Key Updates
The President Asks His Former Lawyers at for a $230 Million Payout
In a move that’s setting off every ethical alarm bell in Washington, President Trump is seeking $230 million in compensation from the Department of Justice. The claim, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, argues he was wronged by politically motivated investigations during the Biden years, specifically the Russia probe and the Mar-a-Lago documents case. This would be audacious for any former president, but the context here is what makes it spectacular.
The very people who would oversee and potentially approve this massive settlement are Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. If those names sound familiar, it's because Blanche was one of Trump's lead personal defense attorneys, and Woodward represented Trump's co-defendant, Walt Nauta. It's an unprecedented situation where the president is essentially asking his own hand-picked lieutenants—who were previously on his private payroll to fight these exact cases—to approve a nine-figure payment to him from the U.S. Treasury. Critics, of course, are calling this a blatant and corrupt conflict of interest. The White House is trying to create distance, claiming the President isn't personally involved, which is a difficult line to sell when the claim is in his name for his benefit.
Analytical Take: This goes far beyond the "political weaponization" of the we flagged yesterday. This is an attempt to use the department as a personal . The legal basis for the claim is almost certainly flimsy; tort claims against federal law enforcement for conducting investigations are notoriously difficult to win. But that's not the point. The point is to see if they can get away with it. This is a stress test of institutional guardrails. The key thing to watch will be the reaction, or lack thereof, from career ethics officials within the . Their silence or vocal protest will tell us how much of the department's institutional integrity remains intact.
Government Shutdown Becomes Second-Longest in History as Cracks Appear
The government shutdown is now in its fourth week, officially clocking in at 22 days and earning the dubious title of the second-longest in U.S. history. The stalemate continues, with Senate Democrats blocking the 12th Republican attempt to reopen the government. The core sticking point remains the same: Democrats are holding out for an extension of enhanced Obamacare subsidies, and Republicans are refusing unless it's paired with other spending cuts or reforms.
The political posturing is getting more honest, if not more productive. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark admitted that Democrats are prolonging the shutdown for political leverage. Meanwhile, the real-world consequences are mounting. The national debt has ticked past $38 trillion, and a potential funding cliff for the program looms, threatening food assistance for millions. In a notable break from party lines, Senator John Fetterman announced he's had enough, vowing to put "country over party" and support a clean bill to reopen the government. While his single vote won't change the outcome, it’s the first significant crack in the Democratic wall.
Analytical Take: Fetterman’s move is the most interesting development here. It signals that the political pain of the shutdown is starting to outweigh the perceived benefit of holding out for the subsidies, at least for some Democrats in swing states. The White House and leadership will likely try to exploit this crack to pressure other moderates. The crisis is the real time bomb. If that funding lapses, the humanitarian fallout would be immense, and the blame game will become politically lethal for whichever side is seen as the most intransigent. The administration seems to be banking on Democrats caving before that happens.
The President's Guard: A Constitutional Showdown Heads to the Supreme Court
The legal battle over President Trump's deployment of the National Guard to cities like Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles is escalating into a fundamental constitutional conflict. The administration is using the Insurrection Act, claiming a "crime emergency" and "rebellion" to justify overriding the authority of state governors. The courts are completely divided.
This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued conflicting rulings. One panel gave the green light for troops in Portland, arguing the President has broad authority to define a "rebellion." Another ruling on a similar case suggested more restraint is needed. This judicial chaos all but guarantees the issue will land at the Supreme Court, which is already set to rule on the Chicago deployment. The core of the legal fight is over the definition of "rebellion" and whether it can be stretched to include high crime rates, and to what extent the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits domestic use of the military) applies.
Analytical Take: This is a slow-motion constitutional crisis over the balance of power between the President and the states. The administration's argument, pushed by Solicitor General John Sauer, is a maximalist view of executive power. If the Supreme Court sides with the White House, it would set a powerful precedent, effectively allowing any future president to deploy troops domestically against a governor's will by simply declaring a "crime emergency." This would fundamentally alter American federalism. The conflicting circuit court rulings provide the perfect opening for the Supreme Court to take the case and deliver a landmark decision.
The "War on Drugs" Expands to the Pacific, Angering Colombia
The Trump administration's undeclared, low-level war on drug smugglers has officially expanded. The U.S. military conducted its eighth strike since September, this time targeting a suspected drug vessel in the Eastern Pacific Ocean off the coast of Colombia. The strike reportedly killed two or three people. This marks a geographic expansion from the previous strikes, which were all in the Caribbean.
The policy remains as controversial as ever. The administration, via National Security Communications Advisor Pete Hegseth, continues to label the targets as "narco-terrorists," a justification that legal experts find highly questionable. The strikes are being carried out without formal declarations or clear legal frameworks, raising concerns about targeting civilians in international waters. This latest action has drawn a furious response from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who accused the U.S. of murder and is demanding an explanation. The relationship with a key regional partner is now under serious strain.
Analytical Take: Calling these individuals "narco-terrorists" is a deliberate rhetorical choice designed to provide a quasi-legal justification under post-9/11 authorities for using military force. The reality is that these are likely low-level smugglers, not armed combatants in a traditional war. The expansion to the Pacific shows this isn't a limited, experimental policy but a broadening campaign. The blowback from Colombia is a predictable, and significant, second-order effect. The U.S. is risking alienating a critical partner in counter-narcotics for a policy of questionable legality and unproven effectiveness. This feels like a policy driven more by a desire to look tough than by a coherent strategy.
Nearly Five Years Later, Renews Hunt for Capitol Pipe Bomber
In a sign that one of the most dangerous plots of the January 6th era remains a frustratingly cold case, the has released new surveillance footage of the individual who planted pipe bombs outside the and headquarters on January 5, 2021. The agency is also renewing its $500,000 reward for information.
The new video offers a slightly clearer view of the suspect's gait and mannerisms, but their face remains obscured. The bombs they planted were viable and could have caused mass casualties. Their placement the night before the Capitol riot suggests a coordinated or at least ideologically aligned motive. The fact that then-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was inside the headquarters when the bomb was discovered adds another layer of gravity to the incident. After nearly five years of investigation, the release of new footage and a reward renewal is essentially a public appeal for a breakthrough.
Analytical Take: The failure to identify this suspect is a major intelligence and law enforcement gap. This wasn't a spontaneous act; it was a premeditated attempt at political terrorism in the nation's capital. The fact that the bomber moved around Capitol Hill for an hour planting bombs without being stopped or clearly identified is a significant security failure in itself. Releasing this footage now is a "Hail Mary" pass. The is hoping that someone who knows the suspect—perhaps recognizing their distinctive Nike Air Max Speed Turf shoes or their specific walk—will finally come forward, possibly motivated by the half-million-dollar reward.
NYC Mayoral Race Heats Up in Final Debate
The New York City mayoral race is entering its final, brutal stretch. Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani remains the frontrunner, but he spent the final debate taking heavy fire from his two main rivals, independent Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa. The attacks focused on Mamdani's controversial positions on Israel, which have alarmed parts of the city's Jewish community, and his aggressive rent control policies, which opponents claim will cripple the real estate market.
The political dynamics are complex and messy. Cuomo is positioning himself as the experienced, pragmatic alternative, trying to shed the baggage of his own scandals. Sliwa is facing calls from his own side to drop out and consolidate the anti-Mamdani vote behind Cuomo, a move that figures like Donald Trump have hinted at. Meanwhile, hundreds of rabbis signed a letter expressing deep concern over a potential Mamdani mayoralty. It’s a three-way brawl that's become a proxy for national debates on socialism, crime, and identity politics.
Analytical Take: As we noted yesterday, the establishment panic is real. The strategy to stop Mamdani is two-pronged: paint him as a radical anti-semite to peel off moderate Jewish voters, and as an economic fantasist to scare business and property owners. Cuomo's entire campaign is a bet that New Yorkers, when faced with a true leftist, will hold their nose and vote for a disgraced but familiar centrist. The pressure on Sliwa to quit is immense because as long as he's in the race, the anti-Mamdani vote is split. This election is a fascinating test case: can a well-organized, unapologetic socialist movement win power in America's largest city, even when facing a united front of establishment opposition?
A Self-Inflicted Wound for the White House Vetting Process
The nomination of Paul Ingrassia to lead the Office of Special Counsel—an independent agency that protects federal whistleblowers—has collapsed in embarrassing fashion. Ingrassia withdrew after racist and offensive text messages attributed to him were published by Politico. In the texts, he allegedly criticized Martin Luther King Jr. Day and bragged about having a "Nazi streak."
While Ingrassia's lawyer weakly suggested the texts might be manipulated, it was irrelevant. The damage was done. Crucially, it was a trio of Republican senators—Rick Scott, James Lankford, and Joni Ernst—who publicly announced they would not support him, effectively killing the nomination. Senate Majority Leader John Thune quickly signaled the votes weren't there, forcing the White House to pull the plug. The incident raises serious questions about the competence of the administration's vetting process for key appointments.
Analytical Take: This is a classic unforced error. The fact that these texts surfaced after the nomination went to the Senate suggests a laughably poor background check by the White House personnel office. For a nominee to be sunk by his own party over such toxic material is a sign of either extreme sloppiness or a belief they could ram anyone through. It feeds the narrative of an administration more focused on loyalty than on basic competence. The withdrawal itself is a minor event, but the reason for it provides a clear window into the chaotic nature of the administration's staffing and appointments process.