByMichael Edison Hayden
As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.
What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.
Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”
One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:
“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.
A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.
Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.
The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.
So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.
But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?
If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.
But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.
Michael Edison Hayden
Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.
The Dictatorship
Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum
A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.
The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.
This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.
Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.
Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.
Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.
The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.
“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”
Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.
The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.
For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.
The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year 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
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?






