The Trump Court’s Summer

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Supreme Court is only two thirds of the way through its three-month summer vacation. But the conservative majority has kept busy facilitating Donald Trump‘s marauding destruction of the institutions of the government, both physical and abstract. In so doing they have supported his strategy to wreak havoc on the nation, sowing a path of destruction so quickly his opponents can’t mount a defense quickly enough to stop him from achieving his goals. Their embarrassingly rash decisions make a mockery of the judicial process and the rule of law.

Mail-In Ballots

Using the tool of the Executive Order Trump has directed the United States Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on a federal list of voters. Never mind the fact that the Constitution assigns to the states control over the election process absent specific legislation passed by Congress. Never mind the fact that the law establishing the USPS charges it with delivering the mail and little more, making any attempt by that organization to restrict the mailing of ballots by the states and their return by the voters illegal. Never mind the fact that in spite of  Trump’s whining that mail-in ballots lead to election fraud not a single court has ever found such fraud affecting the outcome of an election. The Supreme Court members who Trump refers to as “my judges” interrupted their summer vacation to do his bidding.

The Executive Order has been challenged in multiple courts. Several issued injunctions, stopping the order from being implemented pending a full court review. This is known as preserving the status quo and with less than 60 days until the election, agrees with past challenges to election law and procedure.

Which sent Trump running, as he has done so many times before, to “his” judges. They found, on their emergency docket and without any formal brief or public arguments, that the status quo meant don’t interfere with Trump while the case is pending. This stands the entire concept on temporary injunctions on its ear. Trump v. California was decided on a strictly partisan vote, 6-3.

A whistleblower report to Congress from inside the USPS says the service is rushing out “untested” technology that could “derail” the upcoming election. State officials, in many cases about to send out their mail ballots, have no idea how they should respond to the order’s requirements. They only know they face criminal charges for failure to comply.

That is clearly what the conservative majority wants. They did caution that their order was preliminary and not a final decision on whether the administration’s order “will necessarily be lawful” once the plans are complete. “On that score, time will tell,” the majority said in the 10-page, unsigned order. But of course, the election will have come and gone and who knows how many voters will have been kept from casting their ballots by Trump’s action. Which is what he wants. The Court could have dealt with the substantive issues right then and there and eliminated the uncertainly. But that is not their plan.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, with a separate 23-page dissent, considered the merits. “The President does not have any legal authority to require that elections be conducted in accordance with his preferences,” she says, “or to withhold delivery of mail-in ballots that are not formatted consistent with the President’s wishes.”

The Ballroom

And then comes the matter of the ballroom. Everyone who has ever rented a place to live knows full well the lease does not give you the right to damage the place, least you sacrifice your security deposit and be subject to a lawsuit for additional damages. So, what do you think “We the People,” landlords of The White House, should charge Donald Trump? He has trashed the joint from end to end.

The West Wing offices have been gilded to look like the French Palace of Versailles. The lawns and gardens have been paved over like a roadside motel. And the East Wing has been totally destroyed and rising in its place is some sort of monstrosity which will dwarf the historic residence the people loan every four years to their president.

The conservative majority which dominates the Court won’t stop it.

Again, a district court granted an injunction to stop the building pending a full hearing on the key question, “Can a president do what he wants with the White House?” Again, the conservatives on the Supreme Court stayed the injunction, finding that preserving the status quo meant letting Trump continue pending the court hearings. Trump has the workers on the job 20 hours day with the clear expectation that he will have his giant ballroom finished before the court issues a final ruling. That is characterized by another French term, a fait accompli.

In July 2025, the White House said the ballroom would be funded by private donations and cost about $200 million. Later, the cost was adjusted to $400 million. Now, the price tag is closer to $600 million, according to contractor invoices, and about half will be paid by taxpayers. No surprise. The ballroom will be built with missile-resistant columns and a drone-proof roof. What will it cost if the next president decides to pull it down?

The Supreme Court’s shadow docket ruling, National Park Service v National Trust for Historic Preservation, didn’t address the legality of the project. Lower courts said the construction required congressional approval. The decision focused on whether the plaintiff, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had the standing to bring a lawsuit. The trust had to show that the ballroom’s planned construction would, among other things, cause board member Alison Hoagland “harm.” How can a building inflict pain, and how could such suffering be quantified?

In a declaration, Hoagland wrote: “I would suffer both professional and personal injuries, including to my aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests.” Hoagland, a historian, said she enjoyed walking past the White House and feared that Trump’s addition would distort the building’s character.

This shadow docket ruling was so disgusting even Chief Justice John Roberts couldn’t stomach it, breaking with his five conservative collogues to join the liberals 5-4 and writing the dissent.

Wrote Roberts, “The White House is not just any building, and — when it comes to historic preservation — Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.”

The Trump administration didn’t go through the usual review process. But the Republican-controlled Congress, as usual, is not willing to do anything about it. Trump’s desire seems to be to remake Washington in his image. And to leave his name and likeness on as many parts of the government as possible.

An overhaul of the East Potomac Golf Links is about to begin. Trees are already facing the axe. A 250-foot triumphal arch will, according to the White House, start construction within weeks. Trump threatens to tear down the Kennedy Center unless he can put his name back up under the name of the fallen president.

Designed by Trump. Approved by nobody.

#####

Dolly Parton

Posted on by Leave a comment

Often when I read the term “icon,” which means a person worthy of veneration, used to describe someone who has died I wonder if the accolade isn’t being overused. This is not one of those times.

Dolly Parton died on Tuesday in Nashville, surrounded by the people she loved. She was 80 years old. When the news broke, something happened that almost never happens anymore. Tributes came from everywhere. Country legends and rock stars. Faith leaders and Hollywood notables. Democrats and Republicans, all saying the same thing. In this terribly divided nation in a terribly divided world Dolly Parton passes away, and for a few days we agree on something. We agreed on Dolly, an icon to be mourned as a member of our own family.

Dolly was one-of-a-kind. That’s the exact definition of another often-misused word, “unique.” Unique cannot be qualified, a grammatical error that drives me up the wall every time I read it. The word applies, unqualified and unadorned to Dolly Parton. And that’s another thing. The proper second reference is “Parton.” Why can’t I bring myself to call her anything but “Dolly?” I never met her. But I think of her as a friend I wish I’d had.

Imagine having 11 Grammy awards, 3 Emmys, 25 no. 1 hit Billboard singles, and after you’re gone, no one is talking about that. They are just talking about how genuine and kind you were and about the impact you made on the world. How amazing.

Dolly was born in 1946 in a one-room cabin in the Smoky Mountains of East Tennessee, the fourth of twelve children. Her family was, by her own description, “dirt poor.” Her father paid the doctor with a sack of cornmeal. She grew up wearing clothes her mother stitched together. One coat, sewn from rags, became one of the most famous songs she ever wrote. Her father, Robert Lee, was one of the smartest people she ever knew, and he never learned to read or write. She carried that her whole life.

She wrote more than three thousand songs. “Jolene.” “Coat of Many Colors.” “9 to 5.” “I Will Always Love You,” which became, in Whitney Houston’s recording, the best-selling single by a solo woman in history. Seven decades on stage.

She was merry about her public persona and invented a Dolly who would be famous forever. She said she modeled her look on the “town tramp.” She famously said, “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap.” Asked by a young fan how long it took to do her hair Dolly exclaimed, “How do I know? I’m not there.”

She could have rested on those achievements and on her riches. Instead, she put as much effort into her philanthropy as she did into entertaining. She built a theme park, “Dollywood,” in the Tennessee hills that employs thousands of the people she grew up with. She became the wealthiest woman in the history of country music, and she did it while being underestimated at every turn by people who saw the wig and the rhinestones and missed the mind underneath. In 2020, she contributed $1 million to Vanderbilt University for virus research, which helped kick-start Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine.

In 1995, thinking about her father and all the doors that stay closed to a person who can’t read, she started mailing free books to children in her home county. One book a month, from birth until age five, addressed not to the parents but to the child, so that a little kid in a cabin like the one she grew up in would get something in the mail with their own name on it. That program became the Imagination Library. It has now given away more than 300 million books across five countries.

Britain was one of those countries. The day after Dolly died the Band of the Coldstream Guards (the King’s Guard) played “9 to 5” outside Buckingham Palace in her honor. She once said, when they lay her down, she’d be thinking of the Imagination Library. And she made sure it wouldn’t end with her. Her team says she worked right up until the day she died and spent her last years building a plan to keep the books coming for decades.

Dolly turned her success and made it into a machine for lifting other people up. In her home county, she watched kids drop out of high school. She started offering every student who stayed and graduated a check for five hundred dollars. The dropout rate, in a place where it had always been stubbornly high, fell through the floor.

She never identified as a Republican or a Democrat. Only as a “hypo-crat,” she joked. She glittered with authenticity and empathy. The Democratic Socialists of America saluted her. Donald Trump said, “There has never been anyone like her, and never will,” before lowering flags to half-staff in her honor. Twice, the Trump administration offered her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the government’s highest civilian honor. Both times, she turned it down. When President Joe Biden took office, Parton said, his administration contacted her about it, too, but she didn’t accept. “If I take it,” she explained, “I’ll be doing politics.” Anyway, Parton added, she didn’t deserve it.

Her fans are young and old, working-class and wealthy. They live in tiny towns and big cities. She was deeply religious but never proselytized. She asked, “Who are we to judge?” “I don’t criticize and condemn,” Parton once said. “I love and accept.”

Her film work was natural and honest. Her co-stars praised her professionalism. The included Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, Burt Reynolds, Sylvester Stallone, Julia Roberts and Queen Latifah. Among the films, “9 to 5” (1980), “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas’”(1982). “Rhinestone” (1984). “Steel Magnolias” (1989). “Joyful Noise” (2012).

“There are few finer songwriters, male or female, that have ever lived,” said the pop singer Pink in her 2022 speech inducting Parton into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. She called her “one of the greatest storytellers of our time, of any time.” “She crafted heartbreaking and soul-stirring stories about the lives of people often overlooked,” Pink added. Parton’s songs, she noted, make up “a narrative of painful, beautiful, poetic melodic commentary on what it’s like to be human, and what it’s like to be a woman in America.”

Play the music. Screen the films. Mark the passing of an icon.

#####

That Damn Debt

Posted on by Leave a comment

The official U.S. total public debt outstanding breached $40 trillion for the first time in history. It stands at $40,047,426,000,000 according to data released by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. It has increased by about three trillion dollars since January 20, 2025, when the current administration took office.

Considering how much he likes to brag about setting records you’d think Donnie Trump would be in front of the cameras proclaiming, “Biggest debt in history! No one has ever seen a debt as big as this. America is first! We’re winning.”

Instead, fearless leader is attending auto races and showing off his new helipad, $5 million dollars’ worth of big, ugly, granite adorned with his name and sitting on the White House lawn. Something else a future president will have to remove.

Trump left it to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to downplay the event, blame the record debt on Joe Biden, and insist the economy will “grow” out of it. The problem with that is obvious. The economy is growing at a rate of about 2%. The debt is growing at the rate of about 6%. As they say, the math ain’t mathin’.

To be fair, as the graph above makes clear, the debt has been growing steadily for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Some of that is growth. Some of that is inflation. The key to watch is not the total debt amount but the ratio of debt to the nation’s total economic output, the GDP. The debt-to-GDP ratio compares a country’s total government debt to its gross domestic product (GDP). It shows a country’s ability to pay back its debts. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is now roughly 124% to 125%.

Trump has stated dozens of times across his campaigns and presidencies that he would control, reduce, or completely eliminate the national debt and federal deficit, famously vowing during his 2016 campaign to wipe out the entire national debt within eight years. Despite these promises, Trump legislative actions, such as the 2017 and 2025 tax cuts, caused substantial increases in annual budget deficits and the overall national debt.

As this graph shows, there is a pattern which began in the Reagan years. The Republicans cut taxes without cutting spending. That increases the annual budget deficit and accelerates increases in the debt. Democrats take control and reduce the deficit, only to have the Republicans repeat the trend the next time they get in control. (By the way, I had AI assistance in doing the actual drawing, but I am responsible for finding the numbers and designing both graphs. The numbers come from the Federal Reserve and the Department of Commerce.).

While Republicans like to blame Democrats for the debt, the facts don’t bear that out.

This graphic summarizes the changes in the total debt going all the way back to the Reagan administration. It was then that I first heard the term “trickle-down economics.” The idea was that if you cut taxes for the top backets, they will spend more money, and the effects will pass down to the people in lower brackets. It sounded good to me at the time. But the evidence since has shown it doesn’t work. Nothing trickles. The rich just get richer and the gap between the rich and the rest of us grows larger.

To finance the debt the government borrows money., It does that by issuing securities, Treasury Notes and Bonds. The interest rate it pays is the “cost” of borrowing. More borrowing, more securities. To convince investors to keep buying trillions of dollars in new debt, the U.S. government must offer competitive interest rates. The 10-year treasury yield is currently about 4.7%. The bond market is struggling to meet the demand.

Bessent is doubling long-term government bond buybacks to curb rising rates and inject liquidity into the debt market. On August 19, 2026, the Treasury Department shocked Wall Street by announcing it will increase its buyback operations for 10-year to 30-year bonds to at least $4 billion per operation, up from the previous $2 billion cap. Bessent is executing a strategy he calls a “Treasury Twist“. By purchasing less-liquid, older (“off-the-run”) long-term bonds, the Treasury removes overall duration from the market. To fund these purchases, the Treasury issues short-term bills. This shifts supply to parts of the yield curve better equipped to absorb it. Critics argue that the sudden, unscheduled policy shift disrupts the Treasury’s traditional framework of being regular and predictable, causing further investor anxiety.

Bessent’s action is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound that needs a torniquet. He has joined Trump in an alternate reality. The market isn’t buying it.

When the government borrows hundreds of billions each month, it competes directly with private borrowers for capital. The massive government demand can push up overall interest rates across the entire economy. This means Americans end up paying significantly more for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and business loans.

And just like a household credit card, a larger balance means a larger monthly minimum payment. Net interest payments are quickly becoming one of the largest single components of the federal budget. Every dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be spent on infrastructure, national defense, scientific research, tax cuts, or programs like Social Security and Medicare.

If investors eventually begin to worry that the U.S. will never be able to pay back its debt through normal revenues (taxes), they may fear that the government will simply print more money to cover the gap. Flooding the global economy with dollars to inflate away the debt devalues the currency. For us everyday Americans, this manifests as persistent, long-term inflation, reducing the purchasing power of our hard-earned savings and wages.

Time for Donnie and Bessent to play another round of golf.

#####

Angels of Death

Posted on by One comment

The United States is currently experiencing a historic resurgence of measles, reaching a 35-year high in 2026. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed that measles cases have surpassed the record-breaking numbers of 2025, fueled by a multi-year decline in childhood vaccination rates and growing vaccine skepticism. Because measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases on Earth, it acts as a “canary in the coal mine” for public health, rapidly finding and spreading through pockets of under-vaccinated communities.

What are our leaders doing about it? Donald Trump is spreading vaccine skepticism. He overruled his qualified medical advisers in issuing an executive order urging Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. to cut the number of childhood immunizations. His plan includes 11 immunizations, down from a recommended 17. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), tetanus, pertussis and polio would still be universal. But those for hepatitis A and B, dengue, flu, Covid and rotavirus would be advised only for “high-risk” children, or else would to be left to “shared clinical decision-making” between doctors and parents.

It also orders the government to recommend that the combination MMR vaccination, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, “should be administered in three separate singe-disease shots.”

Simply put, it means three trips to the doctor and three jabs of a needle for children. That means extra pain and cost. And that’s if the three separate vaccines are made available. Right now, only the combination shot is produced. It could take years to produce the three separate vaccines. The combination shot has been used in the United States for more than 50 years.

The effect will be to discourage parents from administering the vaccines to their children. That will lead to an increase in disease and death.

Trump calls his order the “Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations.” It largely follows a much-disputed HHS report in January that advised fewer vaccines on the childhood schedule. Trump’s order isn’t based on rigorous science, or really any science at all. It is based only on his uninformed position, supported by the anti-vaxer with no medical training who he put in charge of the nation’s health, RFK, Jr. His statement announcing the new order was loaded with misleading claims and out and out lies.

The day after Trump’s announcement the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics blasted the new policy. “As measles cases reach a 35-year high in the U.S. and with cold and flu season quickly approaching, today’s executive order on vaccines is not only disheartening but dangerous,” Dr. Andrew Racine said in a release. 

The President’s executive order doesn’t compel states or schools to follow his pared regimen, but he threatens legal action against those that don’t adopt it. He directs Attorney General Todd Blanche to challenge state laws that conflict with “parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and equal protection under the law.”

Under Trump’s order, the Justice Department could sue states for infringing on parental authority if they require vaccines for school attendance that differ from his recommendations. State police powers to protect public health can sometimes be in tension with parental rights, and some states overstepped during the pandemic, though none mandated Covid shots for school-age children. Multiple studies have shown that the United States suffered twice the number of deaths and incurred twice the cost of comparable countries as a result of Covid. Trump consistently opposed medical advice on combatting that pandemic.

Trump’s order could inflame what has become a culture war over immunizations. That war was enflamed by the broad Covid vaccine mandates during the Biden administration. The mandates were vigorously opposed by conservatives and vaccine skeptics. But Trump is making the same mistake in trying to coerce states into following his line on vaccines. Kennedy and his plaintiff lawyer friends benefit from spreading vaccine skepticism. But Trump’s jab at children’s vaccines could alienate voters, especially parents of young children, as measles spreads.

####

Mayor Mamdani of Hamas

Posted on by Leave a comment

There he is, Zohran Mamdani, Mayor of New York City, appearing in a video produced with all the trappings of a State of the City address or another important civic event and at taxpayer expense.

If Mamdani looks annoyed, it is probably because he is. He found himself forced to admit one of his major campaign issues was a promise that he could never deliver. In other words, he had to admit he lied. Throughout his campaign Mamdani promised voters he would arrest Benjamin Netenyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, should he ever have the temerity to show up in New York City. Netenyahu is expected to do just that to make his annual speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

In his high-profile video address, Mamdani admitted that New York City lacks the legal authority to arrest Netanyahu. That is true and was well known even while Mamdani was scoring political points with his pledge. When he threatens the Israeli prime minister, Mamdani references an arrest warrant issued for Netanyahu by the International Criminal Court. But the United States is not a party to the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction, a fact which makes the warrant worthless in the US. The ICC’s selection of targets to investigate is demonstrably political and biased. And its leadership faces severe allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. A 2002 law broadly prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC.

In addition, the United States is a signatory of the United Nations Charter, and to the “host country agreement,” No. 147 in the United Nations Treaty Series. The charter and the agreement guarantee access by diplomats to the UN Headquarters in New York City. Delegates to the UN also enjoy diplomatic status and diplomatic immunity. This is binding under federal law. Heads of state visiting the U.S. are under protection of the Secret Service. Did Mayor Mamdani imagine that when Mr. Netanyahu’s motorcade leaves the UN, the NYPD can pull it over and kidnap a head of state? The idea is preposterous.

So why did Mamdani make his promise?

It might be that the new mayor of the nation’s most populous city is just ignorant of these details. A New York City mayor need not be schooled in the art of foreign policy. But Mamdani is an intelligent man. He is well-schooled. He is a charismatic speaker. His words are well chosen.

No, ignorance does not explain this. The explanation is much simpler. Mamdani hates Jews. He has, in fact, made a career out of exploiting his hatred of Jews before, during, and after his election as mayor. And he channeled his hostility toward Israel and its people by attacking Netanyahu in front of the world.

His video statement makes his position clear. Mamdani called the Israeli Prime Minister a “war criminal” and “the architect of a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people”. He accused Netanyahu of the deaths of over 73,000 people, targeting hospitals, blocking humanitarian aid, and starving civilians. He demanded that the United States federal government step in, join the ICC, and execute the arrest warrant itself.

“Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in New York City, nor is any other war criminal at large,” Mamdani said. “While we cannot end the genocide on our own, we can decide whether our silence will become another weapon, and we can examine every tool we have to defend the humanity and dignity of all people.”

Each claim is simply the reiteration of the antisemitic tropes Jews have been subjected to for millenniums. And by far better men than Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani tries to make a distinction between Jew, Israeli, Zionism, and antisemitism. Those who believe that is possible have a fundamental misunderstanding of what each term means.

I have generally avoided getting into the discussion of those tropes mainly because I have found those who repeat them are not willing to discuss history and facts. They have a view that rejects civilized debate. I should probably knock them down in future posts. For this post I’m going to stick with what Mamdani says and does. His words and actions show what he is and has always been.

Mamdani took office on January 1, 2026. You might think he would address New York City’s challenges. Housing affordability remains a real issue with market-rate rents near historic highs. The rising cost of living is squeezing families, small businesses continue to struggle, and public safety concerns are on the rise, including an increase in reported sexual assaults. These are the things a mayor should focus on.

Instead, on that first day, he found it necessary to officially revoke Executive Order 52, which had formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. That stripped away key protections for Jewish New Yorkers amidst rising hate crimes. He has since boycotted cultural events like the city’s Israel Day Parade.

Hate crimes against Jews have risen on Mamdani’s watch. NYPD officials reported 205 confirmed hate crimes against Jews between January and July 2026, up from 189 during the same period last year. Jews were targeted in more than half of all hate crimes, or 57%.

Yet Mamdani issued his first mayoral veto against a bipartisan City Council bill intended to combat antisemitism by expanding protest security around schools. He argued the bill would suppress free speech and harm labor, reproductive rights, and pro-Palestinian student demonstrations.

Manmdani has always had a perverse definition of “genocide.” While quick to apply the term to Israel, during a July 2026 press conference, he explicitly declined to label the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, as a genocide. As a New York State legislator, he formalized his alignment with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and openly accused Israel of genocide in Gaza. He has denied Israel’s right to exist as a specifically Jewish state.

Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, has been active on social media since she was a teenager posting in 2015, “Tel Aviv shouldn’t exist in the first place.” She apologized when those posts resurfaced. Watchdog groups and publications like Jewish Insider reported that Duwaji’s personal account had “liked” multiple Instagram posts that appeared to cheer on or celebrate the Hamas attacks on Israel in which 1,200 Israeli civilians were slaughtered, and 251 hostages were abducted and taken into the Gaza Strip.

Mamdani’s father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a academic whose work on colonialism and Israel has faced severe allegations of antisemitism. A Columbia University professor, Mahmood Mamdani’s academic writings, which his son Zohran has credited as a major influence on his own political worldview, frequently center on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

We are not asked our ethnicity or religion when we vote in the United States. But exit polls consistently showed roughly 33% of Jewish voters supported Mamdani in the November 2025 election, with 63% supporting independent Andrew Cuomo, and about 3% for Republican Curtis Sliwa.

Go figure.

####

The Pirro Pivot

Posted on by Leave a comment

In one area the Trump administration is remarkably successful. It is hard to imagine another national government where more unqualified, incompetent, and corrupt people have been assembled in one place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Pete Hegseth take note.

Pictured above is Jeanine Pirro, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the most important federal prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Pirro auditioned for her post in the usual Trump way. It is true that Pirro was Westchester County’s first female judge and district attorney. But that was two decades ago. Her key qualification for a post in the Trump administration was her longtime service as a Fox Channel personality hosting Justice with Judge Jeanine and co-hosting The Five. Pirro is also a best-selling author. One of her titles, “Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Trump Conspiracy,” surely caught Trump’s eye.

Since her appointment Pirro has consistently aligned her office with Trump’s aggressive law-and-order directives, specifically implementing the federal crime crackdown in D.C. Pirro publicly defended and credited Trump’s federal law enforcement enhancements for lowering crime statistics in the nation’s capital, stating that the administration brought much-needed safety after previous high homicide rates.

In this video from July 2, 2026, Pirro is holding a news conference to announce the indictment of David Hearn, a Maryland resident, charging he vandalized the famous Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, the object of a high-priority renovation directed by Trump himself. Pirro told reporters that Hearn was seen by National Park Service employees making a “forcefully and violently” effort to rip up the pool liner with his bare hands. When reporters pressed her for details and asked how she would prove the damage exceeded the $1,000 felony threshold, Pirro snapped at the press and repeatedly clashed with reporters questioning the validity of the case.

Pirro had presented her case to a D.C. grand jury and personally signed the indictment. The charge carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison upon conviction. Hearn, 67, competed for the United States as a canoeist in 1992, 1996 and 2000 Summer Olympics.

In the month that followed Donald Trump and the Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, who supervises the National Park Service and is responsible for the pool, insisted that the damage involved “multiple gashes” by vandals, first and foremost Hearn. Hearn insisted that all he did was pick up a piece of material floating in the water, which had peeled off from the bottom of the pool. Burgum said the pool suffered “multiple gashes” to the industrial liner that add up to 350 feet of damage. He said Interior Department employees had witnessed Hearn’s actions. In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Burgum said that the same contractor who installed the lining will repair it and that the peeling liner had nothing to do with faulty workmanship.

Fast forward to Friday, July 31. Jeanine Pirro was nowhere to be seen late in the afternoon, when the United States Department of Justice dropped off a 20-page document at the D.C. Superior Court. No news conference, no press release. This is known as “taking out the garbage.” You dump into public view something you hope will draw little or no notice, figuring late on a Friday reporters and the general public will be focused on the upcoming weekend and not paying too much attention. “Government’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment” is the title. One of Pirro’s assistants prepared the dismissal motion, although the motion was submitted on her behalf.

The motion says that after the indictment came down the Interior Department (DOI) provided additional documents to the U.S. attorney’s office “indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings.” The DOJ said it “first became aware of information showing that the damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism” after reviewing more documents. “Had DOI been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment.”

In other words, never mind.

The DOJ said when it presented the case to the grand jury, it was “not in possession of any information from DOI indicating that any damage to the Reflecting Pool was caused by anything other than the actions of the defendant and other vandals who damaged the pool’s lining.” The filing continues, “it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”

So why did Pirro pivot? Why not just continue the case and hope it will fade away in the year or two it would take to get before a jury? After all, that is what the boss in the Oval Office clearly wanted. I can only speculate that Pirro is thinking about her future.

Presenting a case to a grand jury built on incomplete or misleading information, without a proper investigation, could invite sanctions for filing a frivolous proceeding. Pirro may be planning on returning to her Fox platform at the end of the Trump administration. But even Fox might look askance at hiring a commentator who had been disciplined or even disbarred for unethical behavior.

Pirro might be looking for a new job sooner than she planned. The boss is not happy. In a social media post, Trump writes, “I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro… it was a pure case of VANDALISM.”

One would think Hearn would have some recourse here for what was done to his reputation and for what his defense may have cost. Think again. Statute and case law make it virtually impossible to recover against government officials no matter how outrageous their actions. He might be able to make a claim to recover his legal fees. But that is still an uphill battle.

Maybe he should sell the film rights. Or write a book. Maybe Pirro can give him some advice along those lines.

####

The Supremes 2026

Posted on by One comment

The Supreme Court wrapped up its 2025-2026 term with a flood of high-profile decisions announced on June 26, 29, and 30th. The usual end of the session reviews quickly flooded the media. Most watchers of the Supremes tried to frame the session as a win or loss for Donald Trump. Or at least a win or loss for the conservation majority which has dominated the Court in recent years.

I see the term as a continuation of the conservative drive to remake, or at least change the direction, of constitutional interpretation in the United States. It featured major rulings on birthright citizenship, tariffs, transgender school sports, independent agencies, and election rules, while also producing some surprising coalitions in the final week of the term. The great online court watching service, scotusblog, has the numbers.

The term was more polarized than the one before it. The share of decisions that were 6-3 rose from 15.2% last term to 28.8% this term and ideologically split 6-3 decisions rose from 9% to 22.7%. Liberal justices also dissented together more often than before. The Court still had a conservative center, with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett frequently in the majority. Yet some headline cases ended with the liberal justices in the majority. Although I would not make as much of that as some other commentators have done. I think their wishful thinking is not justified.

Major rulings

One of the term’s defining cases was the birthright-citizenship dispute, Trump v. Barbara. The outcome was expected, but the voting alignment was not. Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. That made it a major case in which the liberal justices were part of the prevailing coalition rather than the dissent.

The New York Times wrote the decision “capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump to use the issue as a political tool.” A relief, to be sure, but no cause for celebration. A plain reading of the 14th Amendment would bring anyone to the same decision. The court was split, however, with some justices unable to resist the temptation to dehumanize immigrants by calling them “foreign birth tourists.”

The outlier was conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred in the outcome but dissented as to the reason. The five justices in the majority cited the amendment. Justice Kavanaugh said current immigration law grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, implying that Trump can have his way if he can get Congress to change the law. As for Alito and Thomas, they dissented with their usual outrage at any decision which upholds the rights and dignity of groups that they see as fundamentally less deserving of rights and dignity than themselves.

Another major case was Learning Resources v. Trump, the tariffs case. The Court rejected the administration’s tariff position, and the decision reflected the Court’s willingness to police the limits of presidential power where statutory authority is unclear.

Executive Power

The term also produced an important executive power ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, involving the president’s power to remove the head of the Federal Trade Commission. The Court overturned, in the majority’s words, whatever is left of Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 precedent protecting some independent agencies from at-will presidential removal. SCOTUSblog described it as the term’s major overruling, because the Court made explicit a direction it had been moving toward in earlier removal-power cases.

While Slaughter seems to imply Congress cannot put any restraints on the president when it comes to firing officers of the executive branch, a majority did make an exception, for now, in the case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. In Trump v. Cook, Trump had fired Cook, citing accusations regarding a home mortgage. The Court rejected that effort by a 5-4 vote, with Roberts joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.

The case was sent back to the district court, where Cook will be given an opportunity to contest the allegations. I see this as only a temporary victory, because the president can fire Cook again without cause, as he did in the case of Slaughter.

In Slaughter, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that because the FTC exercises executive power, its commissioners must be removable at will. The statute governing the FTC allowed removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance”. The Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 242) uses the exact same core standard, stating that governors may be removed “for cause by the President”. I don’t see how the Court can differentiate the two cases, should Cook come back before it.

Voting and social issues

In Louisiana v. Callais, Louisiana urged the Court to rethink Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the case raised the possibility of further narrowing race-conscious redistricting rules. The Court continued its campaign to neuter the VRA, a lifelong goal of Chief Roberts, allowing Louisiana to redraw its Congressional districts to eliminate a Democratic seat, not caring that it also cut down minority representation from the state.

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, a 5-4 decision in which Barrett and Roberts joined the liberal wing, the Court rejected a position on late-arriving ballots that had been strongly supported by the Trump administration. The ruling allows Mississippi to continuing counting ballots which arrive by mail for five days after the date of an election, as long as the ballots are postmarked on or before election day.

The Court also dealt with transgender school sports litigation, including West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, decided together, the Court held that schools can separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex. Those cases fit the Court’s broader recent pattern of closely watched disputes over gender identity, education, and equal-protection claims. Taken together with prior terms, they showed that the Court continues to use these cases to define the legal boundaries of state regulation in culture-war conflicts.

While progressives are beginning to believe there is a future down the road with a Democratic president arriving in two years, it will not be sufficient to change the direction of law in the nation. He, or she, will be up against a Supreme Court which continues to reenforce a conservative rule of law, empowering a president now with no promise it will continue to do so if a progressive occupies the Oval.

####

« Older Entries