Key Updates
Trump Administration vs. The 'Seditious Six'
The political firestorm ignited by a group of Democratic lawmakers is now a full-blown federal investigation. As reported yesterday, the situation began escalating when President Trump accused the group of sedition. Today, we can confirm the has opened a formal inquiry into Senator Mark Kelly and five of his House colleagues. This is running parallel to the Department of War's own review of Kelly, a retired Navy Captain, for potential misconduct.
The crux of the matter is a video the lawmakers released, titled 'Don't Give Up the Ship,' which urged military service members to remember their oath to the Constitution and refuse any "illegal orders." War Secretary Pete Hegseth, who seems to be relishing the role of enforcer, has dubbed the group the "Seditious Six." The lawmakers, like Rep. Elissa Slotkin, maintain they were simply reminding troops of their existing legal obligations, a standard tenet of military ethics. The administration, however, frames it as a direct attempt to foment insubordination.
Analytical Take: This is a dangerous and significant escalation. We're moving beyond partisan sniping into the realm of using the instruments of national security—the FBI and the Department of War—to investigate political speech. The term "sedition" is being thrown around with a casualness that should be alarming. The core issue is a stress test of American civil-military relations. The lawmakers' video can be seen as either a principled stand or a reckless politicization of the armed forces, depending on your priors. The administration's response, however, is unambiguously using this to paint political opponents as enemies of the state. The real-world consequence is that it forces military leadership into an impossible position, caught between their civilian command and a group of lawmakers questioning that command's legitimacy. Watch for how the Pentagon brass navigates this; their response, or lack thereof, will be telling.
The High-Stakes Hustle for a Ukraine Peace Deal
The Trump administration's diplomatic full-court press on the Russia-Ukraine war is accelerating. Following talks in Geneva over the weekend, the initial 28-point plan has been scrapped and replaced with a leaner, 19-point proposal. Today, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is in Abu Dhabi to present this revised plan to Russian officials, a neutral-ground meeting that underscores the sensitivity of the talks.
President Trump is playing the role of the closer, stating he won't meet with Putin and Zelenskyy until the deal is "final or in its final stages." This puts immense pressure on his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to hammer out the details. However, Moscow is already signaling skepticism, publicly questioning whether the U.S. and Ukraine will uphold any new agreements, a classic Russian tactic to pre-negotiate from a position of grievance. Meanwhile, Ukraine remains wary of being strong-armed into a disadvantageous peace. Adding a strange wrinkle, the U.S. is simultaneously ratcheting up pressure on Venezuela.
Analytical Take: This is a legacy play for Trump. A successful peace deal before the holiday season would be a monumental foreign policy achievement, dwarfing other domestic issues. But the odds are long. The revised 19-point plan is likely a collection of painful concessions for both sides. Russia's public hand-wringing is strategic; they're creating off-ramps to reject the deal while blaming Ukrainian or American intransigence. The real danger for the U.S. is that Putin plays along just enough to extract maximum concessions, expose cracks in the Western alliance (as we saw hints of yesterday with nervous European allies), and then pulls the plug, leaving the U.S. looking ineffective. The simultaneous pressure on Venezuela is either a sign of a chaotic, disjointed foreign policy or, less likely, a bizarre attempt at a multi-front pressure campaign. My money is on the former.
The House of Cards Gets Shaken Again
Marjorie Taylor Greene's surprise resignation is a symptom of a much deeper problem for the Republican party. Her departure, effective January 5, 2026, shrinks the 's already razor-thin House majority to a margin where a handful of members catching the flu could derail the legislative agenda. Greene cited frustration with congressional gridlock and, notably, recent disagreements with President Trump as her reasons for leaving.
Her exit prompted a told-you-so from former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who warned her leaving is a sign of systemic dysfunction in Congress. Current Speaker Mike Johnson is left trying to project stability, but the math doesn't lie. Greene's is just the latest in a string of retirements, contributing to a sense of a sinking ship.
Analytical Take: Greene's resignation is more significant as a symbol than for the loss of her specific vote. She represents the activist base that feels betrayed by the realities of governing. Her break with Trump is particularly telling; it shows that even he can't command absolute loyalty when his political calculations—like his recent meeting with 's progressive mayor—conflict with the base's ideological purity. This is the core dilemma for the : the forces that win primaries make it nearly impossible to govern. McCarthy is enjoying his schadenfreude, but he's pointing to a problem he helped create. Speaker Johnson's job is now less about leading and more about just holding the line until the next election.
New York City's Progressive Experiment Begins
The election of socialist Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City is no longer a theoretical political shift; it's causing immediate and tangible fallout. The city's Commissioner, Robert Tucker, has already resigned, citing irreconcilable ideological differences. This is a clear signal from the city's uniformed services that they are deeply unsettled by the new administration.
The political battle lines are being drawn nationally. Rep. Elise Stefanik is relentlessly attacking Mamdani, and pointedly criticized President Trump for his seemingly cordial White House meeting with the mayor-elect. Her criticism sharpened after Mamdani appointed controversial figures to his transition team, including Alex Vitale, a prominent academic who advocates for abolishing the police. This has sent a wave of anxiety through wealthier neighborhoods like the Upper East Side and given political ammunition to Mamdani's opponents.
Analytical Take: New York City is now the primary laboratory for the Democratic Party's internal civil war. Mamdani's victory and his unapologetically progressive appointments are the playbook that figures like Bernie Sanders have dreamt of. But the immediate backlash—from the , political opponents, and even wealthy residents—shows the immense friction this creates. Trump's meeting with Mamdani was a fascinating piece of political triangulation. It allowed him to look presidential and above the fray, while infuriating hardliners like Stefanik and sowing confusion. He gets to project an image of a dealmaker, while his party's attack dogs do the dirty work. This is a preview of the national landscape: a confident progressive wing testing its power against a deeply entrenched and nervous establishment.
Senate Report Alleges Migrants Were Housed at Airports
A new Senate Commerce Committee report, bluntly titled "Flight Risk," is making some explosive claims. It alleges the Biden administration pressured federal transportation agencies and at least 11 major U.S. airports to house migrants, potentially compromising security and diverting federal funds. The report names Boston Logan, Chicago O'Hare, and New York's JFK as airports that were leaned on.
The details are specific: Boston Logan allegedly spent $779,000 housing up to 352 migrants overnight in Terminal E. Chicago O'Hare reportedly saw 329 police service calls and 26 arrests at a shuttle terminal being used as a shelter. The report claims the Department of Transportation and were directed to ignore their own rules to make this happen.
Analytical Take: This is a textbook example of a partisan report designed to cause maximum political damage. It's important to note this is coming from one side of the aisle without, as of yet, a formal response from the accused. That said, it lands on a kernel of truth: sanctuary cities and states were overwhelmed, and the previous administration was scrambling for ad-hoc solutions to a crisis. Using airport facilities, while logistically questionable and a security nightmare, likely seemed like a desperate but available option. The report's value isn't in solving the immigration problem; it's in creating a potent political weapon. The specific dollar amounts and arrest numbers give the accusations a veneer of hard data that will play very well in attack ads and on cable news, painting a picture of chaos and mismanagement.
'Slender Man' Attacker Captured After Brief Escape
The brief manhunt for Morgan Geyser is over. As we noted yesterday, Geyser, known for the 2014 'Slender Man' stabbing, escaped from a Wisconsin group home. She was apprehended Sunday night at a truck stop in Posen, Illinois, alongside an individual named Chad 'Charly' Mecca.
Geyser had removed her ankle monitor and fled. Her lawyer is framing the escape as "impulsive" and a result of Geyser being barred from seeing Mecca, who is transgender. Geyser has already agreed to be extradited back to Wisconsin. For his part, Mecca was cited for criminal trespassing and obstructing identification.
Analytical Take: The "why" of the escape is secondary to the "what." The fact that a high-profile individual, found not guilty of a violent crime by reason of insanity, could simply remove an ankle monitor and cross state lines is a political nightmare for the Wisconsin justice and mental health systems. Geyser's lawyer can argue impulsivity all he wants, but the public and political reaction will be swift and severe. Expect this case to be used as Exhibit A in a push for much stricter confinement protocols for similar individuals, likely rolling back more nuanced, reform-oriented approaches to mental health treatment within the justice system.