The Judiciary Is Now a Flashpoint

Almost all the guardrails are gone. The Democratic Party has no power. Republican senators are hiding under their desks, hoping for "out of sight, out of mind," the media is cowed and paying "protection money," universities are running scared. The only guardrail left is the judiciary, and Donald Trump is actively working as hard as he can to crush it, as well.

Decisions that Trump doesn't like are happening almost daily. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EPA from canceling $20 billion in climate grants that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act. The money was parked at Citibank, which froze the funds. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin claimed there was waste, fraud, and abuse somewhere in the numerous contracts the government had already signed with various recipients, but he offered no evidence of it. In any event, once the government has signed a contract with an organization to do something, simply not paying is breach of contract even if the organization was inefficient in some way. The time for that discussion is prior to signing the contract, not afterwards. Trump is also planning to slash the EPA's budget by over 65% because he regards doing research about climate change and investigating violations of environmental laws as waste. But, as usual, once Congress has appropriated money for some project, he is required to spend it as Congress directed.

On another front, Trump ordered the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who has a green card, even though he is not charged with any crime. Khalil appealed his detention. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York denied the DoJ's motion to dismiss Khalil's appeal. Furman also rejected the DoJ's request to move the case to Louisiana, where Khalil is being held in prison. The attempt to move the jurisdiction from where Khalil lived to Louisiana was a stunt to get a more conservative judge. In addition, the judge ruled that the administration may not deport Khalil while the case is ongoing. Some sources believe that Trump's goal here is to get the Supreme Court to rule 6-3 that green card holders who have not committed any crime can nevertheless be deported merely for using their First Amendment rights in a way the president does not like. This would be a radical break with all past jurisprudence that says the legal residents of the U.S. cannot be deported unless they have been formally charged with a crime by a grand jury.

There are numerous other cases already where a judge has told Trump, no, he can't do what he wants because it is illegal. Trump's standpoint seems to be that he is not required to obey court rulings because he is like a king and kings don't obey court rulings. Or something. To give credit where it is due, someone in his administration is picking the fights very carefully. Khalil is strongly pro-Palestine, so Trump can claim to be fighting terrorism, which many voters will applaud. The case where Trump has come closest to out-and-out defying a judge is the order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to halt deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members until the courts have ruled on their cases. To many people, this looks like the courts are defending gang members, when in fact they are just defending everyone's right to due process when the government has a beef with them. Trump also called for Boasberg to be impeached, which prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to pipe up that, no, judges cannot be impeached simply because the president does not like their rulings.

Other members of the administration make no bones about ignoring the law. Border Czar Tom Homan went on Fox earlier this week and said: "We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming." This is an assertion that the president is exempt from obeying the law and the only function of the law is to allow the president to persecute his enemies with it. Virtually all legal scholars believe that the courts, in particular, the Supreme Court, very much have the power to review presidential decisions and potentially rule them to be in violation of the Constitution and that this has been a bedrock principle of American law for well over 200 years. In July 2019, during his first term, Trump said: "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." Now he is testing that to the hilt and is producing a constitutional crisis in the process.

All this "L'État, c'est moi" stuff is causing a huge headache for Republican members of Congress. They know very well that Trump is actively trying to destroy democracy and establish himself as king for life. They also know he could change the balance of power between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch and that could reverberate far into the future, especially if the next Democratic president also decides he is a king. But they are scared witless of saying this out loud for fear of Trump endorsing a primary challenger and having Elon Musk give the challenger $50 million to hit the ground running. They have cover as long as Trump attacks people that the voters hate, like pro-Hamas activists and Venezuelan gang members. But once the principle of "the president is above the law" is established, Trump can start applying it to his enemies who are not so hated. By then it will be too late.

Some Republican House members are preemptively trying to get in Trump's good graces. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) has introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who definitely knows better, accused Boasberg of "unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country." We don't recall his saying that when some random judge in North Texas decided to ban abortion pills for the whole country. There is a legitimate issue here of whether district (or even appellate) judges can make rulings that are binding outside their jurisdictions, but that is not Grassley's point here. He is just cozying up to Trump out of fear.

The issue of impeaching judges is a problem for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). He knows there is no chance of getting 67 votes in the Senate to convict a judge unless the judge has committed a very serious felony, and even then it is tough. But once impeachment proceedings have started, they consume time and resources. Johnson does not need that while trying to cobble together a giant bill with all of Trump's priorities and trying to pass it with his tiny margin. It's a huge distraction. The problem is that Trump wants Boasberg impeached and if he really pushes that, Johnson will have to set the circus in motion. His hope is that he can convince Trump that starting impeachment proceedings will derail the tax-immigration-education-Medicaid-energy-kitchen-sink bill.

Senators are even less enthusiastic about an impeachment proceeding. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) called it "idiotic." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said: "You don't impeach judges who make decisions you disagree with, because that happens all the time."

Republicans who are not currently in office and can't be bullied so easily see the danger here. Former New Hampshire Republican senator Judd Gregg said: "When you arbitrarily try to cancel the rule of law, which is what Trump is trying to do, and live by the edict of an individual, whether he is president or not, you're creating almost a banana republic-type of event." He also condemned Gill's attempt to impeach Boasberg as inexcusable.

Sometimes Trump thinks long-term as well as short term. Of course, with him, long-term is anything more than an entire day. In particular, with all these rulings by judges against him, he wants to stack the federal judiciary with judges whose primary loyalty is to him personally, rather than to the law. During his first term, Trump appointed over 200 judges, using the candidates handed to him by the Federalist Society. These judges were all conservative, but not necessarily Trumpist. Most believed in the rule of law and when he violated it, they called him on it.

Trump now realizes that was a mistake and wants to correct it this time by making loyalty to himself the main criterion. Mike Davis, who was the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel in Trump v1.0, said: "They're going to be looking for even more bold and fearless judges." In other words, judges who will do Trump's bidding, the law be damned. Davis has compiled his own list of potential Supreme Court nominees in case there is a vacancy soon. It is widely expected there will be one or more in the next 2 years, with either or both of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas retiring. High on Davis' list is Florida "judge" Aileen Cannon. Another name is Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Florida Trump district court judge who clerked for Thomas. She struck down the federal mask mandate for travel by plane during the pandemic. She is also married to Chad Mizelle, chief of staff for AG Pam Bondi.

Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said: "I think they will be more ideologically extreme, on the fringe of what used to be the Republican Party. They will be MAGAs, basically. Given the trend of the end of the last Trump term, we're heading over a cliff in terms of fringe right-wing views. They will have a litmus test on steroids." Blumenthal also said the only way to stop Trump was to capture control of the Senate.

Two rule changes could speed up confirmation of judges. First, in 2019, Republicans limited floor time for confirmation debates for district court judges. Second, Grassley could abolish the "blue-slip" rule, which gives the senators from the state where an appellate judge will work a de facto veto over a nominee. With this speeded-up procedure, it will not require someone with the tactical skills of former majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to create an assembly line that pumps out a new judge every minute.

Trump not only hates the law, but also lawyers. This is causing a major problem for big law firms. Should they keep their heads down and hope to avoid trouble? If asked, should they agree to defend people who have been falsely accused by Trump of some crime which the lawyers instantly see as being fake? Trump appears to be hell-bent on destroying law firms with which he has some grievance, sometimes going back a decade. One senior lawyer at a big firm said: "The administration is viewed as very punitive and retributive." Another one said: "There's a lot of fear in Big Law right now." A third said: "If you want to put a head on a spike in the city square in order to deter people from crossing the ruler, it really doesn't matter if the person's head is of someone innocent or guilty."

A group of young associates at big law firms wrote an open letter condemning Trump for breaking laws left and right and punishing law firms for doing what they are supposed to do, namely, defend their clients. Over 300 associates have signed (anonymously) so far. How long will it be before Trump tries to subpoena the list of their names and then orders them arrested? добро пожаловать в россию. (V)

Musk Is Touching the Third Rail

Social Security has long been the third rail of American politics. Anyone who touches it is instantly electrocuted. Back when Elon Musk was a private citizen and not an unconfirmed government official of sorts, he called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time." He wants to destroy it and now has a co-conspirator in Donald Trump. Acting SS Commissioner Leland Dudek is carrying out the orders.

A straightforward bill in Congress to abolish SS would fail spectacularly, so the administration's strategy is to kill it by a thousand cuts rather than one axe blow. The first step has already taken place. Many SS offices have been closed, making it much harder for people to get to one, since it may be far away. Some of the hardest hit places are in Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas.

The second step goes into effect March 31. In the past, people could call up the SSA, verify themselves by answering some questions, and then sign up, change their address, marital status, or preferred method for receiving payments on the phone. On March 31, that will be all gone. People with access to a computer and knowledge of how to do things online will be able to verify their identity online. Anyone not able to do so will have to come to an SSA office in person.

For many elderly Americans, getting to an SSA office may not be easy. Social Security provides not only for payments to seniors, but also to younger people who have a disability that prevents them from working. For some of these people, getting to an SSA office may be close to impossible. In particular, people in rural areas who live far from an SSA office and who have limited Internet access (often called "Trump voters") may be unable to arrange for and manage payments to which they are by law entitled. But making it difficult for these Trump voters to get what is rightfully theirs will help cut federal spending and reduce the budget deficit. What patriots!

It is expected that about 80,000 people per week, or over 4 million per year, will be diverted to field offices, all of which have lost staff due to cuts imposed by Musk, as well as buyouts, resignations, and retirements. This means that they will be crowded, as fewer people can be handled per hour and waits for service will be longer than in the past.

Voters who have heard about the changes are flooding the town halls of politicians and demanding that their representatives do something about them. Unions have sued. Democratic politicians have noticed. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) tweeted "Make no mistake, this is a full-blown attack on Social Security. Elon Musk is trying to take away benefits you earned." (V)

Trump Has a Huge War Chest

Donald Trump's campaign account still has hundreds of millions of dollars in it. Since Trump is (probably) not going to run for any public office again, what is going to happen to all that cash? And if that's not enough, Trump has maintained a close relationship with big donors and is urging them to keep donating. Elon Musk is about to toss another $100M in the kitty, for example.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have an idea. They want that money to be used to help Republicans keep control of both chambers in 2026. Exactly how that will happen is not clear, though. One idea would be to transfer funds to the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund, two outside super PACs focused on electing Republicans to the Senate and House, respectively. However, a potential problem is that old chestnut "candidate quality." The SLF and CLF are focused on winning, not on pleasing Trump. They could end up supporting primary candidates they think can win their states and districts, even if they are not at all Trumpy.

But Trump may not go for that. He may want to keep at least some substantial portion of the money under his own control so he can go after his enemies. For example, Trump hates Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who voted against the continuing resolution (CR) last week. He may want to use some money to support a primary opponent to Massie. That may not be easy though, since Massie is so far to the right, there isn't room for anyone on his right flank, and last time he crushed a Trumpist in the primary.

It may not even be necessary to spend the money to use it effectively. The mere knowledge that Trump or one of the committees can spend virtually unlimited amounts of money to defeat anyone who opposes him may deter everyone from opposing him in the first place.

Another thing Trump has done to increase his grip on the Republican Party is get the RNC to appoint J.D. Vance as national finance chair. That puts Vance in charge of doling out money. Members of Congress from swing districts who need independent votes will suddenly find themselves in a bind. Oppose Trump and you might win some votes, but the money spigot might suddenly dry up. (V)

Kari Lake Got a Dream Job--and Now Her Job Is to Destroy It

For an industrial-strength Trump worshiper like Kari Lake, telling the entire world how wonderful King Donald I is sounds like a dream job. Running the Voice of America was too good to be true for the former local TV anchor. And it was.

First, she is not director yet, merely an advisor. The president does not appoint the director directly. Instead, he appoints the board, subject to Senate confirmation. Trump just fired the entire board and her appointment will now have to wait until he appoints a new board and gets the members through the Senate. In 2021, Joe Biden fired the board, but his choice for director, Amanda Bennett, was not confirmed until 2024. Getting Lake in there could take time.

Meanwhile, more stuff is happening. The Voice of America is part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, along with Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia. On March 14, Trump issued a decree shutting down USAGM, even though it is the main source of the truth for millions of people in countries like Russia, China, Belarus, and North Korea. This allows authoritarian regimes to spread their propaganda unchecked. Vlad is glad.

As a consequence of the decree, 1,300 journalists and support staff have been placed on administrative leave. There are few signs that they will be called back to duty. Mike Abramowitz, the current VOA director, now on administrative leave, called it a self-inflicted blow. He said: "It's an incredibly important tool for basic combating of Chinese, Russian, Iranian disinformation, for telling the truth to people living in tyranny." But now, poof, it is gone.

Lake is unhappy with the situation. She spent the past 4 years running around the country praising Trump to the moon. She was promised a great job for her good work. She was hoping to spread the values of freedom (as she sees it) around. Now it is gone, just like that. She is still trying, though, sending out tweets taking credit for achievements like canceling the contract with the Associated Press and other wire services. Who needs actual news for the VOA when there are many White House press releases to read over the air?

As usual these days, USAGM staff heard about their fate by e-mail after hours. Then they were locked out of their accounts. When they showed up for work the next work day to collect their personal belongings, their credentials were confiscated.

Lake went on Steve Bannon's podcast and said: "And so, on day one, I brought a couple of DOGE folks in, and we added to the team and we have an incredible attorney with us as well." The attorney is Mora Namdar, a fierce critic of the VOA who wrote a chapter in the Project 2025 book that said the VOA should be either put under the president's direct control or shut down. Looks like that magically happened. Coincidences happen. Odd.

Poor Lake. She forgot the old maxim: Everything Trump touches dies. (V)

Why Are Trump's Poll Numbers Sagging?

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a Republican pollster who also writes an occasional column for The New York Times. She has noticed Donald Trump's sagging poll numbers and upside-down approval ratings and is now asking the question: Why? In particular, she is interested in the questions: What did the voters elect Trump to do and is he doing it? Is he doing what the voters wanted or is he going rogue on them? Did they want him to demolish the government and disrupt the financial order, or just want cheaper groceries?

She believes that the answer to that last question will determine his ultimate success or failure and will determine whether the Republican Party will achieve its policy agenda in the years ahead. She also looks at her data and sees that Trump views his job differently from what his voters wanted. He sees himself as a powerful disrupter after 4 years of the weak Joe Biden. He believes he has a mandate to go big and bold. But she says the data say something else. They say that after a prolonged period of inflation (brought on by the pandemic), all the voters wanted was a stable economy with the cost of living more manageable.

In contrast, Trump and his cabinet have told the country that access to cheaper goods is not a priority. They are asking Americans to accept some short-term pain in return for long-term gain. However, he has not specified what the long-term gain will be or when it might arrive. Voters are notoriously short-sighted. Investors are famous for demanding that the next quarterly dividend go up. Ordinary Americans have no such patience.

Anderson's data show that voters largely knew that Trump planned to levy tariffs and deport immigrants, but that doesn't say they voted for him on account of these items. They might have voted for him despite these items. Tariffs have never been high on the Republicans' to-do list. In fact, free markets have always been high on the list.

After Trump's inauguration, Anderson asked voters what they wanted. Number 1 was: Reduce the cost of living. Securing the border was also high on the list. Tariffs and firing government employees were way down on the list, with only a quarter of respondents saying these were a top priority.

Presidents have misread the election results before, often with disastrous results. George W. Bush was reelected in 2004 to keep the country safe from terrorists. Instead he spent all of his political capital trying to privatize Social Security. His approval ratings went from an astonishing 90% after 9/11 to 25% in late 2008 before climbing back to 34% at the end of his term. As a consequence, he got nothing done in his second term.

Barack Obama was elected to fix the disaster of the 2008 financial crisis. Instead he focused on health insurance. Democrats were crushed in the 2010 midterms.

Presidents often listen to what their donors or strongest activists want, and these are often policy issues far from what ordinary voters want. The trouble is, sometimes the presidents know better than the voters what is good for the country. In retrospect, if Obama had ignored health insurance and just tried to tweak the economy, he would probably have ended up with zero real achievements. Doing what he did, he managed one major achievement, at least.

Anderson thinks that if Trump continues to ignore the voters and just keeps on course wrecking the government, something the voters didn't ask him to do, he may end up having to pay the piper in 2026. (V)

Vance Is Locking Down the 2028 GOP Nomination Already

J.D. Vance has been vice president for less than 2 months but already he appears to be the overwhelming favorite to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2028. But remember, in politics, a week is a long time.

In the view of many of Trump's aides and most fervent supporters, Trump broke the old Republican Party and Vance is the vehicle for locking in Trump's worldview for at least a decade. Among other things, Vance's dressing down Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office drew cheers from the faithful. His unswerving loyalty to Trump is also being well received among the MAGA Militia. Even better is that Donald Trump Jr. is "over the moon" with Vance's performance so far. Junior could be a competitor in 2028, so it is important that he is happy with Vance and won't jump in. Vance has also impressed the oligarchs.

At the CPAC conference, Vance got 61% in the straw poll of who the next nominee should be. Steve Bannon was second at 12%. Matt Boyle, Washington Bureau chief for Breitbart News, said: "Vance is clearly the far, runaway frontrunner, and no one else can hold a candle to him right now." MAGAmedia star Jack Posobiec refers to Vance as "48."

Back on Planet Reality, a lot of Trump support came because many voters see Trump as a persuasive showman. Whether the Yale-educated, Silicon Valley venture capitalist can convince millions of blue-collar voters to love him is far from clear. Instead of posting all caps rants to eX-Twitter, Vance is more likely to go for carefully tailored legal briefs that his former Yale professors would be proud of. If he is seen as a wonk, that probably won't help much with Trump's base. Also, Vance now has a target on his back. Folks like Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who have other ideas about who the nominee should be, are going to be taking aim at it.

Successful handoffs are hard to do. Bill Clinton wasn't able to hand the job to Al Gore in 2000. Joe Biden couldn't transfer it to Kamala Harris in 2024. Each president has his own strengths and if the new candidate is not a good fit for their base, it doesn't work. (V)

Canada Is Reviewing Its Decision to Buy F-35s

As you no doubt have read here and elsewhere, many Canadians are boycotting American products to show their displeasure at the idea of becoming the 51st state. Some of the items being boycotted are as small as bottles of Coca-Cola, but some are a wee bit more expensive. Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, has instructed Defense Minister Bill Blair to review the deal in which Canada agreed to buy 88 F-35 fighter jets. Specifically, Blair has been instructed to see if there are any other options "given the changing environment." These babies are around $100 million a pop, so 88 of them weigh in at around $9 billion. But spare parts, maintenance, upgrades, training and more are a large part of the picture. The total cost over the full life cycle of all the planes over multiple decades could amount to $50 billion.

Only 16 F-35s have been legally ordered, and given Donald Trump's habit of reneging on contracts all the time, Canada might even try to worm out of these if a better alternative can be found. As we noted on Monday, there are three serious supersonic European jet fighters for sale, the Typhoon, the Gripen, and the Rafale.

If Carney plays his cards right, he will hold high-level and widely publicized talks with the CEOs of the companies that make the European planes. Then he will announce that they have all made him extremely good offers for planes that are known to work well, whereas the F-35 is still in the debug stage. Carney might be able to wring some serious concessions out of Trump as the president tries to save face. Or, in the end, he might decide to buy fewer F-35s and spend the rest of the money on one of the European fighter jets. That would sting Trump badly. (V)

Where Will the House Be Decided?

As we have mentioned repeatedly, the House is up for grabs in 2026. If history is any guide, maybe the odds favor the Democrats. The Senate is a steeper hill for the Democrats to climb. Consequently, there will be a huge battle nationwide for the House, whereas the Senate battle will be confined to maybe half a dozen states in the end.

Last week, the DCCC announced its frontline members, those vulnerable members who will get extra support. Here is the list. The DCCC has not yet released its list of top targets, those vulnerable Republicans it intends to try defeating.

The NRCC is reversing the order. It has now announced its top Democratic targets, but not yet its list of vulnerable incumbents to be defended. Here is the list of NRCC targets.

District	District	PVI	DCCC list?	2024	Notes on the district
Adam Gray	CA-13	D+4	Yes	0.1%	Majority Latino district in the Central Valley from Tracy to Fresno
Derek Tran	CA-45	D+2	Yes	0.2%	Wealthy district running from Yorba Linda to Huntington Beach
Jared Golden	ME-02	R+6	Yes	0.5%	Nearly all-white very large rural district covering 92% of Maine
Marcy Kaptur	OH-09	R+3	Yes	0.7%	"Snake by the Lake" south of Lake Erie running west to Indiana
Don Davis	NC-01	D+2	Yes	1.7%	Urban district running south from Virginia to almost the Research Triangle
Emilia Sykes	OH-13	R+1	Yes	2.2%	Mostly white district covering Stark and Summit Counties around Akron
Josh Riley	NY-19	EVEN	Yes	2.2%	White suburban district covering mid-Hudson Valley and west to Ithaca
Laura Gillen	NY-04	D+5	Yes	2.3%	Very wealthy, urban, white and Latino district on western Long Island
Vicente Gonzalez	TX-34	D+9	Yes	2.6%	Poor urban Latino district on the Gulf of Mexico south of Corpus Christi
George Whitesides	CA-27	D+4	Yes	2.6%	Wealthy white and Latino district in northern L.A. County and eastward
Eugene Vindman	VA-07	D+1	Yes	2.7%	Wealthy white, Black, and Latino district between D.C. and Richmond
Dave Min	CA-47	D+3	Yes	2.8%	Wealthy white and Asian district from Long Beach to Orange County
Susie Lee	NV-03	D+1	Yes	2.8%	White, Asian, Latino district from south Las Vegas to Bullhead City
Josh Harder	CA-09	D+5	Yes	3.6%	Latino and white district in the northern Central Valley
Tom Suozzi	NY-03	D+2	Yes	3.6%	Very, very wealthy urban, white and Asian district on northwest Long Island
Marie Perez	WA-03	R+5	Yes	3.8%	Predominantly white district in southwestern corner of Washington
Gabe Vasquez	NM-02	D+1	Yes	4.2%	Urban Latino and white district running from Albuquerque to Mexico
Jared Moskowitz	FL-23	D+5	No	4.7%	High urban district from Boca Raton to Ft. Lauderdale, majority white
Nellie Pou	NJ-08	D+22	Yes	4.9%	Urban, well-off district from Fort Lee running northwest for 20 miles
Henry Cuellar	TX-28	D+3	Yes	5.6%	Heavily Latino district running southwest from San Antonio to Mexico
Kristen Rivet	MI-08	R+1	Yes	6.7%	Mostly white county running northwest from Flint to Bay City and north
Dina Titus	NV-01	D+3	Yes	7.5%	White and Latino urban district with eastern Las Vegas and going south
Steven Horsford	NV-04	D+3	Yes	8.0%	White and Latino district from northern Las Vegas halfway up the state
Chris Pappas	NH-01	EVEN	No	8.1%	Largely white, predominantly urban district in the eastern third of the state
Frank Mrvan	IN-01	D+3	Yes	8.5%	Gary, IN, and its eastern suburbs, close to Chicago
Darren Soto	FL-09	D+8	No	12.5%	Majority Latino district south of Orlando

The overlap with the DCCC's list is pretty good, but not perfect. The Republicans see Reps. Darren Soto (D-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) and Chris Pappas (D-NH) as vulnerable. The Democrats think they are in good shape. On the other hand, the Democrats think that Reps. Janelle Bynum (D-OR), Jahana Hayes (D-CT) and John Mannion (D-NY) are vulnerable but the Republicans don't think they can be beaten. On the other 23, the parties agree these will be the key battles in 2026.

Interesting enough, Erin Covey over at the Cook Political Report, also has a list of districts out, but she did it differently. She looked for Democrats in districts Trump won and Republicans in districts Harris won. As partisanship becomes everything, these folks are definitely targets. Here are the Democrats in Trumpy districts.

Incumbent	District	Margin	Trump's margin	Overperformance
Susie Lee	NV-03	2.8%	0.7%	3.5%
Don Davis	NC-01	1.7%	3.1%	4.8%
Josh Harder	CA-09	3.6%	1.8%	5.4%
Adam Gray	CA-13	0.1%	5.4%	5.5%
Gabe Vasquez	NM-02	4.2%	1.8%	6.0%
Nellie Pou	NJ-09	4.9%	1.1%	6.0%
Vicente Gonzalez	TX-34	2.6%	4.4%	7.0%
Marie Perez	WA-03	3.8%	3.3%	7.1%
Marcy Kaptur	OH-09	0.6%	6.6%	7.2%
Tom Suozzi	NY-03	3.6%	4.3%	7.9%
Kristen Rivet	MI-08	6.7%	2.0%	8.7%
Jared Golden	ME-02	0.7%	9.0%	9.7%
Henry Cuellar	TX-28	5.6%	7.3%	12.9%

Gee, these names look familiar for some reason. They all occur in both the DCCC and NRCC lists. These are super vulnerable incumbents. On the other hand, with Trump not on the ballot in 2026, maybe not so much. They won even with Trump on the ballot, so without him, it might be easier. Who knows?

Now the reverse list, Republicans in Harris districts. Here it is.

Incumbent	District	Margin	Harris' margin	Overperformance
Don Bacon	NE-02	1.9%	4.6%	6.5%
Mike Lawler	NY-17	6.3%	0.6%	6.9%
Brian Fitzpatrick	PA-01	12.8%	0.3%	13.1%

Clearly, the Democrats' target list is a lot smaller than the Republicans' list and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) won by 12.8 points in a district Harris barely carried. Still, all in all, these tables should give you a good idea of where the action is likely to be in 2026. (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