Minneapolis Is Apparently the Hill that The White House Wants to Die On, Part X

Yesterday, the Trump administration got some good(?) news from Judge Eric Tostrud, whom Donald Trump appointed to the bench back in 2018. We write "good(?)" because this theoretically shouldn't be good news at all. It should, in fact, be completely irrelevant. But with this administration...

Anyhow, in an emergency order issued last week, Tostrud forbade the federal government from destroying any evidence related to the killing of Alex Pretti. Yesterday, in an 18-page ruling, Tostrud lifted the order. His reasoning is that there are already laws in place that protect evidence from being destroyed, and that his personal, ongoing supervision of the matter would be excessive and redundant.

Tostrud also observed that the situation has changed since he made his initial ruling, and that now the FBI has taken over the investigation, assuaging concerns about the mishandling of evidence. The Judge concedes, in his ruling, that he doesn't actually have direct confirmation of this (seemingly critical) fact, and that he's relying on "media reports." This being the case, it seems a little odd that he's not familiar with the voluminous "media reports" about the kind of person FBI Director Kash Patel is, and the ways in which Patel has abused his office for political purposes.

Again, this really should not be good news. It should be non-news. The only way it is good news for the administration is if it was planning to destroy or otherwise mishandle evidence. We suppose we aren't as kind-hearted and optimistic as Tostrud is, because that is exactly what we expect the administration to do, whether it's the FBI, or ICE, or some other entity that does it. The good news for anyone who cares about things like truth and justice is that the most damning evidence of all, namely the videos, are already out there for the world to see, and they aren't going away, no matter what Patel does.

That's about the only judicial good news for the White House on the Minnesota front, though. Otherwise, it's been pretty disastrous for the last week or so. We'll start with the utter fiasco that is the detention of 5-year-old Liam Ramos. Ramos' parents, for those who have not followed the story, are immigrants from Ecuador who arrived in the U.S. in 2024. They say they applied for asylum, and have followed the process as instructed. The Trump administration says the Ramoses are in the country illegally. Given that the Trump administration pooh-poohs the validity of asylum, it is possible that both sides are saying the exact same thing. In any event, there is evidence to back up the asylum claim.

The Ramos family lives not only in Minneapolis, but in a part of Minneapolis that has been a particular target of ICE. A little over a week ago, the agency showed up to detain, at very least, Liam's father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias. When the agents arrived, Liam happened to be in the driveway, and so he was detained, too. Why was he detained? That depends on who you ask. ICE officers claim they tried to hand Ramos off to his mother, but she refused to take him, and so they took young Liam for humanitarian purposes. The Ramos family claims that ICE was using Liam as bait to try to get his mother out of the house, so that she could be detained, as well. Since she is pregnant, and has other children to watch out for, she refused to come outside. In response to this, DHS officials declared they would never, ever use a child as bait.

Who is telling the truth here? Well, there's at least one piece of evidence that hints at an answer. Liam Ramos is not the first child from his school to be detained. Or the second. Or even the third. Nope, this is the fourth time that a child from the same school has been snatched up by ICE officers in the last couple of weeks. Either there are a lot of unusually indifferent mothers in Minneapolis, or something stinks in the state of Minnesota. More specifically, it is either the case that ICE is trying to use kids as bait, or else that the Trump administration regards kids as being no different from their parents, and equally undesirable, and so valid targets of enforcement actions. Of course, it could be both of these things.

If someone is going to be the face of your administration's fight against undocumented immigration, you would undoubtedly prefer someone who looks something like this:

We are not paid political consultants, but we think that this is probably a tad less effective, messaging-wise:

If we WERE political consultants, and we were working for this administration, we would advise that Liam Ramos be released and returned to his mother, even if the father remains in detention. But that's not how this administration works; when Team Trump screws up, it just doubles down. So, the two Ramoses were not only kept in lock-up, they were transferred to a famously brutal facility in Texas, more than 1,000 miles away. This is a common practice these days—to spirit those whom ICE detains away to far-flung detention centers before they can exercise any of their rights or even before their status is known. Thereafter it was for the courts to decide.

And now, they have decided. Late Friday, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who sits in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas, ordered that Ramos and his father be released. In his brief and scathing order, the judge included the now-iconic photo of Liam and accused the agents and DHS of deliberately ignoring a quaint little document called the Declaration of Independence and the "pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment." The order is short and worth a read in its entirety, but here is a salient quote: "Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer."

Biery also doesn't mince words in describing how we got here: "The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children." And the Judge offers this withering takedown of those in power who are pushing and celebrating these tactics: "Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned." That goes quite a bit farther than he needed to with this order and is a sobering pronouncement. Biery doesn't name names, but he doesn't really have to. In his conclusion, after quoting Ben Franklin ("a republic, if you can keep it") the Judge signs the order with this closing "With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike." Underneath his signature is Liam's photo and two Bible verses, Matthew 19:14 ("let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these") and John 11:35 ("Jesus wept.").

On Sunday, DHS followed the court's order and released both Liam and his father and they returned home to Minneapolis. They were accompanied home by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) who said that he is also trying to secure the release of all families from the Dilley detention center, where they were held, where unsafe and unsanitary conditions have led to protests outside and inside the facility.

Pointed orders like the one from Biery are becoming a nearly everyday phenomenon. More and more district judges are sounding the alarm and trying to hold on to what remains of the rule of law in this country. Last week, after repeated violations of his order to release Juan Robles, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (District Court in Minnesota) threatened to hold Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt unless Robles was released. For his order, in which he said "ICE is not a law unto itself," Schiltz took the unprecedented step of appending a list of 96 court orders that ICE has violated just in the Twin Cities alone and just in the month of January as part of "Operation Metro Surge." He added: "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."

Shortly after Schiltz's order, his colleague, Judge John R. Tunheim, blocked ICE from targeting thousands of refugees residing lawfully in Minnesota, and ordered any that had been detained to be released and returned to Minnesota. Under "Operation PARRIS," ICE has been sweeping up refugees already in the system but awaiting permanent resident status. You know, people like the Ramoses. Judge Tunheim noted, "These refugees have undergone rigorous background checks and vetting, been approved by multiple federal agencies for entry, been given permission to work, received support from the government, and been resettled in the United States. Because of conditions in their home countries, they have been deemed of special humanitarian concern to the United States. None have been deemed a danger to the community or a flight risk. None have been charged with any ground for removal."

In other words, these people followed all the rules and have done nothing wrong, but Trump, Stephen Miller and company want them in prison anyway. The judge described one man who was lured outside by someone claiming to have hit his car. When he went outside to look, he was surrounded by heavily armed agents and shoved into the back of a van. He was flown to Texas and kept in shackles and handcuffs and interrogated for 16 hours. In a separate order regarding a legal refugee from Myanmar, a nursing mother who was flown out of Minnesota before she could challenge her detention, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that "There is simply no legal reason for keeping this mother 1800 miles away from her family," adding later in his ruling: "There is something particularly craven about transferring a nursing refugee mother out-of-state."

This sort of cruelty is being visited upon many, if not most, of the people being indiscriminately taken. And remember, there are no removal orders to deport such people, so they are just sitting in warehouses in deplorable and inhumane conditions where there have been documented human rights abuses. The private prison companies that run these places, like CoreCivic, are raking it in, but even they don't have the staff or ability to build out the needed capacity this quickly.

Meanwhile, there is less and less of an opportunity for any kind of due process so they might get out of the hellholes in which they are being dumped. When immigrants are detained, they have the right to a bond hearing so they can be released pending the adjudication of their cases. But the administration no longer allows those hearings in immigration court, so each detainee has to file for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, which requires finding a lawyer. Most do not have the resources so they languish in whatever camp they are sent to. Last Wednesday a class action was filed on behalf of the thousands who are being held in a makeshift detention camp at the Whipple federal building in Minneapolis. And on Monday, Judge Jia Cobb ordered DHS to allow Congressional representatives unfettered access to detention centers without notice, blocking a new policy requiring a week's notice before a visit.

For those that do file a habeas petition, there is now a huge backlog of such petitions in the courts. This has not gotten much attention, but it's putting an enormous strain on the court system. Since ICE descended on Minnesota, the District of Minnesota's seven full-time judges, along with some semi-retired judges, have been pressed into service to address the surge in cases. There have been 280 habeas petitions filed in one month, where in the average month there are usually around ten.

Understand that federal judges operate with restraint and precision in their language. They are not given to hyperbole and generally abhor its display by the advocates appearing before them. So, when these same judges, regardless of who appointed them (and each of the last five presidents is represented in this item), offer unsolicited screeds about ever-increasing volumes, and ever more egregious abuses of law, we would do well to heed their warnings. They do not cry wolf and are not Chicken Little. There is simply no reason for all these resources to be taken from actual crime-fighting and diverted to snatching up law-abiding, hard-working people, many of whom are U.S. citizens, just because they are not white.

Of course, for many in the White House, with Miller in particular leaping to mind, all of this is a feature, not a bug. The administration wants people to "self-deport," and the more misery they can visit on brown people, the more likely those brown people will decide that remaining in the U.S. just isn't worth it. Further, Miller and some of the others hate these people on a visceral level. Because these folks were born brown and not American, they are seen as the enemy. And what do you want your enemy to do, while you are trying to defeat them? You want them to suffer.

The judges are having none of it, though, and one can only imagine the folks in the robes are going to get less and less patient and more and more assertive. In particular, if the day comes that a judge holds someone like Miller or DHS Secretary Kristi Noem or Border czar Tom Homan in criminal contempt, and orders them jailed, the dam could break, and other judges might well begin following suit en masse, once that the Rubicon has been crossed.

Meanwhile, and this is the overall theme of this series, this kind of lawless behavior, particularly when targeted at sympathetic figures like Liam Ramos, is politically disastrous. Look, in particular, at the election in Tarrant County in Texas this weekend. Take note of the fact that Tarrant County is 30% Latino. And think about what that means for November's elections. (L & Z)

The Clintons Have Agreed to Testify before Congress... Probably?

We've been trying to get to this story for several days, but there's just so much stuff right now. Anyhow, let's start with this foundation: House Oversight Committee James Comer (R-KY) wants to drag Bill and Hillary Clinton in front of his committee for some political theater, grilling them about Jeffrey Epstein. This is undoubtedly to shift attention away from Donald Trump (and maybe Elon Musk, as it turns out), and to make the case that the Clintons are the actual bad guys here.

There are two things, in particular, that make clear this is political theater. The first is that Hillary Clinton is being targeted. She had nothing to do with Epstein, and there is nothing in the documents to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the whole GOP narrative surrounding Bill Clinton—that he was using his ties to Epstein to indulge in extramarital dalliances—makes no sense if Hillary was also in the room. The second is that other folks who have "testified" have been allowed to submit written and/or video depositions. But Comer has demanded that the Clintons present themselves in person, so he can get them under the bright, white lights. Their initial response: "Uh, no."

We very seriously doubt that the Clintons are trying to cover anything up. The evidence seems to suggest that Epstein was a high-profile political donor, and that Bill Clinton was casually friendly with him, as Clinton was with hundreds and hundreds of political donors. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that something more serious took place. But if so, there's no proof of it in the Epstein files. There's not even a suggestion of it. If there was anything close to a smoking gun, then that evidence would have been among the first documents to be released. Indeed, that evidence surely would have made its way from the Department of Justice to the House Oversight Committee long before any of the other document dumps.

The much more plausible answer for the Clintons' refusal to testify is that they know Comer is trying to set a trap for them. Even if they are perfect, the rumors will continue to swirl, particularly among folks who desperately want to excuse Trump from wrongdoing. And there's a non-zero chance they won't be perfect. The Clintons are smart people who are used to this kind of thing. But they're also in their seventies, and may not quite have their fastballs anymore. Plus, they have no idea what rabbit—real, or invented—Comer might pull out of his hat. When Jack Smith was grilled, there was a limited data set to work with, and it was a data set where Smith himself had supervised the preparation. With the Epstein files, there are millions and millions of documents (and that's before we consider the possibility of a little assistance from AI).

Once the Clintons refused to testify, the right-wing politicians and media blew a gasket, complaining about an alleged cover-up, and also decreeing that, once again, the Clintons think they are above the law. We would agree that there are some presidents who feel that way, though we don't know if Bill Clinton is one of them. Anyhow, Comer teed up a contempt vote. Many Democrats want to be ideologically pure on the Epstein files, and to say that they supported full transparency, regardless of a person's political affiliation. So, a bunch of Democrats on the Oversight Committee voted to approve the contempt resolution, and a bunch of Democrats were ready to vote for the resolution when it was put before the entire House of Representatives, which was supposed to happen today.

Now, however, it would appear that is on hold, because the Clintons have backed down and agreed to testify. They (or, more accurately their lawyers) say they have agreed to Comer's terms. Comer, for his part, has not confirmed that, nor has he said he is ready to schedule their appearance. The "they are avoiding my Committee" scenario is actually probably more useful to the GOP than the "we got them under the bright, white lights" scenario, since while a slip-up is a possibility, it's not a likelihood. Given his motivations, Comer might still find something ticky-tack to object to, and might say he has no choice but to move ahead with the contempt resolution. Presumably, all will be revealed today.

When it comes to the Clintons, we are sure of two things. The first is that they are very shrewd political operators, with more savvy in their pinky fingers than Comer has in his whole body. The second is that they are loyal Democrats, and are willing to do what is best for the Party. What we don't entirely understand is what the Clintons' game was here. They knew that Comer was certain to go for contempt if they told him to screw off. So, what was the purpose of dragging their feet?

We have thought about it a fair bit, and we have three theories. The first is that they thought the other Democrats would accept that this is just political theater, and would have their backs. Clinton friend, and equally veteran political operative Nancy Pelosi, seems to have felt that way, and she dressed down several Democrats for playing ball with Comer.

The second possibility is that the longer that this drags out, the more that EpsteinPot Dome is in the headlines. And it's possible that the Clintons have concluded, very possibly correctly, that the more coverage that Epstein gets, the worse it is for Donald Trump and the GOP. After all, outside of James Comer's fantasy world, Trump is vastly more heavily implicated than Bill Clinton or just about anyone else. Further, the Clintons are out of office and have been for years, while Trump is the sitting president and the leader of his political party.

The third possibility, which is both the most boring and the most likely, is that the Clintons were just buying time to negotiate the terms of their testimony. Since details are in flux, it is unclear what concessions they may have gotten, if any. Again, all will likely be revealed today. And the time will likely soon come that the Clinton angle will be played out, and will cease to be of interest to anyone but the rabid anti-Clinton, pro-MAGA faction. For everyone else, this will go back to being primarily a Trump story. (Z)

The Law of Unintended Consequences, Firearms Edition

Donald Trump's view of the Second Amendment is pretty simple. People who support him should have all the guns they want, in any place they want to have them. The bigger the guns, the more bullets they fire per trigger-pull, the more damage they do when hitting a target, the better. By contrast, people who oppose him should have no guns at all. And if some Second Amendment spoilsport does sell a gun to a non-Trumper, then that non-Trumper should leave that gun under lock and key at all times, and should never even touch it, much less carry it while out in public.

The problem for Trump, of course, is that the Second Amendment doesn't lay things out in quite that way. Reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," but whatever the interpretation of that clause is, it applies to everyone equally. And since Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly from the current SCOTUS, has made clear that "A well regulated Militia" means "pretty much everyone," then the current state of play is that nearly any adult in the U.S. who wants a gun, and follows the local laws, can have one.

In their desperate attempts to make Alex Pretti responsible for his own homicide (see above), Trump and MAGA have tried to push a line along the lines of "if you're carrying a gun in the presence of police, you're asking for it." The NRA and other gun groups, to their credit, instantly pushed back against this. These groups may be rather fanatical, and most of them may be thinly veiled fronts for the gun industry, but at least they are not hypocrites. And the fact that MAGA and the NRA are on different sides here has given us one of the more interesting and unexpected squabbles in recent political history.

And if that's not weird and unexpected enough, Second Amendment advocates find themselves with a new source of reinforcements these days: liberals. There have always been left-leaning gun groups, groups that exist to serve folks who want guns for the most common reasons (hunting, self-defense, etc.) and who happen to be politically liberal, or groups that exist to help make sure that vulnerable people (e.g., LGBTQ+) are armed as an insurance policy. At the moment, and in response to the violence in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities, left-leaning gun groups like L.A. Progressive Shooters (left-wing Angelenos), Pink Pistols Twin Cities (gay Minnesotans), Grassroots Defense (liberal Iowans), the National African American Gun Association (Black people) and the John Brown Gun Club (anti-fascists/anti-racists) are seeing a massive surge in interest.

The linked article contains interviews with the leaders of some of these groups, who offer all-purpose explanations for what's going on. For example, the fellow who created the National African American Gun Association says, "People join when certain people get in office, because it scares them. People join when they see these shootings across the country, and it seems like it's just madness starting to grow more and more."

That may be partly on target, but it goes beyond that, we think. First of all, it's been well established in the scientific literature that conservatives tend to be more fearful than liberals. So, "gun sales surge in response to the election of Barack Obama"? OK, that tracks. But "gun sales surge in response to the election of Donald Trump"? It works less well and, in fact, it didn't happen. The visible increase in left-wing gun ownership, and left-wing interest in gun ownership, did not come with the first or second swearings-in of Trump (or, for that matter, after the first or second swearings-in of George W. Bush). It came after ICE was deployed as the President's personal stormtroopers.

Speaking as someone who has at least kicked the tires on gun ownership in the last few weeks, after a lifetime of never even having touched a gun, (Z) might be able to offer a bit more insight. First, a world in which the country had no guns, or few guns, would surely be safer, and therefore would be better. But that's not the world we live in, and it's not the world that is likely to exist in the lifetime of anyone reading this. And so, failure to exercise the Second Amendment right of gun ownership arguably puts someone in a self-imposed position of weakness. It is, literally, bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Meanwhile, it's not particularly true for brown people, but at least for white Americans, it has generally been the case that law enforcement would play by certain rules of engagement. In essence, if you did not break the law, and you did not directly threaten an officer's safety, you were not at risk of being shot. It should be that way for all Americans, of course, but that's not been the case. And now, with ICE, it's not that way for ANY Americans. ICE goes into places where it has no business, engages with people who are not its responsibility, and often fires first and asks questions later. And when law enforcement has gone rogue, protecting one's self becomes a much more pressing concern.

Finally, if one is going to pursue gun ownership, and is going to do so in a safe and responsible way, that takes a lot of time. You have to go through the process for actually buying the weapon, which, at least in California, involves studying for the test they give you (and passing it), then waiting for a background check, then waiting 10 days once you've passed the background check. You also have to have a Department-of-Justice-approved safe installed in your residence, with proof you've got it before you can take possession of your gun. Once you've got the weapon, then being responsible means taking a class in gun use and gun safety. That takes anywhere from 2-8 weeks, assuming you can get a slot (and they're all jammed solid for months right now). The point is that if one feels a gun is necessary, well, by the time the jackboots have occupied your city, it's too late.

