TACO Wednesday?

We don't know if Switzerland has any home-grown mob bosses, but yesterday they got an imported one: Donald Trump. He gave an hour-and-a-half rambling speech at the World Economic Forum, but the line everyone will remember is this one: "We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won't give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember." In other words: "Nice country you got there. Pity if something happened to it."

If you want to get a feel for what Trump said but can't bear to watch the whole thing, Bloomberg News has put together this 3-minute clip of some of the highlights.

Trump said he would not use military force to take Greenland, but insisted that he will take it, one way or another. It is possible that his generals have informed him that the U.S. Army is simply not prepared for an Arctic war and sending it there would be a disaster, especially if the Arctic-ready European armies fought back. The speech emphasized the new world order, roughly summarized by: Might makes right. The powerful can do whatever they damn well please and too bad for the weak.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney also spoke at Davos, on Tuesday. He had a different view. He said: "Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited." He made it clear that Canada stands with Greenland and Denmark. Trump referenced Carney's speech in his, saying: "Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also, but they're not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful." After this speech Carney is likely to be even less grateful.

Trump also talked about his "Board of Peace," where seats go for the low, low price of $1 billion. He wasn't clear how many seats a country could buy, which countries were interested, or where the money would go. He did make it clear, however, that he was going to run the show, even after he is done being president. That is kind of a tacit statement that he is not going to try to run for a third term and is not going to declare himself president for life. Given what Trump thinks of Africa, imitating the many African dictators who are de facto president for life is probably beneath him anyway.

Trump told many lies during his speech. This story discusses a few of them, for example:

• After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark.
• Until I came along, NATO was only supposed to pay 2 percent of G.D.P., but they weren't paying them.
• So what we have gotten out of NATO is nothing, except to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and now Russia.

He also made a number of false claims, roughly paraphrased as follows:

• He claimed to have eliminated taxes on Social Security.
• He claimed China has no wind farms.
• He claimed Joe Biden gave Ukraine $350 billion.
• He claimed to have settled 8 wars.
• He claimed he lowered grocery prices.
• He claimed he lowered drug prices by 500, 600, 700, 800, even 2,000 percent.
• He claimed Biden had admitted 11,888 murderers into the country.
• He claimed that his military strikes on vessels reduced drug trafficking by 98.2%.

None of these are remotely true. Trump thinks that the assembled billionaires and world leaders are as gullible as his base. Hint: They are not. Europeans in the room were not all that impressed. Neither were all the Americans. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), a likely presidential candidate, called Trump's remarks "dangerous" and "unhinged." Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) said the speech was TACO. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said Trump's attempts to annex Greenland would not have the backing of Congress.

Can anyone or any thing constrain Trump? Probably not any foreign or domestic leader, but Trump is very sensitive to the markets. On Tuesday the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 870 points because all this talk about taking Greenland is making investors nervous. Yesterday, however, it recovered 588 points. Investors dislike uncertainty, and the stage is (or was?) set for a real roller coaster right. That is something that might bring Trump to heel. It is probably the only thing, though.

And that brings us to our latest meal of Trump TACOs. After all of this, he got on his flour-or-corn-tortillas? social media platform to make this announcement:

Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations—They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

DONALD J. TRUMP
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When all of this governance via social media, and the lack of details or interrogatory questioning, it's hard to figure out exactly what's going on. But it certainly appears that Trump has (1) abandoned any possibility of military intervention, and (2) backed off on his tariff threats, and he has done so in exchange for vague promises that could very well go nowhere. Sounds like TACO Wednesday to us.

A likely deal will probably have two aspects. First, the U.S. can put bases anywhere it wants in Greenland. This was unnecessary because a 1951 treaty with Denmark already allowed that and all Trump had to do was ask the prime minister of Denmark and she would have been very enthusiastic (on account of the construction jobs created). Second, the deal will probably give the U.S. first shot at mineral rights. What Trump doesn't know is that there is a mile of hard ice over those minerals and the reason no mining company has ever asked to buy a lease to extract them is that removing a mile of ice is prohibitively expensive. Maybe Trump is thinking of giving his cronies in the mining industry a massive subsidy to try (and probably fail) to extract the minerals. But he could have done that without threatening NATO.

If things continue along their current course, then Trump supporters in the political world, and in the media, will frame it as another brilliant example of The Art of the Deal; that the president blustered and huffed and puffed and threatened, and he managed to get Europe to agree to negotiate terms. If one is going to adopt that framing, it raises two questions that demand answers. The first is: What did Trump achieve here that could not have been achieved through standard-issue diplomacy? The second is: Whatever it is that he did achieve, was it worth the damage that was done? Generally speaking, the European nations now have their hackles raised, and are going to be much tougher to deal with, going forward. More specifically, the 15% tariff deal with the E.U., which was ostensibly a big coup for Trump, looks to be dead.

In any event, undoubtedly a very large number of people, within America and without, and within the Republican Party and without, are pleased that the Greenland War is off, and that everyone can stand down. Maybe it is the fear of looking weak that makes it hard for Trump to back off of these sorts of wild goose chases. If so, we would like to offer up this homage to his fortitude:

Brave Sir Donald ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Donald turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Donald!

And now, it would seem, onward and upward to the next unnecessary crisis. (V & Z)

The Supreme Court May Hand Trump an Actual Defeat

The Supreme Court does not seem inclined to allow Donald Trump to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, at least for now. The case comes to the Court on Trump's application for an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction put in place by the district court, which prohibited Cook's removal after she sued to prevent Trump from firing her. Cook was reappointed in 2023 to a 14-year term. Trump claimed that the court has no jurisdiction over the case and that he has unlimited discretion to fire Fed Governors in the same way the Court has said he can fire officials on other multi-member boards such as the NLRB or Merit Systems Protection Board. (The ruling in the FTC case over the firing of Rebecca Slaughter is expected this summer.)

Several of the more conservative members of the Court pointed out that a statutory requirement of a "for cause" justification for removal has to include some limits on the president's discretion or else the requirement is meaningless, even if the statute itself doesn't define "for cause." They also seemed to agree that there has to be at least some due process, such as notification and an opportunity to defend oneself, before a Fed Governor can be fired. There was near-unanimity that Trump's post on his social media site that is basically just a blog does not constitute notice under the statute, despite Solicitor General Sauer's vociferous arguments to the contrary. Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts were also unimpressed by the so-called "deceit" allegedly perpetrated by Cook long before she took her seat on the Board. Although Kavanaugh once again made a point of telling everyone assembled that "I'm not familiar with the facts of this case," he was troubled by the implications of Sauer's arguments. (What kind of judge deliberately keeps himself ignorant of the facts of cases he's reviewing?—It borders on malpractice, if we do say so ourselves.)

There was also a question of whether conduct that occurred before Cook's appointment is relevant at all. The Justices seemed to agree that in those circumstances, the offense must rise to the level of severe misconduct, such as murder or some other grave criminal behavior. Allegedly making a mistake on some paperwork, which Roberts pointed out isn't even in the record and so can't be verified at this point, isn't such an offense.

Kavanaugh was also the most troubled at the implications of Sauer's argument that Trump can dismiss for any reason except for policy disagreements. This prompted Kavanaugh to observe that, if that were true, then any president who wanted to fire a Governor for policy differences could simply expend unlimited government resources to dig up something he could use to fire that Governor and evade any limits on his authority. Uh, welcome to the party Brett—that's just what Cook is alleging here. But again, he doesn't bother to learn the facts, or so he says.

In the end, it appears the Court will do what it always does when it disagrees with the Trump administration—punt. To that end, it can deny Trump's request to put a hold on the preliminary injunction and keep Cook in her position while the case plays out on the merits in the courts below. It could also hold that some notice and an opportunity to be heard on the allegations is required before a Fed Governor can be removed. Our guess is that the Court will not go beyond that. It's likely banking on the fact that by the time the case gets back to them, Trump will either be long gone from office or he will have been able to appoint a majority of the Federal Reserve Board by some other means, such as when terms for the current Governors expire. Still, the Court did not grant Trump's request for an emergency stay so Cook remains on the Board pending this decision. The Court, then, need not hurry to issue a ruling to ensure the outcome it wants. A profile in courage this is not.

