Trump Wages War against Immigrants... and the Rule of Law

It was entirely foreseeable that Donald Trump would find a way to "make some headlines" with immigration enforcement actions. After all, if your administration is not having much success in terms of absolute numbers—and Trump's administration definitely is not—then "winning" a couple of news cycles with one or two high-profile actions serves as a fairly useful substitute, politically. It was also entirely foreseeable that Trump and his minions would edge closer and closer to outright defiance of the courts. Both of these foreseeable trends have come to fruition.

There were not one, not two, but three high-profile (and outrageous) stories on this front in the last week or so. Here they are, in chronological order:

1. Mahmoud Khalil: Let's start this one (and, the item as a whole) with some basics. Everyone in the U.S. has basic constitutional rights, no matter your immigration status or nationality. The Bill of Rights applies to "people" and "persons," not just U.S. citizens.
   
   At the border, agents can detain and deport with a bare minimum of due process, but once inside the country, the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply, as do Fifth Amendment due process rights. ICE agents can't just go around snatching people up, particularly if someone is exercising that most fundamental of rights, the right to free speech. Political speech is especially important in the U.S. and is a form of speech that comes with the greatest protections.
   
   In addition, ICE agents are not law enforcement—they work for an administrative agency. So, they can't make arrests for general crimes. They can detain someone but only if they have probable cause for a violation of immigration law. They also cannot enter or search anyone's home without a valid search warrant signed by a judge. No one is obligated to talk to an ICE agent. Anyone can simply walk away or ignore them, or refuse to open the door if they're at your home. Moreover, they can be excluded from any place that isn't public—in other words, universities like Columbia can keep ICE agents out of private spaces if they don't have a warrant.
   
   All of the above makes what ICE agents did to Mahmoud Khalil and his pregnant wife all the more outrageous and blatantly illegal. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. (a.k.a., a green card holder). He is not in violation of any immigration laws. Nevertheless, it appears—and reports remain somewhat fuzzy, because of the veil of secrecy put up by the Trump administration—that agents arrived at his home last Saturday and were given access to private spaces without a warrant. They were able to enter the apartment building where Khalil and his wife lived, and which is owned by Columbia, and followed them into their apartment. Even though the ICE agents had no arrest warrant, no search warrant, and no probable cause of any kind, they arrested Khalil and took him away as his wife watched. Did we mention she is 8 months pregnant?
   
   Next, ICE apparently secreted him away to a private prison in Jena, LA, while telling his wife that he was being detained in New Jersey. Thankfully, Khalil had already connected with legal counsel, who immediately went to court for an order ensuring that he remain in the country so a hearing can be held. The order was issued on Wednesday, by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who said that Khalil must be held in the U.S. "unless and until this court orders otherwise." Maybe that buys Khalil time to resolve his case, maybe it doesn't (keep reading).
   
   ICE agents are not hatchet men for Donald Trump, who posted on his failing social media platform that this is the "first of many to come." Trump has enlisted Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who claims that Khalil is associated with Hamas, and that the state department is "revoking" his green card based on "activities" which so far have not been identified. It is true that Khalil was involved in pro-Palestinian protests on campus, but that is not illegal (remember: First Amendment) and it's certainly not proof of being associated with a terrorist organization. Further, and to be clear, no agency can unilaterally revoke a green card—it takes a court order. Betar US, a Zionist activist group that is the only Jewish group listed as a hate group by the ADL, claimed credit for giving Khalil's name to the Trump administration.
   
   
2. The Venezuelans: Trump was not kidding when he said that Khalil was only the beginning. Over the weekend, the White House did something that it surely has been itching to do, and invoked the Alien Enemies Act. This is a law passed in 1798 (i.e., over 200 years ago) in anticipation of a formal war with France (which did not happen, though there was the undeclared Quasi-War of 1798-99). Here is the key passage of the law:

   [W]henever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.

   Using authority claimed under this act, the administration declared 261 Venezuelans in the U.S. to be members of the gang Tren de Aragua, and began efforts to deport them to El Salvador via a fleet of airplanes. The point of doing it this way is that the Alien Enemies Act waives the Fourth Amendment protections that, as we note above, even non-citizens are entitled to.
   
   There are three things here, in particular, that twist American law beyond its breaking point. First, the government has yet to provide any evidence that the accused are gang members, have committed crimes, etc. Second, while Trump likes to refer to immigrants/gangs as "invaders," his use of that term is unrelated to the meaning of "invasion" as the authors of the 1798 law meant it. They, of course, meant an invading army under the command of a hostile sovereign power. Third, and most clear-cut, even if the accused ARE gang members and even if their presence IS an invasion, there has been no declaration of war. The other three times the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked were during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II—all of them, of course, formally declared wars.
   
   Recognizing that the administration was moving as fast as is possible, so as to get the accused out of the country as fast as is possible, and to make protecting their rights as difficult as is possible, the ACLU quickly filed suit on Saturday, and the matter ended up in the Court of Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg (who was appointed to judicial posts by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama). He told the administration to halt any deportations, and to cause any planes that had left the country to return, until the matter could be resolved. Initially, that instruction was verbal, but Boasberg backed it up with a written order as soon as he could get one typed up.
   
   The Trump administration—specifically, Stephen Miller and HHS Secretary Kristi Noem—decided to just ignore Boasberg's order, and to continue the flights. When the Judge learned of this, on Monday, he was apoplectic. In response, Department of Justice lawyers who appeared before the court made four arguments as to why everything here was within the bounds of the law: (1) The administration knows things about the deportees that justify the deportations, and does not have to share that information with anyone, even the judge, because of national security; (2) the judge's initial order was oral, and oral orders don't count; (3) by the time the judge issued a written order, it was too late, and the planes were gone (this is a lie, and also a red herring; even if the planes had departed and landed, planes work in both directions); and (4) the judge's authority ends at the U.S. border, and so his orders related to people who are now in a foreign country are null and void.
   
   In short, Trump and his minions are now officially ignoring court rulings. And they are taking pride in their defiance. Trump border czar Tom Homan went on Fox for an interview and declared: "I'm proud to be a part of this administration. We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care." Elon Musk called for Boasberg to be impeached and removed from office, and Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) got right on that, filing the requested articles of impeachment with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). And Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele, a strongman who has outed himself as a Trump lapdog, posted this to eX-Twitter:
   
   
   
   Marco Rubio, who continues to debase himself, retweeted the message from Bukele.
   
   
3. Rasha Alawieh: As we note, we present these in chronological order, but the second and third entries overlap a lot, as they both unfolded over the weekend. Anyhow, Alawieh is a citizen of Lebanon who was in the United States on an H-1B visa, and who is employed as a professor by Brown University's medical school, specializing in kidney transplants. She went home to visit family, and on her re-entry into the U.S., she was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
   
   Alawieh's cousin, Yara Chehab, who is a U.S. citizen, found out what was happening and filed an emergency lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an immediate order telling the Trump administration to hold Alawieh until the matter could be resolved. As with the Venezuelans, the White House simply ignored the order, and put Alawieh on a plane to Paris, to then be transferred to a plane back to Lebanon. Yesterday, the administration claimed that it commenced the deportation before learning of the Judge's order. As with the Venuzuelans, this is a lie and, again, even if it was true, airplanes fly in both directions. Like Boasberg, Sorokin is furious, and is demanding answers. Undoubtedly, articles of impeachment will be filed against him very soon.
   
   Yesterday, the administration gave some details as to why they targeted Alawieh, saying that she attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and that she had "sympathetic photos and videos" of prominent Hezbollah figures in the deleted items folder on her cell phone. Alawieh, for her part, says that she went to the funeral (with 20,000 other people, mind you) and that she had the photos because of her adherence to the individuals' religious teachings, and not because of their politics. Whether or not that is true, the administration has articulated no legal theory as to why it's against the law to go to a funeral, even the funeral of one of the bad guys. And if it does articulate such a legal theory, it's up to a court, not Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, to assess its merits and its applicability to the case.

So the rubber, as it were, has now met the road. The Trump administration had grown increasingly more willing to push back against judges, to drag its feet in abiding by court orders, to advance spurious legal theories as to why the judges' orders were not valid, etc. Now, the White House has crossed the Rubicon and started outright ignoring orders. And so, it's now time for the next chapter to be written. Can the judges do something? Will they do something? Will Congress step in, realizing that if there is no rule of law, then there's no Congress?

The next week, then, could be very instructive. That said, even if the judges prove impotent, and even if Congress continues to perform the head-in-the-sand routine, that's not the end of the story. Again, the White House is providing flimsy explanations for its current behavior, and those explanations give the Republican members of the Congress something to grab onto, even if they know it's bulls**t. But if Trump has shown us anything, it's that if you give him an inch, he'll take a mile. So, "wins" here will undoubtedly embolden him, more and more. And even if we're currently in a situation where Congressional Republicans can pretend that all is still well, we will soon get to a place where that will be much, much, much harder. (Z & L)

When Is a Pardon Not a Pardon?

As long as we are on the subject of Donald Trump reinventing the law at his whims, he fired up his meager social media platform to share this over the weekend:

The "Pardons" that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them! The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime. Therefore, those on the Unselect Committee, who destroyed and deleted ALL evidence obtained during their two year Witch Hunt of me, and many other innocent people, should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level. The fact is, they were probably responsible for the Documents that were signed on their behalf without the knowledge or consent of the Worst President in the History of our Country, Crooked Joe Biden!

Again, we are always on the lookout that the Trump cheese is slipping off the Trump cracker. This message certainly does not help the case that he's still in command of his faculties. Or, if you prefer, here's how The Bulwark put it: "The declaration was impressive in its spectacular absurdity, wedging together blithering nonsense so tightly it could function as performance art—a turducken of lunatic conspiracy theories."

Keeping in mind that Trump was once an advocate of the notion that a president can grant pardons just by thinking about them, none of the claims here (which were undoubtedly fed to Trump by some underling) holds water. There is plenty of evidence that Biden knew full well about the pardons. Whether they were signed by autopen (which is an unproven claim) is irrelevant; in fact, they don't actually have to be signed at all. Obviously, a president cannot "void" the pardons of a past president. The only way the pardons could even plausibly be declared invalid is if Biden came out and said unambiguously that he didn't have anything to do with them, didn't know about them, and didn't want the people pardoned. But even then, they would probably still stand, as there is some amount of precedent that says that once a pardon is delivered to a recipient, it's final. And, of course, Biden isn't going to come out and say that, anyhow.

The clear message is that even those people who think they're safe from Trump's vengeance could well find themselves targeted by the Trump-led Department of Justice. Trump's got no basis for pursuing them, but that does not stop him from having people arrested and imprisoned, forcing them to hire lawyers to defend the validity of their pardons. Not only would this be disruptive for the folks targeted, not to mention expensive, but these days, it's gotten tough to find a quality law firm willing to do battle with the administration.

In a story that might, or might not, be related, Trump canceled Hunter Biden's Secret Service detail yesterday. Maybe that's part of the whole "austerity" shtick. Or maybe it's a little payback visited against an enemy. Or maybe it's meant to make it much easier to arrest the former First Son at some point in the (near?) future. (Z)

An Early look at the 2026 Senate Races

The Hill has a far-too-early rundown of the 35 Senate races. Of these, 33 are regular elections. Florida and Ohio have special elections resulting from the now-filled vacancies left behind by Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance, respectively. Here is the lay of Senateland. You can always find the state of the Senate races by clicking on "Senate Candidates" just above Maine (in the blue bar above the map). We update this regularly when there is relevant news.

Open Seats Held by Democrats

• Michigan: This is the second cycle that a Michigan senator has tossed in the towel. Last time, it was Debbie Stabenow; this time, it is Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI). Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) is term-limited, so in Jan. 2027 Michigan will have a whole new team in place. Pete Buttigieg has decided to pass on both the senatorial and gubernatorial races in order to get his 2028 presidential campaign up and running early. Whitmer has also taken a pass on a Senate seat for which she would be the overwhelming favorite. Instead she is running for (probably vice) president in 2028.
  
  State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) is going to run for the Senate. AG Dana Nessel (D) might also run, but she hasn't announced yet. Either of these women would be strong candidates. The Republican bench is thin in Michigan. Failed gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon might try for the Senate. Mike Rogers tried in 2024, and failed, but could try again. Rep. John James (R-MI) finally got elected to the House after multiple tries at the Senate and might be reluctant to give up a House seat he could probably hold for a shot at a Senate seat where he would be an underdog. With a strong Democratic bench and a weak Republican bench, this one leans Democratic.
  
  
• Minnesota: Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN) was appointed to the Senate after Democrats booted out Al Franken for making a slightly off-color joke. When a Democrat makes a joke in poor taste, it is fatal. When a Republican lies 20 times and breaks 5 laws, it's just your average Tuesday. Smith never really wanted to be a senator but she did her duty as a good team player. She still doesn't like being a senator and is retiring so someone who actually wants the job can get it. Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) doesn't want the job either, and is likely to try to keep his current job (no term limits in Minnesota).
  
  Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (DFL-MN) definitely wants the job and is already in. Rep. Angie Craig (DFL-MN) is probably in. Flanagan has a bit of Native American blood and Craig is a lesbian, so Democrats can play the identity politics game if they like. No top-flight Republicans seem interested. Royce White, a former "NBA player" (he played 9 whole minutes), ran in 2024 and was crushed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN). He could try again. Former Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze is in, but nobody has ever heard of him. Likely Democratic.
  
  
• New Hampshire: The unexpected retirement of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) could be a real problem for the Democrats. The most likely Democratic candidate is Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), who represents the eastern third of the state. There is no obvious alternative and New Hampshire is sort of bluish, so the DNC will probably talk Pappas into going for a likely promotion. The Granite State's other House member is Maggie Goodlander, but she is currently in the third month of her first term. That's a little early to be shooting for a promotion; she'll probably wait until Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) retires.
  
  The Republican bench is loaded. Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) used to be a senator and is up for reelection, so she has a choice to make. Running for reelection would be the safer course and she could probably win. The Senate would be iffier. Tough call for her. If former governor Chris Sununu runs, he would be formidable but, like Buttigieg and Whitmer, he may be gearing up for the presidential race in 2028. Then there is Scott Brown, who seems to have an affinity for New Hampshire, even though he used to be a senator from Massachusetts. He doesn't have a lot of history with New Hampshire. Maybe he thinks the locals won't notice. New Hampshire is most definitely not Massachusetts and we suspect they will notice instantly. If Ayotte takes the easy route and runs for reelection, Sununu concentrates on 2028, and Brown comes to his senses, then Pappas will win, so the election leans slightly Democratic. If Ayotte or Sununu jump in, it will be a toss-up.
  

Open Seat Held by a Republican

• Kentucky: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was the longest-serving Senate majority leader ever. He liked his job and was popular with his caucus. But he was having health issues and at 83 knows all too well what happened to Dianne Feinstein. He does not want to go out in a wheelchair, or worse, on a stretcher. So he will head off to the Home for Aged Turtles in Jan. 2027. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) would have been a very strong candidate, but has decided to skip the race to prepare for the 2028 presidential race. He dreams of Jimmy Carter on odd nights and Bill Clinton on even nights. If the Democrats are desperate enough, they might ditch their ideology and identity politics and nominate a moderate straight white Christian man who could pull in a lot of disaffected Republicans, just as Carter and Clinton did. Absent a change of mind, we can expect a vigorous Republican primary with the winner gliding to election since the Democrats have no one. Strongly Republican.
  

Vulnerable Democrat

• Georgia: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is in for the fight of his life. He won in 2020 because the Libertarian Party candidate ate just enough of David Perdue's vote to elect Ossoff. Also, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) was on the ticket along with him, which pulled many Black voters to the polls. This time Ossoff is on his own. If Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) runs, Ossoff will have an uphill battle unless there is a strong blue wave. However, Kemp, like Beshear, Buttigieg, Sununu, and Whitmer, may decide better a long-shot bid for president than a lifetime job in the Senate. It kind of shows you how little respect smart professional politicians have for the Senate. If Kemp bows out and the Democrats nominate Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) for governor, Black turnout may again skyrocket and that could just save Jon's oss. Probably a toss-up depending on who's in and who's out.
  

Vulnerable Republicans

• Alaska: Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) is reasonably popular, but if former representative Mary Peltola (D) runs, it could be a real fight. After all, she has already won statewide and Alaska has a wonky ranked-choice election. If Peltola runs for governor instead, Sullivan is safe. All in all, leans Republican.
  
  
• Florida: Florida has become a red state, but appointed senators don't have a good track record. Only about 40% make it when they have to face the voters. Sen. Ashley Moody (R-FL) has won statewide as AG, but the Senate is national politics, not law and order. The Democrats' problem is that although Moody is not well known, they don't have an ideal candidate. Maybe Debbie Mucarsel-Powell could run again, although she did poorly against the unpopular Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) in 2024. Leans Republican.
  
  
• Maine: This is the Democrats' second-best pickup opportunity. Maine is a blue state and Collins is an anachronism, a Rockefeller Republican in an age when they are as dead as Herbert Hoover. She is personally well liked, but the political winds have shifted and partisanship may overpower everything. Democrats are praying (or whatever they do Sunday morning) that Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) jumps in. She would be a very tough competitor and might finally be the one to take down Collins. Money will flow like water. This race will absorb hundreds of millions of dollars from out of state. The only trouble is that there is not enough television time in this relatively cheap media market to soak up all that money. Since the Republicans have a 6-vote margin in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) may give Collins permission to repeatedly vote against the party line this year to help her next year.
  
  
• Montana: Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) is up, but if former senator Jon Tester challenges him, in a blue wave, Tester has a chance. Absent Tester, Daines is safe.
  
  
• Ohio: Same as Montana. If former senator Sherrod Brown challenges Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), Brown has a chance. But this one has a wrinkle. Husted wasn't elected to the Senate. He was appointed when J.D. Vance resigned. Again, it would take a blue wave for Brown to win, but if Donald Trump and Elon Musk wreck the economy, it could happen.
  
  
• North Carolina: This is the number one pickup opportunity for the Democrats. They have three things going for them. First, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is toeing the party line pretty well in the Senate and this is really angering North Carolina Democrats. Second, Tillis doesn't have decades of love to fall back on, as Susan Collins does. He has only won twice before and both wins were close (1.56 points in 2014 and 1.75 points in 2020). Third, former governor Roy Cooper is very popular, even with Republicans, and it wouldn't take much of a blue wave to sweep Cooper in. Initial polls of a Cooper-Tillis race have Cooper ahead by a substantial margin. Cooper is playing his cards close to his vest, but every Democrat of any consequence is probably calling him at least once a week urging him to jump in. He doesn't have to hurry, though, since as a recent two-term governor, he is universally known in the state. This race, like Maine, would pull in hundreds of millions of dollars from out of state. Fortunately, North Carolina actually has enough television stations to absorb the money.
  

The other races are in safe states. Assuming no one retires, each of the other incumbents will be reelected, except it is possible that Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) might draw a primary opponent from the right because the MAGAts deem him insufficiently Trumpy.

Safe Democratic Seats

• Colorado: John Hickenlooper is a shoo-in for a second term.
• Delaware: Delaware is a very blue state and Chris Coons has a job for life.
• Illinois: Dick Durbin is 80. He might retire (see below).
• Massachusetts: While not as popular as Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey (D-MA) is safe.
• New Jersey: Cory Booker can stay in the Senate as long as he wants to.
• New Mexico: The Land of Enchantment is blue enough that Ben Ray Luján is safe.
• Oregon: Jeff Merkley is a popular progressive in a progressive state.
• Rhode Island: Jack Reed keeps a low profile and focuses on constituent service; his voters love that.
• Virginia: If Glenn Youngkin runs, then multimillionaire Mark Warner might sweat a bit; otherwise, no.

Safe Republican Seats

• Alabama: Tommy Tuberville was hit on the head one time too many playing football, but will still win.
• Arkansas: Tom Cotton would love to be president some day, but getting reelected will be easy.
• Idaho: Jim Risch won't even have to bother campaigning.
• Iowa: Joni Ernst prostrated herself before Trump and he will probably allow her to win.
• Kansas: It's been almost 100 years since Kansas sent a Democrat to the Senate, so Roger Marshall is safe.
• Louisiana: Assuming he is not primaried, Bill Cassidy is safe in red Louisiana.
• Mississippi: Like other Southern Republicans, Cindy Hyde-Smith need not even campaign.
• Nebraska: Pete Ricketts won a special election in 2024; he'll win again in 2026.
• Oklahoma: Markwayne Mullin originally won a special election; in 2026, he will win a regular election easily.
• South Carolina: Lindsey Graham is enough of a toady that Trump may avoid endorsing a primary challenger.
• South Dakota: Popular former governor Mike Rounds is an excellent match for his state.
• Tennessee: We doubt anyone will primary Bill Hagerty and there are no Democrats left in Tennessee.
• Texas: Unlike Ted Cruz, who everyone hates, John Cornyn is popular and will win with ease.
• West Virginia: If Joe Manchin jumps in, Shelley Moore-Capito might have to struggle, otherwise no.
• Wyoming: Cynthia Lummis is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but she is Trumpy and the state is so red, she can't lose.

There is one footnote about Dick Durbin in Illinois. He is 80 and has been in public office for 44 years, including 29 years in the Senate. He doesn't have to worry about his retirement putting the seat in danger. Any half-way competent Democrat could win in blue Illinois. Durbin is getting a small nudge from Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), who is openly endorsing Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D-IL) for Durbin's job if the senator retires (hint, hint). Stratton is Black and doesn't have a national fundraising network, but Pritzker, the heir to the Hyatt Hotel chain, is a billionaire, and could easily toss in $50 million to jump-start her campaign. With Pritzker's endorsement and money, Stratton would be the odds-on favorite, even if former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel jumped in. An endorsement by former Illinois senator Barack Obama would likely be forthcoming as well. A Stratton win would establish Pritzker as a power broker in 2028, a role he would definitely enjoy.

So what's the bottom line? In the absence of any unknown unknowns, the worst practical-case scenario for the Democrats is that Kemp jumps into the Georgia race, Ayotte jumps into the New Hampshire race, both win, and the Republicans end up controlling the Senate 55-45. A better scenario for the Democrats is that Kemp and Ayotte stay out, and with the aid of $300 million in out-of-state money, Mills flips Maine and Cooper flips North Carolina, resulting in a 51-49 Republican-controlled Senate. The best case scenario for the Democrats is that Trump and Musk wreck the country and the economy, inflation and unemployment are both 10%, all of the above happens, and in addition, Tester beats Daines in Montana and Brown beats Husted in Ohio, leading to a Democratic-controlled Senate 51-49. Flipping four Senate seats would take a gigantic blue wave, but it is not impossible. The incumbent parties lost 6, 6, and 9 Senate seats respectively in the 2006, 2010, and 2014 midterms. (V)

The War in Gaza Is Back On, It Would Seem

Time, once again, for our oh-so-common caveat: This is NOT our area of expertise. But yesterday, with the blessing of the Trump administration, Israel launched a massive missile assault on Khan Younis' Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza. Somewhere between 200 and 326 Gazans were killed, many of them children.

The NBC News headline for their item on the news is: "Israeli strikes kill hundreds in Gaza as ceasefire teeters on the brink." Teeters on the brink? We are not sure in what world it can be claimed that, after an attack that kills multiple hundreds of people, a ceasefire is still in effect, or might still be in effect. In fact, that would seem to be the literal opposite of a ceasefire. And given that Israel is attacking, and that the Trump administration approved, and that Hamas tends to think in "eye for an eye" terms, then we are forced to conclude that the war is back on. But again, not our area, so maybe there is something we don't know.

If the war is indeed back on, then it will presumably linger for a long time. Maybe it ends after some additional period of senseless violence and killing, after the combatants are once again exhausted. Or maybe it ends with the fall of the Israeli government, as (enough) members of the Knesset conclude that PM Benjamin Netanyahu will never be able (or be willing?) to secure peace. Or maybe it ends with the removal of the Gazans, with the Israeli armed forces doing the dirty work and the Trump administration applauding from the sidelines.

Any of these things looks possible to us. What does not look possible is some sort of diplomatic breakthrough, courtesy of the Trump administration. After all, Team Trump, led by Steve Witkoff, took their best shot and apparently came up short. Further, any American-negotiated ceasefire would have to come with security guarantees, and there is absolutely no chance that Hamas could ever trust this administration.

As to the domestic political impact, the people who are pro-Palestine tend to be Democrats. If the war is extended through next year, maybe some of them will be motivated to get out and vote (or to return to the fold) to punish the Trump administration. It is also possible that an extended war in Israel could contribute to an overall sense that Trump = chaos, and could help to drag him down across many demographics. What we don't see is how a war in Gaza can help the administration politically, especially given Trump's brash promises that he would bring peace to the region on Day 1. (Z)

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger