United States v. Alaska. District of Alaska, Judge Sharon Gleason. Filed Thursday, October 22, by the Department of Justice, asking that Alaska not certify the Senate result if Mary Peltola wins while a second candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. remains on the ballot, on a theory of voter confusion, resting on a purpose clause in the National Voter Registration Act that the complaint quotes with its first six words removed. The president, asked about it Friday: “Well, I’m the one that said, ‘do it.’”

What moved. On Friday the League of Women Voters of Alaska and other voting rights groups moved to intervene, called the suit “frivolous,” and asked the court to “consider sanctions against the attorneys” who signed it. Over the weekend Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee moved to intervene and to dismiss; her filing says “DOJ’s complaint is wholly baseless” and that the suit could be used to “falsely suggest that there is doubt” about Alaska’s results. Common Cause and the other proposed intervenors: the relief sought “risks disenfranchising Alaska residents entirely.” On Monday the State of Alaska, the actual defendant, filed its response, asking for immediate dismissal. Its filing says the ballots were printed months ago “without legal challenge,” that the division “designed the ballot to distinguish” the two men “as much as possible,” by middle initial, by “Jr.,” by “Dan” against “Daniel,” by party and by the word “Incumbent,” and that a voter who is still unsure can rank both Sullivans first and second. It says investigating voter intent would breach the secret ballot. On the premise, it closes the door: the United States “has no legal authority” over how candidates “secure their place on the ballot in state elections,” and “has no legally cognizable interest in securing a particular election outcome.” Also Monday, Gleason put the case on a clock, noting the department had waited “nearly four months” after the Alaska Supreme Court ordered the second Sullivan onto the ballot. The government had until 5 p.m. Tuesday to respond to the intervention motions. Replies are due at noon today. Her order says the court “intends to issue a ruling by 5:00 p.m. on October 28, 2026,” which is this afternoon. If she lets the intervenors in, the government must answer the motions to dismiss by 5 p.m. Thursday, and the dismissal ruling could come Thursday night or Friday.

What it means. The state being sued and the Democrat whose win would trigger the suit are on the same side of the v., and the attorney general spent Sunday on two networks saying the suit is “not saying, ‘don’t certify’” while his complaint asks the court to withhold certification. The state’s filing is the one to read, because it comes from the division, under a Republican lieutenant governor, that tried to remove the retired schoolteacher itself in June and lost in two courts. It is now telling a federal judge that it fixed the problem on the ballot and that Washington has no business here. Joshua Douglas, an election law scholar at the University of Kentucky, calls it “a press release disguised as a lawsuit.” The department’s answer to that, if it has one, is due on paper Thursday, provided the intervenors are let in.

Next date. 5 p.m. today on intervention. Then Thursday, the election on Tuesday, ranked choice tabulation November 18, certification targeted for November 25, and a five-day recount window after that.

Subscribe now

Read more

What follows is the record. The jokes are structural and I apologize for none of them.

The building, first, because everything in this story is a building. In January 2007 Kushner, then 26, paid $1.8 billion for 666 Fifth Avenue, which was at the time the most anyone had ever paid for a single office building in Manhattan and remained, for the next eleven years, the most anyone had ever regretted it. The tower bled money through the financial crisis. By 2017 the family needed a partner, and in April of that year Charles Kushner met the finance minister of Qatar to ask for one. Qatar declined. Two months later Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates blockaded Qatar, and Jared, by then a senior adviser to the president, supported the blockade. In 2018 a firm called Brookfield, among whose largest investors was the Qatar Investment Authority, took a 99-year lease on 666 Fifth and paid roughly $1.1 billion of it up front, which rescued the Kushners. The blockade was lifted in 2021. Nobody has established that these events are connected, which is the sentence that appears in every account of them, including this one.

The clearance. In 2017 Kushner filed the SF-86, the form on which a person seeking access to the nation’s secrets lists every foreign contact of the preceding seven years, and left off more than a hundred of them, which he corrected in subsequent filings the way one might correct a grocery list by adding the groceries. Career officials recommended against granting him top-secret access. In 2018 the president overruled them and ordered it granted, and the chief of staff, John Kelly, wrote a memo saying so, because he wanted it on record that the order had come from upstairs. That record exists. It is the first of several documents in this piece written by people who wanted it known that the decision was not theirs.

The fund. Affinity Partners was founded, by the Judiciary Committee’s count, on January 21, 2021, the day after the inauguration of the next president, which for a man who had spent four years in government is an admirable lack of a cooling-off period. Within six months the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, committed $2 billion to it. Kushner had never run an investment fund. The PIF’s own screening panel noted this. In documents the New York Times later obtained, the panel cited “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management,” found the firm’s operations “unsatisfactory in all aspects,” and warned of “public relations risks.” The fund’s board, chaired by the crown prince, overruled the panel. The crown prince was the man the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded, in a report declassified in February 2021, had approved the operation to capture or kill Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, in a consulate in Istanbul in 2018. The $2 billion was committed months later. Kushner’s qualifications were, in the panel’s assessment, nil; in the crown prince’s, four years of WhatsApp.

The fees. By 2024, according to Senate Finance Committee findings, Affinity had collected about $157 million in management fees, $87 million of it paid directly by the Saudi government, and had returned to its investors no profits at all. The structure is the industry’s usual one: a management fee whether or not the manager makes any money, and a share of the profits if he does. The second half has not come up. Qatar and an Emirati fund called Lunate added $1.5 billion in 2024. By Raskin’s letter the firm raised another $1.2 billion in 2025 alone and now holds $6.16 billion, of which $6.10 billion, or 99 percent, comes from foreign nationals, which is to say from three governments with whom the Special Envoy for Peace is currently negotiating peace. In March the Times reported he had gone back to the crown prince for more. One of the firm’s larger positions is a 1.1 percent slice of the $52.5 billion buyout of Electronic Arts, most of the rest of which belongs to the PIF, meaning the crown prince now owns the company that makes the football game, and Kushner owns enough of it to be invited to the meetings.

The envoy. His diplomatic portfolio, per the letter, includes Gaza, where he negotiated a 2025 agreement that the committee notes failed to end the war but interested the Saudi, Emirati and Qatari governments considerably; Ukraine, where his ceasefire work involved contact with major Russian financiers and produced, in Raskin’s phrase, no measurable progress; and Iran, where the Saudi government reportedly pressed for the war to continue and the crown prince, as Affinity’s largest investor, holds what the letter calls financial leverage over the negotiator. Kushner’s view of Gaza was recorded at Harvard in February 2024, before the title: its “waterfront property could be very valuable,” and the thing to do was “move the people out and then clean it up.” A year later his father-in-law announced the Riviera. There is also a Board of Peace, to which the president invited Hungary at Davos in January, and about which the committee has asked for all communications. On October 6 CNN reported on Affinity’s investments in Israeli technology companies tied to the defense establishment, and a senior House Democrat announced an investigation the same day. The line in the letter that will outlive it: “You cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn” of the Saudi monarchy at the same time. The letter was due answered by April 30. No answer has been made public, and it is October.

The island. In December 2024, a month after the election, the government of Albania declassified Sazan, a 5.7-square-kilometer former military island in a marine park off Vlorë, for civilian use, and in January 2025, days before the inauguration, granted a Kushner-affiliated entity “Strategic Investor” status, which fast-tracks permits. The plan is a €1.4 billion resort across the island and the adjacent Zvërnec coast, which sits on the Narta lagoon, one of the Balkans’ most important wetlands and a stopover for several hundred species of migratory birds, among them the pink flamingo, which is how a private equity project came to be the subject of something Albanians now call the Flamingo Revolution. Protests began in late May. Banners read “Albania is not for sale” and “Ivanka, go home.” Footage showed the project’s private guards dragging a protester along a cliff edge; two security firms lost their licenses. On June 1 Albania’s special anti-corruption prosecutor confirmed an investigation into the changes to the island’s protected status and land bought without tenders. In July a court freed the arrested protesters. By last week the movement had grown into a student uprising in Tirana against the government itself, with rubber bullets, tear gas, hundreds of arrests, and a prime minister, Edi Rama, explaining that the demonstrators had been “ideologized and radicalized” by antifa. Rama is a close friend of the Kushner family. The resort, by the account of people on the ground, is under construction. The flamingos have not commented, and are not expected to be consulted.

The ruin. In Belgrade there is a building called the Generalštab, the former headquarters of the Yugoslav army, which NATO bombed in 1999 and which has stood since as a protected ruin and a memorial. Kushner’s plan was to turn it into a luxury hotel, and to do that Serbia had to strip its protected status, which it did in 2024, on the strength of an expert opinion that turned out, by last May, to have been forged. The culture minister and three others were indicted for abuse of office and forgery of an official document. Kushner’s firm pressed on through the summer, and the Serbian parliament passed a special law to clear the way, and then on December 15 the firm told the Wall Street Journal it was stepping aside out of respect for Serbia, with a sentiment about projects that bring people together, which is the private equity equivalent of a breakup text, sent to a building. Vučić, who the Guardian reported had pushed to strip the building’s protection himself, put the lost investment at “at least 750 million euros” and said the state and nation were the “major losers.” On Sunday night Vučić lost the election. The ruin remains a ruin, which, given the alternatives on offer, is the best outcome in this piece.

The father. Charles Kushner went to federal prison in 2005 for tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering, the last of which involved hiring a prostitute to seduce his own brother-in-law, filming it, and mailing the tape to his sister. He was pardoned in December 2020 and is now the United States ambassador to France. In August 2025 Paris summoned him over a letter he wrote to Macron accusing France of not doing enough about antisemitism; he sent his deputy. In February of this year Paris summoned him again, over a State Department post blaming “violent radical leftism” for a killing in Lyon; he didn’t appear, and the French foreign minister announced that no minister of the government would meet him until he did. He is, as of this writing, an ambassador to a country whose ministers will not meet him, which is the family business in miniature: a title and a locked door.

The book. On Thursday Vanity Fair ran an excerpt from “Princes and Thieves,” by the investigative journalist Matthew Cole, which Simon & Schuster then released two days early, on Sunday. The excerpt alleges that during the first term Kushner had access to roughly $2 billion in Gulf-funded accounts, one at First Abu Dhabi Bank and one, of about $1 billion, allegedly held in Israel for his benefit; that Dutch intelligence, having turned a Russian military intelligence operative in 2017, found screenshots from Kushner’s iPhone on a GRU server and spent the next years watching him use it. Kushner called the allegations “completely insane” and “outrageous fabrications,” noted that the author produced no bank statements, wire records, account numbers or transaction dates, and had his lawyers send a 13-page letter to the publisher and a second to Condé Nast. The president called it “a totally false story.” The Jerusalem Post pulled its own article aggregating the claims, citing factual questions. The Bank of Israel said it knew of no such arrangement. No outlet has independently confirmed any of it, and this piece doesn’t either. I include it for one reason: it is the only part of the Kushner story that anyone has had to deny. Everything above it is on the public record, filed, audited, indicted or declassified, and the facts in it are not in dispute.

The comparison. Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company for about a million dollars a year, made some millions more from Chinese partners, was investigated by the Justice Department for five years, was convicted of three felonies in June 2024, pleaded guilty to nine tax charges in September, was pardoned by his father in December, and was the subject of a House impeachment inquiry into the president on the theory that the son’s business was the father’s corruption. Jared Kushner has taken $6.16 billion from three foreign governments, 99 percent of his fund, while negotiating with those governments on behalf of the United States under a title his father-in-law invented; has had his firm’s competence rated “unsatisfactory in all aspects” by the people who funded it anyway; has had a hotel site in Belgrade de-protected on a document prosecutors say was forged and an island in Albania fast-tracked in the week before the inauguration; has a father who was pardoned for the prostitute and the tape and whom French ministers now decline to meet; and has never been charged with anything. The House that spent a year on the gas company has, through its minority, sent him a letter. No answer has surfaced. He has a title, and the title is Peace.

Same night, opposite responses. The difference is the subject of this piece, because in eight days the United States votes, and the attorney general has already filed the response.

The year’s ledger, with the loss column first.

Hungary, April 12. Trump had endorsed Viktor Orbán on Truth Social in February, calling him a “truly strong and powerful leader,” and J.D. Vance campaigned beside him in Budapest the week before the vote. Péter Magyar’s Tisza party took 53.65 percent and 138 of 199 seats, a two-thirds constitutional majority, against 37.76 percent for Fidesz. Orbán, after sixteen years, called the result “painful,” told supporters “I congratulated the victorious party,” and phoned Magyar to say so. Magyar said as many as six million people voted in a country of nine million.

Sweden, September 13. The left bloc won 176 seats to 173. The Sweden Democrats, who had propped up the government from outside and been promised Cabinet seats if it won, fell eleven seats to third place. Ulf Kristersson posted his resignation after the final count.

Serbia, yesterday. The movement began in November 2024, when a railway station canopy collapsed in Novi Sad and killed sixteen people, and grew over two years of protest into a student list that ran doctors and teachers with no political experience. Vučić resigned the presidency in September to run for prime minister against it. Turnout hit 64.9 percent by six in the evening, the highest since Yugoslavia broke apart. By his own projection from the sample count, the students take 135 to 140 seats of 250 against 105 for his list. He conceded while the commission was still counting.

Brazil, yesterday. Lula, 80, had trailed Flávio Bolsonaro 47 to 45 in the first round on October 4 and won the runoff 51 to 48, a fourth term. The father, Jair, is serving 27 years for plotting the coup that followed his own loss in 2022. Washington’s hand in this one was heavier than an endorsement: Trump put 50 percent tariffs on Brazil last year citing the prosecution, and Reuters reported that State Department officials pushed sanctions aimed at weakening Lula and returning the family to power. Asked whom he wanted to win, Trump said, “I don’t want to get into that, but we are watching.” Flávio’s grievance is a two-hour extension of voting ordered by a Lula-appointed justice over transport disruptions. His own campaign had asked for an extension that day because of rain in the south. Donald Trump Jr. complained about the hours from here.

The counterexample, which stays in.

British Columbia, Saturday. David Eby’s New Democrats had governed since 2017. He called an election two years early and opened it by saying “Donald Trump is attacking our workers,” then shifted to housing and affordability. The Conservatives, who had changed leaders five weeks earlier when Kerry-Lynne Findlay quit and Lorne Doerkson took over, won more than sixty seats on 48 percent to 37. Eby resigned as leader that night and congratulated Doerkson. Trump shared the news twice on Sunday, once at two in the morning.

The lesson there is narrower than either side wants. A nine-year government that ran against a foreign president lost to a party that wasn’t him. Voters don’t cast ballots against a man who isn’t on their ballot. On November 3 he is on ours, through the suit his own department filed in Alaska and the rallies he has held in every district he could reach, which is a different election from the one Eby tried to run.

And 2025 cut both ways, so the scoreboard argument is a wash and anyone making it is choosing rows. Carney in Canada and Albanese in Australia won on the Trump effect, and Dutton lost his own seat. Nicușor Dan beat the far right in Romania in May. Against those: Nawrocki in Poland in June, a month after his Oval Office visit; Babiš in the Czech Republic in October; Milei’s midterm sweep in Argentina after the $20 billion swap line; Kast in Chile in December. If the question is whether Trump-aligned parties win or lose abroad, the answer across the last two years is both, and the piece ends here.

What isn’t a wash.

The question that sorts the year is what the loser did when the count went against him, and on that the ledger is clean.

Orbán, sixteen years in power, the closest thing Trump has to a European twin, with the vice president beside him in Budapest a week earlier: conceded that night, by phone and in public. Vučić, fourteen years, who had spent the last two of them denying everything the students charged: conceded before the count. Kristersson: resigned on the final numbers. Eby: resigned on the projection. Each of them had something to lose and lost it.

Flávio Bolsonaro refused, named a Supreme Court justice as the author of his defeat, and is going to court over an extension of the kind his own campaign had requested the same day. The thing that separates him from the other four is what concession costs. Orbán and Vučić go to opposition. The Bolsonaros go to prison, or stay there. The father is in a cell for what he did after the last result, and the son’s clearest route to getting him out ran through the office he just lost. A man concedes when losing is survivable. The refusal measures what he thinks he has to lose.

Which brings the ledger home.

The United States, where the refusal was filed first.

On Thursday the Department of Justice sued the State of Alaska to keep a Democratic Senate win from being certified while a retired schoolteacher with the same name as the Republican incumbent remains on the ballot. The president, asked about it Friday: “Well, I’m the one that said, ‘do it.’” The attorney general spent Sunday morning on two networks saying the suit is “not saying, ‘don’t certify,’” and then saying that if a court found confusion the state should not certify, and, asked what crime had been committed, “It depends.” I took the complaint apart on Friday; its only legal authority is a purpose clause with its first six words removed.

Nobody in Hungary or Serbia or even Brazil filed to withhold a result before the vote. Flávio at least waited for the count. Our government filed first. Twelve days before the election it put a document in a federal court that says: if this seat goes the wrong way, hold it. The same administration spent the summer running a grand jury nobody can find a subpoena from, and last week calling a retired schoolteacher fraudulent. What it has to lose on November 3 is the list Democrats have already published: Oversight on DOGE, Foreign Affairs on USAID, Science on the NASA contracts, the Starshield cap, Musk under oath. It is behaving, in advance, like a man whose father is in prison.

The open line.

Israel votes tomorrow. All three major final polls on Friday put Netanyahu’s bloc at 50 seats in a Knesset of 120, seventeen fewer than it holds, with Likud at 20, down from 32; the opposition bloc under Eisenkot at 52 to 56. The pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 has him at 60 and is alone. Trump endorsed him on October 18 with a warning that defeat would have consequences for the relationship, and posted again last night: “Vote for Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister,” and then, “we have to finish the job that we started!” Axios reports Netanyahu called him twice in three days asking him to double down and suggested the language. Likud denies it.

Netanyahu is a defendant in his own corruption trial and has asked for a pardon. On the measure this piece uses, he sits in the Bolsonaro column: concession has a price he may not be able to pay. Official results are due November 4, the day after ours. What he says on election night is the first reading. What ours say on November 25, when Alaska is scheduled to certify, is the second. The count will tell you who won. The concession, or its absence, tells you what kind of country is doing the counting.

1. Hitler was a far-left socialist.

The claim. On Friday, Elon Musk quoted a French account that had been complaining about getting “history lessons” in its replies and added: “Hitler was a far left socialist. Literally in the name of his party!” He has more than 200 million followers and the post went where his posts go.

What happened when it was checked. The check was performed by Grok, the AI his company builds and his platform runs, when a user asked it whether the “socialist” in the party’s name was anything other than Nazi propaganda. Grok answered within the hour: “Nazis added ‘socialist’ to their name as propaganda to lure workers from actual leftist parties.” It went on that Hitler rejected Marxism, banned unions, jailed socialists and communists, and “killed his own party’s left wing in 1934,” and that “Mainstream historians place Nazism on the far right.” A second user asked it why its owner was spreading the claim. Grok cited Kershaw, Evans, Britannica and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and added a sentence that deserves to outlive the week: “No owner dictates facts.”

What was true underneath. The name. The German Workers’ Party added “National Socialist” in 1920 to compete with the Social Democrats and the Communists for the same factory floors, and then spent the next thirteen years destroying both. On May 2, 1933, the SA occupied every trade union office in the country, and the unions were dissolved the following day. The first prisoners marched into Dachau in March 1933 were Communists and Social Democrats. On June 30, 1934, Gregor Strasser, the leader of the party’s anti-capitalist wing, was shot through the window of his cell during the purge that also killed Röhm. Otto Strasser had been expelled four years earlier for taking the word socialist seriously. The name survived because it was never a description, which is the point Grok made in fewer words, to its owner, on his own product.

Subscribe now

Read more

That’s the argument he keeps losing, because the people he’s arguing with want a third body that doesn’t exist. So this is for John, and it answers him with the record rather than the text. Both bodies he named have been asked. Here is what each did.

A second reader, posting under a handle on the same thread, asked the version John didn’t: “What if he tries another coup, now that he has nothing to lose?” That one gets answered too, because the two questions turn out to have the same answer, and it is a date.

Start with the Cabinet, since that’s the one people shout about. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was ratified on February 10, 1967. It lets the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet declare in writing to the Speaker and the president pro tempore that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” The president is relieved on receipt. If he disputes it in writing, he resumes office unless the vice president and Cabinet re-declare within four days, after which Congress has 21 days to decide, and removing him takes two-thirds of both chambers.

In fifty-nine years, that clause has been used zero times.

It was not used on March 30, 1981, when Reagan was shot and came closer to dying than the public was told; his staff drafted the Section 4 papers and never signed them. It was not used in 1987, when Howard Baker arrived as chief of staff, sent an aide named James Cannon to assess the Iran-Contra White House, and got back a memo reporting that staff described the president as “inattentive and inept” and recommending Baker consider Section 4. Baker watched Reagan in person for a while, decided he didn’t see it, and dropped the idea. And it was not used on January 12, 2021, when the House passed a resolution calling on Mike Pence to invoke it, 223 to 205, with one Republican, and Pence answered by letter the same evening that doing so was “not in the best interest of our Nation or consistent with our Constitution,” that the amendment was “not a means of punishment or usurpation,” and that using it would “set a terrible precedent.”

So the mechanism John is right about has a perfect record. The only times a president has handed over power under this amendment, he handed it over himself, under Section 3, for surgery or a colonoscopy.

Subscribe now

Read more

The complaint asks the court to hold up certification if Mary Peltola wins while a second candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. remains on the ballot, pending an investigation into whether votes cast for one Sullivan were intended for the other. He will remain on the ballot. Early voting began October 19, and the ballots are printed, so the condition reduces to a single clause: if Peltola wins. The complaint was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who in private practice represented Trump allies and January 6 defendants. Alaska’s target certification date is November 25.

The day before the filing, the president posted that “We are looking at powerful legal options,” promising “to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot,” and has called the candidacy “CHEATING.” On the day of the filing, Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters it is not the department’s intention to “improperly interfere with elections.” Asked whether the department might move against a certification, he said, “Yes, of course there’s scenarios that we can all come up with hypothetically,” and named “some doomsday scenario.”

The complaint rests on a single statute, the National Voter Registration Act, and on a single line from it. Alaska, the government says, has a duty “to protect the integrity of the electoral process.” That language is real. It sits at 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3).

The complaint leaves out how the sentence begins. The full provision reads “The purposes of this chapter are,” followed by a list of four, the third being the integrity language. It explains why Congress wrote the law. The obligations the law actually imposes come in the sections after it, and every one of them concerns voter registration: the motor voter form, registration by mail, registration at public assistance agencies, maintenance of the rolls. Not one of them addresses who may appear on a ballot. Not one addresses certification.

Government lawyers quoted the third purpose and deleted the six words announcing that it was a purpose. That edit is the case.

Subscribe now

What the document actually asks for. Derek Muller of Notre Dame, who went through the filing on Friday, found that the prayer for relief does not quite ask for anything. Paragraph 43 requests a declaration. Paragraph 44, the one that would request an order, is missing its verb. Muller called the legal theory “absurdly thin” and wrote that the department filed to “win the press release rather than the litigation.” His assessment of the authority claimed: “The statute simply doesn’t let the Department of Justice enjoin certification.” Rick Hasen, writing in Slate the same day, reached the same conclusion and used the same word, calling it a press release rather than a legal document.

A federal complaint seeking to suspend the certification of a Senate seat went out over the signature of the department’s third-ranking official with a sentence fragment where the request for relief belongs. Either nobody proofread it, or the filing was never meant to be read closely by a judge.

The man at the center of it. Dan J. Sullivan Jr. is a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg, a fishing town of about 3,000 people in the southeast panhandle. He announced on May 29 and filed as a Republican three days before the deadline. The general election ballot lists him with no party. Through September 30, his campaign had raised $30,230 and spent $26,754, leaving $3,476 on hand. Senator Dan S. Sullivan had raised $13.8 million. Peltola had raised $32.6 million.

Asked about the accusation, Sullivan Jr. told the New York Times, “My intention is not to trick people,” and said he hoped people were “informed enough to know the difference between an incumbent senator and a teacher.” To his hometown paper, the Petersburg Pilot, in June, on whether he had coordinated with the Democrat: “I have not spoken to Mary (Peltola). I wouldn’t even know who to speak to.” On being investigated by the federal government: “I’m just a guy, and they’re scary.”

Aubrey Wieber of the 907 Initiative, an Alaska government watchdog group, put the problem with the theory in one question. If a $30,000 candidacy were the Democrats’ hidden weapon, someone would have spent enough money to make sure he finished in the top four. “No one has found any indication that Dan J. Sullivan is a sham candidate,” Wieber said.

Alaska already litigated this, and the state lost. The Division of Elections tried to keep him off the ballot. On June 10, it issued a preliminary finding of ineligibility and days later a final one, holding that his paperwork was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy. On June 26, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Thomas A. Matthews reversed, ruling that no provision of Alaska law, Alaska regulation, or the United States Constitution supports a good-faith requirement for candidacy. On June 29, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed and ordered his name onto the primary ballot, with a full opinion to follow.

The questions from the bench are worth reading now that the federal government has adopted the losing argument. Justice Aimee Oravec pointed out that challengers run for all sorts of reasons and that the state’s standard had no limiting principle: “These are not necessarily candidates that are seeking office so much as attention.” She also told the division’s lawyer where the remedy belonged, saying, “You control the ballot.” Justice Jennifer Henderson on the intent test: “It seems amorphous, frankly.” The court sent the ballot design back to the division, which published a sample ballot that distinguishes the two men and identifies the incumbent as the incumbent.

So the ballot-access question was decided four months ago by the state’s highest court, on the merits, against the premise the Justice Department filed on Thursday.

The primary already measured the harm. This is the part the complaint cannot survive, and it is a matter of public record. Alaska ran the experiment on August 18, with both Sullivans on the same ballot. Peltola took 82,244 votes, or 49.5 percent. Senator Sullivan took 68,726, or 41.4 percent. Sullivan Jr. took 4,107, which is 2.5 percent. Out of 166,004 votes cast, the maximum possible confusion effect was about four thousand, and the gap between the leading Democrat and the incumbent Republican was more than thirteen thousand.

There is a further problem for the theory, and it is structural. Alaska’s general election is conducted by ranked choice voting. The top four from the open primary advance, and voters rank them. A voter who marks the wrong Sullivan first can mark the right one second, and when the schoolteacher is eliminated his ballots transfer to whoever those voters ranked next. Confusion over two names on a ranked ballot is the kind of voter error a ranked ballot is designed to absorb. The tabulation is scheduled for November 18, with certification targeted for November 25, and a defeated candidate has five days after that to request a recount under AS 15.20.430, with the state paying if the margin is under half a percent.

The criminal track, which came first. The civil suit is the second federal action against this candidacy. NBC News reported in July that prosecutors were looking for evidence of wire fraud, or of a conspiracy to deprive Alaskans of a free and fair election, which could be charged as a civil rights violation. The investigation, per that report, is being run by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Alaska together with the state’s acting attorney general. On August 18, primary day, NBC reported that a grand jury had issued subpoenas.

The Alaska Beacon then tried to find a single recipient. Sullivan Jr. said he had not received one. Peltola’s campaign had not received one. The Alaska Democratic Party had not received one. The consultant who had helped him start the campaign had not received one. The Division of Elections had not received one. The U.S. Attorney’s office would neither confirm nor deny that an investigation exists.

Hasen, considering what an indictment would even charge, wrote, “I don’t see how the government could criminalize his running for office” for impure motives, and noted the obvious remedy in a democracy: “The solution to this problem is counterspeech.” A prosecution on this theory, he noted, would also reach a great deal of ordinary politics, including every instance of a party quietly encouraging a candidate who splits an opponent’s vote.

The same week, in the same state, a judge actually did withhold a certification. On Thursday, the day DOJ filed, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Josie Garton ruled that Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom and the Division of Elections had wrongly placed a disqualified candidate on the ballot. The candidate is Jose Tagle, a Republican running for state House District 22. He had submitted a blank financial disclosure, the Alaska Public Offices Commission moved to disqualify him in late August after he failed to fix it within the grace period, and Dahlstrom followed that decision and then reversed herself days later and put him back. Garton held that the commission’s decision was final, that the lieutenant governor had no discretion to ignore it, and that “APOC’s decision was effective immediately.”

Her remedy is the instructive part. Early voting had started, so she declined to order ballots reprinted, writing that the erroneous certification “does not undermine the fundamental fairness of the election.” She ordered the commission to notify Tagle that he has thirty days to challenge his disqualification. And she wrote that “Tagle’s election may not be certified” if “he does win a majority of votes in the general election.”

That is a court withholding a certification, and it is conditional on the result, the same shape as the federal complaint. The resemblance ends there. It was brought by the Alaska Democratic Party under a state statute, against a specific candidate, on a closed factual record, after an administrative agency had made a final decision, with an appeal path preserved for the candidate. It took three months and two rounds of litigation, including one the party lost in August for filing too early.

Set that beside a federal complaint built on a purpose clause, filed twelve days before the election, asking that an entire Senate race go uncertified if the wrong candidate wins, pending an investigation with no defined end. One of those is how a certification gets lawfully held up. The other is a letterhead.

The pattern it belongs to. Hasen’s piece lists the rest of the month. The department went to court in California demanding that Los Angeles County segregate mail ballots from a list of roughly 20,000 people flagged as likely noncitizens, a list delivered first on a thumb drive and then as a spreadsheet; the county sampled 200 of the names and found mostly unregistered people and people born in the United States. The department asked for a ruling by noon Thursday and appealed to the Ninth Circuit before the court had ruled.

On the same Thursday it announced 28 arrests for noncitizen voting, with the New York Post given an exclusive look at a pre-dawn raid. It has lost 26 cases seeking unredacted state voter lists. A federal court blocked the March 2025 executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship, holding that “our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures.” The Supreme Court signaled that the Postal Service would likely lose on its mail ballot rule. A Homeland Security list of 16,000 potentially ineligible Nevada voters came back from state review at zero. On November 3 the department will send about a thousand election monitors to polling places in every state.

And on the same Alaska ballot, Measure 2 would repeal ranked-choice voting and the open primary and return the state to closed partisan primaries. The president supports it. The most recent survey has it losing, 47 percent to 53. The 2024 version failed by 0.24 percent. So Alaskans are being asked to end the system, while the Justice Department sues over a result that system has not yet produced.

What the filing is for. It will not succeed, in the judgment of two of the country’s leading election law scholars, delivered within a day of the filing, and the department’s own filing cannot locate the verb for what it wants. Peltola leads by about 2.6 points across the public averages, and a comfortable win moots the whole thing, as Muller noted when he wrote that a wide Democratic victory or a narrow Republican one could end it.

The purpose is to put a document in the record. After Thursday, a federal lawsuit seeking to suspend the certification of a Senate election is a thing the Department of Justice has filed. The next one can cite this one as ordinary practice. The attorney general has already said out loud that he can imagine the scenario, and has declined to rule it out. The window in which that matters runs from November 3 to November 25.

A Senate seat is being treated as something that gets certified when the result is acceptable and investigated when it is not. The theory is thin, and the filing is doing real work anyway, because its job is to make the second half of that sentence read as law.

Share PolitiMix

That is a threat against a coequal branch of government from a private citizen who holds no office, and it would carry a piece on its own. But it arrived the same week as his latest campaign filing, and the two documents belong together. On Thursday night America PAC reported another $77 million from Musk for the first two weeks of October, which brings his giving this cycle to about $443 million by the New York Times count. His 2024 total, the one that was supposed to be unrepeatable, was $288 million. He has beaten it by more than half with twelve days left. In September he gave $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, which moved an identical sum to a Texas PAC backing Ken Paxton, and America PAC has spent $27.9 million of its own attacking James Talarico. When Talarico said something was deeply wrong with a system that lets “one trillionaire to buy his own personal U.S. Senator,” Musk replied that something was deeply wrong with Talarico.

So the question Democrats are asking, and that he is threatening them for asking, is a fair one. What would a committee with subpoena power find? The answer is already on the record. It only needs reading in order.

The Starshield cap. Since the night of October 13, Ukrainian units on the military version of Starlink have lost their connection above 161 kilometers an hour, which is the speed of the interceptor drones Ukraine flies against jet-powered Shaheds. The Telegraph reported that Musk proposed the restriction and the president agreed. The president said he didn’t know who did it, then, per the Wall Street Journal, telephoned Musk to ask him to lift it, then said Thursday, “I guess the bottom line, he put it back.” On Friday morning a Ukrainian defense ministry source told the Kyiv Post that “cases of connectivity loss at speeds of 161 kph are still being observed” and “there is currently no confirmation that the restrictions have been lifted.” Musk says the U.S. government controls Starshield. The Pentagon denies ordering a slowdown. Rubio calls it a commercial product. Nine senators have asked the Pentagon inspector general to find out; the briefing is due November 1. On Tuesday Adam Schiff called for Musk’s testimony and said national security should not rest on “the personal whim of an unstable executive.” Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican, backed the call. Musk’s own description of the asset, from March 2025: “Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.” A committee would want to know who turned the dial, on what date, at whose suggestion, and who is lying now, because at least two of the four accounts cannot be true.

The companies. SpaceX held more than $20 billion in federal contracts before the second Trump term began, most of it from NASA and the Pentagon. Its president said in August that it won more than $6 billion in new government contracts in the second quarter of this year alone, and the Journal reported it holds more than $8 billion of the Golden Dome program, about a third of the missile shield’s budget. On February 2 SpaceX absorbed xAI in an all-stock deal valued at $1.25 trillion, which means Grok, with its $200 million Pentagon contract, and X, the platform where the threats are posted, are now subsidiaries of a defense contractor. In March 2025, when he was running DOGE, the White House said Musk would identify his own conflicts of interest. Danielle Brian of the Project On Government Oversight called the arrangement “massive conflicts of interest” at the time. The man who built the conflict was assigned to police it, and he found none.

The Social Security files. In August 2025, Charles Borges, the agency’s chief data officer, filed a whistleblower disclosure saying DOGE staff had copied the NUMIDENT, the master file on more than 300 million Americans, into a cloud environment outside the agency’s security controls. In January the agency disclosed that DOGE employees had improperly shared sensitive data in 2025 and that it could not verify how far it went. Two of them were referred to a watchdog for possible Hatch Act violations after the agency found they had discussed matching Social Security records against state voter rolls with a political advocacy group. In March a second whistleblower alleged that a former DOGE engineer kept personal copies of the NUMIDENT and the Death Master File, at least one on a thumb drive, claimed “God-level” access, and said he wanted to share the data with his private-sector employer. The inspector general is investigating. The agency says the claims are “strongly refuted by all named parties.” Ron Wyden called it “one of the largest known data breaches in American history.” Borges, who had warned of exactly this: “This is exactly the scenario that kept me up at night.”

The savings. Musk promised $2 trillion. DOGE’s website claimed $215 billion. In August the Government Accountability Office audited the receipts. Of 264 lease terminations DOGE took credit for, 108 were already underway before DOGE existed. More than half the contract terminations it listed were either never terminated or could not be verified. It claimed $1.7 billion in savings on a Defense contract that was never canceled, and for 96 percent of its grant savings it supplied too little detail to check the arithmetic. Gary Peters called it “a slapdash and deceptive effort that misled the American people.” The jobs it eliminated were real. The savings, by the government’s own auditor, mostly were not.

The children. On February 3, 2025, Musk said he had spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. The agency closed on July 1. That day The Lancet published an analysis estimating that USAID programs had prevented 91.8 million deaths across 133 countries between 2001 and 2021, and that ending them could cause more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, over 4.5 million of them children under five. Brooke Nichols, an infectious disease modeler at Boston University, keeps a running count built on the same program data. Her estimate for the first year: more than 700,000 dead, more than half a million of them children.

Marco Rubio told Congress in May 2025, “No children are dying on my watch.” On June 28 and 29 of this year Musk posted that deaths in Africa had gone down since the cuts and that his critics “cannot cite a single name.” NPR went and got three. Abdullahi Ibrahim, 10, of Nigeria, died of an asthma attack after the clinic that had given him free inhalers under USAID funding began charging for them. Ibrahim Garba, 8, of Nigeria, died of typhoid four days after his family was told the antibiotics and rehydration salts were no longer free. Purity Wamboi, 16, of Kenya, died of tuberculosis after the USAID-paid community health workers who might have caught it earlier stopped working. Abdullahi’s father said that with the aid still coming his son “would still be alive today.” Those are three names. The model says the number is in six figures, and the man who demanded a name owns the platform where the demand was posted.

The law. In 2022 Musk missed the deadline to disclose that he had bought 5 percent of Twitter, and kept buying at the lower price. The SEC said the delay cost shareholders more than $150 million. In May he settled for $1.5 million, one percent of the harm as the SEC itself measured it. On July 8 Judge Sparkle Sooknanan accepted the deal “despite its significant misgivings,” writing that the court could not substitute itself for the SEC even though the agency’s handling of the case “raises red flags.” In February 2025, House Oversight Democrats moved to subpoena him about DOGE; Republicans voted it down. Homeland Security Democrats have asked him to testify about the GAO findings. He has never appeared. Wednesday’s post is his answer to the invitation.

The visa. Musk was born in Pretoria in 1971 and became a U.S. citizen in 2002. In between, the Washington Post reported, he arrived in Palo Alto in 1995 on a student visa for a Stanford graduate program, never enrolled, and went to work building Zip2. His investors worried he could be deported and gave him a deadline to get a work visa. A 2005 email he wrote to his Tesla co-founders, later filed in a defamation case, acknowledged he lacked authorization to be in the country when he started the company and had applied to Stanford to stay legally. His response to the Post: “I was in fact allowed to work in the US.”

On September 1, 2025, he posted, “Remigration is the only way.” On July 26 of this year, replying to a Spanish far-right activist, he posted, “Anyone who opposes remigration is a traitor.” Remigration is the European far right’s term for the mass removal of immigrants and their descendants, citizens included, to the countries their families came from. He has backed Rupert Lowe’s “millions must go” campaign in Britain, told the Economist in July that immigration would bring Britain to civil war within twenty years, and called the magazine’s editor “a traitor to the West.” He used the word traitor twice in one summer for people who disagree with him about deportation. He is the most famous person alive to have worked in this country without authorization, and the policy he now endorses would not have made an exception for him.

The posts. On October 11, two right-wing influencers released audio they said proved Talarico had been discharged from a psychiatric hospital in Ohio. One of them later admitted he had posed as Talarico’s cousin to get past the hospital’s front desk. Musk, with the audio in front of him, posted that “The Talarico campaign is hiding something big that voters ought to know about,” and minutes later that the campaign was “not being honest about what’s happening.” The hospital said Talarico had never been treated there. Talarico said he had never been to Ohio, and local television had filmed him in Texas both days. PolitiFact rated the claim Pants on Fire. Musk never corrected it. He moved on to posting clips of Talarico criticizing capitalism and called those troubling. This is the pattern from 2024, when the Center for Countering Digital Hate counted 1.2 billion views on his false election claims, none of them fact-checked on the platform he owns. The difference now is that the platform belongs to a defense contractor and the man posting has $443 million in the race.

The movie. Wednesday was not the first threat. On September 3, seven weeks earlier, Alex Spiro sent a letter to Jigsaw Productions saying litigation was “reasonably anticipated” over Alex Gibney’s documentary Musk, a four-hour film that premiered at Venice five days later. The notice reached past the director to HBO, Bleecker Street, Universal, and the other financiers and distributors, which is the part that matters: a letter to the filmmaker is a dispute, and a letter to everyone who might carry the film is a message about what happens to companies that do business with his critics. Spiro’s letter disputed the film’s suggestion that Starlink affected the 2024 election, said the project “began with a conclusion,” and closed with an invitation: “Our door is open,” it said, “if you decide to check your facts with the people who know them.” Musk posted that Gibney “deliberately set out to make a hit piece and lacks any integrity whatsoever.” He had already called it a hit piece in March 2023, when the film was months from being shot, which drew Gibney’s reply at the time: “How would you know?” Gibney told Variety he did ask for an interview, and that Musk’s response was to post that “Gibney is a douche.”

Then the distribution went strange. Universal wavered on the international release and reversed only after public complaint. YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X all initially refused to run paid advertising for the film, each citing rules about political content, for a trailer that sells a movie and endorses no candidate. Meta told the Daily Beast the rejection “was an error, and we’re restoring the ads.” YouTube said its system had briefly restricted the ad and then cleared it. X refused outright, reportedly stopped communicating with Bleecker Street, and has declined ads for the distributor’s other upcoming films, which is a privately owned speech platform being used against a documentary about its owner. The film opened in New York and Los Angeles on October 9 and nationwide a week later. It holds 97 percent on Rotten Tomatoes across 69 reviews. Deadline’s critic described its portrait of him as “petty, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, cruel.” Gibney, asked at Venice about the pressure, said he worries about “the storm clouds on the horizon,” and said his sources carried a tremendous sense of fear.

The hearing. If the House changes hands, and the forecasts favor it, the committees already have their lists. Robert Garcia at Oversight wants DOGE. Zoe Lofgren at Science, Space and Technology wants the NASA contracts: “The sheer number of conflicts of interest are astounding.” Greg Meeks at Foreign Affairs wants USAID. Pramila Jayapal says there are “many different aspects of the corruption around Musk.” Greg Casar, asked who gets a subpoena: “Elon Musk is on that list.” Schiff wants him in the Senate on Starshield. Each of those is a chair, a witness, an oath, and a transcript, which is the thing he answered on Wednesday with a line about swords.

Read the threat once more with the record beside it. Democrats asked whether a committee should examine the Starshield cap, the Social Security files, the audited savings and the contracts. His answer was that he would find out who was behind the question and come for them. Filmmakers get a letter from Alex Spiro, addressed to everyone who might distribute them. Members of Congress get the sword. The severity rises with the subpoena power of the person asking, and in twelve days some of them may have it. He has spent $443 million seeing to it that they do not.

Update: As of 10/23/2026, Starshield is still being reported as throttled in many areas.

Share PolitiMix

The daily reporting stays free. The breaking-news essays, the scenario breakdowns like “If Democrats Take Both Chambers,” the Coward Files, the notes that go out when something happens- all of that lands in your inbox at no charge. If it’s breaking, you’ll read it whether you pay or not.

What paid gets you is two sections of their own, with more on the way, plus the occasional paid piece in the regular feed. Grab a Chair runs every Saturday: one reader’s question gets the long answer, the dates and the documents and the names. Kill Notes runs weekly: the five claims that traveled, which ones were improved on the way, and which one was invented. Those two are paid from the first word. Beyond them, a paid piece will turn up now and then in the other sections, the ones that take a full day of pulling filings, like the Iran war bill at day 230 or the agency-by-agency answer to a reader who asked how the country is weaker. Those take hours that free pieces don’t, and paid is what buys the hours.

Here’s the honest part about the money. I don’t need this income. I chase the news cycle because it’s the thing I can’t not do [sic]. But “I don’t need it” and “it costs nothing” aren’t the same sentence. Every hour on a documented takedown is an hour of real work, and when readers back it, I write more of them. That’s the entire mechanism. No tote bags, no manufactured urgency. You fund the work, I do more of the work.

If you’re going to do it, I’d pick the annual plan. One decision a year instead of twelve, and it’s cheaper per month than the monthly rate. If you want to back this at the level that actually moves it, there’s a founding member option above the standard price, for readers who’d rather the number reflect what the work is worth to them. A few of you have asked for exactly that. Also note that auto-renew is all on Substack. I do not control that setting, but wish I did.

So: the daily reporting stays free. Paid keeps it getting made, and gets you the two sections, the ones coming, and the pieces in the feed that need a full day. If that’s a trade you want to make, the button’s below. If it isn’t, you’re still getting everything that matters, and I mean that.

Not a freeloader, as Allan put it. But nobody here is. You showed up, and that was always the hard part.

Subscribe now

Here’s the calendar. The BBC asked for deposition dates in July. After two months of follow-ups the two sides agreed on October 16. On September 28 the president’s lawyers wrote that he was “no longer available” on October 16 “due to other matters of national importance,” and promised a new date by the end of the week. No date came. In the first week of October they wrote that he “has no availability whatsoever” before discovery closes on December 18, and offered January. The BBC went back to the docket and found what the matters of national importance were. On October 16 the president held a campaign rally in Dalton, Georgia. The other commitment was a Republican National Committee fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago.

On Friday Judge Lett issued an order noting she had already “admonished” him once for his “lack of participation,” that the BBC had been filing discovery requests on its own because of his “disregard” of her procedures, and that “the failure of which will lead to sanctions.” This is the man who sued.

The rule he wrote for himself five months ago

The same president has a defamation suit pending in Florida against the Pulitzer Prize Board. In that case the Board asked the court to pause everything until he left office, on the ground that a sitting president shouldn’t be pulled away from his duties for a libel suit. His lawyers fought the request. In May the Fourth District Court of Appeal sided with him. The president, Judge Mark Klingensmith wrote, is “uniquely equipped to determine how to use his time,” and the Board, “a willing participant,” had no standing to tell him otherwise. The court took care to distinguish the New York cases where Trump, as a defendant, had used the presidency to delay. Here he was the plaintiff, and if he wanted to spend presidential hours suing, that was his business.

So in May the president’s position in a Florida court was that the presidency leaves him time to prosecute a libel suit. In September his position in a Florida court was that it leaves him no time to be questioned in one. Both positions were filed by lawyers paid to say whatever gets him out of the chair. The appeals court gave him the first. Judge Lett has the second on Thursday.

Since Forbes started counting, he has spent a portion of 27.5 percent of his days in this term at a golf property, 165 outings in the first 600 days. None of those appear in the filings as the matters of national importance. The rally and the fundraiser do, because the BBC’s lawyers looked.

October 2023, in which the deposition was on a Monday

He sued Michael Cohen for $500 million in April 2023, in the same Florida district, for breaching a confidentiality agreement by writing books and talking. Cohen’s lawyers asked to depose him. The date was set for Monday, October 9. On Thursday, October 5, he dismissed the suit. His spokesman said he’d refile after he “has prevailed in dealing with the witch hunts against him.” On Monday he was at a campaign event in New Hampshire. He has not refiled. Cohen called the suit “a retaliatory intimidation tactic” and said the dismissal “marks the end of this latest attempt to deter me.” It did.

January 2020, in which the presidency was the reason

Summer Zervos sued him for defamation in 2017 for calling her a liar. He fought the suit for three years on the theory that a sitting president can’t be sued in state court. In January 2020, weeks before a deadline for his deposition, he asked New York’s highest court to freeze the case until he left office. It did. When he left office the court said the question was moot, the case went back to the trial judge, and the judge set a deposition deadline of December 23, 2021. Zervos withdrew the suit in November. Nobody ever put him in the chair. The presidency, which in Florida in 2025 was no obstacle to his suing, was in New York in 2020 an absolute bar to his being questioned, and the difference was which side of the caption he was on.

October 2022, in which he couldn’t get out of it

E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers wanted him deposed in the fall of 2022. His lawyers asked for a delay. Judge Lewis Kaplan, on October 12, called his “position regarding the burdens of discovery” “inexcusable,” said he “should not be permitted to run the clock out,” and ordered him to sit the following week. He sat, at Mar-a-Lago, on October 19. Shown a photograph of Carroll, he identified her as his second wife, Marla Maples. He called Carroll’s account a hoax. Two juries later found him liable, for $5 million and then $83.3 million. That is what happens on the occasions he can’t find a matter of national importance, and it’s the reason he looks so hard.

December 2007, in which he sat, and learned

The template is nineteen years old. He sued the reporter Timothy O’Brien for writing that he was worth far less than he said. O’Brien’s lawyers deposed him on December 19 and 20, 2007, and the transcript is the most consequential document in the president’s public life. Over two days they caught him in about thirty false or unsupported statements. His stake in a Manhattan project was 50 percent, then 30. A speech paid “over a million” was paid $400,000; he counted the publicity. Golf memberships sold for $300,000 were $200,000. Asked whether he’d been truthful about his net worth, he said it fluctuates with markets and with his feelings. The suit was dismissed in 2009 and the appeal in 2011. He said afterward that the point had been to cost O’Brien money, and that in this respect the suit was a success.

He has not sat for a deposition as a plaintiff since. Every suit he’s filed in the years after, against CNN, against the New York Times, against the Pulitzer Board, against the Journal, against Cohen, against the Register, against the BBC, has either died before the chair, settled before the chair, or arrived at the chair and found him unavailable.

The rest of the record, briefly

In January 2018 he said of a Mueller interview, “I would love to do it,” under oath. He never did. He answered written questions in November and said he did not recall more than thirty times. In September 2016 he told a crowd in Iowa that “the mob takes the Fifth,” and asked, “if you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” In August 2022, deposed by the New York attorney general, he took it more than 400 times. When the January 6 committee subpoenaed him in October 2022 he sued to block it and the committee ran out of calendar first. When a federal judge in Iowa was about to rule on the Register’s motion to dismiss his suit over a poll, he dismissed it himself and refiled in state court, on the Monday before Iowa’s new anti-SLAPP law took effect on the Tuesday. The Register called it “gamesmanship.” The lawyer defending the pollster called the moves “obvious and improper.”

What the calendar says about the man

Put the entries side by side and a character emerges that no single filing shows. He sues because the suing costs the other side money and he said so under oath in 2007. He doesn’t answer questions because the one time he did as a plaintiff he was caught thirty times in two days. When the question is whether he can be sued, the presidency is a wall. When the question is whether he can sue, the presidency is no obstacle at all, and a court has now written that down for him. And when a date arrives, the matter of national importance that keeps him from the chair is, every time anyone has checked, a rally, a fundraiser, a campaign stop, or a round of golf.

It’s the same technique he’s using on Ukraine this week, applied to a war. Asked who capped the drones: “it wasn’t me.” Asked by whom, then: it “sort of happened.” Asked under oath, the answer would have to be one or the other, which is why there is no oath. The whole public method, from the net worth that moves with his feelings to the satellite setting that nobody ordered, is a man arranging never to be the one who has to say, in a room where lying costs something, what he did.

Thursday’s hearing is one of those rooms. Judge Lett can order him to sit, or accept January, or sanction him. Whatever she does, the record above says what he’ll do: find something of national importance, and be somewhere else.

He is 80 years old. He has been president for twenty-one months of this term. The incidents described below are from the last three weeks. Each is on video or in a transcript. None of them, alone, is proof of anything, and this piece doesn’t claim otherwise. Together they’re a record, and the record is accelerating, and the people whose job it is to notice are not saying so. That’s the warning. The list is the evidence.

The three weeks

October 2, Mobile, Alabama. At a rally at the University of South Alabama he slurs through several passages, “called” coming out as “culled,” and garbles a full sentence during what looks on video like an arm spasm. The New York Times reports empty upper sections. He later posts that the arena was “totally MAXED OUT” and that the Times should be arrested, and is describing a different arena in a different state.

October 5, Grand Island, Nebraska. He calls the governor of Nebraska “Jim Walz,” blending Jim Pillen with Tim Walz of Minnesota, catches it, and says “Tim Walz is, is the worst.” He can’t produce the word for the stadium screens, “the big, uh, tele... telerons or whatever the hell they call it,” and has to be corrected. Explaining missile defense, he pretends to lift weights and points to his head: “That’s for a different kind of bodybuilder up here.” He tells the crowd Iran can take out Los Angeles and San Diego and calls it a small price. Leaving, he misses the curtain that’s been opened for him, walks the length of the stage to “Y.M.C.A.” with the Secret Service following, and finds a different exit.

October 9, Syracuse, New York. “I got Greenland. I hope you’re happy about that.” Then: “We got Greenland. And for the right price, you know what we paid. Right? Zero.” The United States has not got Greenland. On September 22, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, the U.S., Denmark and Greenland signed an amendment to the 1951 defense agreement expanding American base access and restricting non-allied investment. On October 14 he posted about drilling in “our new and beautiful Greenland.” Denmark’s prime minister said it recognizes “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.” Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, as it was on September 21.

October 12, Youngstown, Ohio. He describes Senator Jon Husted’s backside, hands and jawline from the stage. A woman in a shirt reading “release the Epstein files” is punched in the face in the crowd. He calls the protesters “scum” and says they were paid.

October 13, Truth Social. Three days after a 23-year-old zookeeper is killed by a tiger in England, he posts 41 seconds of the attack with “Don’t ever mess with nature!”, then a montage of five big-cat attacks of which three are AI-generated and unlabeled, then an AI video of himself wrestling a tiger and hugging it. The family asks the public to stop circulating the footage.

October 15, Bullhead City, Arizona. “I don’t know who the hell we’re negotiating with,” he says of Iran, eight months into a war he has said four times is won. He says leakers “should be shot.”

October 16, Dalton, Georgia. On the tarmac after a rally, he walks past the open door of his limousine toward the airfield and Secret Service agents move to guide him back. Viral claims that he refused to board or was confused are unsupported, and this piece doesn’t make them. The video shows what it shows. That evening he says Jon Ossoff has a “waxy face” and looks like Pee-wee Herman, and that Mike Collins “is a good-looking man, and he’s all man.”

October 17, Highland Heights, Kentucky. “I examined his ass,” he says of Husted, “I never did that with a man before.” Then the shoulders, the feet, the hand, the jawline. He pats Husted’s shoulder, finds it “like a piece of steel,” and reports he is “still recovering my hand.” He says Husted gained nine or ten points from the first examination.

October 18, Truth Social, three letters. To Israel: elect Netanyahu or “America will have to do this work ourselves,” and he is “not inclined to do so.” The letter dates Iran’s “Death to America” chant at 51 years, which places it under the Shah. On Russia: Ukraine’s “oceans and seas are gone,” its “male population is low, wounded, and/or dead,” and the sanctions law he signed on September 18 is described as a document he hasn’t signed and can sign “any time that I want.” On golf: a public course in a national park closes November 15, announced the day before a federal judge was to hear his lawyers say no decision had been made.

October 19, Wichita, Kansas. Defending Senator Roger Marshall against reports that Marshall sued his own patients over medical bills, he says the person suing must have been “some kind of Shylock-type guy.” He used the word in Iowa in July 2025 and said afterward he didn’t know it was antisemitic. He says Obama is “gonna be testifying, or I guess, I think he will probably end up being testifying.” Obama is campaigning in Michigan for Abdul El-Sayed, whom the president calls “Mohammed,” repeatedly.

October 19, the South Lawn. The wave to no one. The salute. The bow.

October 20, the Oval Office. Andrew Feinberg of the Independent asks about the golf course. “Wait a minute. Wait, wait. Quiet. Quiet!” the president says. “What’s wrong with you? Are you a sick person?” Then: “I don’t know who the hell you are, but you better be careful.” Feinberg had introduced himself to him five minutes earlier. That evening the White House Rapid Response account calls Feinberg a slur for people with Down syndrome, in Down Syndrome Awareness Month, which the president proclaimed. Nobody in the building claims the post.

That’s twenty days. It doesn’t include the Labor Day weekend, when he posted roughly fifteen AI images in one evening, renaming New Mexico, claiming the moon, and showing himself commanding a robot army, and “25th Amendment NOW” trended for a day and went away. It doesn’t include February, when he posted a video depicting the Obamas as apes and the press secretary called him “King of the Jungle” before the post came down. It doesn’t include April, when he posted an image of himself as Christ, deleted it, and said he’d thought it was a doctor. It doesn’t include Tokyo a year ago, when he walked past the honor guard and the prime minister and had to be steered back by the arm.

What the record says, and what it doesn’t

The White House physician’s memo of May 30 says the president is in “excellent health” and “fully fit” to serve. The MRI he had at Walter Reed last October was, the physician said in December, “perfectly normal,” without saying what it was for. In July 2025 the White House disclosed chronic venous insufficiency to explain the swelling in his legs, and aspirin and handshakes to explain the bruising on his hands. No neurological evaluation has been released. No independent physician has examined him and reported.

Outside professionals have watched the same video and offered opinions. A forensic psychologist says the Mobile rally showed “significant issues with language production.” A medical school professor says he believes there was a stroke. His niece, a clinical psychologist, says that in the family “showing any kind of weakness” was “considered fatal,” which is an explanation for why nothing is disclosed and not a diagnosis of anything. This publication doesn’t adopt any of it. None of them has examined him, and the one thing worse than a president in decline is a country that decides the question by watching clips.

What can be said without a license is this. The man on the helipad on Monday is the man who decides, within two weeks, whether to resume a war with Iran, whether to lift a cap on an ally’s air defense, whether to let sanctions he signed take effect, and whether to accept the result of an election he has already said may be rigged. Those decisions get made by whoever he is on the day. The record above is who he has been for three weeks.

What his party says

Most of it is what it has always been. The communications director calls the press secretary “whip smart.” The press secretary calls a racist video a meme and tells reporters to “stop the fake outrage.” The vice president, asked whether the president should have endorsed in Israel’s election, says he is neither for it nor against it. The Rapid Response account answers a reporter’s question with a slur. Mike Johnson schedules the House around him. The Senate confirms what he sends. Asked about the helipad or the slurring or Greenland, Republicans in the Capitol say they didn’t see it, and the hallway moves on.

Some of them have started to say other things, about other subjects, and the subjects are the tell. Thom Tillis, who isn’t running again, wrote that the Starshield cap “might be construed as aiding and abetting a mass murderer” and asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John Cornyn signed the letter. Don Bacon said the Russia sanctions waiver means the president “is prolonging the war.” Tim Scott called the Obama video “the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House,” and Roger Wicker, John Curtis, Pete Ricketts and Mike Lawler said versions of the same. Thomas Massie filed impeachment articles against the defense secretary and shelved them until after the election. John Kennedy said you’d have to be “smoking wizard weed” to vote to end the filibuster for him. Cornyn and Karl Rove told him, before he endorsed Ken Paxton, that Paxton was the wrong man, and he has spent the week blaming them for it.

Every one of those is a disagreement about a decision. The decider goes unmentioned. The party that held a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18, 2025, on Joe Biden’s fitness for an office he no longer held, co-chaired by John Cornyn, with Democrats boycotting, has not asked a single public question about the fitness of the man who holds it now. Jamie Raskin’s bill to create the independent body the 25th Amendment allows for, introduced April 14 with fifty Democratic cosponsors, has no Republican one. Section 4 of that amendment requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet, every one of whom he appointed, to put in writing that he can’t discharge the office. The vice president’s position on a question with far lower stakes, last week, was that he is neither for nor against.

The warning

Here’s what the record above means, and it means it whether or not any clinician ever examines him. The United States has, for the next two years and two months at minimum, a president who waves to empty lawns, forgets the name of a reporter he met five minutes earlier, announces the acquisition of a country that wasn’t acquired, examines the bodies of senators from the stage, and writes letters to foreign electorates conditioning American war policy on their vote. He is surrounded by people whose jobs depend on describing this as strength. The branch of government built to check him is run by his party until at least January, and the party’s most senior members have decided that the safe subject is the policy and the unsafe subject is the man.

On November 4, the day after the election, the decision on Iran is his. The cap on Ukraine’s drones is his. The Russia sanctions are his. The pardon list is his. In every previous presidency, a man behaving this way in public would have had a chief of staff, a cabinet, a Senate leader, and a party chairman asking, privately and then not privately, whether the decisions should be his alone. This one has a helipad, a camera, and an empty lawn, and the camera pulled back, and nobody in his party has said a word about what it showed.

They will, eventually. They always do, after. The question this piece can’t answer is what he decides between now and then, and the answer to that is the only thing that matters.

Subscribe now

So the scenario this piece covers isn’t the unlikely one. The cap has survived a week of denials without anyone with the authority to lift it lifting it. The president wrote on Sunday that Ukraine’s “male population is low, wounded, and/or dead” and that Zelensky should have settled two years ago. A man who believes that has no reason to restore the speed of Ukraine’s drones before he gets something for it, and the thing he wants, a settlement he can announce, is scheduled in his own words for “right after the election.” The working assumption, then, is that on the morning of November 3 the limit is 161. What follows is what that produces, in order, built from the contracts, the calendar, the physics of a jet drone, and what the people involved have already said they’ll do. Where I’m guessing, I say so, and I say how confident I am.

This week, in which the number is explained

Russia’s newest attack drones are jet-powered. The Geran-3 flies at about 370 kilometers an hour and the Geran-5 at about 600. Ukraine’s cheapest answer is the interceptor drone, which flies at roughly 300 and uses a satellite link for its video feed and control, and which Ukraine builds at home: six companies now mass-produce miniature turbojets and eleven are developing them. The interceptor rate against the older propeller Shahed is above 85 percent. Against the Geran-5 it’s 65. The other answer is the F-16, which downs 55 to 60 percent of the jet drones it chases, but half of Ukraine’s F-16s are abroad for repairs, some for parts nobody makes anymore, and there aren’t enough pilots.

A cap at 161 kilometers an hour takes the interceptor out of the fight against the jet drone. The link holds for about two minutes above the limit, Zelensky said, and then the drone is gone. Units have reported drops of ten to twenty seconds even at 110 to 120, which is enough to lose a target. Ukraine’s own engineers say the terminals need to work at 450 to do the job. They did, until October 13. The nine senators who wrote the Pentagon’s inspector general described the prior arrangement as “unlimited speeds,” on a contract administered by the U.S. Space Force.

What sits behind the interceptor is the Patriot, and that layer is thinner than the public knows. Ukraine received a third as many air defense interceptors in the first half of 2026 as in the same period of 2025. Zelensky asked for several hundred more Patriot rounds to get through the winter and said he needs about 300. The president refused, citing American stockpiles. On Monday the Washington Post reported the administration still hasn’t approved the transfer. During one attack this month Ukrainian air defense intercepted none of the ballistic or cruise missiles launched at it.

Russia, meanwhile, is attacking the same network from the other end. On September 23 a Starlink ground station in Wola Krobowska, south of Warsaw, was set on fire; Poland says Russian intelligence did it and two men were arrested in Germany. On Sunday Lithuania stopped an attempt on its own Starlink infrastructure with, in the prime minister’s words, “flammable liquids and Molotov cocktails.” In March 2024 three men were convicted of plotting to burn a London warehouse full of Starlink terminals bound for Ukraine. Moscow has spent two years trying to break this network with arson. On October 13 Washington did it with a setting.

More nights like October 13, when 39 ballistic missiles came in and 600,000 people in Kyiv lost power, with the interceptor layer missing. Near certain.

November 1, in which an inspector general has a deadline

The letter from Shaheen, Tillis, Durbin, Collins, Reed, Cornyn, Coons, Murkowski and Blumenthal asks Platte Moring III, the Pentagon’s inspector general, for a written status and an initial briefing by November 1. It asks the right questions, and in the right order: whether SpaceX imposed the cap on its own, whether that complied with its contracts, whether any U.S. official “directed, approved, or had advance knowledge,” whether Ukraine or the embassy in Kyiv got notice, and whether the warning failures and the Starlink failures were connected. It also asks that the communications and contract records be preserved, which is the sentence lawyers write when they expect them not to be.

An inspector general can get the Pentagon’s side of this and the contractor’s. He can’t compel the White House, and the Reuters account puts the order there. So the likeliest shape of the November 1 briefing is a classified session that confirms the Pentagon received an instruction, declines to say from whom, and refers the contract question for further review. The senators get a date for a fuller report. The public gets a sentence. Likely.

Whatever the briefing says, it hurts someone. If SpaceX acted alone, a Space Force contractor cut a service it’s paid to provide to a country at war, which is a breach the Pentagon would have to either punish or explain. If the White House directed it, the president’s “it wasn’t me” and the secretary of state’s “categorically false” are contradicted by his own Defense Department, in writing, to nine senators, two days before an election. The only outcome that hurts nobody is the one Axios printed on the first day, a technical malfunction, and a malfunction that stops at the EU border and has lasted three weeks isn’t one. Near certain that the “technical” explanation doesn’t survive the IG.

November 3, in which the cap is on nobody’s ballot and everyone’s

No candidate is running on Starshield. The polling on Ukraine aid has been soft and getting softer for two years, and the administration’s bet, visible in the diesel deal and the sanctions waiver, is that voters care about the pump and not about Odesa. What’s on the ballot is the composition of the two bodies that can do anything about a cap the executive won’t lift. There are three outcomes and they’re ranked.

If Democrats take the House, which the forecasts rate at better than nine in ten, the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees change hands on January 3 and the first subpoenas go to SpaceX and the Space Force for the contract and the October 13 instruction. Musk is invited to testify. He has testified to Congress before when it suited him and ignored it when it didn’t; a subpoena changes the second option. A hearing by March. Likely. Musk in the chair. Possible.

If Democrats take both chambers, the Senate Armed Services Committee adds its own subpoena and, more usefully, the NDAA conference gets a provision. The House passed its $1.15 trillion defense bill on July 22 by four votes. The Senate hasn’t acted, and the conference happens in the lame duck or the new year. A line requiring continuity of satellite service to Ukraine at contracted speeds, with notice to Congress before any change, is the kind of thing that gets written after an IG briefing and attached to a must-pass bill. Possible in a Democratic Senate. Unlikely otherwise, because the Republican chairman would have to want it, and the four Republicans on the IG letter are not chairmen.

If Republicans hold both, the IG review is the whole of the oversight, the cap becomes a policy by default, and the next instrument is the appropriations rider that a Democratic House would have written and a Republican one won’t. Likely that the cap outlasts the Congress.

Then November 4. The president has said combat with Iran resumes, if it resumes, after the vote, and CNN has reported the plans for it. His Sunday letter gave the reason for sparing Russia: Moscow “is doing very little, if anything, to help the Islamic Republic of Iran,” and he wants to keep it that way. Bloomberg has reported Russia restocking Iran’s missile factories, so the premise is wrong, but the logic is what matters here. If the Iran war resumes on November 4, Russia’s cooperation becomes worth more to him, and every lever he has on Ukraine, the cap included, becomes something he’s less willing to give back. Near certain that the Iran decision and the Ukraine cap are decided by the same man on the same week, and that nobody in Kyiv is consulted on either.

Share PolitiMix

The lame duck, in which Congress discovers it already gave the tools away

The continuing resolution expires December 11. The Graham Act waivers, signed October 16, have no expiration date and no disapproval mechanism; the Act lets Congress vote down a certification that Russia has made peace, and provides nothing for a certification that waiving the sanctions is in the national interest. Treasury’s General License 135 permits Russian diesel into the United States through April 7, 2027. So the three economic levers Congress built this year are off until a new law turns them back on, and a new law needs a signature from the man who turned them off. Blumenthal and Meeks have bills. They are messages. Near certain that no sanction waived in October is restored by legislation before spring.

The NDAA is the one vehicle, and it’s a vehicle for policy rather than money. The Senate committee version carries $750 million in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds. That’s a year’s worth of a few weeks of interceptors. It doesn’t buy Patriots the president won’t release, and it doesn’t raise a speed limit the White House set. What a lame-duck conference can do is write the notice requirement and the continuity clause described above. What it will do depends on November 3. See above.

The first freeze, in which the grid meets the number

Russia’s stated winter objective is a blackout. In the week before the waiver it launched more than 700 drones and a run of missile salvos at Ukrainian cities and power plants. The October 13 strike hit the combined heat-and-power plants that warm Kyiv and cut electricity to 600,000 people. On the night of October 17 Russia hit energy facilities in four regions. Zelensky says Russia has violated the “energy ceasefire” the president announced a week earlier 76 times. Ukraine paused its own strikes on Russian refineries at Washington’s request. Russia didn’t reciprocate, and Ukraine resumed, which is the strike the president’s Sunday letter complains about.

Put the layers together. The interceptor drone, which is the cheap defense against the jet drone, is capped. The Patriot, which is the expensive defense against the ballistic missile, is at a third of last year’s supply and the next transfer isn’t approved. The F-16s are half in the shop. Kyiv’s heat plants have been hit once already this month. The first sustained freeze in Kyiv typically arrives in the second half of November. In that arithmetic the strikes that get through in December are the strikes that would have been shot down in October, and the difference is measured in the hours Kyiv has heat. Rolling blackouts in the capital by December. Likely. A night with no interceptions at all, as happened once this month. Possible.

The president’s letter describes Ukraine’s male population as “low, wounded, and/or dead” as an argument for settlement. The cap is the mechanism by which the description is made more accurate.

Europe, in which the replacement launches in 2029

Poland has paid for tens of thousands of Ukraine’s Starlink terminals, which is why its foreign minister asked Musk in public whether he was “playing politics” with the product. Europe’s answer to that question is a program called IRIS², 348 satellites, first launches scheduled for 2029 and initial service in 2029 or 2030, two years behind the original plan, carried on an Ariane 6 that has launched four times this year. The German contract for the medium-orbit satellites was signed on August 31. The German defense ministry says it will put €35 billion into military space by 2030. None of that reaches a drone over Kharkiv this winter.

What exists now is Eutelsat’s OneWeb, which is real and in Ukraine and can’t replace a network of this size at this speed on this timeline. Its stock rose 18 percent on October 16 on the news that it might have to try. Zelensky says European partners are “working on” an alternative. Ukraine drove its terminals across the border to prove the cap was a policy and not a fault, which is the cheapest piece of intelligence work of the war and the one the Pentagon’s inspector general will presumably repeat.

Expect Europe to fund OneWeb terminals and ground stations as a partial backup, announced as a sovereignty measure, by the new year. Likely. Expect it to matter to the interceptor problem before spring. It won’t.

The longer lesson is the one the Cylons piece ran on Friday: the ship that survived was the one nobody could switch off from outside. Ukraine built its war on a network a foreign president can throttle with an instruction to a contractor, and the instruction has now been given twice, once in 2022 over Kherson, by Musk, and once this month, by someone who won’t sign his name to it.

Musk, in which the exposure is the contract

Musk’s position is that Starshield is “owned and controlled by the US government.” That’s a defense and a confession in the same sentence. If it’s true, he’s saying his company executed an order to cut an ally’s air defense and didn’t tell the ally, which is what a contractor does when instructed and what the IG letter asks about by name. If the Telegraph’s four sources are right that he proposed the cap himself, he’s a government contractor who lobbied the president to degrade the service he’s paid to deliver. Tillis, who isn’t running again and can say what he likes, wrote that intentional degradation “might be construed as aiding and abetting a mass murderer.”

Here is why none of that costs SpaceX anything before 2027. The Pentagon can’t launch without it. The National Reconnaissance Office runs its newest constellation on Starshield. Debarment, the remedy for a contractor who breaches, would ground the government’s own satellites. So the realistic consequence of an adverse IG finding is a contract amendment with a notice clause and a Democratic hearing Musk may or may not attend. His money in Texas, about $190 million against Talarico, stays where it is. Near certain that no SpaceX contract is cancelled over this. Likely that one is amended. Possible that Musk is under oath about it by spring, in a Democratic House, and if he is, the question is the one the Telegraph’s source answered: “The reality is that they were both in it.”

What the president does, if he does what he did

He uses it. Read his Sunday letter again with the cap in mind. He lists Ukraine’s losses as a reason for Ukraine to settle. He says he can sign the sanctions “any time that I want.” He describes the war’s end as something he wants and will arrange. A president holding a lever over Ukraine’s air defense, who has told the public that Ukraine’s position is hopeless and that a deal is coming after the vote, lifts the lever when the deal is signed or when lifting it buys the signature. The pattern is the one from the refineries: Ukraine stopped striking them at his request, got nothing, and he lifted the sanctions on Russian diesel anyway.

So the cap stays through the election, because nothing he wants from Ukraine is available before it. After the election it becomes a term. If Kyiv concedes something he can announce, the speed limit disappears in the same week and is never mentioned again, and Rubio’s “sort of happened” becomes the official history. If Kyiv doesn’t, it stays, the IG report is classified, and the next thing to be capped is identified. Likely for the first path. Possible for the second. He has never once in this war given something to Ukraine without naming its price, and the price this time is written in his own hand.

What Ukraine does, if it does what it did

It routes around. In 2022, when Musk cut the link over Kherson, Ukrainian units drove into the dead zone on radios. In 2023, when American intelligence sharing paused, they hit Russian targets with their own drones and their own targeting. On Sunday, with the cap on, Ukraine launched more than a thousand drones into Russia and set two oil facilities in St. Petersburg on fire, which is a message addressed to Moscow and copied to Washington. The six companies building turbojets will build more. The interceptor that can’t use Starshield will be the one that uses something else, and the something else will be worse and Ukrainian and theirs. Near certain that Ukraine keeps hitting refineries. Near certain that the next Ukrainian interceptor is designed around a link no foreign government can throttle.

That’s the shape of it. On the morning of November 3 the number is 161. The inspector general’s deadline is two days old and the briefing was classified. The first freeze is weeks away and the heat plants have been hit once. The Patriots aren’t approved. The replacement launches in 2029. And the man who can change the number with a phone call has published his view that Ukraine has lost its oceans and its men and should have taken the deal, and that the documents on his desk get signed “any time that I want.” The number will change on the day he gets what he’s holding it for. Watch for the announcement. It’ll call itself peace.

Subscribe now

7:45 a.m. To the Great People of Israel

Israel votes on October 27, nine days from the post. It’s the first national election since the attack of October 2023, and the polls going in had Gadi Eisenkot’s new party ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud in four consecutive surveys, with neither bloc at a majority. Into that race, the president of the United States wrote a letter of “Complete and Total Endorsement” and addressed it to the voters of another country.

American presidents have favored candidates in Israeli elections before. Bill Clinton openly preferred Shimon Peres in 1996 and said so afterward. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights two weeks before the April 2019 vote, with Netanyahu beside him at the White House. What the record doesn’t contain is a president stating in writing that American military action depends on which candidate a foreign democracy chooses. That sentence sits in the middle of Sunday’s letter. “If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi,” he wrote, “America will have to do this work ourselves,” and he is “not inclined to do so.”

“This work” is the war with Iran, which the United States and Israel began together in February. Two lines earlier the letter describes that war as nearly won: Iran “systematically destroyed, both Militarily and Financially,” with the United States ready to “finish the job.” The defense secretary has announced Iran’s destruction on four separate dates since March. Bloomberg reported this month that Iran’s missile factories are intact and that Russia is helping to restock them. Two-thirds of American voters disapprove of the president’s handling of the war, according to Pew. The letter’s threat, read plainly, is that if Israelis elect someone other than Netanyahu, the United States will have to complete a war it claims to have already won, and the president may decline.

The letter also misstates the history it invokes. It refers to Iran’s “51 year old chant” of “Death to Israel, Death to America.” The Islamic Republic dates to 1979, forty-seven years ago. A fifty-one-year-old chant would have originated in 1975, under the Shah, when Iran was an American ally and client.

Netanyahu responded by video within hours, calling Trump the greatest friend Israel has had in the White House. He did not address the condition attached to the endorsement. His corruption trial is ongoing. He asked President Herzog for a pardon last November, weeks after Trump wrote to Herzog requesting one on his behalf. The letter mentions none of this.

1:36 p.m. My decision on Russia

The second letter is the president’s explanation of Friday night, when he signed an executive order waiving nearly every provision of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, two days before its sanctions were due to take effect. The Act permits a waiver if the president certifies to Congress that it serves the national interest and submits a report explaining the basis. The certification was sent. No report has been made public. Sunday’s post is the nearest thing to one, and it should be read as such.

It begins by describing the law as a document he has not signed. “Signing that document at this time will do that,” he writes, meaning drive Russia from negotiations, “and I can sign it later, or any time that I want!” He signed the Act on September 18. What he did on Friday was suspend its operation. The letter recasts the waiver of a statute as a decision he’s holding in reserve, to be exercised on his own schedule. That is a different arrangement from the one Congress wrote, and a more accurate description of the one now in effect.

The reasons follow in sequence. “Great progress is being made, and that includes current hostage negotiations!” Neither the White House nor the State Department has identified which hostages. “Russia is doing very little, if anything, to help the Islamic Republic of Iran,” which is contradicted by the Bloomberg reporting on the missile factories. Zelensky “is using Diesel Refineries in Russia as a target,” the letter says, and the strikes are “seriously hurting the world diesel markets, including those in the United States.” Analysts of those markets attribute the pressure principally to the Iran war and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to it. The letter then notes that Russia “is, nevertheless, sending, at a low price, millions of barrels of diesel to the World.” The president suspended American sanctions on that diesel earlier this month. The sentence is a commendation of the product.

The final third of the letter concerns Zelensky, and it’s where the document moves from inaccuracy to something graver. “His country is in shambles, a large portion of his land is lost,” it says, and then: “his oceans and seas are gone, and his male population is low, wounded, and/or dead.”

Ukraine has no ocean and never has. It has a Black Sea coast that it continues to hold from Odesa westward, from which it has driven the Russian fleet out of the western Black Sea and restored its grain exports by sea. It lost its coast on the Sea of Azov in 2022. Both nouns in “oceans and seas are gone” are wrong. The clause that follows is a sitting president citing an ally’s dead and wounded as evidence the ally should have surrendered sooner, in a letter arguing that the country responsible for those casualties should be spared sanctions so it won’t be “foolishly” driven from the table. “He could have made a better deal two years ago” places that deal in October 2024, when no proposal was before either side. The last negotiations that produced a draft text were in Istanbul in the spring of 2022.

On the day the letter was posted, Ukraine launched more than a thousand drones into Russia and set fire to two oil facilities in St. Petersburg. Russia struck energy infrastructure in four Ukrainian regions overnight. Zelensky said Russia had now violated the “energy ceasefire” the president announced a week earlier seventy-six times. “I WANT THIS WAR END!” the letter concludes. The terms on which it wants the war to end are the subject of the letter, and they’re Russia’s.

The same day. The golf course

The third letter announces that the Department of the Interior, “under the auspices of Secretary Doug Burgum,” together with the golf course architect Tom Fazio, has a plan to replace East Potomac Golf Links in Washington with a championship course capable of hosting the U.S. Open and the Ryder Cup. It describes the existing course as “old, broken, dilapidated, and of no further use or effect.” It sets a closing date of November 15 and a reopening in approximately fifteen months.

The course sits on Hains Point, inside a national park. Golf has been played there since 1921; the eighteen-hole course was laid out by Walter Travis. In 2025 it recorded 124,500 rounds, more than any course in the Washington region. In July 1941, Interior Secretary Harold Ickes sent three Black golfers onto it under the protection of six U.S. Marshals, because the capital’s courses would not otherwise admit them; they played eighteen holes through jeers and threats. In 2020 the National Park Service signed a fifty-year agreement with a nonprofit, National Links Trust, to operate it and two other public courses in the District. The administration terminated that agreement at the end of last year and has since allowed the trust to run the course on an interim basis.

The termination produced a lawsuit, and the lawsuit is why the timing of Sunday’s letter matters. The case is DC Preservation League v. Department of the Interior, before Judge Ana Reyes. In July she ordered the government to disclose any long-term plans for the course and to refrain from unannounced changes to it. The government’s position before the court has been that no final decision about the course has been made. Earlier this month the Park Service removed roughly 430 trees over a single weekend. Reyes’s opinion of October 13 found that Interior officials had ordered, reviewed and approved that work over five days before the equipment arrived, and she entered a restraining order barring further cutting through October 26. The Justice Department has since moved to have her removed from the case for bias.

The next hearing is Monday morning. An Interior Department official and the acting director of the National Park Service are scheduled to testify. The question before the court is whether the government still maintains that no final decision exists. On Sunday the president published one, with a date, an architect, and a closure notice, in a letter signed with his office. The government’s attorneys will be asked on Monday to reconcile their representations to the court with their client’s public statement of the day before. A previous start date, September 1, passed without work beginning.

Tom Fazio designed the Old Course at Trump National Bedminster, Trump National Philadelphia at Pine Hill, and the two courses at Lowes Island that became Trump National Washington after Trump purchased the club. He is the president’s architect, engaged by the president’s Interior Department to rebuild a public course in a national park. The letter does not say who will pay for the work. Neither do the court filings.

Any time that I want

The three letters share a signature and a closing line. They also share a premise, stated outright in the Russia letter: “any time that I want.” The sanctions take effect when the president decides. Israel’s election produces the correct result, or the United States withdraws from a war it began. The golf course closes on November 15 regardless of what a federal judge hears on Monday. A statute passed 86 to 11, an allied electorate, and a court with a case pending are each addressed in the same register, as parties to be informed of a decision already made.

The factual errors are what make the letters legible as a set. A chant dated four years before the revolution that produced it. An ocean attributed to a country that has none. A law described as unsigned by the man who signed it. A course of “no further use” that hosted more rounds than any in the region. These are the errors of a president writing without anyone in a position to correct him, and the sentences surrounding them, the condition placed on Israel, the accounting of Ukraine’s dead, the date set over the head of a judge, are the consequence of the same absence.

Judge Reyes convenes on Monday morning. She will be the first official in a position to ask the government to explain the difference between what its lawyers have told her and what the president has told everyone else.

Subscribe now

Musk shut off Starlink for Ukraine

The claim, from Wednesday morning onward: Elon Musk turned off Starlink for the Ukrainian military while Russia was hitting Kyiv’s power plants. Some versions had him “pulling the plug,” most had the word “shut,” and a lot of them tied it to the Russian diesel deal the president had announced the week before.

What happened when it was checked. Two words are wrong, and they’re the two that matter. The first is “shut.” Nothing was turned off. On the night of October 13, Starshield, the military package built on Starlink and paid for by the Pentagon, stopped connecting for any terminal moving faster than 100 miles an hour. Below that, it worked, with glitches. Zelensky corrected the internet himself on Thursday: “Starlink wasn’t turned off,” he wrote on X, “its speed was reduced.” The cap hit exactly one thing, the interceptor and strike drones that fly faster than 100 miles an hour, which is to say the drones Ukraine uses against Russia’s jet-powered Shaheds.

The second wrong word is “Musk.” He said on X that the limits on Starshield “are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS,” which everyone read as a dodge. Then Reuters reported, from two US officials and a Western one, that the order came from inside the White House and the Pentagon was told to carry it out. A senior official’s only correction was that it hadn’t come from the president personally. The president’s own account: “It wasn’t me, and I don’t think it was Elon.” Axios had US officials calling it a “technical malfunction.” Those three explanations can’t all be true, and the one with named sources is Reuters.

What was true underneath. The cap is still on. Service was reported “restored” Thursday, and what came back was the connection below 100 miles an hour. Zelensky said Saturday the limit remains, called it a “planned operation,” and described the test his people ran: they drove terminals across the border into the EU, and the cap lifted at the line. Thom Tillis has asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to find out whether it was “a conscious decision to clear the field for a Russian attack.” So the corrected sentence reads: the White House capped Ukraine’s drone defenses the night Russia fired 39 ballistic missiles at Kyiv, nobody will say who signed it, and it’s still capped. The version that traveled had the wrong man doing a thing that didn’t happen. The real version has the wrong building doing a thing that’s still going on.

Subscribe now

Read more

That’s the question you keep losing the argument over, because the person making it has most of the facts and you don’t have the dates. So here are the dates.

The Senate spying happened, and the denial was public

In January 2014, CIA personnel went into the computer network the agency had set up for Senate Intelligence Committee staff to review millions of pages of torture-program documents. The committee had gotten hold of an internal CIA review that contradicted what the agency was telling them, and the agency wanted to know how. According to McClatchy’s reporting at the time, Brennan ordered the initial look himself.

On March 11, 2014, Dianne Feinstein took the Senate floor and said the CIA had searched the committee’s computers and may have violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. That same morning Brennan was at the Council on Foreign Relations, and he was asked about it. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “We wouldn’t do that.” He added that it was “beyond the scope of reason.”

On July 31, 2014, the CIA’s own inspector general, David Buckley, reported that five agency employees, two lawyers and three IT staff, had improperly accessed the committee’s side of the network, read the emails of Senate staffers, and that the CIA had then filed a criminal referral against those same staffers with the Justice Department based on inaccurate information. Brennan apologized to Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss. In private.

Then nothing. The Justice Department had already declined, on July 10, to investigate either the CIA’s search or the CIA’s referral against Senate staff. Brennan convened an accountability board under former senator Evan Bayh. In January 2015 it found the five employees had acted “reasonably” and recommended no discipline. Feinstein said she was disappointed that nobody would answer for it. She was right to be.

Here’s the one correction to Makiara’s account. Feinstein did not call for Brennan’s resignation. Mark Udall of Colorado did, on the day the IG report came out. Udall lost his seat three months later. Ron Wyden asked for a public apology and never got one. Feinstein, who had the most reason of anyone to demand his head, took the private apology and kept working with him.

So on the spying: documented, by the CIA itself. The public denial was false. The private apology was the only consequence. That’s where the record stands, and Makiara has it right.

Subscribe now

Read more

The Cylons were built by people, to make life easier. They decided to kill their makers. After a long war there was an armistice, and the Cylons left to find a world of their own. A station was built in deep space where the two sides could meet. Every year the Colonies send an officer. The Cylons have sent no one for forty years. The officer unpacks his briefcase, sets out two photographs, and waits. Then the door opens.

That’s the show. The rest is what the survivors do. And the reason to watch it again now is that the writers were careful about one thing most stories in this genre skip, which is where the machines came from in the first place.

They were soldiers before they were anything

The prequel, Caprica, answers it. The Cylon was a military product. Daniel Graystone’s company built a combat robot, the U-87, to win a defense contract for a war the Colonies were fighting with each other. The name is an acronym, Cybernetic Lifeform Node. It carried a gun before it carried a thought. Nobody in that story treated it as a safety question. It was a procurement question, with a deadline and a competitor and a government that wanted the thing fielded.

On September 30 Pete Hegseth stood in front of junior officers at Quantico and announced the Autonomous Warfare Command, the first new combatant command since 2019. A four-star will run it. Unlike the other commands, this one gets to design, develop and field its own systems, which is a power the armed services have and combatant commands don’t. The budget request for the drone and autonomy group it absorbs goes from about $226 million to about $54.6 billion. Until the command exists there’s an interim program, and the interim program is named Project Agincourt, after a battle that is famous because the side with the better weapon killed the side with the better armor in an afternoon.

Hegseth’s one-line justification: “The pace of war is changing faster than the process to support it.” Graystone would have said it the same way. He did, more or less, in the pilot.

The man with the access

The Colonies die in the miniseries because of a man named Gaius Baltar. He’s the most brilliant computer scientist of his generation, he designed the navigation software every ship in the fleet runs, and he gives a woman he’s sleeping with access to the defense mainframe so her company can win a contract. She’s a Cylon. She writes a back door into his program. When the attack comes, every networked ship in the Colonial military shuts itself off, and the nukes do the rest.

The one ship that survives is the one that was never on the network. Commander Adama had refused, for his whole career, to let Galactica’s computers talk to each other. The civilians thought he was a crank. In the miniseries a government public relations man named Doral lectures him about it while touring the ship for its decommissioning. The ship is being turned into a museum that week, which is how the writers tell you what the Colonies thought of a man who wouldn’t take the faster system. Doral turns out to be a Cylon too.

In May the Pentagon announced agreements with eight AI companies to put their models on classified networks for what the department calls lawful operational use. One company was left off the list. Earlier this year it had refused to drop two restrictions from its terms, one on fully autonomous weapons and one on domestic mass surveillance, and the president ordered every agency to stop using it. The defense secretary then formally designated it a national security supply chain risk. A federal judge in California called that unlawful retaliation. A D.C. Circuit panel upheld it anyway, two to one, and on Monday the company asked the full court to rehear the case. So the current state of American policy is that the company which wouldn’t let its system fire on its own is the one barred from the network, and the companies that would are on it.

I’ll put it plainly. The show gave Adama a museum. We gave him a blacklist.

You cannot play God and then wash your hands

Adama’s decommissioning speech is the thesis of the series, and it’s about the makers. He says the Colonies decided to play God and create life, and when that life turned on them they told themselves it wasn’t their fault. He says the day comes when you can’t hide from what you’ve done. The crowd claps politely and goes to the reception. The attack starts a few hours later.

Last month an engineer who’d spent three years at OpenAI and then Anthropic resigned and wrote that both companies are racing to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with everyone’s lives. Anthropic’s alignment science lead answered under his own name that the man was right, that he puts the odds of AI killing every human above ten percent this decade, and that there’s no plan. Another senior researcher added that the more senior the employee, the more worried they are. I covered this in September. Nothing has changed since except that the Pentagon stood up a command.

Congress, to its credit, has noticed something. Senators Banks and Gillibrand introduced a bill last week requiring any AI contractor with a Pentagon deal over $100 million to report, within seven days, any “unprompted autonomous actions” by its models. Read that again. The first thing a Cylon ever does, the moment the entire franchise is built on, is now a compliance item with a reporting window. It’s a start. It’s also a confession about what the people writing the law expect to happen.

All of this has happened before

The series’ scripture, repeated by priests and Cylons alike, is that all of this has happened before and will happen again. The humans of the Colonies came from Kobol. Before them, a thirteenth tribe settled a planet they called Earth, built machines, and were wiped out by them. Then the Colonies built theirs. The writers didn’t present the cycle as fate. They presented it as a pattern nobody ever read closely enough to break.

The finale puts a bow on it that was controversial at the time and looks less so now. It jumps 150,000 years forward to a street in modern New York. Two characters walk past a newsstand. Then the show cuts to real footage of real robots, Japanese humanoids and dancing toys, the stuff that was in the news in 2009, and lets the camera sit there. One of them asks whether all of this has to happen again. The other says the law of averages suggests that if a system repeats itself long enough, something surprising might occur. That’s the last line of dialogue in the series. It’s a shrug.

Where the comparison breaks

The Colonies got an armistice. The machines went away for forty years to figure out what they were, and the humans built a station and sent an officer every year to sit in it. They had a process, even a useless one. Somebody was assigned to wait.

There’s no armistice here because there’s no war yet, and there’s no station because the two sides are in the same building. The model is on the classified network. The company that makes it is on the contractor list. The command that will field the autonomous systems reports to the man who said the process is too slow. The one party in the whole arrangement that was willing to leave a capability on the table has been declared a risk to the supply chain for doing so.

The 1978 original, the one with the chrome Cylons and the Lorne Greene voiceover, had a detail the reboot dropped. The Cylons in that version weren’t built by humans. They were built by a race of lizards, who were long gone by the time the show started. The machines outlived their makers so completely that the makers were a footnote in the enemy’s history.

Every version of this story agrees on the ending and disagrees only about the species. The officer at the station had a chair, two photographs, and a briefcase. We have a budget line, a four-star, and a seven-day reporting window. The door is going to open either way.

Share

Start with the one number that should never move after it’s announced.

How many Americans have died

On September 18 the Pentagon’s casualty system listed 19 dead. That day it identified the nineteenth, Captain Bianca Wilkerson of Norfolk, who died in Qatar. Within hours the Washington Post reported, citing five officials, that the true count was at least 22, and a sixth official said 23. The Post’s sources said some of the uncounted dead weren’t tied directly to combat. They’d died in the Middle East, during the war, on deployments the war caused.

Pete Hegseth called the report false. A defense official told Task & Purpose the extra deaths “were not directly related to the war with Iran.”

Three weeks later, late on a Friday night, October 9, the Pentagon raised its count to 21. It added two names. One was Major Sorffly Davius of the New York Army National Guard, who died at Camp Buehring in Kuwait on March 6 of a medical emergency. The Army announced his death the week it happened. For seven months the casualty system left him off. The other was a Navy enlisted woman in her twenties who died in September, cause pending. Both are now listed as non-hostile deaths in Operation Epic Fury.

The same update put the wounded at 865 since February 28, most of them since July 7, and disclosed five soldiers wounded in action in October, the first October casualties reported. The Pentagon also split the books into two columns this fall: “Operation Epic Fury” and “overseas operations,” the second covering deaths since July that it has decided don’t belong to the war.

So the sequence runs like this. The newspaper says the count is low by four. The secretary says the newspaper is wrong. The Pentagon adds two of the four, quietly, after dark, and moves the rest into a column with a different name. The official count is 21. The reporters’ count is 22 or 23. The difference is two families whose deaths the government has decided to file somewhere else.

Subscribe now

Read more

Here’s the thing to know before the cable coverage starts. The man who signed the subpoena isn’t there anymore.

Who built this, and who left

The grand conspiracy probe is the Justice Department’s attempt to tie together everything that happened to Trump between 2016 and 2024. The Russia investigation. The intelligence community’s 2017 assessment that Moscow wanted him to win. The Steele dossier. The 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago. The theory, as far as anyone outside the department can tell, is that the officials who ran those investigations were conspiring to deprive one man of his civil rights so he couldn’t hold office.

Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general and the president’s former defense lawyer, put the case in the Southern District of Florida this spring after career prosecutors in Washington balked. He then brought in Joe diGenova, a 1980s U.S. attorney who had spent the Trump years as a cable commentator calling Brennan “evil” and a “traitor,” to run it. That was April. The lead career prosecutor on the Brennan matter, Maria Medetis Long, was removed from the team shortly before diGenova was sworn in, after she raised concerns about the Brennan case.

On Thursday, September 10, prosecutors handed Brennan a subpoena with diGenova’s signature on it, ordering him to Fort Pierce on October 15. The same day, diGenova resigned. He didn’t give a reason. Bloomberg Law reported that people in department leadership were frustrated with how he’d managed the probe, and the AP reported White House frustration with the pace. Five months in, he had charged no one. When the AP caught up with him, he said something worth keeping: “If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem.” He later said that was taken out of context. Blanche said nobody was slowing down.

So the prosecutor who signed the subpoena is gone, the career prosecutor who raised concerns is gone, and the department hasn’t named a replacement. What’s left is a team, and the name that keeps surfacing on that team is Kurt Olsen.

The prosecutor who is also the election czar

This is the part the coverage keeps getting slightly wrong, and I got it wrong myself before I checked. Olsen wasn’t moved to the White House after diGenova left. He’s been there the whole time. Trump hired him in October 2025 as the White House Director of Election Security and Integrity. He kept that job while serving on the Florida prosecution team, and it’s Olsen who told Brennan’s lawyers what Brennan’s status is.

Olsen’s résumé matters here. In 2020 he pushed the Justice Department to back Trump’s fraud claims, and the department refused. A federal court later sanctioned him over false election claims, according to a May letter from eleven Democratic senators asking the White House to fire him. The same letter says his theories supplied the basis for the FBI’s search warrant in the raid on Fulton County’s election offices in Georgia, which Tulsi Gabbard attended, and that he’s been given access to intelligence agencies for his work. The senators called him an election denier. The White House kept him.

So the man who will help decide whether John Brennan is indicted for the 2017 Russia assessment is the same man running the president’s election-security operation three weeks before the midterms, in a year when the president has said the country “shouldn’t even have an election.” That’s one job description, held by one man.

Subject in one case, target in the other

Olsen told Brennan’s lawyers that Brennan is a “subject” of the Fort Pierce grand conspiracy probe. In department language, a subject is someone whose conduct is within the grand jury’s scope. A target is someone prosecutors think committed a crime. Brennan is a target in a second, narrower case in Washington: whether he lied to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 about the 2017 assessment. Olsen called that one “viable.” Brennan and his lawyers say he told the truth, and that’s the case with a clock on it, since false-statement charges have a five-year limit.

Tomorrow’s appearance is for the Florida case, the big one. Brennan can answer questions, or he can take the Fifth, or his lawyers can have worked out something narrower in advance. We won’t know which from inside the room. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the only account that reaches the public is whatever his side chooses to say on the courthouse steps.

What he’s already done about it

Brennan didn’t wait to be charged. In July he sued the Justice Department and senior administration officials in Washington, asking a judge to order them to preserve every record about the investigations into him, including communications with the White House. The point of that is vindictive prosecution. If he’s indicted, his defense will be that the case exists because the president wanted it, and the Truth Social posts, the deleted ones included, are the evidence. His lawyer, Ken Wainstein, has also called the choice of Fort Pierce “judge-shopping.” Fort Pierce is a one-judge division. The judge is Aileen Cannon, who threw out the classified documents case against Trump in 2024.

On September 14, Wainstein asked Judge Jia Cobb in Washington for a preliminary injunction. “The threat of prosecution remains quite real,” he told her. The department’s lawyer argued there was nothing to enjoin: “there’s no indictment, there’s no charges.” Cobb took it under advisement. As of this morning she hasn’t ruled, which means Brennan goes to Florida tomorrow with no court order protecting the paper trail he says he’ll need.

What tomorrow can do, and can’t

A grand jury appearance isn’t a charge. It isn’t a trial. It’s a witness in a room with 23 citizens and a prosecutor, and the witness doesn’t get a lawyer at the table. What it tells you is where the case is. Prosecutors usually call the subject late, after they’ve built what they’re going to build. If Brennan is being called in person now, five weeks after the department lost its lead prosecutor, either the team is close to a decision or it’s trying to look like it is before November 3.

The calendar around him says which. The Comey trial starts October 21. Bolton is sentenced October 28. Those are the president’s September 20, 2025, Truth Social list, the one that named Comey, Schiff and “Leticia,” now moving through the courts in order. Brennan wasn’t on that post. He’s been on every list before it.

Randall Eliason, who used to prosecute public corruption in Washington, put the legal problem plainly to the AP: connecting all of those investigations into one conspiracy, “there’s no basis for that.” Mueller found no conspiracy by senior officials. The inspector general found FBI errors and no conspiracy. The Durham investigation, which was built to find exactly this, charged two people and convicted none. Fort Pierce is the fourth try.

What’s different the fourth time is the room. A grand jury in a one-judge division, run by a team whose last leader quit saying something about evidence, with the White House’s election czar at the table. If they indict a former CIA director three weeks before an election on a theory three prior investigations rejected, that’s the headline. If they don’t, Brennan walks out and the department has spent five months, a resignation and a subpoena to produce a witness who went home.

Either way, watch the steps, not the door. Wainstein will say something. The department won’t. And the first question anybody should ask him is whether Kurt Olsen was in the room.

undercounted the money by a factor of twenty and missed a path. The money was $20 million. The path was a federal courtroom in Manhattan, and the plaintiff who opened it was Robert Hunter, the Democratic nominee for House District 28 in the Alabama legislature, who had spent $1,812 on his own campaign and argued that a $20 million federal ad campaign attacking people like him was a competitor he could not match. On Sunday night, Judge Jennifer Rochon agreed, ordered the ads off the air at 6:45 p.m., and on Monday published a forty-page opinion that does something no congressional letter or GAO review was going to do before the election. It lays out, with timestamps, where the money came from.

The money, in the order it moved

The source is Section 90004 of last year’s reconciliation act, the One Big Beautiful Bill, which gave Customs and Border Protection money for “commemorating efforts and events related to border security.” Congress meant memorials and ceremonies. In November 2025 the Office of Management and Budget apportioned $500,000 to that line, which is roughly what memorials and ceremonies cost.

On August 7, according to a New York Times report the court cited and the government did not dispute, the president and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, met with Republican strategists about the midterms. The president showed them videos of himself, including footage that later appeared in one of the ads. After the meeting, he told OMB Director Russell Vought to find government funds to pay for the advertisements.

On Friday, September 19, at 6:15 p.m., CBP asked OMB to move $20 million into the commemorative events line, drawing on money appropriated for the following fiscal year. At 7:50 p.m., ninety-five minutes later, OMB approved it. The next day, a Saturday, CBP issued a $20 million purchase order to a firm called LMD Agency for a “National Media Campaign.” The order covered placement only. Someone else had already made the ads.

By 11 a.m. on October 8, tracking data submitted to the court showed 16,254 airings, 1.56 billion impressions, and $15.4 million spent. By Sunday night, when the judge acted, about $19 million of the $20 million was gone. The purchase order runs through September 2027. At least eight more ads were planned.

That is the entire paper trail, and it is short because the whole operation took one evening. A line meant for wreaths was turned into a national television budget between dinner and the late news, on a Friday, by two agencies answering to a president who had personally picked the footage six weeks earlier. The judge noted the speed, and noted the president’s own description of the practice: that using appropriated funds this way is a “standard thing to do.”

The ads, as the court catalogued them

There are five, and the list matters because the White House has defended them as patriotic public service announcements about the country. “The Country He Loves,” thirty seconds, in which the president lists his accomplishments and attacks communism and socialism. “Celebrating the Enduring Spirit,” sixty seconds, Mount Rushmore and the 250th anniversary. “Final Battle,” thirty seconds, the deep state, the sick political class, the fake news media, the one that ran during the NFL and that the court found nearly identical to a 2024 campaign ad with the sponsor line changed. “To the Great Proud People of Iran,” sixty seconds, on the military operations in Iran, featuring the secretary of war. “Maduro,” sixty seconds, on the operation to capture the Venezuelan president, built around a Marco Rubio speech.

Two of the five are war ads. The campaign that the White House described as reminding Americans to love their country spent CBP’s commemorative money telling them, in the weeks before an election, that the war in Iran is going well and the Venezuela operation was a triumph, which are the two claims the administration most needs voters to believe on November 3 and the two it has the most trouble documenting. All five say “Paid for by the U.S. Government,” and the court found that none of them tells a viewer anything about what the Department of Homeland Security does.

What the government argued, and what it didn’t

The Justice Department’s defense had two parts. The first was timing. In a filing late Saturday it said the campaign was ending Sunday night anyway, so the case was moot. The judge was unpersuaded for reasons she listed: ads were still scheduled to run Sunday, the purchase agreement was still in force, the final invoice was unpaid, the DHS declaration that no “additional” buys had been ordered after October 11 was unclear about buys already made, and nothing stopped the same two agencies from doing the same thing next week. “Defendants have provided no reasonable assurance that the challenged conduct will not recur,” she wrote, and then pointed to the ninety-five minutes as the reason to believe it could.

The second part of the defense is the one that matters to anyone who has followed this story since September, and it is an absence. On the question of whether the ads broke the law, the government did not argue. The opinion records it in one sentence: “Defendants do not contest that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.” The plaintiffs’ claims were that the spending violated the purpose statute, which says appropriations may be used only for what Congress appropriated them for, and the publicity-and-propaganda rider that every appropriations act has carried since the 1950s. The court found the ads “purely partisan” under the GAO test this publication described two weeks ago, meaning designed to aid a party or candidate, and found that money for commemorating border security was not money for a midterm ad campaign. The Justice Department, given the chance to say otherwise, declined. It argued only that the judge was too late.

That is a different thing from losing. A government that loses an argument has made one. This one stood in front of a federal judge, with $19 million already spent on ads the president had personally selected, and chose not to defend the spending as lawful, because the alternative was to put a Justice Department lawyer on the record saying that the Final Battle spot was a border security commemoration. Nobody was willing to say that under oath. The White House had been saying it on television for three weeks.

After the order

The order took effect at 6:45 p.m. on Sunday, and according to the plaintiffs’ tracking, nearly 400 spots aired after that, including 193 runs of one ad during 60 Minutes and 198 runs of another during America’s Funniest Home Videos. By mid-afternoon Monday, “Maduro” had aired twenty more times and “Final Battle” eleven. The Justice Department filed an apology, explaining that its lawyers “did not become aware of” the order until Monday morning. The White House said DHS had not received notice in time to cancel the purchases, told the vendor to stop, froze future payments, and put the remaining allocation on hold. The plaintiffs did not ask for contempt. They asked for a status conference, which is the polite form of the same question.

Two statements from the weekend fill in the rest. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said that any time the department can “brag about America, I’m all about it.” And the White House, on repayment of the $19 million: there are no immediate plans. The president said last week that his super PAC would pay for future ads. Nobody has proposed that it pay for the past ones. Senators Patty Murray and Chris Murphy wrote to Mullin on September 29 demanding the ads come down, the money be repaid, and six questions be answered within 48 hours, including who directed the spending and whether any ethics official reviewed it. The letter cited the September 19 apportionment as the “suspected” source. The court has now confirmed it. The 48 hours expired October 1.

What this changes, and what it doesn’t

Two weeks ago the honest summary was that the propaganda rider has no enforcement agency, that the GAO moves after the fact, and that the Hatch Act exempts the president. All of that is still true. What changed is that a plaintiff with standing found a statute with teeth. The purpose statute is law, with a remedy attached. Money moved from the object Congress named to an object it didn’t is a violation a court can stop in advance, and this one did, on the strength of a paper trail the government built in one evening and could not explain.

The limits are real. A temporary restraining order runs fourteen days. The government can seek to lift it, can appeal to a Second Circuit that has not always been kind to injunctions against this administration, and can, as the judge herself observed, find another line in another account and move the money again in ninety-five minutes. The $19 million is spent, and no mechanism in the opinion gets it back. The ads reached 1.56 billion impressions before anyone with authority said stop, and the viewers who saw “Final Battle” during a football game do not get a corrective spot. The campaign did most of what it was built to do.

What it could not do was survive a question under oath. For three weeks the administration’s position was that the spots were obviously lawful, obviously nonpolitical, and obviously the kind of thing any government does. Asked to say so to a judge, with the apportionment record on the table, the Justice Department said nothing about the law and asked for the clock. That is the finding, and it is the one that outlasts the fourteen days. The money for these ads was taken from an account for memorials, by a president who chose the footage himself, through a Friday-night transfer his own lawyers would not defend.

Subscribe now

Katie Zacharia, press secretary to the president of the United States as of Monday, has described herself as a lawyer on the Greg Kelly Show, on Fox & Friends First, on a podcast called In Front of Us, and on CNN, where she explained that “as a lawyer, there’s a big difference” between answering under oath and answering the press, which is a distinction she will now be paid to exploit daily. Fox News has put the word “lawyer” under her face at least eighteen times since March 2025. The president introduced her to the nation as “an attorney.” She went to Pepperdine Law and says so, often, with the specific pride of a person who finished something.

What she has not done, according to Judd Legum of Popular Information, who checked the bar rolls of all fifty states and the District of Columbia, is be admitted to practice law anywhere in the United States. She is not on the rolls in California, where she lives. She is not on the rolls in Texas or the District, where she has worked. A law degree is a diploma. A law license is a thing the state gives you after an exam, and there is no record that any state has given her one. Asked by Popular Information whether she had ever been admitted to any bar, a question with a one-word answer, the White House press office replied, in full: “Refer you to the President’s TRUTH on Katie.”

This is, in a vacuum, a résumé discrepancy. In the context of the full inventory, it is the whole design.

The general counsel. Her LinkedIn lists her as General Counsel of a group called Fix California from January 2024 to March 2025. IRS filings show the group never paid her a salary and paid her $27,367 in 2024 as a fundraising commission, which is a job description, and the job it describes is fundraiser. The title “General Counsel” stayed on her X bio through September 2025, came off in November, went back on in April 2026, and stayed until July, so that at various points this year the press secretary of the United States was, by her own account, the chief legal officer of an organization that paid her a cut of the donations, in a state where holding yourself out as entitled to practice law without a license is a misdemeanor. The title moved on and off her profile the way a decorative plant moves on and off a porch, depending on the season and who might be coming by.

The outside counsel. She has said, on the Buck Sexton Show and in her own bio, that she “was the outside counsel to the IFC and the World Bank,” two institutions that retain actual law firms and do not, as a rule, hire a 2011 Pepperdine graduate working at a Chinese firm in Beijing to be their counsel. A 2026 press release from a mining company she advises describes her work there as “matters involving organizations associated with” the World Bank Group, which is to the original claim what a parking lot near a stadium is to a seat.

The selection. The job had been empty since August, when Karoline Leavitt left to spend more time with her children but moved to a Fox News gig instead, and the White House had spent two months discovering that it could not tell the difference between answering the press and not. Then, on Friday afternoon, the president announced on Truth Social that he had found “a devoted fan and member of MAGA!” and that she would “deliver strong results for our Country,” which are the two qualifications he lists for every job and the only two he has ever checked. Her prior stops, which he left out, are a law degree with no license attached, a stint in the George W. Bush White House that MAGA treats the way a church treats a member’s years in a cult, three months as a spokeswoman at the Department of Homeland Security under Kristi Noem, which she left, per the Daily Beast, worried that standing near Corey Lewandowski might hurt her standing in MAGA circles, and a job doing communications for Trump Media, the company that runs Truth Social. She was promoted from the comments section to the podium, and the posting that promoted her was, fittingly, a comment.

The odds. Prediction markets gave her roughly a one percent chance of getting the job in the days before she got it. At 10:43 on the Thursday night before the announcement, somebody put $19 on her at Kalshi. On Friday at 1:41 p.m., twenty minutes before the news broke, two more bets arrived, for $74 and $80. Kalshi is investigating. The three wagers will pay about $9,600, which means the first person in America to publicly express confidence in Katie Zacharia’s qualifications for this job did so anonymously, with a sum smaller than a parking ticket, and is now being looked into by a betting website’s compliance department.

The first briefing. She took the podium Tuesday morning, on her second day, fifteen minutes late, and read from a prepared statement for about six minutes, slowly, the way a person reads a document that was handed to them in the hallway. The statement was about the president’s rallies. It called Monday’s Youngstown event a “blockbuster,” and the photographs of the empty seats were already online. It praised a “historic one-day war” against Venezuela, in the ninth month of a war against Iran that has cost twenty-one American lives and $2 billion to $3 billion a month, so that the first official account of the administration’s military record from its new spokeswoman located the win in the wrong war. MS NOW cut away less than three minutes in. She described the president as “an energetic president” and as “his own best spokesperson,” which is the first thing she has said at the podium that no one has disputed, and which also raises the question of what she is for.

The first question went to Breitbart, seated in the chair her predecessor took away from the staff and gave to what she called new media. Zacharia said the administration would keep the seat and expand it as far as possible, which is the only policy commitment of the briefing and concerns furniture.

The second question came from Peter Doocy of Fox News, who asked whether the United States had halted intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The press secretary of the United States did not know, and said she would get back to him. The question was about whether this country is still passing targeting data to an ally at war. It was answered with the phrase you use when the caterer asks about the deposit.

The third question, from the Daily Mail, was whether the president was still considering firing Kimberly Guilfoyle, the ambassador to Greece, over her alleged conduct in Athens and Davos. Zacharia said the president had asked Guilfoyle to resign. This was news, and it was the only news, and it was delivered in the same register as the rally attendance, so that it took the room a moment to notice.

Then the Daily Mail asked how she would balance the job with four children under eleven, given that her predecessor had left over balancing it with two. The answer, verbatim: “The idea of not spending evenings with my kid kids are is completely unacceptable.” Then: “So my president,” a pause, “excuse me, my husband, is out here.” The room laughed. She recovered by calling the president “the most family-friendly president we’ve ever had,” a sentence that contains a superlative, a man with five children by three wives, and a woman who had just confused him with her husband at a podium.

She ended the briefing by saying the president was headed to Marine One for Alaska and that reporters could ask him there. He was not scheduled to leave for several hours. Fourteen minutes, three outlets, one fact, one correction, and one departure announced for a man who was still in the building.

The pattern. A woman with a law degree calls herself a lawyer. A fundraiser calls herself general counsel. A junior associate calls herself outside counsel to the World Bank. A rally with empty seats is a blockbuster. A one-day strike on Venezuela is the war we are winning. The president is her husband. Each is a small upgrade, applied to a true thing, by a person who has learned from the man she works for that the upgraded version is the one people repeat, and that nobody in the room enforces the difference. That is the qualification, and the bar card was always beside the point. The job requires a willingness to say “lawyer” eighteen times on television and let the chyron do the work, and she has been doing it for free since 2025.

Asked, on the record, with a deadline, whether the press secretary of the United States is admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction, the White House press office refers you to the president’s Truth on Katie.

It will refer you to it again tomorrow.

Subscribe now

One in fifteen is roughly the chance that the polls are wrong by the amount they were wrong in 2020, in the same direction. The path is specific. Republicans hold Texas, Iowa and Maine, all of which the model leans Democratic, and Kansas, which it calls a coin flip, and they can afford to lose Ohio. The Texas and Missouri maps, redrawn last year to produce as many as six new Republican seats, deliver. The Iran war ends on the schedule the president has announced for it, “right after the election, maybe before,” and the ending counts as a win. The $5,000 payment he promised a Tennessee crowd on Saturday, “with your vote on November 3rd,” moves some fraction of the people who believe it. And the machinery of the March executive order on mail voting, which the Supreme Court let proceed in August, depresses turnout in the twenty-three states that sued over it by an amount nobody can measure until it is done. None of those things is likely. All of them are possible, and they are correlated, which is why the model’s number is a single digit.

What follows is what a held Congress does, built from the three times in the last century a president’s party kept both chambers through a second-term midterm, from what this president has already said he will do, and from what his party has already tried and been stopped from doing by the margin of a few senators. Where I am guessing, I say so, and I say how confident I am.

The morning after, in which nobody is fired

The most reliable prediction in the other two pieces does not apply here. There is no Rumsfeld, no Sessions, no official removed by lunch to carry the loss out of the building, because there is no loss. Pete Hegseth, whose impeachment articles Thomas Massie filed and postponed until after the election, wakes up on November 4 as the secretary of war of a party that just won, and a Republican House tables the articles in January without a hearing. Samuel Alito, who told the Wall Street Journal in August, “Obviously I’m here for another term,” has no reason to announce anything in November and every reason to wait for June. The lame-duck scramble that drives the first two pieces becomes an orderly calendar.

What replaces the firing is the claim. The president said Saturday that if Republicans lose, “they’re going to blame me,” and that if they win, “I will get no credit whatsoever.” The second half is a prediction he will not permit to come true. In 2024 he won 49.8 percent of the vote and called it a massive mandate, and the first year of this term was conducted on that reading. A midterm hold by a handful of seats, on a 38 percent approval rating, will be announced as the country’s endorsement of the war, the tariffs, the deportations, the press ban and whatever else is in the news that week, and the party will repeat it, because the alternative is to say what the number means. Near certain.

The lame duck, in which the bill arrives and the Congress that pays it is the one that was just re-elected

The continuing resolution expires December 11. The $67.1 billion Iran supplemental is on the table. In the other two scenarios those two facts set up a shutdown fight over war money by spring. In this one there is no fight. The supplemental passes in December or January over Democratic votes that do not matter, the war’s $2 billion to $3 billion a month is funded through 2028, and the war powers resolutions that have failed six times stop being introduced, because the seventh would fail the same way and the sponsors have other things to do. Near certain.

The $5,000 is the interesting item. The president has promised, from a stage, a payment to adults tied to the vote, at a cost NBC puts at $1.3 trillion. A Congress that just won on that promise will be asked to pass it. The record of his cash promises is a record of their disappearance: the $2,000 checks of December 2020, the tariff dividend of last November, each announced, each costed by someone else, each absorbed into the next news cycle. The likeliest outcome is a smaller number attached to the next reconciliation bill and described as the same thing. Possible on the small version, well below even on the $5,000.

The war decision, which the president has scheduled for the window between the vote and the gavel, is made in this scenario by a man who has just been told the voters are with him and who holds a Congress that will fund whatever he decides. He told Time that resumed strikes after the election were possible. He told the United Nations the deal comes right after it. I will not predict which. I note only that the two prior pieces had him making this decision while a Democratic majority sharpened its appropriations pencils, and this one has him making it with nobody in the room.

January, in which the Senate decides the rules of 2028

A held Congress changes nothing about the president’s powers and everything about who writes the rules for the election that replaces him. The vehicle is the SAVE America Act, which requires documentary proof of citizenship to register and a photo ID to cast a federal ballot. Versions of it have passed the House. None has passed the Senate, because none can get sixty votes, and what to do about that has been the central Republican argument of the past year.

The president’s answer came on October 30, 2025, in capitals: “INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER.” John Thune’s answer, through a spokesman, was that his position “is unchanged,” and his position is that the filibuster is “a bulwark against a lot of really bad things.” This publication wrote in August that two Democrats saved the filibuster in 2022 for exactly this moment, and the moment has not arrived, because the Republicans who agree with Thune have been enough. In a Senate held at 51 or 52 seats, after a campaign the president will say was fought on the SAVE Act, with a majority leader who has been asked in public to break the rule and has refused, the question returns with more force than it has had since 2017. I put abolition below even, because the senators who held the line in 2025 are mostly still there and a held majority is a thin one. I also put it higher than it has ever been.

The likelier path is the one Mike Johnson has already described. In September the House Administration chairman, Bryan Steil, laid out a plan to move the proof-of-citizenship and photo ID provisions through reconciliation, which needs fifty-one votes, by dressing them as election-security money under the Help America Vote Act and by making Real ID the national standard for the photo. Johnson called it “the last best effort to get it through the Senate.” The obstacle is the Byrd rule, which lets the Senate parliamentarian strike anything from a reconciliation bill that is not about the budget, and the parliamentarian’s view of a national voter ID requirement is not hard to predict. Neither is the answer to a parliamentarian. In 2001 Trent Lott removed one who kept ruling against him. Republican senators called for this one’s removal during last year’s reconciliation bill, and Thune declined. He would be asked again. Likely that the attempt is made in the first half of 2027. Possible that it succeeds, and how possible depends on one man’s willingness to become the Coward Files entry this publication has spent a year predicting someone would become.

If it succeeds, the 2028 presidential election is conducted under federal registration and identification rules that did not exist in 2024, written by the party that holds the White House and enforced by its Justice Department. That is the single largest consequence of a held Congress, and it is the one that appears in none of the president’s speeches, because it does not need to.

June, in which two seats are reset for forty years

Samuel Alito is 76. Clarence Thomas is 78. Both have been asked, by their own side, to leave while a Republican Senate can replace them, and both have declined to say when. A Democratic Senate in January would have forced the question in November. A Republican Senate removes the deadline and restores the ordinary calendar, which is the one Anthony Kennedy used: announce at the end of the term, have the successor seated by October. Kennedy announced on June 27, 2018. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed on October 6.

A held Senate makes June 2027 the moment, and the only question is whether one justice takes it or two. Chuck Grassley’s committee has reportedly already looked at names for the Alito seat. A justice confirmed in 2027 at the age the last four were confirmed, between 48 and 53, sits into the 2060s. Two of them, replacing two men in their late seventies, convert a 6-3 Court with two aging seats into a 6-3 Court with none, for the working lifetime of everyone reading this. Likely for one seat. Possible for both. Below them, the district and circuit benches keep filling at the rate they have, through January 2029. This is the consequence that outlasts every other item in this piece, and it is the quietest.

The machinery, in which nobody is watching

The March executive order on mail voting instructs the Department of Homeland Security to build state citizenship lists from federal databases and the Postal Service to keep lists of which voters were mailed ballots. A district judge blocked parts of it in June. On August 25 the Supreme Court, 6 to 3, lifted the block on the ground that the states had sued too early, and said nothing about whether the order is lawful. The DHS lists in five states have already flagged citizens as noncitizens. The Justice Department sent monitors to California and New Jersey last year and has asked Minnesota for its voter rolls. The president said in January, of seizing voting machines in 2020, “Well, I should have,” and of the midterms, “we shouldn’t even have an election.”

In either Democratic scenario, that paragraph is the subpoena list. In this one it is the agenda. A held House keeps the Administration Committee with Steil, keeps the Oversight Committee investigating Democrats, and sends no letter to DHS asking how the lists are built or how many citizens are on them. A held Senate confirms the U.S. attorneys who will enforce them. The appropriations riders a Democratic House would have attached to the DHS bill, forbidding the use of funds for the lists, are never drafted. Whatever the executive branch builds for 2028, it builds with the money Congress gives it and the questions Congress does not ask. Near certain on the absence of oversight. What gets built is the guess, and the president’s own statements are the only guide.

What the president does, if he does what he did

He has never held Congress through a midterm. In 2018 he lost the House and spent two years governing by emergency, veto and litigation. The precedents for winning are 2016 and 2024, and in both he read a plurality as a mandate and governed from the first week as if the result had settled every argument. Expect the same, and expect it louder, because a midterm hold would be the one thing about this presidency no forecaster predicted.

He keeps the department. The Comey trial begins October 21, the Bolton sentencing is October 28, and Brennan goes before the Fort Pierce grand jury on Thursday. All three happen before the vote. What a held Congress decides is what happens after them. In a Democratic scenario each produces a hearing. In this one each produces the next name on the list, and the Weaponization Working Group gets a Congress that sends it referrals instead of subpoenas. The review of whether Nixon was framed proceeds. Likely.

He pardons at leisure, which is a change from the lame-duck rush of 2020, because nothing is coming in January that he needs to beat. Near certain that the list is long. The timing is his.

He keeps the question of 2028 open, and this is the item that matters. Asked this fall about a third term, he said “the law is very strong,” which is the closest he has come to acknowledging the 22nd Amendment and is still not a no. In January he called it “a constitutional movement.” The scenario in which that talk is most dangerous is this one, and the reason is arithmetic. A president who loses Congress has two years of hearings to survive and a party that begins, quietly, to leave him. A president who holds Congress has nothing between him and January 2029 but the calendar, and the calendar is the thing he keeps saying he would like to change. I do not predict a legal path. There is none, and a constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of both chambers he will not have. I predict that a held Congress removes every institutional reason for his party to say that out loud, and that the hat and the merchandise and “pretend I’m on the ballot” run through 2028 unanswered by anyone whose job depends on him. Near certain on the talk. Near zero on the path. Likely that the gap between those two is where the next two years are spent.

What the Republicans do, if they do what they did

The precedents are instructive and none is comfortable. A president’s party has kept both chambers through a second-term midterm three times in the last century. In 1938 Roosevelt’s Democrats lost 72 House seats and 7 in the Senate and held both; the result was the conservative coalition that ended the New Deal as a legislative program. In 1950 Truman’s Democrats lost 28 and 6 and held both; the result was McCarthy’s Senate, a stalemated war, and a president who did not run again. In 1966 Johnson’s Democrats lost 47 and 4 and held both; the result was Vietnam without a majority for it, and a president who did not run again. Holding Congress through a second-term midterm has never, on the record, been the beginning of anything. It has been the last good night.

The closer analog for what a party does with a midterm win is 2002, when George W. Bush’s Republicans gained seats and kept both chambers. They read it as the country’s permission for Iraq, passed the war in the spring and the tax cuts in the summer, and when Bush won again in 2004 he announced, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” He spent it on privatizing Social Security, which was dead by August, and the party lost both chambers in 2006. A party that wins a midterm it expected to lose spends the next two years certain.

The Republican conference of 2027 will be certain and thin. The 36 House Republicans who declined to run this year were the members who read their districts, the seats they held that stay Republican will be held by people chosen for loyalty, and the Speaker’s margin will be what it is now or smaller. The Epstein files petition that forced a 427-1 vote last year is proof that a handful of Republicans can still force the floor against the leadership, and Massie is still there. In the Senate, a 51-seat majority makes Collins and Murkowski the whole ballgame on every vote that matters, which is the position they held in 2017 and 2018, and the record of that period is that they kept the filibuster and confirmed the judges.

The succession fight begins on November 4 in this scenario as in the others, because nothing about a midterm changes the 22nd Amendment. What changes is its character. In a loss the party edges away from the president, 2006-style, denying it. In a hold the party edges toward him, because he has just proven the only theory of victory it has, and the 2028 field spends 2027 competing to be the most like him. Vance and Rubio say his name more often in 2027 than they did in 2026. The Coward Files, which have spent a year documenting the price of crossing him, acquire no new entries, because nobody crosses him, because the voters just said not to. Likely.

What the Democrats do

A party that loses a midterm it was favored to win by ninety-three to seven does what the Democrats did in November 2016 and November 2004, which is spend a year arguing about why. The two arguments are already written. One says the message failed, the candidates were wrong, and the party has lost a class of voters it needs to win back. The other says the election was taken, by the maps in Texas and Missouri, by the citizenship lists, by the mail-ballot rules, by the DOJ monitors, and that the first argument is a surrender. Both will be true in some proportion no one can establish, and the proportion will be the Democratic primary of 2028.

Leadership does not survive it. Chuck Schumer was already under pressure from his conference after the shutdown votes of 2025. Hakeem Jeffries has led the House minority through two cycles. A Democratic Party that cannot win the House against a president at 38 percent approval replaces the people who ran the campaign, and the replacements run against them. Likely.

What the party can do shrinks to the states and the courts. The Democratic governors and attorneys general who have filed the lawsuits of this term are the only brake left, and a held Senate keeps confirming the judges who hear them. The 2027 governor’s races and the 2028 statehouse map, which this publication has called the ballgame before, become the ballgame on November 4. And the street, which produced the No Kings marches of the past two years, produces more, with less effect on a Congress that no longer has to notice.

What does not happen

No hearings. The Epstein files, the Signal strike plans, the FBI breach, the CBP ad money, the fired DIA director, the deleted overseas-ballot checkbox, the Watergate review, the Kalshi bets. None of it gets a subpoena. The list from the other two pieces is retired.

No shutdown over the war. The money passes.

No cabinet trial, no impeachment, no morning-after firing.

No lame-duck Court. Alito and Thomas wait for June, and June is theirs.

No end to the war by Congress, and no beginning of one that Congress is asked about.

Nothing on the Dismantling Tracker is rebuilt, which is also true of the other two scenarios. The difference is that in this one nothing further is prevented from being added to it.

What it adds up to

A held Congress is the absence of a brake. The courts remain, and a held Senate keeps filling them. The ballot remains, and a held Congress lets the executive write its rules. Everything else, the purse, the subpoena, the trial, the confirmation, belongs to the president’s party for the last two years of a presidency that cannot be extended by any legal means and whose occupant has not said so himself.

The honest summary for a reader deciding whether November matters: the two likely outcomes differ in how hard the brake can be applied. This one differs in whether there is one. The forecasts put it at one in fifteen, and the polls have missed by that much, in that direction, twice in the last ten years.

The record on second-term midterms says the party that holds on has, each time, lost the White House two years later, with one exception. In 1940 Roosevelt’s party held Congress and kept the presidency, and the way he did it was to run for a third term. That is the only precedent in the last century for what this president is describing when he says the law is very strong. I do not predict he follows it. I note that it is the one in the book, and that a held Congress is the scenario in which nobody is positioned to say so.

Share PolitiMix