Scotusblog is in agreement with our assessment. (L)

The Investigation of Jerome Powell Could Complicate Replacing Him

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's term as chairman ends on May 15, so Donald Trump could leave well enough alone and he'd be gone as chairman in 3 months. But no, Trump has to prove he is top dog, so he sicced the DoJ on Powell on for an imaginary fraud charge. Maybe Trump realizes that Powell's term as a member of the Fed's Board of Governors runs until Jan. 31, 2028, so he could continue as a regular governor for 2 more years if he wishes. Trump wouldn't like that, but might or might not be able to fire Powell. Trump already tried to fire Fed Board member Lisa Cook, and that didn't work out so well, so far (see above).

But there is another complication afoot here. Trump needs to pick a replacement for Powell as chairman starting May 15 and submit the nomination to the Senate for confirmation. Two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Thom Tillis (NC), have accidentally discovered where they misplaced their spines and reinstalled them. They have announced that they will block the confirmation of all new Fed Board members until the DoJ drops the criminal investigation of Powell. Tillis is on the Senate Banking Committee, and his "no" vote would block the nomination from even coming to the floor for a vote. This is a direct challenge to Trump, something He. Does. Not. Like. Tillis is retiring from the Senate and Murkowski is not up for reelection until 2028. If Trump threatens her with a primary, then she could say: "I'm not afraid. Besides, you're old and sick will probably be dead by then, and Alaska has top-four-finisher elections anyhow." If he decided to punish Alaska, instead, Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola would be out with an ad in a day saying: "This is why we need Democratic control of the Senate, to block Trump."

Trump is making the politics of the Fed very strange. The ranking member of the Banking Committee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), bitterly opposed Powell's initial nomination as chairman, saying he was a dangerous man who failed to oversee the big banks. Now she is vigorously defending Powell—or, more accurately, she is opposing the DoJ charging Powell with a criminal offsense on a made-up charge.

But even if Trump orders the DoJ to drop the charges against Powell and finds a nominee who can get past the Senate, he still may not get what he wants (namely, lower interest rates, which are good for his real estate business). Interest rate decisions are made by the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee, in which the chairman has just one vote, like all the others. Recent decisions have been split, such as the 9-3 decision in December to cut rates just 0.25%, much less than Trump wanted. If Trump's new chair wants to lower rates dramatically, but is outvoted by the 11 others who are worried about inflation, Trump may try to fire the new chair for not giving him the result he wants. This will lead to more court cases and probably spook the markets. Claudia Sahm, a former Fed research director, said: "We could be on the verge of a revolving door of Trump Fed Chairs, each less credible and less effective than the last." (V)

Maryland Takes a Step Toward Redistricting

Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD), who may have vice-presidential ambitions in 2028, took one for the team and created a commission to re-gerrymander Maryland's congressional map even more than it was already gerrymandered. Initially, he was on the side of "good government" rather than partisan politcs, but he felt which way the wind was blowing and moved in a new direction. On Tuesday, his five-member commission, chaired by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), produced its magnum opus, a new map. Here are the old and new maps next to each other:

The map is not finished yet. The focus has been on stuffing Democrats into MD-01 and removing Republicans from it. The members seem to assume that fish are Democrats (because Democrats are vegans?), so Chesapeake Bay was added to MD-01. Notice its absence as a neutral area in the new map. The maps will have to be tweaked somewhat to get the populations equal. One feature of the new map is that three of the districts are majority-minority.

The process of mapmaking included an appeal to the general public to submit maps. With Dave's Redistricting Website, anyone can be a mapmaker now and the commission received over three dozen maps from the public.

The new map is not a done deal. The commission vote was 3-2 and state Senate President Bill Ferguson (D) opposes a new map. Moore intends to send the map to the state House, where it will pass easily, then on to the Senate. Ferguson could refuse to take a vote on it, but doing so would incur the wrath of his caucus. Democrats control the state Senate 34-13.

One House seat does not make a huge difference, but MD-01 is special. Turning it blue would unseat Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. When the FC complains about the new map, the response is sure to be: "You guys started this." (V)

Will a Future Democratic President Try to Turn the Clock Back?

Let's look at the last three presidential elections:

Year	What happened
2016	The White House changed parties from a Democrat (Barack Obama) to a Republican (Donald Trump)
2020	The White House changed parties from a Republican (Donald Trump) to a Democrat (Joe Biden)
2024	The White House changed parties from a Democrat (Joe Biden) to a Republican (Donald Trump)
2028	?

There seems to be a pattern here: The people are unhappy these days, and are always in a mood to throw the bums out. Could it happen again? If Donald Trump's sinking approval hits what Sarah Longwell calls the Bushline (32% approval), it is more likely than not, even though Trump himself will not be a candidate. What would a Democratic president want to do and what could he (or, less likely, she) pull off?

A key question—and probably a big issue in the primaries—is how much time and effort should be spent trying to root out Trumpism? One school of thought is that every vestige of Trumpism must be aggressively wiped off the face of the earth. Some of those are easy. On Day 1, The Army Corps of Engineers could take a wrecking ball to the big room where Trump's balls were located, selling the gold to some company that refines metals. Ditto the soon-to-be-constructed Arc de Trump near Arlington National Cemetery. ICE could be broken up and useful pieces (if there are any) divided among other departments. There are numerous other symbols that could be destroyed quickly. The president's first XO could read: "All XOs signed between Jan. 20, 2025, at noon and Jan. 20, 2029, at noon are hereby repealed."

Also in this vein is a major push to get Congress to change the laws so there can never be a Trump II. For example, all emergency powers would last only a week unless both chambers of Congress renewed them. Laws about economic emergencies could be repealed (economics is not an area given to emergencies). Similarly, laws about the president federalizing the National Guard against the wishes of the governor could be tightened. The Posse Comitatus Act could be strengthened in various ways to prevent misuse of the Armed Forces on a presidential whim.

Also in this bucket is reining in the Supreme Court, something we have discussed before at length. There is a long list. The goal would be to turn the clock back to a time when the president's job was to see that the laws passed by Congress were executed.

But another school of thought is that the new president might just be able to put all the new presidential powers to good use. For example, unions have always favored protectionism and the new president might want to use his newly acquired tariff power surgically to protect key industries, rather than using it to bend other countries to his will. For example, he could put a high tariff on Chinese electric cars and batteries to protect those domestic industries.

FBI Directors serve (by law) for 10 years and can only be fired for cause. Will a Democratic president say: "Gee, I think Kash Patel is completely incompetent but my hands are tied so I can't fire him"? Or will he send Patel an e-mail on Day 1 with "Subject: You are hereby fired"? That goes for a large number of other agency heads who are supposed to serve fixed terms.

The next president could also announce that his lawyers have determined that the Second Amendment applies only to the smooth-bore, muzzle-loading muskets available in 1791 and nothing invented after that and send ICE door to door to confiscate guns other than pre-1792 muskets. After all, ICE is the president's personal goon squad.

Trump got tech titans to dance to his music. A new president could change the tune but still demand that the titans dance to it, lest they lose government contracts or be punished in other ways. Might the new president announce he was planning to nationalize SpaceX and merge it into NASA, but if Elon Musk cleaned up eX-Twitter, he might be willing to reconsider? Mark Zuckerberg might well be willing to hire thousands of fact checkers to aggressively vet postings for lies and hate if the president told him he wanted to repeal Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (which would leave Meta open to being sued for libelous content posted by users). The list is long and Trump (well, really the Project 2025 folks) provided a playbook for how to maximize the pressure.

The danger here is that everyone becomes accustomed to living in an authoritarian state, where the only difference between a Democratic president and a Republican president is who gets targeted. The people's constitutional rights then hinge on presidential whims. If future potential candidates for FBI director know they can be fired anytime the president doesn't like what they are doing, will they ever dare to investigate a corrupt cabinet official knowing that means also finding a new job?

However, there is also a third possibility. A Democratic president could say: "The past is past. I don't want to try to repeal it. I want to go forward and lower the price of eggs and houses." He could just ignore the 2025-2028 period and focus on carrying out his own program.

This question is unavoidable and is likely to come up in both the Democratic and Republican primaries in 2028. (V)

Data Centers Are Becoming a Political Issue

The construction of data centers, which consume massive amounts of electricity and water (for cooling), is becoming a major political problem. Tech companies are falling all over each to roll out AI, which requires massive data centers. Very few people are saying "Gee, I can't wait until AI is here." Rather the opposite. There is a real fear that AI will take over many entry-level white-collar jobs. So AI starts out with one strike against it from the get go.

Additionally, data centers contain hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of computers and consume vast amounts of electricity to run them. That puts a strain on the local electricity infrastructure and often directly or indirectly raises electricity costs for everyone in the area, or even the state. That is strike two. The computers also generate a lot of heat and that is dissipated by using the heat to turn cold water into steam which is then released into the atmosphere, possibly affecting local weather. The large amount of water used has to come from somewhere and that often puts pressure on the local water sources and distribution networks. That is strike three. Given that the vast majority of people see little value to themselves from AI and some actively oppose it on account of the potential job losses, the whole issue of data centers is becoming very political.

In Wisconsin, a grassroots group called Great Lakes Neighbors United in Wisconsin (GLNUW) is fighting a $15 billion data center for OpenAI and Oracle. They are trying to recall the mayor of Port Washington, who approved the project. If that succeeds, it will send shockwaves through the political world. GLNUW may not hit presidential politics, but will certainly hit races for the House and for state legislative districts. Candidates who take a stand for data centers may discover there are many voters who don't want them nearby (or even far away).

But the potential damage caused by data centers is more than electricity supply and prices and water supply and prices. In many cases, new power lines and water distribution networks will have to be built, either ruining woods or crossing private property and thus decreasing home values. That raises the stakes even more. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed a national moratorium on data center construction until state and federal governments can come up with new rules that push all the costs of the data centers onto the companies that are building them, including all the infrastructure costs. In cases like power lines ruining local woods or lowering property values, the legal battles could take years.

Companies will no doubt respond to this by offering campaign contributions (aka bribes) to politicians to be on their side, which will put the politicians who take them on the opposite side from the voters. They have to hope that the amount of advertising they can buy offsets the voters' anger. (V)

Lindsey Halligan Finally Quits--after Multiple Judges Have Ordered Her to Do So

We mentioned this yesterday, but it demands a bit more attention. How many adverse court decisions from one district does it take to get rid of an unlawfully appointed U.S. Attorney? The world may never know, because Lindsey Halligan resigned her position on Tuesday. But she did not go without getting in one last shot at the courts who ruled against her every step of the way. She claimed she resigned only because her 120-day appointment was up, despite the fact that the court failed to "fill the vacancy it said already existed" and "declined to exercise the authority it claimed was exclusively its own." You have to admire the chutzpah.

In actuality, yet another judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. District Judge David Novak, a Trump appointee, had asked her to explain what the heck she was still doing there after Novak's colleague from South Carolina, Judge Cameron Currie, had ruled her appointment was invalid. Her response was a screed that essentially told the judge to mind his own business and that he should have better things to do with his time. Judge Novak did not take too kindly to that approach. In a tone that can only be described as alternately patronizing and dripping with sarcasm, he carefully explained to the "inexperienced" Halligan that a district court ruling applies to all cases in the Eastern District of Virginia, and she purports to work where? Oh yea, the EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. He stopped short of calling her a moron, but it was close. "Ms. Halligan's response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice," the judge wrote. "The Court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat."

In the end, Novak didn't actually bring the hammer down (because why would any of these corrupt lackeys ever have to answer for their misconduct?) and decided that her stupidity, er, inexperience was entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" so long as she never signed her name to anything ever again in his district as U.S. Attorney. He also said that any attorneys joining her on a pleading could be subject to disciplinary action. That undoubtedly got "AG" Pam Bondi's attention. But not before they at first tried to rename Halligan as a "special attorney." Well, she's certainly special.

Meanwhile, EDVA Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck had already started advertising for a new U.S. Attorney even before Judge Novak's ruling came down. That's one way to get the message across. Maybe Erik Siebert is still available and would want his old job back.

So, it could be that this particular saga has come to an end, and James Comey and Letitia James can rest a little easier. But given that Trump has now set his sights on public officials in Minnesota and has created a new Special Assistant Attorney General, who is answerable only to him, to invent crimes against anyone who crosses him, none of us can rest easy. (L)

Michele Tafoya (R) Files to Run for the Seat of Tina Smith

As you probably have noticed, Minnesota is in turmoil, with ICE agents arresting and shooting people right and left. The people of Minnesota are going to get a chance to weigh in on this in November, since there are elections for both governor and senator. Both are open-seat elections, since neither Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) nor Tina Smith (DFL-MN) is running for reelection.

Democrats have two heavyweight candidates duking it out for the senatorial nomination, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and Rep. Angie Craig. The former is a Native American and the latter is a lesbian, forcing fans of identity politics to rank order their identity preferences.

On the Republican side, former NBA player Royce White and former Navy SEAL Adam Schwarze were the only candidates until yesterday, when they were joined by Michele Tafoya. Her claim to being a suitable United States senator is that she used to be a sports reporter for a variety of stations and sideline reporter for NBC Sunday Night Football. In her announcement, she said: "For years, I covered the biggest football games in America. It taught me about how leadership really works when leaders are prepared and accountable." Right, talking to players and coaches about why that flea-flicker didn't work clearly prepares you to be a U.S. senator. In any event, she has made clear she knows that female sports ought to be restricted to actual females and she is not afraid to say it.

Tafoya proudly brands herself a "pro-choice, libertarian-leaning conservative." If you think about it for a moment, that's pretty much the opposite of Trumpism. He claims to be anti-choice (and most of his followers are definitely anti-choice). And he's a big, big fan of an interventionist government, as long as it's intervening in the right places. So, she is not exactly in step with the leader of her party.

Still, Tafoya's entry is going to heat up the Republican primary because she is better known than the other two candidates. This is going to put all of them in a difficult position. Attack the ICE raids and and have Donald Trump hate you. Support the ICE raids and have large numbers of voters furious with you. But given what is happening in Minneapolis now, defending the administration is going to be tough for whoever wins the GOP primary. (V)

Cook Political Report Now Has 18 House Races as "Toss-Up"

In two weeks, the House will be 218R, 214D, with three vacancies (2R, 1D), meaning that Democrats have to flip three seats to take charge of the chamber. The midcycle redistricting is not finished yet, with Maryland and Florida still at it, but still, a lot of attention will go to the seats that are toss-ups and can go either way. Charlie Cook now has 18 House seats rated as toss-ups, so these are likely to be the most fought over. Let us first look at the four toss-up districts currently represented by a Democrat:

• OH-01 (R+1) Greg Landsman: The recent redistricting in Ohio made Landsman's district much redder, but not impossibly so. He has all of Cincinnati as well as ruby-red Clinton County, but no longer has some of the left-leaning suburbs in Hamilton County. In the old district, Kamala Harris won by 6 points. She would have lost the new one by 2½ points.
  
  
• OH-09 (R+5) Marcy Kaptur: Marcy Kaptur has been in this district roughly since Methuselah was in short pants. She would have easily gotten her 23rd term, but Republicans redesigned her district to make it R+5. It is west of Sandusky, along Lake Erie, to the Indiana border. It is 78% white, as is Kaptur. Well, actually, she's 100% white. She is very well known there, but this will be her toughest race.
  
  
• TX-34 (R+3) Vicente Gonzalez: He was always a top target, so when Texas redistricted, they made his previously EVEN district in the Rio Grande Valley even redder. Still, R+3 is doable for an incumbent, especially if Latinos have had it with all the ICE raids.
  
  
• WA-03 (R+2) Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: This district is unchanged since last time, and Perez won it then, so she has a good chance to win it again, despite the red lean. She is likely to draw the state Senate Minority leader, John Braun, as her opponent. He is not as incendiary as the guy she beat last time.

Now, let's look at the much larger number of toss-up districts with an incumbent Republican who could be knocked off in a blue wave:

• AZ-01 (R+1) Open (was David Schweikert): This Scottsdale-based district is one of the wealthiest districts in the country held by a Republican. The median household income is $102,000. It was a top target even before Schweikert decided to run for governor. Now it is even more so. So far, four Republicans and six Democrats have filed. Trump won the district 51% to 48%.
  
  
• AZ-06 (EVEN) Juan Ciscomani: This is one of the most evenly balanced districts in the country. In 2024, Trump won it by less than 1 point. In 2020, Biden won it by less than 1 point. So far, three Democrats have filed. The weirdly shaped district is in the southeastern corner of the state. It is 67% non-Latino white and 21% Latino.
  
  
• CA-22 (D+1) David Valadao: Despite the slight Democratic lean, Valadao keeps pulling off wins in this agricultural district in the Central Valley. He is a pragmatic moderate who focuses on issues farmers care about.
  
  
• CA-48 (D+2) Darrell Issa: He is one of the victims of Prop. 50. His district was redrawn from R+7 to D+2. It is now extremely gerrymandered, running from Cathedral City to the Mexican border in eastern San Diego County. He will be a top target. He is one of the richest members of Congress, with an estimated net worth of $800 million. He made his fortune by founding a company that manufactured those irritating car alarms and then parlaying that small fortune to a much bigger fortune through investments. However, that may not be enough. The district is 47% non-Latino white and 46% Latino.
  
  
• CO-08 (EVEN) Gabe Evans: By design, this is the ultimate swing district. It encompasses the northern Denver suburbs almost up to Fort Collins. Trump won it by 2 points in 2024 and Biden won it by 4 points in 2020.
  
  
• IA-01 (R+4) Marianette Miller-Meeks: Despite the lean of the district, the House races are sometimes close. In 2020, Miller-Meeks won by 6 votes. Christina Bohannan (D) is running again. Last time, Miller-Meeks beat Bohannan by 799 votes. It is that close.
  
  
• IA-03 (R+2) Zach Nunn: Another close Iowa district. Nunn got 51.8% of the vote last time. A state senator and a state representative have filed for the Democratic nomination. In a blue wave, it could flip.
  
  
• MI-07 (EVEN) Tom Barrett: This is a very swingy district. Only three districts have voted for the winner in the past five presidential elections: This one, CO-08 and PA-07. In even a minor blue ripple, Barrett is history.
  
  
• NJ-07 (EVEN) Thomas Kean Jr.: Kean is the son of a popular former governor, but now he is on his own. Eight Democrats have filed to run against him, indicating that the locals think he can be beaten. The district is a weird blob west of New York City.
  
  
• NY-17 (D+1) Mike Lawler: He is in a tough district in the Hudson Valley, from just north of White Plains to Pawling and covering much of northern Westchester County, all of Rockland and Putnam Counties and a part of Dutchess County. It is 98% urban and very affluent, with a median household income of $123,000. Republicans tend to have a lot of trouble in this kind of district. Seven Democrats have figured this out and filed already.
  
  
• PA-07 (D+1) Ryan Mackenzie: This is a true swing district. Trump won it in 2016, lost it in 2020, and won it again in 2024. It is in the Lehigh Valley, between Allentown and Hazelton. It is 73% non-Latino white.
  
  
• PA-10 (R+3) Scott Perry: In 2024, Perry won with 50.6% of the vote against Janelle Stelson, who is running again. Without Trump on the ticket and a generally bad environment for Republicans, the R+3 lean of the district may not be enough to save Perry.
  
  
• VA-02 (EVEN) Jen Kiggans: This is a perennial swing district, but the Virginia legislature is busy trying to fix that. Trump won here in 2016, lost here in 2020, and won again in 2024. Four Democrats have filed, including former representative Elaine Luria, who will be tough to beat if she wins the primary.
  
  
• WI-03 (R+3) Derrick Van Orden: This heavily gerrymandered district runs from the Minnesota state line just east of St. Paul down to Dubuque and up to Stevens Point. It is 91% non-Latino white. Trump won the district three times. Two Democrats, including the Eau Claire city council president, Emily Berge, have filed, but Van Orden might well be able to pull off another win unless there is a substantial blue wave.
  

There you have it. These are the House races to watch—so far. If you care about control of the House, you might want to toss some of your now-obsolete pennies in the direction of your favorite candidate(s). (V)

Former Vice Admiral Fired by Hegseth Is Running for Congress

In August, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired three-star Admiral Nancy Lacore and didn't explain why. This might have something to do with his view that she has long hair and he doesn't think warriors should have long hair. It could also be due to another body part, although in this case, one she doesn't have. In the previous 35 years, nobody had any problems with her service and she made it up to vice admiral. She was chief of the Navy Reserve, leading about 59,000 sailors. She got the job by being nominated by Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate.

So, is she going home to South Carolina and taking up, say, running? Well, yes. She is going to take up running. For Congress. As a Democrat. In particular, for the SC-01 seat Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is vacating to run for governor of South Carolina. The district contains Charleston and is only R+6. In a blue wave, a retired vice admiral might just be able to win, even in South Carolina. Lacore won't be alone, though. Ten Republicans and four Democrats have already filed to run for the open seat. Still, given South Carolina's respect for the Armed Forces, a retired vice admiral who served with distinction for 35 years might have a decent chance. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger