Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Saturday Q&A
We continue to get a lot of civics questions. Even some of the questions in other sections are ALSO civics questions.
We had quite a few folks guess that the headline theme this week is "TV Shows" or "Sitcoms." That's on the right track, but the key is our note (stated twice) that WKRP in Cincinnati is far and away the best known exemplar of the theme. Even if someone likes WKRP in Cincinnati, few would say it is far and away the best TV show or best sitcom of all time. Anyone who is puzzling over it might also want to take note of what Thursday was.
Current Events
R.Z. in Van Nuys, CA, asks: I'm very concerned that, after Donald Trump starts wreaking vengeance and havoc upon all those he wants, he may like this role of "avenging angel" so much that he decides that this is really his "best use" and/or "most fun", and then he subsequently delegates many of the "boring" duties of state and "running the country" to J.D. Vance. Am I just having a waking nightmare or is this a real possibility?
(V) & (Z) answer: it's a real possibility, but... that's not especially different from his first term. The things Trump spent most of his time doing, the first time he was in office, were watching Fox News' coverage of him, squabbling with various enemies, and holding rallies. He didn't have much interest in governance then, and he doesn't have much interest in governance now.
The way in which Trump v2.0 might be different is that some of the people he will delegate to are fanatics who might try to push their powers to the breaking point. However, they will still run into the problem that the powers of any agency or agency head, not to mention the powers of the executive branch as a whole, do have limits. There were fanatics in the first administration, and yet they largely weren't actually able to achieve much. For example, Stephen Miller had virtually no success in realizing his xenophobic dreams.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: The concern that the cabinet nominations may not have background checks seems to be unfounded. Can't the president just say "Give that person a clearance!" like he did for Jared?
(V) & (Z) answer:Yes, he can. However, there are two important ways in which things are different if someone has actually failed an FBI background check. First, a failed background check means that a lot more political capital will have to be expanded in order to get them approved. If a president is going to do an end-run around the rules, they really should pay a price for that. Second, if someone is, say, a known Russian asset, as verified by the FBI, then that gives their underlings and their colleagues in other agencies important information, even if the requirement that the person pass a background check is waived by the president.
M.J.M. in Lexington, KY, asks: I have read once on Threads and once on a Substack (but I forgot to note which one) that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said she would not vote for any nominee for the Cabinet-level positions who wasn't vetted by an FBI background check. However, I have not been able to find such reporting in the legacy media.
Did Murkowski say this and, if so, might any other Republicans also use this as a red line?(V) & (Z) answer: Murkowski did not say that. What she actually said was this:
I would like to see our committees do their full job. I don't. I'm not interested in a process that would say, well, because the president has named him and you have Republican chairs coming into the new Congress, we just move people out.
There needs to be legitimate vetting. When I say legitimate, I mean just thorough vetting that the committees do. This is our job. This is the role of advice and consent, and I think we need to embrace advice and consent with full enthusiasm.That is considerably more measured, as one would expect from a veteran politico like Murkowski, even if her real words do kind of convey the same message. The version that you read was conjured up by a fellow on eX-Twitter, who knew full well what the Senator actually said (since he tweeted it a few hours earlier) but decided he wanted to put a more forceful version out there.
It is probable that, even if the Republican senators do not say it out loud, the lack of background checks will be a big problem, particularly with Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. If the Senate approves these people, and then something really bad comes out—and note that reporters will be looking under every rock, and in every closet, and behind every skeleton—it's the senators who will get to own it. For example, Pete Hegseth's mother has complained that he abuses women. Suppose some of the sordid details come out later?
M.J.S. in Gig Harbor, WA, asks: How much power will Donald Trump's medical/safety appointments (HHS Secretary, FDA Director, CDC Director, Surgeon General) have over blue-state doctors and pharmacists? Specifically, can these people prevent doctors in blue states from providing vaccines, providing care for gender dysphoria, providing abortions, etc.? This is all assuming that the fillibuster holds and no federal bans are enacted in Congress. How much protection do people in blue states have regarding health care?
(V) & (Z) answer: It depends on what they try to do. For example, the FDA most certainly has the power to rescind approval for individual vaccines (for example, they yanked the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine last year because Janssen would not commit to keeping it updated to account for new strains). So, if members of the Trump administration tried to yank the two or three vaccines they hate the most, they could maybe get away with it, though there would be lawsuits. If, on the other hand, they try to rescind approval for all vaccines, en masse, there would be all kinds of problems. First would be even more lawsuits. Second would be massive political blowback. Third is that blue states would very likely just ignore the directive.
The same holds with the other areas you mention, particularly abortion care. The current jurisprudence says that abortion policy is a state-level issue, and that it's not the federal government's concern. If the FDA, CDC, etc., try to make a very targeted adjustment—say, banning the sale of mifepristone across state lines—they might be able to make that stick, but there would (again) be lawsuits aplenty, and it would also be hard to enforce. If the agencies went beyond that—say, declaring that mifepristone is illegal nationwide—they would be making up new law out of thin air, and would face even tougher lawsuits, along with outright defiance. Remember, many blue states have laid in a 4-year supply of mifepristone, as an insurance policy.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, asks: Would it be possible to have a primer on tariffs? Specifically, can you discuss what actions a president can and cannot unilaterally take.
(V) & (Z) answer: It's not too hard to guess what statutory authority Donald Trump is likely to rely upon, since we've already ridden this roller coaster once before. Here are the four provisions of federal law he's got in his back pocket:
- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977: This one is probably Trump's favorite, because it's got the most room for... interpretation. In short, if he declares there is an "emergency," he's able to impose tariffs to try to address that "emergency." So, he could declare the fentanyl crisis to be a national emergency, and then use that to move against the countries he's blaming, namely China, Mexico and Canada. This is how he planned to impose a 5% tariff on Mexico during his last administration, before he "miraculously" negotiated an agreement with that government to stem the flow of immigrants into the United States.
What that tells you is that there is a downside here, from Trump's perspective, namely that he would face legal challenges, both in terms of his use of the concept of a national emergency, and his application of that concept to specific nations. In particular, it would likely be hard to make the case that Canada is part of a fentanyl crisis.- The Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122): This one allows a president to hit a country with a tariff if the balance-of-payments favors the other country at the expense of the U.S. (in other words, the U.S. is sending more money out than it's bringing in). The downside here, for Trump, is that the tariffs imposed expire after 150 days, unless Congress agrees to extend them.
- The Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301): This affords a president more power than Section 122, but it's also requires jumping through more hoops in order to utilize. In short, if an investigation concludes that a trade partner is engaging in "unfair" practices, the president can impose tariffs as a punitive measure. Exactly what counts as "unfair" is open to some interpretation, but the last two administrations—Trump v1.0 and Biden—took a very broad interpretation, as both presidents used it to hit China with various tariffs. Readers may remember the lists of wacky things that were suddenly subject to tariffs in 2019, like this one that mentions live purebred breeding horses, billiard balls, bayonets, tailors' chalks, glass Christmas ornaments, margarine, cheese and hairnets, among other products. This was the work of Section 301.
- Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232): This one allows the president to use tariffs in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security. During his first term, Trump used this to impose a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum. The downside here, from Trump's perspective, is that this law also requires an investigation, and the tariffs can only be applied to goods deemed relevant to the "threat." You can't use this act to slap tariffs on washing machines or Sony Playstations.
It is possible that Team Trump will manage to dig up other statutes, and to discover additional "powers," but these are the famous ones, and since he used all three of these laws before, there's no reason to think he won't rely on them again.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: On the subject of the Abomination's proposed tariffs, could a blue state—say, California—offer some kind of subsidy on imports to offset the tariffs? It could only apply to goods that are destined to stay in state, keeping prices down for residents. Since states can have higher standards and tougher laws than Federal, can they impose subsidies or tax breaks for shippers who use their ports?
(V) & (Z) answer: That would be legal, but pricy, since California would have to absorb those costs as part of its already-stretched-thin state budget. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has already stepped in and said that the state will take over the $7,500 electric vehicle subsidy, if it goes away, but that's a relative drop in the bucket as opposed to covering the entire cost of ALL tariffs.
N.S. in Portland, OR, asks: Donald Trump has made many threats to impose tariffs on products from Mexico. Isn't the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCTA) a free trade agreement (passed in the House and Senate) that prevents one country from imposing tariffs on one of the other countries for its duration? I haven't heard any news outlet saying Trump can't impose the various tariffs he has threatened.
(V) & (Z) answer: There is general agreement that the tariffs would be illegal under the USMCTA. We do not know what Trump and his team are thinking here, exactly, but we can give you some possibilities. The incoming administration may think it will be difficult for someone to establish standing to sue. Alternatively, Trump may plan to argue that the laws he is invoking (see above) supersede the United States' treaty obligations. It's also possible he doesn't care about lawsuits, and that he's just going to do what he wants, courts be damned. Most likely, it appears at this point, is that he's following the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The plan might very well be to leverage the United States' greater economic might to force Canada and Mexico to the bargaining table to produce NAFTA v3.0 (a.k.a. USMCTA v2.0). In that case, then it might well be like the last time, with those two nations giving tiny, tiny concessions, Trump declaring victory, and everyone going home.
L.M.S. in Harbin, China, asks: I wonder how so large an amount of Chinese fentanyl can end up in the U.S.? Do you think that the Chinese authority intentionally turned a blind eye to the drugs pouring into the states? And how could the origins of these drugs be identified?
(V) & (Z) answer: it's actually quite complicated, which is why this is an incredibly difficult problem to solve.
First of all, we are largely not talking about "Chinese fentanyl" versus "Mexican fentanyl." The majority of it is Chinese-Mexican fentanyl, by which we mean that the raw materials (the precursors) are produced in China, and then the manufacturing process is completed in Mexico. This is part of what makes it rather easier to smuggle drugs out of China, because they're not exactly drugs when they leave the country. Both American and international law enforcement know which cartels are working with Chinese suppliers, and roughly how much product those cartels are sending to the United States, and where those cartels are offloading their product. So, that is how the U.S. government is able to get a rough picture of where the fentanyl is coming from.
The other thing that makes this tricky, both from a law enforcement and public health perspective, is that fentanyl is unbelievably potent. To put it in perspective, 1 kg of cocaine contains enough for roughly 1,000 doses (for an acclimated user, 1 g is about normal), or around 150 fatal doses (around 6.5 g is generally fatal). By contrast, 1 kg of fentanyl contains enough for roughly 10,000,000 doses (for an acclimated user, 100 mcg is about normal), or around 500,000 fatal doses (around 2 mg is generally fatal).
Because a lot of value can be packed into a very small space, it is very challenging for any government—China, Mexico, the U.S.—to discover and seize illicit fentanyl. The authorities do find plenty of it, but mostly in big busts involving dozens or hundreds of kilograms of product. If someone is smuggling just a few kilograms worth, that's much harder to discover. So, the government of China gets at least some leeway. That said, Xi Jinping made virtually no effort at all to police fentanyl until reaching an agreement with the Trump administration in 2019. Xi then suspended those efforts in 2022, when Nancy Pelosi had the audacity to visit Taiwan. The policing was not resumed for more than a year, after Xi and Joe Biden had a heart-to-heart talk about the matter. So, while the Chinese government gets some leeway, it also is not without fault here.
S.E. in Ha'iku, HI, asks: I recently sent a $1,000 deposit check for a custom-built guitar to a luthier in British Columbia. (At this point, the check is languishing in some Canadian postal facility due to the strike currently underway, but that's a different story). The final cost on this instrument is going to be in the neighborhood of $7,500.
I am, of course, concerned about the effect of a 25% tariff on this purchase, because if it is to be paid either directly or indirectly by me, it's a deal breaker. I am aware from research that previous tariffs exclude musical instruments among other items, but with Trump, well, you never know. Do you have any light to shed on this situation? Should I pull the plug? Postpone?(V) & (Z) answer: We are not sure why you think Trump would exclude musical instruments. First, Chapter 92 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (which you can download here, if you would like) envisions that musical instruments are among the (many, many) things that upon which the U.S. government might impose tariffs. Second, the second wave of tariffs Trump unleashed on China did include some musical equipment.
If we were you, we'd contact our luthier and ask for a pause until January 25 or so. Trump has said that he will be slapping a 25% tariff on everything from Mexico and Canada, and he'll do it on his first day in office. By the end of that week, it should be clear if he is really going to follow through, or if it's just bluster and/or a negotiating tactic. Then you can decide whether or not to proceed.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Do you think lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers are at risk of being expelled from the military by Donald Trump? I am aware that Congress passed a law ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in 2010, which means the Pentagon can no longer expel people on the basis of sexual orientation. And I am also aware of the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision, which holds that LGBT employees are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, the President of the U.S. is the commander-in-chief of the military, and one of his official duties is ensuring the readiness of the armed forces. The Supreme Court has ruled it is legally permissible if presidents break the law in the course of their official duties.
Do you think Trump would be on solid legal footing to conduct a purge of LGBs from the military? I think the country will shortly rue the day it awarded presidential immunity for anything a president does that is considered an official act.(V) & (Z) answer: There has been some indication (and we have a piece coming up that touches on this) that Trump will try to eject 15,000 trans soldiers from the armed forces. If he actually tries it, it will be very difficult to achieve. First, as you point out, these folks are legally protected from being discriminated against. Second, the Pentagon will scream bloody murder (OK, not Pete Hegseth, but the Joint Chiefs), because it's none too easy to replace 15,000 trained personnel overnight. All of this said, Trump ran on the notion that trans people are one of the great threats to the 'Murican way of life, and trying to eject them would get him a lot of headlines, and he could tell "his people" that he's fighting the good fight. He likes this kind of PR.
What we are saying is that, when it comes to the trans soldiers, it could go either way. Trump could try it (and deal with years of lawsuits), or he could decide against it. He is considerably less likely to try it with LGB soldiers. First, the legal arguments for doing so would be even more tenuous, particularly given that things have been just fine since DADT was tossed in the garbage. Second, if the Joint Chiefs are upset about losing 15,000 or so trained trans troops, they'll be even more upset about losing an additional 110,000 or so trained LGB troops (about 6% of the active-duty military identifies as LGB, and there are about 2 million active-duty personnel). Third, even Trump's base is not especially anti-LGB, it's transphobia that's the new homophobia. Add it up, and we just don't see it happening.
B.R.D. in Columbus, OH, asks: Perhaps you and others have written about this, but it seems to be absent from a lot of coverage about the new administration's deportation plans. And that is, don't people have to be deported somewhere? To the country of their origin or elsewhere? And don't those countries have to agree to take in those deportees? Can the U.S. just show up with planes full of deportees without having some kind of agreement with the country they have landed in?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is one of many problems with Trump's promise. In fact, if you wanted a Big Three when it comes to issues with mass deportations, we'd offer this list: (1) the logistics will be nightmarish (how do you find these folks), (2) the costs will be enormous, and (3) where do you send them all? There's no country in the world that's going to gladly accept 500,000 or 1 million or 2 million new refugees. Actually, there's also a fourth problem, though it's kind of a different character. The donor class likes cheap labor, and is not going to be pleased to lose their workers. We count this one differently because it's less about executing the scheme, and more about whether it's worth it to Trump in the first place.
Trump has a long, long history of talking big, delivering small, and then declaring total victory. That is why we suspect he'll engineer a couple of high-profile deportation events (say, a raid on some meatpacking plant in a blue state), will tell his people he's solving the problem, and then that will be that. With that said, he's surrounded himself with even more fanatics this time than last (in addition to Stephen Miller, there's Tom Homan, and Kristi Noem), so maybe they'll push him to go further. Although, even if they do, the problems we outline in the previous paragraph will be big obstacles.
Politics
R.B. in San Francisco, CA, asks: When I was young, I had a uniformly negative opinion of Richard Nixon's presidency due to Watergate, but later in life I was shocked to discover that his administration created the Environmental Protection Agency and passed legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Acts, all of which I think were important accomplishments for the environment, and which I support.
Like many of your readers, I was deeply saddened by Donald Trump's re-election. As progressive Democrat, is there any possible achievement of a second Trump term I might look forward to?(V) & (Z) answer: You've probably heard the phrase "Only Nixon could to go to China." If Trump is going to achieve things that please progressive Democrats, it is likely to be in areas where Republican presidents have considerably more leeway than Democratic presidents do. So, for example, it's at least possible that Trump could produce some sort of lasting solution to the situation in Israel, one that's actually tolerable to folks on the left. If Joe Biden says "We have to keep in mind the needs of the people of Gaza," the Israel hardliners will tend to be dismissive. If Donald Trump says it, the Israel hardliners might listen. Similarly, if Trump becomes persuaded that supporting environmental legislation for is better for him than opposing it, he might win over MAGA folks who are never, ever going to accept environmentalism coming from a Democrat.
We do not think these outcomes are likely, but they're not impossible.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What is the most plausible worst-case scenario for the second Trump presidency? And what is the most plausible best-case scenario for the second Trump presidency?
(V) & (Z) answer: Domestically, the most plausible worst-case scenario is that Trump and his team find a way to let him run again, or to establish de facto one-party Trumpist rule (say, by repealing the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Other things he might plausibly do could hurt for 4 years, but this would extract a worse price, as it would be the effective end of American democracy.
Internationally, the most plausible worst-case scenario is that he goes all-in on trade wars and isolationism, meaning that the U.S. permanently surrenders its role as leader of the free world, while folks hostile to democracy and friendly to authoritarianism feel free to take advantage of the situation, plunging various parts of the world into chaos and violence.
The most plausible best-case scenario, at least for those who dislike Trumpism, is that Trump is as ineffective the second time around as he was the first time around, securing tax cuts for rich people, but not all that much else, before the Republicans lose the trifecta in 2018. If you want to read something rosier, then check the answer to the previous question, but the scenarios we outline there are merely possible, not plausible.
T.V. in Moorpark, CA, asks: The first time around, Donald Trump was pretty much an unknown on the international stage. This time around, do you think world leaders will view him as stronger or weaker? I would think they know they can easily manipulate him with praise and giving him something he can claim as a win is all they need to do.
(V) & (Z) answer: We think the world's strongmen—Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un, Xi Jinping, etc.—decided long ago that Trump is weak and is easily manipulated. We see no reason to think they will change their judgment or their approach. As to the leaders of the democracies/the allies, they also figured out that Trump could be manipulated, though they had to tread much more lightly.
To refer to the example we note above, the governments of Canada and Mexico did not give Trump a "win" on NAFTA v2.0 as much as they gave him the ability to claim a win, which they knew is what he really cared about. Similarly, the Abraham Accords were not really a great diplomatic coup; they were a recognition of a state of affairs that already basically existed. But in exchange for signing a piece of paper and posing for some photo-ops, the various participants got some juicy concessions (a $1.2 billion loan for Sudan, access to American F-35s for UAE, a free trade agreement for Bahrain, U.S. recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara, etc.). All diplomatic agreements involve this sort of horse trading, but there is near-universal agreement that Trump gave up more than he got.
In any case, we don't think "stronger" vs. "weaker" is the most important calculation that will be going on in the minds of foreign leaders. We think that their main notion will be that electing Trump once might be a fluke, but electing him twice shows that the U.S. is unreliable and is pulling away from internationalism. So, they will proceed accordingly.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: It looks like the Democrats will have 215 to the GOP's 220 seats in the House of Representatives (on the assumption that the already-vacated seats remain with the same party as at the general election). What do you think the chances are that special elections might happen in the next couple of years in three close-enough seats that the Democrats can win and cause the House to flip before the midterms? Given the razor-thin majority, it feels possible to me. Is it also possible that any fluke results might also hand them one or more of the already known upcoming special elections?
(V) & (Z) answer: We're going to start by answering your final question. In 2018, Democrat Conor Lamb ran in a special election in an R+11 district, which came to be seen as a referendum on Trumpism. And, of course, Lamb won (in a squeaker). So, flukes are certainly possible.
There are only 50 or so "swing" districts, of which around 30 are in Republican hands. It is very improbable that 3 or 4 of those 30 will come open AND will flip. However, if you say that special elections (always wonky) + Trump mean that districts as red as R+10 are in play, then... mayyyyybe. That said, if it came down to just one more seat, then every Republican in a district that is R+10 or less would hold on for dear life. They are not going to resign to take a job at a PAC or a university, they probably wouldn't allow themselves to be pushed out by a scandal, and they certainly wouldn't be plucked for a job in the White House. That person would either have to die, or would have to actually be convicted of a crime.
D.B. in San Diego, CA, asks: I've seen a few takes (like this one from CNN's Stephen Collison) that make the argument that Donald Trump's various indictments "unif[ied] the Republican Party around Trump in the primary," and that without those indictments, some other candidate may have emerged as the Republican nominee.
Setting aside the legal question of whether Trump should have been indicted, what do you think of the political argument that he should not have been?(V) & (Z) answer: We think very little of this argument. In the primaries, there were several candidates who were trying to run as the next Trump, most obviously Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). There were also several candidates who were trying to run with one foot in the Trump lane, and one in the "traditional Republican" lane, most obviously Nikki Haley. None of these folks came within a country mile of unseating Trump. Unless you think the indictments increased his share of the primary vote by 30% or 40%, then they were not determinative.
Meanwhile, we are at work on a series that will make the case that Trump was swept back into office primarily by forces that were beyond the control of mortal man. We do not believe for a second that, but for the indictments, Kamala Harris would be president today.
K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA, asks: I have heard/read different scenarios for Donald Trump's demise from folks who fear his presidency. My thought is that now that he's been elected, I would like him to stay alive and, healthy-ish?(I can't come up with a word for it, but some state where he stays president.) I fear a J.D. Vance presidency even more than what we're in for with Trump for four years. I see Vance as being a very slick liar with the same ideology as the MAGA crowd, but a much better ability to actually get things done. Am I way off base to fear Vance even more than Trump?
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not think you are off base. Vance is smarter than Trump, and more cunning. There is an excellent chance he would be more effective at enacting his agenda than Trump will be.
Meanwhile, we doubt Vance will be able to inherit the MAGA mantle. However, his chances would be MUCH better if he was president for 2-3 years, and had time to win over the MAGA faithful. So, a quick death (or incapacitation) for Trump would probably, from the Democratic perspective, have worse outcomes over the balance of Trump's term, and could well have worse outcomes beyond that.
Civics
J.P. in Cranford, NJ, asks: Could Joe Biden pardon a class of people? Say, all undocumented immigrants? Or all members of his administration, or even all Democratic members of Congress? Something that would protect a large group of people from persecution by the Trump administration?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is certainly possible to issue blanket pardons; that has happened several times in U.S. history. The example probably best known to readers is Proclamation 4483, issued by Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1977 (his first day in office). It extended amnesty to all Vietnam War draft dodgers.
However, a president can only pardon past crimes, not future ones. So, if Biden were to give a blanket pardon to all members of his administration or to all Democrats in Congress, he would give Fox and other right-wingers a talking point ("Well, clearly these people did something, or they would not need a pardon.") He would also make a mockery of the pardon power, and encourage further abuses in the future. And finally, Biden wouldn't actually afford anyone any real protection. If the Trump administration is willing and able to cook up a "crime" committed in 2023, they can just as easily cook up a "crime" committed in 2025.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: If Donald Trump dies before the Electoral College votes, does that make J.D. Vance the President-elect? Also, if Vance becomes president in my scenario, will he be the 47th president once he's inaugurated?
(V) & (Z) answer: If Trump dies before the Electoral College meets, then Trump's electors effectively become free agents. They would presumably coalesce behind J.D. Vance, but they are not required to do so (some state laws attempt to impose terms on electors, but the constitutionality of these laws is dubious; electors can be punished for being faithless, but they probably can't be told how to vote). It has happened one time that a presidential candidate died between the time he earned electoral votes on Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College in December. That was in 1872, when losing candidate Horace Greeley keeled over and died on November 29. He had won 63 EVs that ended up being cast for a half-dozen candidates, with the majority (42) going to former senator Thomas Hendricks of Indiana.
A president assumes their spot in the numbering the moment that presidential power devolves upon them. That means that, for example, Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36th president the moment the bullet hit John F. Kennedy (even if LBJ didn't know it for an hour or so). Whoever is sworn in on January 20 of next year will thus be #47. The only way that changes is if: (1) Joe Biden steps down or is otherwise replaced by Kamala Harris, which would make her #47 and the next person #48, or (2) somehow the Electoral College rebels and takes it upon themselves to reelect Biden, which would mean he would remain #46 at the next swearing-in, and #47 would not be bestowed until he left office.
R.C. in Eagleville, PA, asks: Donald Trump and the Federalist Society are champing at the bit to fill federal judicial opening with MAGA judges. Sitting federal judges have seen the crazy nominations Trump has made. Do you believe a significant number of federal judges will delay retirement, putting the integrity of the courts over personal desires?
(V) & (Z) answer: Obviously, there are Democratic appointees who will try to hold on. At the moment, there are 33 Bill Clinton judges left, 249 Barack Obama judges, and 217 Joe Biden judges (and counting). Obviously, the Clinton judges are the most likely to be knocking on the door of retirement, but there also aren't that many of them. Plus, some of the ones who don't want to exit may not have a choice, Father Time being undefeated as he is.
We presume that what you were really asking about was Republican appointees. At the moment, there are 11 Ronald Reagan judges left, 11 George H.W. Bush judges, 123 George H.W. Bush judges, and 236 Donald Trump judges. It is doubtful that any of the Trump judges are skeptical about Trump's ability to appoint good judges, plus they are largely younger and are new to the federal bench, so they're really not in play here. Of the 145 others, we suspect there are a few J. Michael Luttig types who dislike Trump and everything he stands for. So, those folks could try to hang on. However, Republicans have been using the Federalist Society as a judicial staffing agency since Reagan's time, so most of those 145 are likely just fine being replaced by another Federalist Society recruit.
Oh, and in case you are wondering, the last Jimmy Carter judge left active service in 2021, the last Gerald Ford judge left active service in 2019, and the last Richard Nixon judge left active service in 2013.
D.O. in Sudbury, MA, asks: To what extent do heads of state who steal from their nations' treasuries get away with it? Specific to our former democracy, are there any guardrails to prevent our treasonous traitor from taking money out of the U.S. Treasury for his own piggy bank—let's say, a "mere" million dollars a week, which could be subsequently explained away as a random rounding error?
(V) & (Z) answer: That would be very, very hard to get away with. First, it would require multiple co-conspirators, any one of whom could blow the whistle. Second, the government's books are regularly audited, and even a "mere" million dollars would stand out. Third, the budget is a public document, and there are always people poring over it with a fine-toothed comb in search of evidence of corruption.
The best way to loot the government is to find a way to sell necessary goods and services at an exorbitant price. For example, a president could charge the Secret Service top-tier prices to rent rooms at his primary residence. An even better way is to do it indirectly, buy steering money or other concessions to well-heeled people or entities, and then finding a way to benefit from their largesse (say, selling condos to them at ten times the market price).
D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: When people show you who they are believe them. Knowing as we do that the second Trump administration will commit crimes just as the first one did, who will be in charge of finding out about them? If Trump puts his cronies in charge of the Department of Justice, who will find out about acts of grifting and, more seriously, treason? Can we count on the Fourth Estate if it appears that even The Washington Post is afraid of retribution?
(V) & (Z) answer: Remember that the DoJ was run by Donald Trump's cronies last time, and yet he and many of his underlings got themselves in lots of trouble.
First, in terms of the government, there are state-level courts that can hold criminals accountable, at least in some circumstances. There are also civil suits—which, by the way, can proceed while a president is still in office. Oh, and there are inspectors general in each federal agency, as well as significant accommodations (and sometimes financial rewards) for whistleblowers.
As to the press, it is true that the billionaire newspaper owners are scared of Trump, because the thing they care most about is their money. However, that does not mean that all journalists are compromised, even at the Post or The Los Angeles Times. There are also plenty of folks who do not work for American corporate media who are willing to shine the light wherever they need to. That includes foreign outlets like The Guardian and Al Jazeera, as well as independent bloggers, broadcasters, etc. in the U.S.
Finally, don't forget that for 4 years, the Trump White House leaked like a sieve, as there were so many people there who eventually decided they were part of "the resistance," or who otherwise had reasons to turn traitor.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: On Wednesday, you wrote, of the U.S. Trade Representative: "Although all the Cabinet positions have been taken, this is one of the Cabinet-level jobs that had no nominee."
What is the difference between a "Cabinet Position" and a "Cabinet-Level Position"?(V) & (Z) answer: People in both groups attend Cabinet meetings and earn the maximum federal salary ($195,200 next year). However, those who hold Cabinet positions are in the line of succession and are also allowed to participate in removal of a president under the terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Neither of those things is true of Cabinet-level officers.
J.K., in Lake Worth, FL, asks: You wrote: "When an agent addresses an employee and says: 'Papers, please,' the worker had better be able to whip out a U.S. passport or other proof of U.S. citizenship. Otherwise, he or she will get pushed onto a bus that heads for the border (or a detainment camp)."
Are immigrants expected to carry their papers with them at all times? I am a natural born citizen, but I don't carry my passport with me, so I wouldn't have a way to verify this on the spot. A quick Google search tells me that in some states a driver's license can be proof of citizenship, if certain documents are required to obtain said license. What about the states where it's not? Do you know any more about the logistics of how this process actually plays out, if they are documented but do not have the proof readily available?(V) & (Z) answer: If you are a citizen, you are not required to carry an ID just to be out in public. The only times you are required to identify yourself is when you are doing something that requires a license or proof of identity, like drive a car, purchase liquor, board an airplane and, in some states, vote. In some states, you have to give the police your name if they ask for it, but not ID.
If you are not a citizen, and you are within 100 miles of a national border (which includes coastline), you must carry, at all times, paperwork that verifies your legal right to be in the United States. If a non-citizen is unable to present such papers on demand, they can be arrested. And if they cannot summon the proof (say, by having a family member bring it), they can be deported.
Of course, law enforcement authorities have also been known to enforce laws more vigorously than the letter of the law allows, and to conveniently overlook certain niceties they are not supposed to overlook.
History
L.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: Of John Quincy Adams, you wrote: "After 17 years in the House, he quite literally died at his desk." I'm curious about that desk... is it still on the House floor, and who occupies it? Is it well known among members that Adams died at his post? Have there been other members who died on the House floor?
(V) & (Z) answer: The desk no longer exists, and even if it did, it would not be in the House chamber. In Adams' day, the body was small enough (226 people) that it met in what is now statuary hall. Today, with 435 voting members (and half a dozen non-voting delegates), much more space is needed. However, there is a plaque on the floor where Adams' desk used to be:
When members enter the current House chamber, they pass through statuary hall, which means they walk right past (or over) Adams' plaque. Even if they don't know their U.S. history, and even if they haven't been exposed to the lore of the U.S. Capitol, one would assume they would eventually figure out who Adams was.
And there are a few other members who died on the floor of the House. Thomas Bouldin expired there in 1834 and Edward Everett Eslick did the same in 1932. Also, in 1941, Morris Michael Edelstein gave a fiery speech condemning antisemitism, then walked out of House chamber to the cloakroom to get his coat, and died there of a heart attack. Nobody has died in the Senate chamber, as far as is known.
D.K. in Stony Brook, NY, asks: You have on occasion cited Andrew Jackson as the most apt precedent to Donald Trump among American presidents: populist, nativist, corrupt administration, etc.
How did the U.S. recover from whatever harm that administration did? How long did it take, and were there any lasting effects? And do you think there are any parallels to be drawn for what may come after the second Trump administration?(V) & (Z) answer: Like Trump, Jackson was a populist (before that term existed) who catered to the desires and fears of the common (white) man.
The two most harmful things Jackson did were: (1) kill the Second Bank of the United States, which left the country without a central bank, and subject to wild economic upturns and downturns, for close to a century, and (2) lay the groundwork for the Trail of Tears and an overall harsh and violent policy toward the natives.
If you squinted, you could draw a parallel between Jackson's anti-bank maneuvering and Trump's tariffs, and between Jackson's scapegoating of Native Americans and Trump's scapegoating of immigrants. However, the impact of Jackson's policies was felt for a century, in the case of the B.U.S., and two centuries and counting, in the case of the Natives. It's inconceivable that, assuming there still is a United States a century from now, Trump's policies will still resonate. So, we just can't draw any meaningful conclusions from a comparison to the Jacksonian Era.
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: I get Nixon and LBJ, but how were the Roosevelts (especially FDR) a**holes?
(V) & (Z) answer: Theodore Roosevelt was a publicity-obsessed prima donna who assumed more credit than was his due for positive results, and who maintained what was, even by politician standards, a long list of deeply held grudges. Franklin Roosevelt deliberately pitted loyal underlings against each other, so they would always be at loggerheads with each other and loyal only to him, and he also had a long list of grudges. And they both indulged in behavior that is quite racist by the standards of our day, including TR's imperialism and FDR's internment of Japanese Americans.
G.C. in South Pasadena, CA, asks: If I can pull you away from the current politics for a moment, I have a question on the history of the West, specifically on Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and the Cowboys' gang. I've been watching a show on Netflix called Wyatt Earp and the Cowboy War. Having been to Tombstone, watched their reenactment, and learned about this in my history class, I thought I knew the whole deal. This Netflix show is a stunner with a slew of peripheral (and essential) side issues that make the whole story much more interesting than I ever knew.
So, how much of this "extra stuff" is true? If it is, it makes the whole story much more interesting and relatable (especially in comparison to today's political makeup). [Oh shoot, I said I would not get into today's politics, sigh...](V) & (Z) answer: We haven't seen the show, but there's no real reason for the producers to make stuff up out of whole cloth, since the real story has plenty of drama and intrigue.
In popular culture, the story of the Shootout at the OK Corral is a story of lawmen (the Earps) standing up against lawlessness and vigilantism (the Cowboys). The fact that the Earps and Doc Holliday end up as the heroes of the story may have something to do with the fact that the main source of information for many years, particularly for all the people who made all those Westerns, was the 1931 book Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, which relied extensively on the recollections of... Wyatt Earp, who died a little over a year before the book came out. By contrast, every member of the Cowboys who was present for the Shootout was dead by 1887.
In truth, the Shootout was about a whole bunch of different disputes. The list included: (1) Republicans (the Earps) vs. the Democrats (the Cowboys); (2) new arrivals (the Earps) vs. longer-term residents (the Cowboys); (3) town-dwellers (the Earps) vs. rural-dwellers (the Cowboys); disagreements about the results of a couple of local elections and, very possibly, competition over a woman (Josephine Marcus, who was dating a Cowboy, and who ended up with Wyatt Earp).
J.S. in Yreka, CA, asks: I am disgusted by the Republican reception given to Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE). I wrote to my conservative Congressman expressing my hope that he wasn't participating in the hazing and requesting that he reach out personally to Ms. McBride with a warm welcome. I doubt that he will receive this message positively but he sometimes (or rather, rarely) surprises me.
This incident brought up a question: How were the Black Congressmen and Senators received during the Reconstruction era? Were they banished to outhouses out back of the Capitol building? What was the state of the toilet facilities in the Capitol during the 1870s?(V) & (Z) answer: Congress has had indoor toilets since 1809; the same guy who installed that system, Benjamin Latrobe, was responsible for instaling the first indoor toilets in the White House (then known as the Executive Mansion) in 1804.
The Black men who served during Reconstruction were generally treated as equals, and certainly were not banished to outdoor privies. It helps that they served alongside the most liberal members of the body politic, while at the same time folks from the most racist part of the country were... barred from office, and were being replaced by the Black members.
C.V. in Leander, TX, asks: One thing I've wondered about this tariff plan is that it provides incentive for black markets and smuggling... the very thing that drug cartels are presumably doing well. I wonder if the Hawley-Smoot Act brought a wave of smuggling and criminality? Is this another angle that Democrats should be pounding on?
(V) & (Z) answer: Thanks to prohibition, the United States already had a thriving underground economy when the Hawley-Smoot Act kicked in. Meanwhile, the tariff was not especially effective, for various reasons. So, it is not probable that Hawley-Smoot led to a significant uptick in smuggling. Certainly, there isn't evidence to support that conclusion.
As to Trump's tariffs, it takes a while for an underground economy to develop. And it's largely only worthwhile for things that pack a lot of value into a small space (like, say, gemstones or cigarettes). It's pretty hard to smuggle cars effectively, especially since they have to be licensed. What we are saying here is that if Trump lays heavy, wide-ranging tariffs, and then leaves them in place for most of his term, it certainly could lead to the emergence of smuggling operations. But he does not seem likely to proceed along that course.
Gallimaufry
S.I. in New York City, NY, asks: When will the map change to reflect 2026 Senate races?
(V) & (Z) answer: We usually don't changeover until the races begin to take shape, which means mid-to-late year (say, August of next year). That said, a lot of people don't like the Trump picture, and we're also going to take a rare week off at some point in December or January. We might end up using that week to do the work it takes to make the changeover. We haven't made any decisions yet.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: What percentage of letter writers put periods in their initials vs. your having to add them yourselves before publishing? What's the most common grammatical edit you make to accommodate house style?
(V) & (Z) answer: The most common problem we have to fix is people who don't give their location. So, we have to do what we can to track that down. However, that is not grammar. The most common grammar thing is that people put "from" instead of "in." Relatively few people neglect to put the periods in there.
If you are asking about the most common grammar/style fix overall, it's that numerals, rather than words, are used when referring to specific measurements. So, two presidents, four people waiting in line, three guns per household in Texas, but 2 minutes, 10 pounds, 6 miles. We also generally have to correct politicians' names. On first reference, unless they are president or VP, they get their office and name, and folks who are not members of the federal executive branch get their party and state as well. For example, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-MI).
Reader Question of the Week: New World Order
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
D.D.W. in St. Louis, MO, asks: On January 20th, who will be the Leader of the Free World?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: No disrespect intended to D.D.W. in St. Louis, but this is a ridiculously easy question and I'm sure that my answer will be the answer of the majority of your correspondents: Nobody
D.L. in Uslar, Germany: On January 20, the Leader of the Free World will be no one. During the first Trump administration, it took a while for the mantle to pass to Angela Merkel (at least, she seems to have been the person most commonly seen as holding the title). The same thing will happen this time. Who the new Leader will be depends on whatever immediate crisis threatens the Free World and how one defines that.
I'd say the frontrunners right now are probably Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, since the ongoing defense of Ukraine is the likely threat. It just depends on which of them is seen as publicly strongest in leading the charge. A dark horse could emerge, of course—for example, as a result of the German elections in February.
G.L. in Kelowna, BC, Canada: Ursula von der Leyen.
From 2016 to 2020, Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau could both lay a good claim—based on leading large, rich, free countries, holding personal popularity, being able to make waves in positive directions.
At this point, the USA is looking at a very dark chapter, Trudeau is wildly unpopular and Canada's openness and liberality is under threat from very Trumpian-style forces, and Olaf Scholz in Germany is being asked to step aside by his own party as he stares down a collapsing coalition that couldn't last a single term. None have the political or moral force to lay claim to being leader of very much, certainly not "the free world."
Keir Starmer leads a diminished U.K. that has no idea where it wants to be (except with fewer immigrants, and a declining economy), Emmanual Macron's France could step up but is too busy fighting internal battles against the far right, and Italy and Spain haven't had a leadership role like that for centuries. Japan is too isolationist, in demographic decline, and still weighed down by history. Russia, India, China are all up against or completely outside "the free world."
Ursula von der Leyen, however, has been something of a Washington figure. The position of President of the European Commission has long been a relatively minor post, relegated to herding the nationally appointed cats on the Commission. Germany, France, and the U.K. in particular sought to minimize the office, viewing it as a threat to their national autonomy. Who could have named prior presidents? (Well, except for Jacques Delors 85-95, due to tabloid press shouting "Up yours, Delors!") As the thirteenth President of the Commission and first woman, von der Leyen has overseen the implementation of Brexit, the response to the pandemic, and coordinated aid to Ukraine in spite of some Russia-friendly governments such as Budapest and Bratislava. She has taken a famously sclerotic bureaucracy and turned it into a force̵not without criticism (such as control freakery over the policies, or indeed the values of the policies themselves). The Americans used to demand "when I want to speak to Europe, who do I call?" That question now has an answer. Particularly with the appointment of Kaja Kallas (ALDE-Estonia) in Foreign Affairs (Kallas was outspoken for years on the need for Ukraine to be able to defend their freedom), there is little chance of the activism and force slowing down. Lest this be coming across fanboyish, I don't always agree with her, as she's EPP (think Lisa Murkowski) and I'm ALDE (think Diana DeGette), but her power is undeniable and I don't see anyone else wearing the leader of the free world mantle on Jan. 20, 2025.
K.B. in Edgewater, NJ: Co-leaders NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Taylor Swift fill in the "Blank Space."
A.W. in Arlington, VA: The only current world leader with the chops and charisma, plus obvious dedication to freedom, is Volodomyr Zelensky.
W.V. in Andover, MN: Pope Francis.
M.M. in Plano, TX: On January 20, the leader-in-chief of all the world's democracies will be a triumvirate: Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Olaf Scholz.
M.C. in Newton, MA: My pick for "Leader of the Free World" is French President Emmanuel Macron. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz isn't sufficiently well-known; in fact I had to look up who the Chancellor currently is. British P.M. Keir Starmer also isn't well-known in the U.S. (I looked that up as well, but actually remembered that he's the Labour leader who became PM after they won the election), plus Brexit put a major dent in the U.K.'s claim to leadership on the international stage.
Obviously, Trudeau is right out.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: Justin Trudeau, eh? Maybe we should stop looking at them as the Invaders from the Great White North but rather as the Liberators from the Free World. He's a damn sight better than the hosers who have been and will be running/ruining this country! Pitter patter, Justin.
D.S. in Davis, CA: The leader of the free world will be whoever has the best ability to laugh about current events. The Democrats' downward spiral began when they traded "weird" for "fascist." Self-righteousness is not funny, or relatable. The only way to defeat the boggart is to laugh at it. Humor got me through so many bad administrations in the past, and I think that the only way to get through this one is to have the last laugh.
S.Y. in Skokie, IL: Even though he's deceased, I suggest George Carlin. His stand-up tapes are all available. And guess who it sounds like he's making fun of?
M.A. in Pea Ridge, IL: What is this "Free World" of which you speak?
Here is the question for next week:
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: Now we know who the leader of the free world is. What I really want to know is: Who is the leader of the Trump opposition? Is there any person, journalist, media outlet, or organization, elected or not, foreign or domestic, who will rise to become an effective voice of conviction against the avalanche of lies, corruption, and immorality about to be released on the world? Please, somebody, tell me there's opposition somewhere out there ready, capable and willing to push back!
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Agent Anti-Orange"!
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers