And So It Begins... Again

Donald Trump was sworn in again yesterday, in front of an audience of hundreds. And then he gave an inaugural address, as is the custom. If you would like to read it, you can do so here. If you would like to watch it, you can do so here. It was a fair bit longer than his previous inaugural address, and clocked in at right around half an hour.

The speech was somewhat disjointed and meandering, which makes it difficult to write about, except by highlighting main themes. So, forgive the prevalence of "list"-style items today, but that's how we're going to approach it, focusing on the five things that most stood out to us:

1. A Golden Age: At the very outset, Trump promised that "the golden age of America begins right now." He added: "From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world. We will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. During every single day of the Trump administration, I will, very simply, put America first."
   
   It is true that inaugural addresses are often a time for soaring rhetoric. One thinks of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural, or Franklin D. Roosevelt's first. However, if a president is going to go there, they have to be ready to deliver. Trump is, to put it mildly, not likely to do so. Indeed, the question that we think of, over and over, when he talks like this, is: "If you are capable of doing these things, how come you didn't accomplish them in your first term?"
   
   
2. Manifest Destiny: In a point somewhat related to the "golden age" material, Trump also promised to deliver on America's "manifest destiny." That's a phrase that is generally associated with the harms and the racism, particularly as directed against the Native Americans, that are a stain on 19th century American history. Either the President does not know that or, more likely, he doesn't care. His allusion to manifest destiny was specifically tied to planting an American flag on Mars, though it's not too hard to hear it as a hint that he's serious about pursuing Greenland and the Panama Canal.
   
   
3. Badmouthing Biden: With Joe Biden and Kamala Harris sitting just a few feet away, Trump ran through a litany of all the things that went wrong in the last 4 years, using words like "disastrous," "fail," "declined," and "unconstitutional." Outside of Trump, this just isn't done. With few exceptions (the Adamses, Martin Van Buren, Andrew Johnson and Trump in 2020), the outgoing president is in the audience for the inaugural address, and it's customarily a time for the new president to grit their teeth (if necessary) and thank them for their service. When the camera panned across the other ex-presidents in the audience (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama), the distaste was evident on their faces.
   
   Incidentally, if you are looking for a little merriment, Trump pronounced "decline" in a very curious way. You can see that moment, and Jon Stewart's response, here, if you wish. We're not exactly sure what a dickline is, but we bet it's drawn with a Sharpie.
   
   
4. Celebrating Himself: There was one former president in the room that meets with Trump's approval; that fellow also happens to be the current president. Trump spent much time burnishing elements of his image. For example—and you might not know this—he was the target of an assassination attempt several months back. He made sure to remind everyone of that fact, and how heroically he responded to it.
   
   Trump also wanted to make sure everyone knows how religious he is, and how very much he loves God. Indeed, during the assassination portion, he decreed: "I was saved by God to make America great again." It is remarkable that anyone can believe that he actually cares about Christianity, or any other religion. Such is the power of the brain to resolve cognitive dissonance, we suppose.
   
   Of course, part of Trump's image is that, despite being a fabulously wealthy man who escapes virtually all consequences for his actions, he is a victim for whom you should feel sorry. And so, that was another big element of the speech. "Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents—something I know something about," he declared, among other statements along those lines.
   
   
5. Lies, Lies, Lies: We would be remiss if we did not note that Trump is right back at it when it comes to stretching the truth, or fabricating lies out of whole cloth. If you want the gory details, CNN's Daniel Dale, who is definitely going to be earning his pay, at least until he's sent to the gulag, had a thorough rundown.

On the whole, whether you like the ideas expressed or not, it was a pretty mediocre speech. Although Trump has proven himself capable of delivering something of decent quality during these sorts of formal occasions (several of his SOTUs were solid), he offered nothing yesterday that we haven't already heard from him a million times before. He also delivered the speech in his default style, almost wholly without affect. That makes it sound like he's low on energy, about to fall asleep, and can barely get out the words.

We will note that the gallery, stacked mostly with Trump faithful, thought the address was fan-damn-tastic. The link to the speech above, which is from the White House, helpfully notes the 56 times he got applause from the crowd. That said, he could have just performed some of his dance routine while the sound engineer played "America: Fu** Yeah" from Team America: World Police, and he probably would have gotten 100 applauses. So while we note the crowd response, we don't think it's particularly instructive. Your mileage may vary, though. (Z)

The Trump Inauguration in Six Pictures

Let's look at the Trump inauguration in a different way, namely through pictures. Here are half a dozen images that speak to some of the big storylines of yesterday:

1. Hands Off: Donald Trump has a well-documented history of putting his hands where they do not belong. Yesterday, he made the opposite error, and neglected to put his hand on the Bible while being sworn in:
   
   
   
   This oversight has absolutely no legal significance, as there is (and can be) no religious test for office, and there is no requirement that someone taking the oath of office put their hand on a Bible or anything else.
   
   That said, there was much speculation yesterday as to what happened. The tongue-in-cheek answer is that Trump, despite what he was about to say in his inaugural address (see above), was worried that if he actually touched a Bible, it would burst into flames and burn his hand. Funny, perhaps, but not an actual answer to the question.
   
   The Occam's Razor explanation is that he just got caught up in the moment, and forgot about his left hand. We'd say that you're still in Occam's realm if you want to add to that the supposition that maybe he forgot because his mental sharpness is in decline.
   
   If you want to move beyond Occam, we can also offer two other possible explanations, though please note that they are just idle supposition. First, as some readers will know, when Napoleon was crowned emperor by Pope Pius VII, the Frenchman placed the crown on his own head, so as to make a statement about who was really in charge: God or Napoleon. It's not impossible there was a little messaging of that sort going on, though much of Trump's base would not be pleased if they caught on.
   
   The other explanation we came up with is that someone has gotten to Trump with a loony conspiracy theory, along the lines of "If you don't put your hand on the Bible, you can't be held legally responsible for violating the oath of office." There's a similar conspiracy theory that holds that you can lie in court, as long as you don't touch the Bible when you're sworn in as a witness. Needless to say, this is ridiculous, but with Team Trump, you never know.
   
   We will point out one other thing. If a Democrat's swearing-in was irregular, in any way, the right-wing media would be screaming bloody murder. We don't even have to guess about this; we know it's true. When Barack Obama was sworn in the first time, Chief Justice John Roberts got the words slightly out of order, and asked Obama to repeat "I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully" instead of the correct "I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." This does not change the meaning, at all, but because of carping from the right, Obama re-took the oath of office the next day, this time in the right order. We think it very unlikely that Trump will re-do his oath, with hand on Bible, because that would mean admitting he erred, and he does not often make such admissions, even with small things.
   
   
2. The First Lady: Melania Trump apparently put a great deal of thought into her inaugural outfit, consulting with several high-profile fashion designers. We could easily find the names, if we cared who they are, but we do not. Anyhow, here is what she ended up with:
   
   
   
   In general, we do not comment on women's fashion choices, as such commentary often veers into sexism. However, given that it's the First Lady, and that she put much time and thought into her presentation, and that her ultimate choice was so... distinctive, we think it's fair game, in this instance. Some people looked at her and saw the Quaker Oats guy, or maybe a mafioso circa 1935, or 1990s David Bowie, or any era Nick Cave. What's really worthy of notice, we think, is the extent to which the costume allows the First Lady to basically hide right out in the open. Is she embarrassed to be there? Or perhaps resentful? Or disinterested? Whatever is going on, it sends the message that you should definitely expect another 4 years of almost total absenteeism.
   
   
3. Feel the Bern: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has become an inauguration meme before, and he did it again yesterday:
   
   
   
   When he showed up in his puffy jacket and giant mittens in 2020, there were plenty of photographers there to capture the moment. Because yesterday's inaugural was in a small space, that was not true. So, the only "pictures" are screen captures from video footage. Nonetheless, even in this somewhat grainy format, you can tell how he feels about being there.
   
