Trump's Next Target: Big Cities

Donald Trump has already gotten the media, law firms and universities under his thumb, so his next target is blue cities. That is easier than going after blue states because states have more power, money, and law enforcement personnel—especially the National Guard—and can fight back. Also, the Supreme Court tends to have respect for "states rights," even though that usually works out to "red states rights."

The first city Trump went after is Los Angeles, because it's very brown, and very blue, and it just so happens to be the current hometown of Kamala Harris. Next up, and targeted even more aggressively, was D.C., because that is where he is living now, it is very symbolic, and the federal government actually has some legal basis for mucking around in D.C. affairs. However, taking over D.C. is probably only phase I. Trump has signaled that Chicago is the next place federal troops may be deployed, despite this being a clear violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But who cares about laws when you have power?

Trump said of the Chicagoans: "They're wearing red hats ... African American ladies, beautiful ladies, are saying, 'Please, President Trump, come to Chicago. Please. I did great with the Black vote, as you know." We do know that many young Black men switched sides and voted for Trump in 2024. We wonder if having regular Army troops in town intimidating Black men will cause them to think twice about what they have brought on. Since there would be massive publicity from a federal takeover of Chicago, videos of interactions of troops and regular citizens, especially Black ones, might just have an effect on voting patterns next time around.

Trump said that New York City is next up, after Chicago. Baltimore and Oakland are also on his list, but he didn't rank them. He also said he could keep the troops in those places as long as he wants. If he did, would Congress do something about it? Don't hold your breath.

If Trump calls in the Army, this would be a huge (and illegal) escalation. The president does have some authority to federalize the National Guard in emergency situations, but using the Armed Forces, especially when there is no emergency, takes this to a whole new level. Will Trump be inspired by what is going on in Ukraine to have the Air Force bomb American cities? Will the generals follow such orders? Questions, questions.

Meanwhile, yesterday Democrats pushed back on Trump's threats. The former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, said: "When you look at what he did in D.C., he's not going to actually deal with crime. This is an attempt to deal with cities that are welcoming cities, known as sanctuary cities, and deal with immigration." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said that Trump had "no basis, no authority to send federal troops or agents to Chicago." Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) said: "There is no emergency that warrants the president of the United States federalizing the Illinois National Guard or sending in federal agents." But Democrats were careful not to minimize crime. They called for more police on the beat.

At the moment, words are all the Democrats really have. Late yesterday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the National Guard troops that are patrolling Washington to start carrying guns. There is no justification for this; no troops have been threatened or endangered. Hegseth is just trying to ratchet up the tension, in hopes that there will be an act of violence, which he can then use as a pretext for going full-on martial law. So, if Democrats try to meet force with any sort of force of their own (say, if Pritzker orders the Illinois State Police to guard Chicago), that will be giving Trump & Co. exactly what they want. Once Trump does act, assuming he doesn't pull a TACO, then the leaders of blue states and cities can file lawsuits, but even that takes time, and there's no guarantee of victory, or that Trump will abide by a judge's orders even if he does lose.

Put simply, it's an asymmetric war (on its own people) that the White House is waging right now. It may not remain that way, but that's how it is right now. (V & Z)

Corporations Are Having to Pay the Piper--or Else

Big blue cities aren't Donald Trump's only new target. Also on his list are corporations. Not only are they going to have to toe his party line, but they are going to have to pay him as well. The 15% export tax on Nvidia chips was a good start, and getting Intel to give him 10% of the corporate stock was brilliant, only it wasn't his idea. Karl Marx was famous for dreaming of a world in which the people (say, the state) owned the means of production. This makes Trump the first Marxist president. Karl would be proud of the little pinko for getting the ball rolling.

In Trump's America, everything has a price. In fact, he repeatedly compared the U.S. to a department store, with himself as the manager setting all the prices. Here are some examples of his approach to the corporate world other than Nvidia and Intel.

• Companies are literally being scored (in Excel) on their loyalty to Trump.
• Companies are being ordered to eat the tariffs, not raise prices, and just make less money.
• Drugmakers are being told how to sell their products and automakers are being told where to make them.
• Some of the recent trade deals envision him selecting major projects and having the private sector execute them.

Trump imagines himself dictating to private companies what they will make, how and where they will make it, and what they will sell it for. The leaders of the former Soviet Union are somewhere grinning from ear to ear. Well, maybe not, because they were all atheists. But still, central planning of the economy is also pretty pinko.

But for companies, they are paralyzed because they don't know the rules and even if they can figure them out now, they don't know how long they will be in effect. Many rules could vanish magically on Jan. 20, 2029. You can't run a business with that level of uncertainty. It is also ironic that, for decades, Republicans have vigorously opposed the government having an industrial policy and picking winners and losers, but that is exactly what Trump wants and no Republicans are saying: "Wait a minute, sir."

Some (liberal) economists don't mind the idea of the government having an industrial policy, but they want the policy to be carefully chosen to benefit the country and key industries, not to be a random mish-mash of rules with no coherent strategy behind them. And no company wants to be blackmailed the way Nvidia, Intel and Apple have been, among others. Welcome to Trumpworld. This is not what they put good money in super PACs for. (V)

Another Target Is the Fed

Sometimes Donald Trump is faced with a genuine problem. There are times when what is good for him personally is very bad for his base. This puts him in a bind, but "good for me personally" usually wins, especially since he probably knows that a third term is not going to happen, in part because he will be 82 on Jan. 20, 2029, and 86 on Jan. 20, 2033 (if he gets that far). So, keeping the base happy is secondary.

This is one of those moments. He wants interest rates to come way down because his real estate empire runs on borrowed money. Consequently, he has threatened to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell if Powell doesn't comply. Powell is taking his good time on the interest rate cut (which he's hinted strongly at, but not committed to) and is also refusing to resign. The problem (which Powell is well aware of) is that lower interest rates will spark inflation, which Trump's base HATES, and which is what got Trump elected last year. Inflation due to interest rates and tariffs would not be good for Republicans next year. Still, with Trump, the personal usually trumps the political.

Another factor here is that Trump wants to get control over every source of power other than the presidency. He already has the media, law firms, and universities, and is working on the blue cities and businesses, so the Fed is just next in line.

Since Powell will not go easily and could possibly win a court fight if Trump fires him, Trump has picked a different target for the moment, Fed governor Lisa Cook. Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing and Finance Agency, and a key political ally of Trump, has claimed that Cook filed improper paperwork when getting a mortgage (the issue concerns whether her home in Michigan or her condo in Atlanta would be her principal residence). Even if the allegations are true, which is far from certain given the motivation of the source, the "punishment" would be formally charging her with bank fraud and putting her on trial, not removing her from the Fed Board of Governors. But it is not so simple, because a charge of fraud also involves intent to defraud. And the event happened before she was appointed to the Fed Board. This is extra delicious for Trump because Cook is a Black woman. He has called for her to resign, but she hasn't (so far). In fact, she said: "I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet."

If it turns out that she did commit bank fraud, she would be in good company. Donald Trump committed massive bank fraud involving vast amounts of money over a period of years and was found civilly liable for it. Last week, a New York appellate court said well, stuff happens, but there was no need for him to even pay a fine for it, despite the fraud being systematic and over a long period of time. If Cook were put on trial, her lawyers could say: "Everyone does it, even the president." It could be a new line of defense for everyone henceforth put on trial for bank fraud.

Mitchell Sollenberger, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, said this move is a continuation of the "unitary executive theory," which basically says the president is a king with unchecked power except for what the Constitution has explicitly granted to the other branches, and maybe not even that. He said: "It's unprecedented, it's shocking and frankly should be deeply troubling." Prof. Daniel Farber, who has written about presidential power, said: "I see it fitting into his use of threats of questionable legality—but very practical implications of risk for the person at the receiving end of the threat—to twist people's arms and get them to do what he wants. It does fit into this battle of independence of agencies and independence of civil services and institutions he wants to bring to heel." (V)

The Calendar is on the Calendar Today

The DNC is meeting today in Minneapolis, where it is nice and warm. They will talk about New Hampshire in January, where it is not nice and warm. Topic A will be the 2028 primary schedule and New Hampshire's law stating that the secretary of state has authority to pick the primary date to make sure New Hampshire holds the first primary, even if it is on Halloween 2027. That will be hard to get around.

Also on the agenda is the matter of the Iowa caucuses, but that is different. First, caucuses are run by the parties, not the state, so a party can just decide not to hold a caucus. Also, Iowa botched the 2020 caucuses and we are still not sure who won.

In the last cycle, South Carolina's Rep. Jim Clyburn (D) saved Joe Biden's hide and, to return the favor, Biden promised to have the Palmetto State go first next time. New Hampshire won't like that. What will the DNC do today?

The usual criticism of New Hampshire is that it is very white. On the other hand, the Democrats are bleeding white voters and maybe picking a nominee that white people like isn't such an awful thing. This is what the DNC will be talking about. Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that because the date of a state primary is set by—get this—the state, not the DNC. All the DNC can do is ask politely.

What insiders think is likely to come out of the mixer is four early states from four different regions, then super Tuesday. Most likely the four will be New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and some midwestern state, possibly Michigan. That would give voters who are white, Black, Latino, and union workers each a state. The problem with Michigan is that it is relatively large, meaning that television (and thus money) will play a big role. That is very different from New Hampshire, where no self-respecting Democrat will vote for a candidate until he or she has met the candidate personally three times. It's really true. (V) was once in New Hampshire in October the year before a presidential election, and candidates were thick on the ground. The DNC could punt today, but the sooner it makes up its mind, the sooner the candidates can hone their stump speeches and hit the road. After all, what's the point of eating fried Twinkies at the Iowa State Fair if what a candidate should really be doing is eating paczki at the Michigan State Fair? (V)

Judge Nixes Alligator Alcatraz

Federal Judge Kathleen Williams, an Obama appointee, has ruled that the administration must halt the expansion of the "Alligator Alcatraz" prison in Florida. In her 82-page ruling, she also banned the installation of more lighting and ordered the removal of all generators, gas, sewage, and waste receptacles within 60 days. The ruling is a win for the environmental organizations that sued to protect the Florida Everglades and the creatures that live there. Williams also ruled that the fencing must be removed to allow Miccosukee Tribe members access to the places they had access to before the prison was hastily constructed. They need access to these places to harvest medicinal plants they use for the health of tribal members. Who would have thought that the spotted owl gator would be able to stop a federal prison?

The legal issue here is that federal law requires environmental impact studies before any federal construction project, and that was not done in this case. The plaintiffs argued that the studies are important because wastewater from the prison could harm the wildlife in the Everglades and that is why an environmental study is essential. Also, the lighting from the prison has reduced the habitat of the (protected) Florida panther by 2,000 acres. In short, Williams wrote that there were no "deficiencies" in the environmental process because there was no process at all, as required by federal law.

Florida will appeal the ruling because it has already issued contracts for $200 million to build the prison. To us, that seems like a vast amount of money for simple iron cages in a big tent. This is not even close to being a facility like the supermax prison in Florence, CO, which took years to plan and execute, and still only cost $60 million. We smell big time payoffs to firms that are in the governor's good graces. This suspicion is based on: (1) the math and (2) the fact that two dozen big contracts have been removed from the state's public database.

Williams also ordered the government not to bring any additional migrants to the prison. (V)

Could a Native American Decide Control of the Senate?

It is more likely than you think (unless you follow Alaska politics closely).

Here's the deal. The Democrats need to flip four seats to control the Senate. They already have their dream candidate in two races, and might well get their dream candidate in the third one. The three easiest seats to flip are North Carolina, Maine, and Ohio, in that order. They got Roy Cooper in North Carolina and Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Now they are waiting for Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) to make up her mind if she is in or out. Fortunately for the Democrats, gerrymandering the House doesn't affect the Senate, which is already a gerrymander of the entire country.

Where could that critical fourth seat come from, to prevent J.D. Vance from actually having to attend boring Senate sessions to cast tie-breaking votes? One tantalizing possibility is up north—Alaska. There, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) is running for reelection next year. The obvious Democratic candidate is Mary Peltola, a native Yup'ik Alaskan, who was previously the at-large representative and thus the winner of a statewide election.

But Peltola has a tough choice to make: do what is good for herself, or do what is good for her party and the country. We know how that works with Donald Trump, but Peltola is made of sterner stuff. Term-limited Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R-AK) cannot run for reelection next year, leaving an open-seat race for governor behind. Polling shows that Peltola is the odds-on favorite to be elected governor if she runs. She is polling at 40% and the top "possible" Republican is at 11%. State Senate Minority Leader Tom Begich (D) has filed to run for governor, but would probably drop out if Peltola got in.

However, the Democratic Party doesn't give a rat's a** who is governor of Alaska, but cares very much who its senators are. Running for the Senate would be tougher for Peltola, but not impossible. She is by far the most popular politician in the state at +9, while Donald Trump is at +1 and Sullivan is EVEN. Needless to say, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is on the phone constantly with her promising her the sun, the moon, and the stars if she will run for the Senate. We haven't seen any Senate polls yet.

There are multiple factors Peltola has to consider before making a choice, both personal and political. First, the personal. She has four biological children and three stepchildren to take care of since her third husband, Eugene Peltola Jr., died in the crash of a plane he was flying in 2023. United has a nonstop flight from Dulles to Anchorage in the early evening, but it is nearly an 8-hour flight. She could uproot all her young kids and move them to D.C., but senators still need to show up at home regularly. She is only 51, but it would be a stressful life. When she was a representative, she had a husband to help out; now she is single. As governor, she would just live in Juneau and not have to travel out of state much.

Politically, fully one-third of Alaskans are on Medicaid and Sullivan voted to cut it. That will be one very powerful issue to campaign on, especially if there is a blue wave. Another is Sullivan's vote to defund public radio, which is the only source of news and emergency information in much of the state. She would certainly hang that vote around his neck as well. And of course, she would do very well with the 15% of the population that is Native Alaskan and the 12% that is mixed. If she ran, Schumer and the DSCC would let donors know that she was a top priority.

Because Peltola is already well known statewide, she doesn't have to jump in immediately. Still, if she wants to clear the field, she probably shouldn't wait too long. It is entirely her call, but control of the Senate could depend on it.

Other Senate races that could provide the fourth state are Montana (if Jon Tester jumps in), Iowa (if Sen. Joni Ernst, R-IA, jumps out), and Texas (if AG Ken Paxton wins the GOP primary). But Alaska is probably the best bet, if Peltola is the Democratic candidate. (V)

Meet the New Swing Voter

For decades, "swing voter" meant someone who sometimes voted for Democrats and sometimes Republicans, depending on the individual candidates, the national environment, the voter's mood, and the phase of the moon. Catalist, a Democratic data firm, has calculated that of the 126 million people who voted for president in both 2020 and 2024, only 6-12 million switched parties in 2024. But these numbers are dwarfed by the 60 million voters who either skipped 2020 and voted for the first time in 2024 or sat out the election after having voted in the previous presidential election. According to CNN's Ronald Brownstein, the new swing voters are those voters who may or may not vote in any given election, not the party switchers.

In 2024, this churn helped Donald Trump. Most voters who voted in 2024 but not in 2020 backed Trump while most of the 2020 voters who skipped 2024 had voted for Joe Biden in 2020. These data suggest that many of Trump's 2024 voters are fickle and might not vote in 2026. They are not hard-core Republicans and could surprise everyone next year.

Campaigns always have to consider two things: (1) getting your own base to vote and (2) getting some of the other party's voters to switch teams. Different candidates make different choices. In 2000, George W. Bush tried to claw back affluent suburban women who fell for Bill Clinton's charms by emphasizing "compassionate conservatism." But in 2004, Bush's brain (Karl Rove) took the radical approach of abandoning efforts to pick up stray Democrats and concentrated on getting marginal Republican-leaning voters to the polls. It was a radical shift, but Rove was right.

In 2024, Trump won by making big gains among low-propensity, low-information, working-class voters, both white and nonwhite. He won a lot of them over by suggesting that he would make their lives better (in part, by making other people's lives much worse), so he was "uplifting" in his own way. Anyhow, this changed how professionals now think about swing voters. They now focus on the to-vote-or-not-to-vote-that-is-the-question voters. The ones who swing between voting and not voting but when they vote, tend to vote for the same party most of the time.

Demographics play a big role here. A study from Pew Research showed that what doomed Kamala Harris was not the small number of 2020 Biden voters who switched to Trump, but the much larger number of 2020 Biden voters who decided not to vote at all in 2024. They opted out of the electorate rather than supporting either candidate. This effect was most pronounced among minority voters. Also important were the voters who did not cast ballots for anyone in 2020 but went for Trump in 2024. So it is the swinging in and out of the electorate that defines the modern swing voter.

For 2026, the Republicans have two tasks. First is to get these swing-in, swing-out voters who showed up for Trump personally to show up for House candidates they know nothing about. Second is to get those who do vote to vote for Republicans, since they are not loyal partisans. If these new swing voters are unhappy with Trump (for example because he failed to deliver on his promise to get prices down), they may opt for not voting instead of voting for Democrats. That is not as bad as switching sides, but losing votes to the couch still hurts.

Part of the problem of getting the swing-in, swing-out voters to the polls is that they are not motivated by seeing horrible negative ads about the other side. That just makes them not vote at all. To get them to vote a candidate needs a positive, uplifting campaign, like Barack Obama's in 2008. Those sorts of campaigns are few and far between these days so 2026 turnout might be quite low. (V)

Fallout from the Habba Mess Is Here

You are forgiven if you have lost track of what is going on in HabbaGate. On March 28, Donald Trump appointed his former (?) personal lawyer, Alina Habba, as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. Interim appointments are valid for only 120 days. In this case, the clock started in early March. On June 30, Trump nominated her to be the permanent U.S. attorney of New Jersey, but the Senate has not yet voted to confirm her because both U.S. senators from the state oppose her nomination and have not returned the "blue slip."

On July 22, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey invoked its statutory power to replace her and appoint a new U.S. attorney. It picked her deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace, a long-time prosecutor. AG Pam Bondi immediately fired Grace and named Habba to the vacant deputy position. Since there was no U.S. attorney, Habba suddenly became the acting U.S. attorney.

Then U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled that the trick didn't count, Habba's 120-day interim period was up, and she was not legally the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey. He ruled that all her actions since July 1 were invalid. This led U.S. District Judge Esther Salas (another Obama appointee) to delay sentencing of a man named Marc Schessel, who was convicted of fleecing investors. The sentencing delay was on the grounds that Habba cannot take part in any of the cases the office handles because she is not legally the U.S. attorney, and all cases are formally in her name.

Lawyers for other defendants are already seeing their chance and jumping at it, claiming that all the indictments and other prosecutions done in Habba's name since July 1 are illegal and must be thrown out. Many garden-variety cases are going to be disrupted until a U.S. attorney is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, but as long as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) upholds the blue-slip tradition, Habba is not going to be confirmed.

The next step will probably be the DoJ appealing Brann's decision in the hopes of having the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overrule Brann. (V)

The Freedom Caucus Is Leaving Town

The House Freedom Caucus has roughly 30 members, and used to be able to gum up the works fairly regularly with outrageous demands. Since Donald Trump became president, they have been less effective because he is pretty good at blackmailing them, so FCACO. Nevertheless, it still carries some weight, especially in committees where several members are on the committee and can get bills written the way they want them.

The little power still remaining may be diluted even more in 2027 because a number of the most noisy members are running for some other office:

• Andy Biggs (AZ) is running for governor.
• Byron Donalds (FL) is running for governor.
• Barry Moore (AL) is running for the Senate.
• Ralph Norman (SC) is running for governor.
• Chip Roy (TX) is running for Texas AG.

In addition, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is running for governor. If she wins, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) is very interested in having her appoint him to the vacant Senate seat.

Many of the other Republicans (and some of the Democrats) will be happy to see these guys leave the House. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) said: "The outcome of Chip leaving is a more productive Congress." Nice to know how your work colleagues feel about you. Van Orden calls the Texan "Flip Roy," because he yells and screams and stomps his feet that some bill will cause the sky to fall and he will never vote for it, and then votes for it in the end anyway. RACO.

Roy is unusual in that he is not only good at grandstanding, but is also a good strategist who knows which fights to pick and which ones to leave alone. He understands "process" very well and in a room full of people who are all over the map, he is quite good at finding a solution that moves the policy in the direction he wants it, without the others even noticing that they have been had.

On the other hand, while Roy is an extreme right winger, he is also honest and not prone to double-crossing anyone. If he makes a deal, he can be counted on to stick to it. His departure will create a void of sorts since he was willing to make deals. Moderate Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK), who leads the Republican Main Street Caucus, said: "My hope is that we'll have members from the Freedom Caucus step up to fill that void, because there's a need for us to continue to work together."

As a whole, the FC members are very ambitious. They are about five times as likely as random backbenchers to run for higher office. About 17% of FC members have run for something higher since the group was formed in 2015. In contrast, for other House members, the number is 3%. Most House members are content to just get reelected to the House forever. (V)

Foreign Governments Are Using AI to Spread Disinformation

When new technologies come out, they often can be used for good or evil. AI is no exception and hostile foreign governments are already using it to help produce and spread disinformation. If you think the Russian interference in the 2016 election was horrendous, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Russia, China, and other countries are gearing up to use AI to influence elections and inflame discord. And the AI is getting good enough that it can fool many people much of the time. That may be sufficient. You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time to have impact.

A Chinese company, GoLaxy, is using generative AI based on the Chinese AI engine DeepSeek, which is much more energy efficient than any of the models built in the U.S. It is mining social media and can create fake profiles and content that seem very authentic to many people. So when the company wants to push some (real or artificial) person to the top, it can generate likes from thousands of bots and create thousands of followers, all of whom put out perfectly reasonable-looking content. Only they don't exist. It has tested its technology in the 2024 election in Taiwan and elsewhere.

GoLaxy has created profiles for at least 117 members of Congress and 2,000 other American politicians and can automatically generate plausible content for them in excellent English, something Chinese hackers were unable to do. Traditionally Russia was better than China at this sort of thing, but with GoLaxy, China may now have leapfrogged Russia. Still, Russia is not giving up. It has been experimenting with creating fake stories that look like they originated from ABC or Politico.

So how is the U.S. responding? Donald Trump has dismantled much of what the government had in the way of cybersecurity. The FBI, State Department, and CISA have all cut down their offices that worked with industry to trade information about foreign infiltration into the U.S. It is as if Trump welcomes foreign disinformation on social media and elsewhere. That will probably work out well for him, as long as the foreign leaders like what he is doing. But if he does something they don't like (e.g., arming Ukraine to the teeth or putting permanent tariffs on products from China), the worm could turn and all of a sudden hundreds of authentic-looking postings supposedly from his team could come after him. Imagine how fast a fake audio recording that sounded very much like Marco Rubio saying "Trump has serious dementia. He thinks he just made a great deal with Chairman Mao. He needs to go" would spread. (V)

---

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