It is worth noting that the response of the Trump administration to all of this has been typical. The White House could, you know, back down on the violent, and arguably radical, enforcement of immigration policy. Instead, it's trying to make its deny-guns-to-our-opponents strategy as viable as is possible. Currently, the DoJ is considering trying to ban trans people from owning guns, or to deny gun ownership to anyone who does not put their gender at birth on their application for gun ownership. So, we could soon be looking at an alliance of NRA + brown people + white liberals + trans people. That's quite the reshuffling of the political deck.

Anyhow, we are absolutely convinced that the surge in left-wing interest in guns isn't just your standard "I don't agree with the party in power" reaction, and that it is related specifically to the violent and authoritarian policies of the Trump administration. If so, that is suggestive as to what will happen with future invasions by ICE (i.e., people are ready and prepared to resist). It may also be suggestive as to what will happen at the ballot box in November (i.e., people are extremely motivated to throw as many bums out as possible).

Trump may well end up doing more to promote the Second Amendment, and the pro-gun interpretation thereof, than any president in the last century. Just not in the way that he, or the NRA, planned. (Z)

The Talented Mr. Ed Martin Will Soon Be Out of a Job, Apparently

Do folks remember the name "Ed Martin"? He is the partisan hack with a law degree who was Donald Trump's initial nominee to be U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Given the nature of the cases that pass through that circuit, that is a position of enormous importance. It also means that if you are someone like Martin—a key architect of "stop the steal"—you're in a position to put the two Dicks, Nixon and Cheney, to shame when it comes to abusing government power in service of persecuting political enemies.

Martin's problem is that the only thing that exceeds his fervor for MAGA is his stupidity. It is Politics 101 that if you are nominee for a key position, you don't do ANYTHING to rock the boat until you are actually confirmed to that position. Then, once you're basically bulletproof, you can go to town. Martin apparently did not grasp this very basic concept, and so he hit the ground running when it came to partisan witch hunts. In so doing, he made himself radioactive enough that even the pliant Senate Republican Conference could not approve him. Let us recall that this is the exact same group of people that was able to swallow hard and give its blessing to Robert Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and Kristi Noem. You have to be pretty nutty for your nuttiness to be even nuttier than the nuttery of that trio.

When it became clear that Martin had no hope of confirmation, he was moved over to the White House, and put in charge of the Department of Justice's "Weaponization Group." Officially, the job of that group was to investigate prosecutors accused of having weaponized the Justice Department AGAINST Donald Trump. In every accusation there is a confession, of course, and the real purpose of the group was to weaponize the Justice Department FOR Trump.

Yesterday, the news broke that Martin has been demoted, has had all his powers stripped, and will soon be out of a job entirely. The White House is not confirming that, and so it's certainly not saying why he has been demoted and pushed out. However, the administration isn't denying it either, and numerous outlets have confirmed the news with off-the-record sources.

We can think of two plausible explanations for this development. The first, and less likely, is that there's something in the Epstein documents dump that makes Martin look really, really bad. In that case, the administration could be trying to get out ahead of the story, so that if and when the skeletons are discovered, the White House's hands are at least a little cleaner.

The much more likely explanation is that Martin failed spectacularly at the task put before him. In fact, while it hasn't been confirmed if it's real, there is reportedly video footage of him being terminated:

The James and Comey cases are going nowhere. There is nothing upon which to hang an indictment of Jack Smith, or Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN), or even a smaller fish like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). The tiny fly in the ointment here is that none of these people have committed—you know—crimes. But that technicality is no excuse, as far as The Donald is concerned. We feel pretty certain that is why Martin's head is rolling now.

If so, that's really very good news. Not that Martin is out of work (although that IS the icing on the cake), but that being willing to abuse the legal system, and having lackeys willing to do the same, will only get you so far. Trump's efforts to persecute his enemies aren't going to get MORE effective. He's not going to find someone more competent than Martin, because competent people don't want to be a part of these shenanigans (which put their law license at risk). Nor is Trump going to find someone more willing than Martin to debase themselves and dishonor their law license. So, at least SOME guardrails are holding. (Z)

That Was Fast, Even by Trump Standards

There are certain immutable laws of the universe. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. E=mc². And any profit-generating concern with Donald Trump's name on it will eventually shut down. In the case of the so-called Trump-Kennedy Center, it took mere months for that to happen.

The Kennedy Center isn't going away, but it will be closed down for 2 years, starting in July. Here is the announcement Trump made on his artless social media platform:

After a one year review of The Trump Kennedy Center, that has taken place with Contractors, Musical Experts, Art Institutions, and other Advisors and Consultants, deciding between either Construction with Closure and Re-Opening or, Partial Construction while continuing Entertainment Operations through a much longer period of time, working in and around the Performances, I have determined that The Trump Kennedy Center, if temporarily closed for Construction, Revitalization, and Complete Rebuilding, can be, without question, the finest Performing Arts Facility of its kind, anywhere in the World. In other words, if we don't close, the quality of Construction will not be nearly as good, and the time to completion, because of interruptions with Audiences from the many Events using the Facility, will be much longer. The temporary closure will produce a much faster and higher quality result!

Based on these findings, and totally subject to Board approval, I have determined that the fastest way to bring The Trump Kennedy Center to the highest level of Success, Beauty, and Grandeur, is to cease Entertainment Operations for an approximately two year period of time, with a scheduled Grand Reopening that will rival and surpass anything that has taken place with respect to such a Facility before.

Therefore, The Trump Kennedy Center will close on July 4th, 2026, in honor of the 250th Anniversary of our Country, whereupon we will simultaneously begin Construction of the new and spectacular Entertainment Complex. Financing is completed, and fully in place! This important decision, based on input from many Highly Respected Experts, will take a tired, broken, and dilapidated Center, one that has been in bad condition, both financially and structurally for many years, and turn it into a World Class Bastion of Arts, Music, and Entertainment, far better than it has ever been before. America will be very proud of its new and beautiful Landmark for many generations to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

This immediately raises all sorts of questions. For example:

• Who are these "highly respected experts," exactly? Er, excuse us, these "Highly Respected Experts"?
  
  
• Where, exactly, did the financing come from? And why can't those generous benefactors' identities be revealed?
  
  
• Is this going to be like the White House, where the building is demolished, and where there will be no choice but to rebuild it, even if the Trump-arranged financing mysteriously disappears?
  
  
• If board approval really matters, then why not wait until they vote in order to make the announcement?
  
  
• How come nobody, either within the administration or without, noticed that the Kennedy Center was in such "dilapidated conditions" until this week?

Don't hold your breath waiting for answers to these questions.

In case readers cannot tell, we are not buying this for one second. Congress did appropriate $257 million to spruce the Kennedy Center up, which is in line with its being a half-century-old building that needs a facelift every decade or so. And, and the time, Kennedy board "Chair" Richard Grenell said the renovations would be relatively quick and would not disrupt the normal operations of the venue. Since his initial Truth Social posting, Trump has said that the "steel" of the building would be left intact, and that the price tag would be around $200 million. If that is true, that does not describe a 2-year process (and remember, he also claimed early on that the East Wing of the White House would remain intact, and we know what happened there).

It is painfully obvious that the board either did not anticipate the backlash to adding Trump's name to the venue, or else grossly overestimated how many right-wing performers and right-wing ticket buyers there are out there. It would be an ongoing, and embarrassing, story if the venue was dark half the time, and attracting 25% capacity crowds the other half. It would be an even more embarrassing development, and one that Trump's ego would never allow, to reverse course and strike his name from the Kennedy Center. Turning the relatively low-intensity renovations into a massive, venue-shuttering project is basically the only way to save face. And so, a lot of talented people will have one less place to share their gifts for the next couple years (or more). And Washington will have a lot less culture over that same timeframe (unless you count the Trump-inspired tap dancing that Mike Johnson does every day as "culture"). (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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