Minneapolis, Minnesota

The reason investigations are conducted before making a judgment is because no one knows all the facts in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.

That didn’t stop Department of Homeland Security Director Kirsti Noem from announcing within hours of the killing of a then unknown woman in Minneapolis that the woman was a domestic terrorist and that the agent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement had acted in self-defense after she ran him over with her car. The next day Vice President J.D. Vance displayed the fruits of his Yale law degree by proclaiming that the agent involved has “absolute immunity.” Vance also claimed, “She tried to stop him from doing his job. When he approached her car, she tried to hit him.”

Donald Trump quickly opened his big mouth as usual, claiming in a social media post that the woman, now identified as Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, who had just dropped one of her children off at school, was, “very disorderly” and accused her of “obstructing and resisting” law enforcement. He also claimed Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over” the ICE officer and that the officer, “seems to have shot her in self-defense” and remarked, “it is hard to believe he is alive”.

None is this is true.

I have waited all this time to write about this tragedy because I will not rush to judgment. I still haven’t heard from official and trustworthy government sources. But I have now viewed several videos recorded by onlookers and one that appears to have been recorded by the shooter himself. I urge you to find them and view and come to your own conclusions. But be careful, there are also a large number of clearly doctored images floating around.

The videos tell me that in the moments before the shooting, Ms. Good tells the agent that she isn’t mad at him, and the agent, now identified as Jonathan Ross begins to circle her car. She reverses as he crosses in front of her S.U.V., then she starts to move, and turns to the right. Agent Ross is near her left headlight when he fires three times, killing her.

A Wall Street Journal investigation found that Ms. Good’s killing was one of 13 episodes in which federal immigration agents have used deadly force against civilians in vehicles since July.

A large number of reports from police officers and other experts repeatedly stress that Mr. Ross violated standard police procedures and specific Department of Homeland Security training and policy which boils down to, don’t put yourself in harm by moving in front of or behind a vehicle which is a potential threat.

What the Trump administration has done in Minnesota is flood the airwaves with unfounded charges and conclusions about the event to distract from any possible unbiased investigation. They unfortunately decided that the victim was a deranged leftist trying to run the officer over, and that the officer was defending himself. We now know the victim was a U.S. citizen, a mother of three, and had recently dropped her child off at school. Video footage also suggests at least the second and third shots fired by officer Ross occurred when the officer was to the side of the vehicle as the car was driving away.

Under the law each firing of the gun is analyzed separately. Witness testimony also suggests one of the ICE agents told the driver to MOVE, MOVE, MOVE. Good may have been trying to follow conflicting instructions from different agents. Slow motion video from various angles shows the vehicle appears to have been turning away when the officer fired the first shot, and certainly that was the case by the second and third shot when Good past Ross and clearly driving away. Most law enforcement agencies teach a common rule, do not shoot at a moving car unless your life is in danger. That didn’t happen here.

What’s even more shocking is what came next. No rendering aid. In fact, videos show the ICE agents restraining a man who identified himself as a doctor from going in to check the victim’s condition. There was no securing of the scene. The agents just drove off, leaving an American citizen for dead. That included the shooter, who jogged back to his car and hightailed it out of there, seemingly none for the wear and in no need of medical attention. This is spite of later government claims that he suffered from “internal bleeding.”

Instead of promising accountability, the Trump administration smeared a dead woman as a “domestic terrorist” before the facts were even known. They subsequently barred Minneapolis and Minnesota investigators from reviewing any of the evidence the federal forces gathered.

This is not law enforcement. This is a cover-up. It will not succeed. There is nothing Trump and his officers can do to prevent Minnesota from conducting its own investigation and convening a grand jury. There is nothing that stops the state from indicting and arresting Agent Ross.

The most the federal government can do is try to remove the case to the federal courts. That is likely to succeed. But the state prosecution will continue in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. That court will follow Minnesota state law and rules. The prosecution will be led by Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Ross will face a jury of Minneapolis citizens.

As the protests continue, and Trump threatens to move regular United States Army soldiers into Minneapolis, I find this incident proof positive that Trump’s assault on American cities has nothing to do with immigrants. Renee Good was an American born citizen and mother.

Texas, according to Pew Research, has 2.1 million undocumented immigrants. Florida has 1.6 million. Minnesota around 130,000. The difference? Texas and Florida are “red states,” Trump supporters. Minnesota is a “blue state” which votes for Democrats.

This was never about immigration. It was always about terrorizing Trump’s political opposition. His so-called Department of Justice is now reportedly investigating the Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. The terror continues.

#####

Jack Smith Deposition

What were you doing in the evening of December 31, 2025? Were you sitting around waiting for major news to drop in Washington? I didn’t think so. I was noting the passing of 2025 and the arrival of 2026, as I suspect most of the people in the country were doing that New Year’s Eve. As least, that’s what Donald Trump and the Republicans were hoping.

That’s when the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee released former Special Counsel Jack Smith‘s deposition as part of their oversight investigation into the alleged “weaponization” of the Department of Justice. The committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), was looking into the January 6 denier‘s belief federal law enforcement resources were misused for partisan purposes. Republicans claimed the investigations were politically motivated and intended to interfere with the 2024 election. 

They made a big play of issuing a subpoena to Smith, who had been appointed an independent special counsel in November 2022 by attorney general Merrick Garland. Smith was to oversee two preexisting Justice Department criminal investigations into Trump’s actions. Smith ultimately prevailed on two grand juries to return criminal indictments against Trump.

Jordan, who famously ignored a subpoena issued for his testimony by the special committee investing the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, figured he would expose evidence of persecution of Trump by forcing Smith to testify. It didn’t work out as Jordan intended.

Smith and his legal team requested that the deposition be public to correct what they called “many mischaracterizations” of his office’s work. Although the committee insisted on a private session, they eventually released the full transcript and video on New Year’s Eve in an obvious attempt to minimize public impact. That didn’t work out as the Republicans expected either.

As always, I encourage you to read the 255-page transcript, available here. And to view the video of the testimony, all eight hours of it, available here. Make up your own mind.

While Republicans used the release to highlight what they viewed as overreach, Smith used the testimony to document that he had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump engaged in criminal schemes. He defended the investigations as being built primarily on evidence from Trump’s own Republican allies and close associates. 

Smith was calm, almost boring. He Just facts law. He listed a devastating record and concluded what many right-wing institutions are still pretending they do not see. Donald Trump is guilty. Not metaphorically. Not rhetorically. Legally.

Smith stated, under oath, that the attack on the Capitol does not happen without Trump. Not inspired by Trump. With Trump. Smith was laying foundation. Prosecutors speak this way when they are confident the record will hold.

The deposition also demolished the most persistent lie still out there, that Trump’s actions were merely speech. Smith drew a bright line between protected expression and a coordinated scheme built on knowing falsehoods designed to obstruct a constitutional process. Trump was told repeatedly that he lost the election. He was told specific fraud claims were false. He did not stop. He summoned supporters to Washington. He directed them to the Capitol. He refused to intervene while the attack unfolded. He praised and then pardoned those who engaged in insurrection against the United States of America.

“The president was preying on the party allegiance of people who supported him,” Smith said. “The evidence that I felt was most powerful was the evidence that came from people in his own party who … put country before party and were willing to tell the truth to him, even though it could mean trouble for them.”

Smith repeatedly drew on Republicans to make the case against the man they wanted to be president but who they acknowledged had been defeated. Smith said former Vice President Mike Pence and several of the GOP elector nominees, including Pennsylvania’s Lawrence Tabas, have fit that category and made strong trial witnesses.

“That witness, Mr. Tabas, was of a similar group of witnesses who — these are not enemies of the president. These are people in his party who supported him,” Smith continued. “And I think the fact that they were telling him these things … would have had great weight and great credibility with a jury.” Smith said he came to believe that Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, tweet attacking Pence while he was at the Capitol “without question” exacerbated the danger to Pence’s life.

Smith insisted he never communicated with then President Joe Biden or White House staff before or during his investigation. He also said the timing of Trump’s announcement for president, his crowded calendar of criminal cases leading up to the 2024 election and the sensitivity of certain allegations did not influence his decisions. He emphasized that he regularly consulted with Justice Department officials to ensure he abided by its guidelines.

Smith did cast doubt on one of the January 6 committee’s star witnesses. The Republicans seized on that testimony as they tried to blunt the impact of overall release. Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide who in 2022 testified against Trump in a dramatic hearing before the Democratic-led January 6 committee. Hutchinson said another Trump aide told her that a furious Trump lunged for the wheel after learning the vehicle he was in was headed for the White House instead of the Capitol after his incendiary speech. Trump has long denied the incident.

Smith told congressional investigators his office spoke to at least one officer who was in the SUV for Trump’s return to the White House that day. “[M]y recollection with Ms. Hutchinson, at least one of the issues was a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay, were things that she had heard from other people and, as a result, that testimony may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony.”

The January 6 committee questioned Hutchinson in part because Mark Meadows, Trump’s the Chief of Staff and her direct boss, declined to sit for an interview. Though Hutchinson’s story was among the most explosive aspects of its public hearings, the case the committee made, that Trump systematically attempted to raise doubt about the 2020 election results and lean on state and federal officials to overturn it, was the product of hundreds of interviews, many from Trump’s closest aides and allies.

Smith also addressed the classified documents case, saying the case focused on willful retention and obstruction, not accidental possession. Subpoena noncompliance, false statements, and document movement were central to the charges.

These cases died not because they were unjustified. They died because American voters sent Trump back to the White House. As president once again, he shut the cases down.

It is now five years since the attack on the Capitol. Trump is back in office. He has pardoned 1,600 people indicted, tried, and convicted for their roles in the January 6 riot. He has posted a fantasy account of the insurrection on the official taxpayer funded White House web site. It is as if we have fallen through the looking glass into an alternate universe. I think Jack Smith’s universe is reality.

#####

Happy New Year!

We already know how 2025 has ended. Donald Trump has made it a wall-to-wall disaster with his illegal exercise of power with the goal of trashing the government and sweeping aside the norms of law and reason by which we have governed for 250 years. Even on New Year’s Eve he has vetoed a bipartisan law aimed at providing drinking water to tens of thousands. He has also reposted social media attacks on the memory of Tatiana Schlossberg, the granddaughter of President John F. Kennedy, who tragically died of cancer at the age of 35.

These acts of retribution, jealously, and sheer cruelty are standard procedure for Trump, who seems to draw perverse pleasure from these vile acts.

But there is hope that 2026 can be different. the new year is also an election year. That means we the people get a chance to reverse the mistake made in 2024 and strengthen the roadblocks that keep Trump from putting a crown on his head. in 2025 the Republican majority in Congress abdicated its traditional role as legislative partner and overseer of the executive. But every member of the House of Representatives faces reelection in 2026. So does one-third of the members of the Senate. Voters can make their disapproval heard loud and clear.

Buckle up. 2026 will be a rough ride. But we can make a difference. Some assembly will be required.

Happy New Year!

#####

Trump the Cruel

When I wrote about the tragic murder of Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner, I noted the tremendous outpouring of sentiment saluting them not only for their contributions to the entertainment industry but also for their role in the community and their humanitarian work. I did mention that there was one notable dissent, and said I’d talk about it in the future.

I did not want to spoil the moment then and in truth I do not want to do so now. The problem is that, as the world is painfully aware, the dissent came from Donald Trump and he, by virtue of the position he holds, cannot be ignored. I resent that he dominates the news. I resent that he takes all the oxygen out of the room. I resent that he is the worst example of a human being I have ever seen. But he can’t be ignored. He must be called out. Rob Reiner would have wanted it that way.

Within hours of the time the news about the Reiners’ killing broke, Trump had put a post on his captive social media platform that was probably the most vicious thing I have ever seen. I asked one of my AI assistants what was the most common adjective being used to describe it and the response was, “cruel,” followed by “inappropriate,” “disrespectful,” “distasteful,” “callous,” “vile,” “incendiary.” and “depraved.” With my apologies, just in case you haven’t seen it yourself, read it and judge for yourself.

Trump’s post itself described Reiner as having a “mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” and called him a “deranged person”. 

Trump’s problem with Reiner is that the actor and director was also a progressive activist,  a supporter of Democratic candidates, and an outspoken critic of Trump .  A few hours after the post, Trump told a reporter that Reiner was “a deranged person” who “was very bad for our country.”

In the decade since he announced his presidential campaign by branding immigrants as criminals and rapists, the accepted wisdom about Donald Trump has become that no matter how outrageous are the things he says, he feels no consequences. This time was a little, just a little, different.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) labeled the discourse “inappropriate and disrespectful,” challenging his GOP colleagues to defend it. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) a former staunch ally, she rebuked the president, stating the deaths were a “family tragedy” that should be met with “empathy,” not politics. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), both condemned the remarks as “wrong,” urging for “sympathy and compassion” instead of political attacks. And conservative commentators including Jenna Ellis (Trump’s former lawyer) and David Urban (former senior adviser) called the remarks “indefensible” and a “horrible example”. 

We are tempted to just throw up our hands and ignore the monster. But Trump didn’t stop with one vile act. Having already turned the Oval Office into a cheap looking gold filigreed imitation of The Palace of Versailles, he added giant ornate gold letters labeling the rooms of the White House, like the signs one sees in the memory section of an assisted living facility, and created a “Presidential Walk of Fame” featuring pictures of past leaders with grossly unflattering images for men he doesn’t like;

Trump has now added to the rogues gallery plaques which offer partisan comments on the past presidents, reflecting his personal perspective. Joe Biden‘s plaque repeats a false claim that the 46th president, a Democrat, took office “as a result of the most corrupt election ever,” when, in fact, he defeated Mr. Trump in 2020 in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president, is labeled “one of the most divisive political figures in American history.”

Trump also demanded, and was granted, free television time on December 17. Instead of a holiday address, or an announcement of a major event, Trump used 18 minutes for one of his regular rants basically saying everything has been great since he returned to office and anything that isn’t great is the Democrats’ fault. His delivery was so frenetic he had many wondering if he was under the influence of some form of medication.

But Trump’s pièce de résistance for this holiday season has to be the rebranding of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. At the beginning of the year, Trump fired members of the Center’s board, appointed loyal lackeys in their place, and had them “elect” him chairman. He subsequently approved all the performers named winners of the 2025 Kennedy Center Honors, ordered a redesign of award medal which was originally created in 1978 and used ever since, and named himself as host of the award ceremony.

Then came the announcement, from the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt rather than from Trump’s hand-picked board, that the center will now be known as “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” The vice president of public relations at the Kennedy Center later confirmed the announcement. The center’s web site carried a new logo within hours. The next day, workers were installing new signs on the exterior of the building. Trump said he was honored and surprised by the gesture. That is just more Trump BS. He had been referring to the center as “Trump-Kennedy” for months.

Not that it matters to Trump, but this renaming appears to be illegal. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was established by the John F. Kennedy Center Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 76h–76s, which outlines its purpose, governance, and operational framework. The law specifies the name, makes the center the only living memorial for President Kennedy within the District of Columbia, and precludes other names, plaques, or other citations. This is just one more example of Trump satisfying his ego by sticking his name where it does not belong. And doing so in defiance of the law.

This is one more item that will find its way into the courts. Or be reversed if and when the people in power are changed by the voters. Hint, hint. Or we can let Kerry Kennedy, niece of John F. Kennedy, and daughter of Robert F. Kennedy (the senior one), take care of it.

A footnote…. The TV ratings for the Kennedy Center Honors program Trump hosted were down 35% compared to last year’s ratings. That is the program’s lowest rating ever.

#####

Rob Reiner

How do you explain the inexplicable?

It had already been a horrific weekend. On December 13 a mass shooting at Brown University’s Barus & Holley Engineering Building in Providence, Rhode Island left two students dead and nine others injured. The gunman remains at large, and a multi-agency manhunt is ongoing.

The next day a terrorist mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia left at least 15 people dead and around 40 injured. The attack targeted a Jewish Hanukkah celebration and was carried out by a father-son duo inspired by Islamic State ideology. It followed an increase in antisemitic attacks in the country including one in July where an arsonist set fire to a synagogue in Melbourne while worshipers were inside.

Then came word from the trendy Brentwood section of Los Angeles. Hollywood and the rest of the world were stunned when acclaimed filmmaker Rob Reiner, 78, and his wife, photographer Michele Singer Reiner, were found dead in their home in what police described as a homicide. Authorities have since arrested their son, Nick Reiner, 32, and charged him with murder.

What do you say about the human condition when faced with that sequence of events?

The shocked reaction to the Reiners’ murder was overwhelming itself. Rob Reiner was praised not only as a great talent on both sides of the camera but also as a mentor and friend who shared that talent with a generosity rare in the cutthroat entertainment business. There was one exception which I will write about at some other time.

Earlier this year I wrote about the passing of Diane Keaton and Robert Redford and noted they appear many times on my list of favorite films. The passing of Rob Reiner leaves a similar hole in my heart.

Rob Reiner was born in the Bronx, New York in 1947. He spent his childhood in New Rochelle, where his father Carl would place his fictional family of Rob and Laura Petrie on “The Dick Van Dyke Show.”  They moved to California in the early 1960s. Like his father, Rob got his start as an actor before stepping behind the camera. His breakthrough role was Mike Stivic on “All in the Family” in 1970. Mike was the outspoken liberal son-in-law of Carroll O’Connor‘s conservative bigoted Archie Bunker. These are my first memories of Rob Reiner. Mike’s battles with Archie, written by the great Norman Lear, brought into America’s living room topics roiling the nation but up until then considered too controversial for television.

Now the list of films begins. And I will only note some my favorites. Reiner’s first feature was 1980’s “Spinal Tap,” a groundbreaking “mockumentary” that was a breakout hit. His next movie was “The Sure Thing,” a coming of age romantic comedy, followed by “Stand By Me,” based on a Stephen King story. King was also the source for “Misery,” which would be one Reiner’s biggest theatrical hits. 

My list of films also includes “The Princess Bride.” Also “A Few Good Men” and “The American President,” both written by Aaron Sorkin. “When Harry Met Sally,” my favorite rom-com, “Rumor Has It…,” and “The Bucket List.” The number is films in which Reiner acted, usually in a supporting role, are too numerous to list here.

The list of testimonials has been astonishing. I am just going to cite one, an Instagram post from Meg Ryan, who starred along with Billy Crystal in “When Harry Met Sally.”

Now I’m going to watch some movies.

#####

Rubio’s Woke War

The Secretary of State is considered the senior advisor to the president. Dean of the cabinet. He is fourth in the line of succession to the presidency. The first Secretary of State was none other than Thomas Jefferson.

The current holder of this key office is Marco Rubio, the 72nd secretary. He used to represent Florida in the U.S. Senate from 2011 to 2025 and has long been a prominent figure in Republican politics. You would think his hands were full. His State Department is grappling with major foreign policy challenges like deterring China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, managing migration pressures from Latin America, the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, negotiating peace efforts in the Middle East, and handling military against Venezuela.

But Rubio, or as Donald Trump used to call him, “Little Marco,” has something else on his mind. Fonts. Specifically, the typeface used by America’s diplomats on documents. Rubio has ordered diplomats to stop using the Calibri font and return to the more traditional Times New Roman.

Against the backdrop of all the crisis the nation is facing, the font edict looks less like a matter of professionalism and more like a symbolic skirmish. A way to score points in domestic culture battles while the department wrestles with urgent global crises.

The story behind the memo is made clear when you consider the order reverses a shift by President Joe Biden’s administration to the less formal typeface that Rubio called wasteful, confusing and unbefitting the dignity of US government documents. In other words, if Biden did it, it must be reversed. We already know Trump is obsessed with Biden. Now we know Rubio shares the syndrome.

Experts say Calibri is modern, clean, and screen-friendly, while Times New Roman is traditional, formal, and optimized for dense print text. The choice between them often depends on whether you want readability on digital displays or a classic, authoritative look in print. So, this is a judgment call.

But more telling, the Biden administration’s decision to switch fonts originated in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion office. DEI is the number one boogeyman for the Trump administration. The Biden administration had made the switch because Calibri is generally considered to be more accessible for people with reading challenges due to the font’s simpler shapes and wider spacing, which make its letters easier to distinguish.

“Typography shapes how official documents are perceived in terms of cohesion, professionalism and formality,” Rubio said in a cable sent to all US embassies and consulates abroad. In it, he said the 2023 shift to the sans serif Calibri font emerged from misguided diversity, equity and inclusion policies pursued by his predecessor, Antony Blinken.

Anything that helps people with disabilities access government documents is not on the Trump agenda. Since taking over the State Department in January, Rubio has systematically dismantled DEI programs in line with President Donald Trump’s broader instructions to all federal agencies. Rubio has abolished offices and initiatives that had been created to promote and foster diversity and inclusion, including in Washington and at overseas embassies and consulates, and also ended foreign assistance funding for DEI projects abroad.

“Although switching to Calibri was not among the department’s most illegal, immoral, radical or wasteful instances of DEI it was nonetheless cosmetic,” according to Rubio’s cable obtained by the Associated Press and first reported by The New York Times.

Americas can rest easy. The world may be going to hell but at least the nation’s chief foreign policy expert has his fonts under control.

#####

The Donnie-Mander

The Supreme Court, or rather the six Republican justices on the Supreme Court, have handed Donald Trump another victory. They issued a stay, blocking the order of a three-judge panel in Texas, which found the recent reapportionment of the state’s Congressional districts to be racially motivated and therefor illegal. The six, has been their pattern all year, issued their order in the dark of night on the “shadow” docket without an explanation or opinion. Greg Abbott, et al. v. League of United Latin American Citizens, et al.

The map the lower court panel blocked was seen as one of the most aggressive mid‑decade gerrymanders in recent history. The Supreme Court stay allows Texas to proceed with the new map, which analysts say could give Republicans five additional U.S. House seats in the 2026 midterms.

Gerrymandering 101

What, in a nutshell, is gerrymandering? The Encyclopedia Britannica has a wonderful explanation from which I have borrowed the graphic above. The American Constitution requires that every ten years we conduct a “census” to apportion representation in the House of Representatives. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2 begins, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

Once the number of representatives is determined by the census, it is up to each state to draw the maps of legislative districts. Because the states have statewide elections for senators, governors, and to decide members of the Electoral College, there is data on how the state as a whole divides between the parties. Using the graphic above we find of a total population of fifty, thirty (60%) are orange voters while twenty (40%) are purple voters.

From that starting point, the state could draw “fair” maps which distributed the people in such a manner to generate three orange and two purple representatives, proportionate to the statewide electorate. But the state could also gerrymander, producing an outcome, using the example on the right above, of five orange and no purple representatives, or two orange and three purple representatives.

The term “gerrymander” was coined as a portmanteau of the name Elbridge Gerry and the word “salamander.” Gerry, who was the governor of Massachusetts, signed a redistricting law that redrew district lines in a way that favored his party. Critics said the new map created a weirdly shaped district which resembled a salamander. A satirical cartoon published in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812, popularized the word. The cartoon depicting the irregular shape helped turn a local political attack into a lasting political term.

The Donnie-Mander

The political parties have a long history of manipulating their maps to various degrees every ten years when the new census requires a reallocation of seats. But two things make this year’s manipulations unusual. First, this is a mid-census reapportionment. The last census was in 2020 with new maps taking effect in 2022 in most states. Second, this mid-census revision to the 2022 map came at the direct demand of Donald Trump. Texas’s Republican Governor Greg Abbott heeded Trump’s call and generated a new map that may add as many as five Republicans to the House in 2026. That is the map the Supreme Court now says can be put into place. With the Republican control in the House hanging on a tiny seven vote majority, Trump is clearly afraid the Democrats could gain control in the next election.

This Trump inspired Donnie-Mander, now sanctified by the Supreme Court, has set off an unprecedented arms race of mid-decade redistricting across the country. Missouri and North Carolina have passed their own Republican leaning maps. California voters approved a map designed to cancel out the Texas gains. Virginia and Maryland are working on new maps favoring Democrats. Illinois is considering one. Florida and Indiana are working on revisions on the Republican side.

National Public Radio has been keeping score on its web site. As of this writing they show a slight gain for Republicans on the basis of district voting patterns in next year’s election. Considering his atrocious polling numbers, Trump is going to need all the help he can get. The Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, one of my favorite pollsters, sees 2026 shaping up to be much too close to call.

Congress has over the years tried to set standards and take control of the redistricting process. It has never been able to pass a law to bring order out of the chaos.

The majority on the Supreme Court, by allowing these partisan mid-decade redistrictings, has created a free-for-all which is a lose-lose for the American people. But 2026 does promise to be a good show.

######

« Older Entries