   
4. OK, John: Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) also engendered a fair bit of commentary yesterday:
   
   
   
   Presumably, this is part of the Senator's ongoing branding as a "salt of the earth, blue-collar" guy. Still, it is in very poor taste. If you're going to show up to an event like this, wear something appropriate to the occasion. There are relatively few people who dislike formal attire more than both of us do, but in this situation we'd either dress properly, or take a pass. It's also disrespectful to Donald Trump. Now, if you're Bernie Sanders or Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), "disrespectful to Donald Trump" is a feature, and not a bug. But everyone knows that, at the moment, Fetterman is trying to cozy up to the new president. This being the case, showing up to, and basically pi**ing on, the inauguration makes no sense.
   
   
5. The Moneyed Class: Meanwhile, as expected, the billionaires were front and center:
   
   
   
   

   Allow us to point out, first of all, that it is expected that, within the next decade, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk (all shown here) are expected to become the world's first trillionaires. Let us further point out that there are numerous politicians whose rise to power has been fueled by the money and support of the ultra-wealthy. However, as we've pointed out, those politicians usually keep the ultra-rich guys at arm's length (e.g., the presidents of the Gilded Age/Progressive eras and John D. Rockefeller/J.P. Morgan). Even Vlad Putin is happy to maintain tight relationships with rich Russians, but gets very angry if they insinuate themselves too directly into Russian politics. Trump, by contrast, hugs the billionaires (and future trillionaires) close.
   
   Note, incidentally, that our spell checker does not like "trillionaires." We don't like it either, although not for the same reasons.
   
   

6. THAT Salute: For all the wild and wooly things that Donald Trump said in his inaugural address, it may be Elon Musk that produced the biggest controversy of the day. After the inaugural, Musk was delivering a speech, and he did this:
   
   
   
   It's not so easy to capture in the form of a photograph, since he could plausibly be waving. However, if you watch the video, it's considerably less ambiguous. He clapped his hand to his chest, and then quickly extended his arm, hand out, palm down, holding it in that position for a second or two. Then... he did it again, for the benefit of the other half of the crowd.
   
   The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement and said that the gesture was "not a Nazi salute" and that people need to "take a breath." That said, the ADL is pretty pro-Trump, as they see him as an ally on Israel. Other Jewish leaders, particularly those outside the U.S. and so not likely to be targeted by Trump or his followers, disagreed.
   
   For our part, we can say three things. First, we know what a Nazi/fascist salute looks like, and that is it. If we walked into a classroom and did that, we would almost certainly be terminated. Second, the only thing that might save us is an immediate, and profuse, apology. Third, Musk has made no apology. And frankly, someone with his background (grew up during apartheid, owns a social media platform that tacitly—or maybe overtly—encourages racist behavior, etc.) is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Particularly when he does it twice.

And that's the big picture. Or, at least, six smaller pictures. (Z)

Trump Signs a Bushel of Executive Orders

As expected, and as is de rigueur for the commencement of presidential administrations these days, Donald Trump unleashed a slew of executive orders yesterday. The exact number depends on whether you count related XOs as one or as several, but the total is somewhere in the vicinity of 85. If you would like to pore through them, they've all been posted to the White House's newly redesigned, Trump-glorifying website:

That certainly doesn't scream "cult of personality." No, sir, not at all. Anyhow, here's a rundown of the 10 XOs/XO-related storylines we think are most worth noting:

1. Immigration: This was agenda item #1A, and in case you have been living under a rock for the last 10 years, and didn't know it, the Trump administration put the most sweeping immigration-related XO at the very top of the page of XOs, and gave it the ALL CAPS title "GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION." None of the other XOs have ALL CAPS titles.
   
   This was part of a group of immigration-related XOs that Trump promised during the campaign, and issued yesterday. In short order, he declared a national emergency at the border and said troops would be deployed there, decreed an end to birthright citizenship, announced that mass deportations would begin under the terms of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, designated several drug cartels as terrorist organizations, and paused all applications for refugee status for the next 3 months.
   
   Virtually everything listed here is clearly in violation of U.S. law, or else sets Trump up to do things that would violate U.S. law. Most obviously, there is no world in which an XO carries more weight than a constitutional amendment, so the birthright citizenship thing should be dead in the water (the ACLU will file its planned lawsuit sometime this week).
   
   Why does Trump do things that should not withstand legal scrutiny, especially given how many times he got smacked down during his first term? Maybe the important thing to him is the attempt, since he can tell his base that he's fighting the good fight, but it's hard to overcome the deep state. Maybe he thinks that if you throw enough dubious things at the wall, some of them will stick. Maybe he's persuaded that the judiciary is more Trump-friendly this time around. Maybe all of these things.
   
   Just hours after Trump issued these XOs, there was an exchange of gunfire between the border patrol and two individuals who were apparently trying to enter the country. The incident left one border patrol agent and one would-be immigrant dead. We doubt this can be attributed to Trump's XOs, but it certainly is an ominous harbinger of things (likely) to come.
   
   
2. Trans Americans: We won't dwell too much on the names of the XOs, which are pretty much all exercises in branding. However, the name of the anti-trans XO was particularly over-the-top: "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government." According to the administration, trans does not exist, and federal agencies should not take any actions that acknowledge the existence of trans people. The XO also offers an "official" definition of the two sexes, "grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality":

   "Female" means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
   
   "Male" means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

   We have an extended piece on this subject coming up soon, but just note for now that Trump and his Republican Party are never, ever, ever, going to stop beating this particular horse, no matter how dead that horse might become, and no matter how many times Democrats look the other way.
   
   
3. DEI: We don't think it's too far off to say that the three main boogeymen Trump ran against were immigrants, trans Americans, and DEI. And, of course, he lashed out in all three directions yesterday. In addition to all the anti-immigrant stuff, and the anti-trans XO, he also decreed an end to all executive branch DEI programs. We'll see how that works out on the military front, since the generals believe in DEI (for practical reasons), and since the courts have already said that the Pentagon's DEI programs are appropriate and useful.
   
   
4. Anti-Environment: Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Accords, struck down all existing federal mandates regarding electric vehicles, and threw Alaskan lands open to those who wish to "drill, baby, drill." The impact of these maneuvers is likely to be less than Trump thinks. The world is clearly sticking with the Accords, even if the U.S. joins and then drops out every 4 years; state-level mandates and consumer demand are going to drive EV purchases even without federal encouragement; and, as we have noted many times, petroleum producers are loath to commit to expensive drilling projects that could well be shut down the next time there is a Democratic administration.
   
   
5. Anti-Biden: Trump also canceled 78 Joe Biden-era XOs. Most of the now-dead initiatives involve the environment, promotion of diversity, or oversight. For some reason, Trump prefers that the Supreme Court and the Census Bureau, in particular, be given a free hand. Wonder why?
   
   
6. Anti-Health: Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization, and also got rid of all federal vaccine mandates. Make America Germy Again is the idea, it would seem.
   
   
7. DOGE: To the extent that the not-authorized-by-Congress "Department" of Government Efficiency can be official, Trump made it so yesterday with one of his XOs. Not that things are going well on that front (see below).
   
   
8. Place Names: Under the title "Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness," Trump did as promised, and "renamed" Denali as Mt. McKinley and the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. We put "renamed" in quotes, because it is very improbable that the new names will be adopted by anyone besides federal government employees who have no choice. Also, the Gulf of Mexico has never been known as the Gulf of America, so "Restoring" is a misnomer, in this case.
   
   
9. TikTok: As promised, Trump paused the TikTok ban, for 75 days. Let us point out again that the law banning TikTok does allow for a one-time extension, but only if progress is being made toward a sale. There is no indication that ByteDance has made any effort to sell, so by granting them an extension under these circumstances, Trump is unambiguously subverting a law passed by Congress. It does not seem probable that anyone who might hold him accountable here will try to do so. We can only hope he's held accountable when the law-breaking becomes more serious. Note that we wrote "hope" he will be held accountable, not "expect" he will be held accountable.
   
   
10. Tariffs: One thing that Trump did not do, despite many, many campaign declarations to the contrary, is impose Day 1 tariffs on China (or Canada, or Mexico, or anyone else). He took the rather more flimsy move of ordering the federal agencies to "study" the trade deficit between the U.S. and those nations.

So, it was a busy day for the new president. The bad news for him is that issuing XOs is the easy part, and it gets much harder from here. (Z)

Get Along, Little DOGE-y

Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency formally came into existence less than 24 hours ago, and it's already got a fair bit of turmoil.

To start with, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are no longer co-leaders of DOGE. Before Donald Trump was even sworn in, Ramaswamy announced that he was resigning, so that he can mount a bid for the governorship of Ohio.

Surely there is nobody on Earth who actually believes that's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. First of all, it does not take 2 years to mount a proper run for governor of Ohio. Even presidential campaigns tend to take only 14-18 months. Second, whatever campaigning or fundraising Ramaswamy might do in the next 6 months cannot possibly be as useful to him as it would be if he could say "Before I ran for governor, I was able to help cut $[X] billion in wasteful federal spending. I can do the same for Ohio."

So what actually happened here? The fundamental problem is that Ramaswamy alienated both Musk and Trump. In baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. In DOGEball, by contrast, you only get two strikes. All three of those men fancy themselves to be "alpha males," or whatever the hot new right-wing term for that concept is. So, it was not likely that Washington would be big enough for the three of them, at least not for long. And the final straw, apparently, was the public dustup over H-1B visas, where Ramaswamy loudly took the "con" position, while Musk took the "pro" position. As a result of that, Musk decided that his co-DOGEy had to go, and put the matter to Trump. Unfortunately for Ramaswamy, he's not the one who has $400 billion in net worth, along with a wide-reaching social media platform.

All of this said, we suspect Ramaswamy isn't terribly unhappy that he's been shown the door. He is one of the most obnoxious people alive, but he's not stupid. And he is surely capable of figuring out that DOGE is fighting an uphill battle. And by uphill, we really mean "climbing Mount Everest without shoes, socks, oxygen, or a Sherpa to assist." The odds are high that the effort will fail spectacularly. And if it does, well, better for an aspiring governor to not end up with that particular egg on his face.

Not that we think that Ramaswamy's gubernatorial bid is likely to work out. He has no political experience, and not only is he obnoxious, he has a bad habit of going off half-cocked. He's going to be up against a number of rivals, several who have already won statewide in Ohio. And given yesterday's somewhat nasty divorce, he cannot count on the support of MAGAworld. There's been no polling yet, not even of hypothetical matchups, but we certainly wouldn't want to place any money on him.

Meanwhile, beyond the infighting, there was some more bad news for DOGE yesterday. Just minutes after Trump was inaugurated, and before he'd even signed the executive order making DOGE official, the lawsuits began to fly. The first of those, and the one that appears to be most substantial, is courtesy of the activist group National Security Counselors. The argument made (which is echoed in two of the other suits) is that the creation of DOGE violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), because the Trump administration did not follow the proper rules in terms of staffing, public comment, etc.

In short, just in case you had any doubt, there is going to be a LOT of legal wrangling in the world of politics in the next 4 years. Thank goodness we now have a contributor who is a lawyer. (Z)

Biden, Trump Stage Pardon-o-Rama

Since the 1970s, or so, Inauguration Day is a time when the pardons tend to fly fast and furious. The outgoing administration generally squeezes in its most controversial pardons during those last few hours, when attention is going to be muted by inauguration news. The incoming administration has often committed itself to immediate pardons of [X group or person unjustly charged/convicted/imprisoned].

Even with that expectation in mind, yesterday was unusual in terms of how... aggressively the pardon power was used by the two presidents. We'll start with Joe Biden, who commuted the sentence of Native American rights activist Leonard Peltier. Peltier has been in prison for just shy of half a century, having been convicted of the murder of two FBI agents in 1975, and has been a cause célèbre for nearly all of that time ("Free Leonard Peltier" bumper stickers were once a hot-ticket item). Now he will spend his remaining days under home confinement.

There was a time when the Peltier commutation would have been a massive, and extremely controversial, story. Not yesterday, however. It barely showed up on the radar, in large part because Biden also preemptively pardoned several members of his family (his siblings and their spouses), the entire 1/6 Committee and the witnesses who testified before them, Anthony Fauci, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley.

Before we continue, we will anticipate and answer a question that some readers are sure to have. The various folks who got pardons yesterday, and who issued public comments, were grateful to Biden. For example, Milley said:

My family and I are deeply grateful for the President's action today. After 43 years of faithful service in uniform to our Nation, protecting and defending the Constitution, I do not wish to spend whatever remaining time the Lord grants me fighting those who unjustly might seek retribution for perceived slights.

Although Donald Trump and many Republicans claimed otherwise yesterday, acceptance of/gratitude for a pardon does not carry with it an imputation of guilt. The Supreme Court has commented on this just one time, and it was an offhand comment in a decision over a century ago. Though that comment could be read as implying that acceptance equals guilt, it is not definitive. And there has been some amount of jurisprudence at the lower levels of the court system in which it was explicitly found that acceptance of a pardon does NOT imply guilt.

Nobody knows, at least not yet, exactly how Biden compiled the list that he compiled. Undoubtedly, all of the people he pardoned have been threatened with persecution and with prosecution by MAGAworld. However, the single most obvious target is surely former special counsel Jack Smith, who apparently did not get a pardon. Not far below Smith on the list is soon-to-be-former-AG Merrick Garland, who also apparently did not get a pardon. Nor did any of the judges who oversaw Trump cases. Aileen Cannon did not need one, but what about Juan Merchan and Arthur Engoron? It's possible that these folks did receive pardons, and we just don't know about it yet. But if they did not, it will be interesting to learn why they were excluded. Assuming we ever do learn, that is.

Moving along, once Trump was inaugurated, he got in on the pardon party, too, issuing pardons for the great majority of the people charged with, or convicted for, crimes related to the 1/6 insurrection. On one hand, most of the pardonees from yesterday had already served their sentences, so all the pardon does is remove a conviction from their criminal records. On the other hand, the pardons did include some dangerous and frightening people, including Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes.

We certainly understand why both presidents made the choices they did. Biden had a finite amount of time to act, and had to speculate as to how serious Trump and his minions are about going after their "enemies." Obviously, Trump never did "lock her up" when it came to Hillary Clinton, and so maybe such threats would have again proven to be hot air. On the other hand, there were a lot more enemies this time, many of them with fewer financial and legal resources at their disposal than Clinton. Further, Trump has been given a rather freer hand by the Supreme Court. Surely the odds were (and maybe still are) better than 50/50 that he would make a move against an "enemy." That being the case, Biden swallowed hard and made the tough call.

As to Trump, he was painted into something of a corner. First, he continues to assert that what happened on January 6, 2021, was entirely lawful. His adoring, right-wing mediasphere is right with him on that point. Further, he promised, over and over, to pardon the 1/6 insurrectionists. These two things being the case, he had relatively little choice but to issue the pardons. And if he was going to do it anyhow, better to do it on a day full of news, when the pardon stories would get drowned out a bit.

Note, however, that just because we understand the pardons does not necessarily mean that we approve. Biden made a tough choice, but one that also cheapened the pardon power. When Trump's term ends in 2029, he will undoubtedly issue a whole raft of pardons to friends, allies, family members and the like, probably including himself. And there's no reason to think that this won't be standard operating procedure for all presidents going forward, at least while the MAGA movement is in effect.

As to Trump, the primary purpose of the pardon power is to allow for miscarriages of justice to be corrected. A secondary purpose is to give presidents a bargaining chip, in the event they are trying to bring an end to a rebellion or some other such crisis (indeed, the first ever presidential pardons were issued by George Washington, as part of a deal to get the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion to stand down). Trump's pardons yesterday have nothing to do with either of these purposes. He just doesn't like that his supporters were punished for their illegal acts, and so decided to let them skate, because he could.

Finally, let us point out that because both sets of pardons were issued on the same day, and both sets were controversial, some folks are drawing an equivalency between them. This is a false equivalency. Biden's pardons may be problematic and concerning, but the people he pardoned are not violent, and are not convicted felons. Some of the people that Trump pardoned, by contrast, ARE violent, and many of them are convicted felons. There is no reason to think that Anthony Fauci or Mark Milley, pardon in hand, are going to turn around and do harm to people. There is every reason to think that Enrique Tarrio or Stewart Rhodes will do so. (Z)

Senate Gets Right to Work

Among the states with at least one current Democratic U.S. senator, here are the 10 with the closest results from the 2024 presidential election (the margin between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is in parentheses; negative numbers indicate states that Harris won):

1. Wisconsin (0.87%): Tammy Baldwin
2. Michigan (1.41%): Gary Peters, Elissa Slotkin
3. Pennsylvania (1.71%): John Fetterman
4. Georgia (2.20%): Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock
5. New Hampshire (-2.78%): Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan
6. Nevada (3.10%): Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen
7. Minnesota (-4.24%): Amy Klobuchar, Tina Smith
8. Arizona (5.53%): Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego
9. Virginia (-5.78%): Tim Kaine, Mark Warner
10. New Jersey (-5.91%): Cory Booker, Andy Kim

Why do we mention this? Keep reading.

Once the inauguration was over yesterday, and the Capitol Rotunda had been cleared, the members of the Senate rolled up the sleeves on their shirts, and their hoodies, and got to work. It is customary to confirm at least a few Cabinet or Cabinet-level officers on Inauguration Day, with a particular emphasis on those folks whose jobs involve national security. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had five potential votes lined up, but only one person was able to secure unanimous consent, and thus to be confirmed yesterday. That person, as you might guess, was Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who is now officially Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He thus becomes the first member of Trump's second Cabinet.

And though there was only one confirmation, the Trump administration got some additional good news on that front yesterday. As expected, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to advance the nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense to the full Senate. The vote was entirely along party lines, 14-13. It is now a near-certainly that Hegseth will be confirmed. First, because nominees are almost never "rejected;" if they can't get confirmed, they are told behind the scenes to drop out. Second, because if Hegseth was going to be rejected, some of the Republican votes he would probably have to lose are members of the Armed Services Committee. Put another way, it's not probable he would go 14-0 with Armed Services Republicans, but 35-4 with the rest of the Republican conference.

If that is not enough, Trump also got a partial victory when the Senate approved the Laken Riley Act, 64-35. It's not exactly the same bill that the House approved, so there's a little more work to be done on Capitol Hill, but the legislation will undoubtedly end up on Trump's desk later this week, or early next week. Then it will go from a partial victory to a full victory.

As a reminder, the soon-to-be-law legislation requires the detention of undocumented immigrants who are accused of misdemeanor-level crimes. Although Laken Riley was killed by a person matching that description, the bill is not going to save many lives, since the vast majority of people who commit misdemeanors, whether undocumented immigrant or not, are not going to move on to committing murder. It's not especially different from passing a law that says that, for example, anyone who commits a misdemeanor while wearing blue jeans should be detained. You'll catch a few potential murderers, just by chance, but not very many, particularly as a percentage of the overall number of detainees. Meanwhile, by making it much easier to have undocumented immigrants jailed, the law encourages scapegoating, and creates a due process nightmare. It will certainly be challenged in court, though we have no idea how that might turn out.

So, who are the 12 Democrats who voted for the legislation? How about we list them by state, with reference to how close that state was in last year's presidential election?

1. Michigan (1.41%): Gary Peters, Elissa Slotkin
2. Pennsylvania (1.71%): John Fetterman
3. Georgia (2.20%): Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock
4. New Hampshire (-2.78%): Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan
5. Nevada (3.10%): Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen
6. Arizona (5.53%): Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego
7. Virginia (-5.78%): Mark Warner

Perhaps you notice that this bears a striking resemblance to the list above. It is improbable that the great majority of senators in purple states just so happen to have greater insight into immigration policy than the senators in the blue states. Similarly, one cannot argue that these are the states most affected by immigration, since non-border states like Virginia and Georgia are here, while border states like California and New Mexico are not.

No, it could not be more clear that, as we have written previously, many Democratic senators have decided they got killed on immigration in 2024, and that they will have to move to the right, at least in cases where their next reelection could be close. The only Democratic senators from the nine closest states who did NOT vote for the bill are Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and the two Minnesotans. Maybe they feel confident that they can win reelection without pandering to xenophobia, or maybe they just have a different moral compass. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger