Many powerful people have a vested interest in making sure that the public never sees what and who is in the Epstein files. Democrats, Republicans, powerful corporate leaders. They prefer to keep the files under lock and key.
But didn’t Congress just pass a law requiring the release of those files? Didn’t Trump sign the legislation? Even though no legislation was needed, because Trump always had the power to release the files.
Everyone imagines a government cover-up as a team of men in suits throwing files into a furnace.
That’s fiction. The real cover-up is boring. It’s procedural. It’s legal. And it works. The United States doesn’t destroy evidence. It manufactures delays. It fabricates uncertainty. It deploys exemptions instead of fire. The truth isn’t burned. It’s redacted. And the machinery that performs this ritual — the system that is right now digesting the Epstein files — is something I’m calling: The Redaction Engine. Once you understand this machine, the Transparency Act stops looking like a win and starts looking like a transmission belt feeding secrets into a shredder that no one touches by hand.
The Architecture of Obscurity FOIA was sold as a “Right to Know” law. What Congress actually built is a filtration system — and one that agencies quickly learned how to weaponize. Inside the FOIA framework sits a set of exemptions that function like hardware components in an industrial shredder. The Redaction Engine uses them as gears. According to the technical audit in The Redaction Engine: National Security Information Control Architectures , the most powerful of these gears are: Exemption 1 — The National Security Black Hole Everything “classified” stays sealed. But classification isn’t an objective fact — it’s a prediction. The law only requires a “reasonable expectation” of harm. Speculation becomes legal justification. Courts almost never challenge it. They review whether the stamp was applied correctly — not whether the classification itself is absurd. That is not oversight. That is choreography. Exemption 3 — The Files That Don’t Exist This one is an entire legal universe. Statutes like the CIA Information Act let agencies designate “Operational Files” that don’t even have to be searched. They can legally pretend an entire category of documents has left the physical plane. The public can’t request what the government asserts is not real. Exemption 5 — The “Embarrassment Privilege” The “Deliberative Process” clause was meant to protect drafts and brainstorming. Instead, agencies use it to hide:
*evidence of wrongdoing
*internal dissent
*contradictory analysis
-*early warnings that were ignored
It’s the single most abused exemption in the system. And then there’s the Mosaic Theory. This is the government’s favorite intellectual cheat code. It says: Even harmless information must be hidden, because it might complete a larger secret picture. Meaning they can withhold anything, because everything is theoretically meaningful. This is the neural network of the Redaction Engine. A legal philosophy that transforms silence into law.
2. The “Active Investigation” Loophole
If the national-security exemptions are the shield, Exemption 7(A) is the sword. This single exemption — explained in The Active Investigation Shield in Federal Information Law — is the most devastating transparency-killer in the entire system. It says the government can withhold any record if releasing it could reasonably be expected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding. Notice that phrase again: Could. Reasonably. Be expected. Before 1986, the government had to prove disclosure would interfere. Then Congress changed one word — and agencies gained the power to hide anything under the logic of “maybe.”
This birthed the most sinister creature in federal information law:
3. The Zombie Investigation.
An investigation that:
*is technically open
*is not being actively worked
*has no timeline
*and can remain “pending” for decades
Jimmy Hoffa’s file?
Withheld for twenty years because “new leads could theoretically emerge.”
This is not oversight.
This is a loophole weaponized into a vault.
Once an investigation is declared “active,” the Redaction Engine locks the file indefinitely.
At this point, open the link and read the rest for yourselves!
We have seen many repulsive sights in the Oval Office since Trump was sworn in last January. The covering of the room in fake gold ornaments is an abomination. Trump’s rude treatment of Zelensky was an outrage.
But the top abomination, at this moment, was his loving embrace of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who should be reviled for his brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
What next? A Presidential Medal of Honor for Putin?
Trump has many personal commercial ties to Saudi Arabia. Cynically speaking, Trump is building alliances by making personal deals with potentates who increase his family wealth. Surely, we cannot forget that MBS arranged to give Son-in-law Jared Kushner $2 billion after Trump left office in 2021. Kushner had no experience in financial investing. His background was real estate. Now, Trump’s real estate buddies Steve Witkoff and Howard Lutnick, are Trump’s envoys to Russia, the Middle East, and other hotspots. They too (and their children) are taking in millions and billions, because they are in “the room where it happens.”
The New York Timeswrote recently about how Lutnick’s sons are making lucrative deals , which are helped by the fact that their father is Secretary of Commerce. “But never in modern U.S. history has the office intersected so broadly and deeply with the financial interests of the commerce secretary’s own family, according to interviews with ethics lawyers and historians…”
But maybe those of us who worry about abstract ideas like ethics and laws are in the wrong. Maybe the best way to make a deal with the devil is to get in bed with him, speak his language, and buy his friendship. That’s Trump’s way. And nobody does it better.
Trump just threw a lavish state party to welcome a Saudi murderer. He defended the murderer’s crime, blamed the victim, and viciously attacked a reporter for asking the question on everyone’s mind: What about Jamal Khashoggi?
Khashoggi was also a frequent critic of the Saudi government. He frequently criticized the royal ruling family, not for their lavish lifestyles, but for their suppression of dissent, their refusal to allow free speech among the Saudi people, and their widespreadhuman rights abuses.
On Oct. 2, 2018, Khashoggi was murdered in Istanbul. He had gone to see about a visa for his Turkish fiancée at the Saudi consulate’s office, where he was attacked, stangled, and dismembered.
A recording made by Turkish intelligence agents in the building captured the whole gruesome ordeal: Khashoggi could be heard struggling against Saudi guards of the royal Crown Prince as his killing was recorded, complete with screams, the sounds of strangulation, then quiet, before a bone saw was heard dismembering his body.
· bin Salman’s total control of decision-making in the Saudi Kingdom;
· The direct involvement of bin Salman’s key adviser in the brutal attack, along with members of his personal security team; and
· bin Salman’s stated support for using violence to silence critics of the Saudi government abroad, including Khashoggi.
US intelligence added that, “Since 2017, the Crown Prince has had absolute control of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations, making it highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization.”
Despite these publicly available facts, Trump treated bin Salman to an unusually lavish state reception, complete with military officers in full dress carrying both Saudi and American colors. As the US taxpayer-funded Marine band played, Trump and Mr. Bone Saw were treated to a fly-over of advanced fighter jets, samples of the 48 F-35 jets Trump already sold to Saudi Arabia, despite national security concerns that China would be able to steal the aircraft’s advanced technology.
And no one has forgotten Trump’s son in law, Jared Kushner’s, $2 billion private “investment” fee from the Saudis, packaged when Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) announced a $55 billion acquisition. Kushner’s fee is widely regarded as payment for providing political cover and guaranteeing Trump’s regulatory protection. After the PIF’s own advisors initially rejected the deal, bin Salman personally overruled them and pushed it through.
Trump didn’t mention these deals this week when he rolled out the red carpet on taxpayers’ dime, but claimed instead with trademark ambiguity that the Saudis were going to “invest as much as $1 trillion in the US.”
Trump endorses the unthinkable
Journalists around the world, not to mention Khashoggi’s family, had to endure the nightmare of watching Trump fawn all over bin Salman. In every photo from the mainstream media, Trump couldn’t keep his hands off him, as if Trump were absorbing Saudi wealth through his fingers.
Tuesday, when journalist Mary Bruce asked bin Salman about intelligence reports concluding that he ordered the Khashoggi murder, Trump jumped in, answering for him. “He knew nothing about it! You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking something like that.”
After sending this chilling message to his critics, Trump then attacked Bruce for asking a “horrible,” insubordinate,” and “just a terrible question,” dressing her down in garbled syntax before cameras of the world with, “You’re all psyched up. Somebody psyched you over at ABC and they’re going to psych it. You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” and later demanded that ABC lose its broadcast license.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is condemned throughout the civilized world as a brutal 5th Century pariah. Trump just spent a taxpayer fortune to rebrand him “one of the most respected people in the world” to elevate and promote Trump’s own private business ventures.
It is fitting that Trump committed this atrocity in a formerly dignified room recently desecrated with tacky gold medallions. The Oval Office is now a bordello whose pimp is selling America to the highest bidder, and we, his trafficked victims, are letting him do it.
Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
Karen Attiah was the editor at The Washington Post for Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. She recently left the Post, objecting to its obeisance to Trump.
Trump’s warm welcome for Saudi Arabia’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, outraged her, as it outraged everyone who remembered what happened to Khashoggi.
Khashoggi was a journalist, author, and dissident in Saudi Arabia. He fled Saudi Arabia in September 2017 and settled in the U.S. He was hired by Karen Attiah to write an opinion column for The Washington Post. On October 2, 2018, Khashoggi went to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, to get a marriage license. Fifteen Saudi security personnel were waiting for him. They strangled him, and a surgeon in their group dismembered his body. It was never recovered. The CIA later determined that he was killed by direct order of Crown Prince MBS.
Since 2018, MBS has been in disrepute in the West. A few days ago, MBS was an honored guest at the White House. Trump spread a red carpet, praised him lavishly, and commended his record on human rights. He was almost as obsequious to MBS as he is to Putin.
A Warm Welcome for an Assassin
When a reporter asked about Khashoggi, Trump angrily said that the victim was “controversial” and “some people didn’t like him,” and reporters should not ask such disrespectful questions.
Trump cannot plead ignorance about what happened. He was President in 2018, when Khashoggi was murdered.
If you are on BlueSky, you might want to read Karen Attiah’s reaction to Trump’s defense of MBS.
In one of her comments, she wrote:
I will never forget having to edit Jamal’s final, posthumous piece for the Washington Post, after he was murdered.
I received this column from Jamal Khashoggi’s translator and assistant the day after Jamal was reported missing in Istanbul. The Post held off publishing it because we hoped Jamal would come back to us so that he and I could edit it together. Now I have to accept: That is not going to happen. This is the last piece of his I will edit for The Post. This column perfectly captures his commitment and passion for freedom in the Arab world. A freedom he apparently gave his life for. I will be forever grateful he chose The Post as his final journalistic home one year ago and gave us the chance to work together.
I was recently online looking at the 2018 “Freedom in the World” report published by Freedom House and came to a grave realization. There is only one country in the Arab world that has been classified as “free.”
That nation is Tunisia. Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait come second, with a classification of “partly free.” The rest of the countries in the Arab world are classified as “not free.”
As a result, Arabs living in these countries are either uninformed or misinformed. They are unable to adequately address, much less publicly discuss, matters that affect the region and their day-to-day lives. A state-run narrative dominates the public psyche, and while many do not believe it, a large majority of the population falls victim to this false narrative. Sadly, this situation is unlikely to change.
The Arab world was ripe with hope during the spring of 2011. Journalists, academics and the general population were brimming with expectations of a bright and free Arab society within their respective countries. They expected to be emancipated from the hegemony of their governments and the consistent interventions and censorship of information. These expectations were quickly shattered; these societies either fell back to the old status quo or faced even harsher conditions than before.
My dear friend, the prominent Saudi writer Saleh al-Shehi, wrote one of the most famous columns ever published in the Saudi press. He unfortunately is now serving an unwarranted five-year prison sentence for supposed comments contrary to the Saudi establishment. The Egyptian government’s seizure of the entire print run of a newspaper, al-Masry al Youm, did not enrage or provoke a reaction from colleagues. These actions no longer carry the consequence of a backlash from the international community. Instead, these actions may trigger condemnation quickly followed by silence.
As a result, Arab governments have been given free rein to continue silencing the media at an increasing rate. There was a time when journalists believed the Internet would liberate information from the censorship and control associated with print media. But these governments, whose very existence relies on the control of information, have aggressively blocked the Internet. They have also arrested local reporters and pressured advertisers to harm the revenue of specific publications.
There are a few oases that continue to embody the spirit of the Arab Spring. Qatar’s government continues to support international news coverage, in contrast to its neighbors’ efforts to uphold the control of information to support the “old Arab order.” Even in Tunisia and Kuwait, where the press is considered at least “partly free,” the media focuses on domestic issues but not issues faced by the greater Arab world. They are hesitant to provide a platform for journalists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. Even Lebanon, the Arab world’s crown jewel when it comes to press freedom, has fallen victim to the polarization and influence of pro-Iran Hezbollah.
The Arab world is facing its own version of an Iron Curtain, imposed not by external actors but through domestic forces vying for power. During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe, which grew over the years into a critical institution, played an important role in fostering and sustaining the hope of freedom. Arabs need something similar. In 1967, the New York Times and The Post took joint ownership of the International Herald Tribune newspaper, which went on to become a platform for voices from around the world.
My publication, The Post, has taken the initiative to translate many of my pieces and publish them in Arabic. For that, I am grateful. Arabs need to read in their own language so they can understand and discuss the various aspects and complications of democracy in the United States and the West. If an Egyptian reads an article exposing the actual cost of a construction project in Washington, then he or she would be able to better understand the implications of similar projects in his or her community.
The Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum, isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the structural problems their societies face.
Stephen Dyer is a former legislator who keeps watch on the ways that Ohio Republicans have cheated public school students. Ohio Republicans love charters and vouchers, even though taxpayers have been ripped off repeatedly for years by grifters.
Look, I like Greg Lawson as a guy. We’ve been on panels together and fought over things on the radio and in other places.
But man, he really, really thinks y’all are stupid.
In an op-ed he had published in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday where he argued that public school districts whine too much about money, he made the following claim:
“State K-12 spending in 2023 was 39.5% higher than in 2010 — and school spending in 2024 and 2025 shows no sign of cooling off: “State funding for primary and secondary education totaled $11.64 billion in FY 23; was $13 billion in FY 24 (a $1.36 billion or 11.7% increase); and is estimated at $13.42 billion in FY 25, the second year of the state budget (a $415.8 million or 3.2% increase).”
See, Greg wants you to conclude something from these numbers: that public school districts are swimming in money and their griping over vouchers and his budget-sucking agenda is bullshit. It’s those greedy bastards in your local school districts that are causing your property taxes to skyrocket.
What he leaves out is that the numbers he’s using to make the districts-swimming-in-money claim include money for charter schools and vouchers.
That’s right.
He’s writing an entire article complaining that school districts whine too much about vouchers taking away money from public school kids by citing K-12 expenditure data that … includes money going to vouchers and charter schools.
Can’t make it up.
I’ll break down his ridiculous claim in two parts.
Part I — Overall K-12 Funding
First, let’s look at the overall claim — massive increases to K-12 spending. Forget about the fact that the voucher and charter money need to be deducted out of that number.
Let’s just look at Greg’s topline claim — the state’s spending tons more now than 15 years ago on K-12 education, so quit whining!
Yes. Spending is up. But you know what else is up?
Inflation.
See, in the 2009-2010 school year, the state spent a total of $7.9 billion on K-12 education. In the 2024-2025 school year, that number was $11.5 billion.
Big jump, right?
Well, if you adjust for 2025 dollars, that $7.9 billion spent on K-12 education in 2009-2010 is the equivalent of $11.9 billion, or about $400 million less than what the state spent on K-12 education last school year.
Let me repeat that.
The state is spending the equivalent of $400 million less on K-12 education than they did 15 years ago, adjusted for inflation.
Funny Greg didn’t mention that.
Part II — Privatizers Force Property Tax Increases
Now let’s look at charters and vouchers. Let’s just set aside how poorly charters prepare kids, or how the EdChoice program is an unconstitutional scheme that provides not a single dollar to a parent or child and voucher test scores aren’t great either, compared with school district counterparts.
Let’s just look at the money.
In the 2009-2010 school year, Ohio sent $768 million to charter schools and vouchers.
Last school year, that number was $2.3 billion.
For those of you scoring at home, that’s a more than 100% increase in funding for these privatization efforts … above inflation!
So while in 2009-2010 the state spent about same percentage of their K-12 spend on the percentage of kids who attended public schools at the time, last year the state spent 77% of their K-12 spend on the 84% of kids who attended public schools.
This cut in the share of state funding going to public school students can be directly tied to the state more than doubling the inflationary increase on charter schools and vouchers over the last 15 years.
Bottom line: What has this meant in funding for Ohio’s public school kids?
Well, in 2009-2010, the state, after deducting charter school and voucher funding, provided $7.1 billion for Ohio’s public school students.
Adjusted for inflation, that’s $10.7 billion in today’s dollars.
(I would also like to add that the 2009-2010 school year was the first year of the Evidence Based model of school funding that I shaped as the Chairman of the Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee on the Ohio House Finance Committee. We pulled off this investment — greater than last school year’s investment, adjusted for inflation — in the middle of the Great Recession. So it’s not like we had shit tons of money lying around the way lawmakers do now. Which should tell you about the priorities back then vs. today.)
I digress.
Last school year, Ohio’s public school students received $9.1 billion.
That means that Ohio’s public school students are receiving $1.6 billion less, adjusted for inflation, than they did 15 years ago.
Should I mention here that not a single penny of the more than $1 billion going to vouchers is publicly audited to ensure the money goes to educate kids rather than Lambos for Administrators?
Anyway.
Put another way: If Ohio lawmakers and governors had simply kept the same commitment to charter schools and vouchers that they did 15 years ago and kept pace with inflation on their K-12 spend, Ohio’s public school students would have received $1.6 billion more last year than they actually did.
In other words, we’d have a fully funded Fair School Funding Plan.
I’m not asking the legislature or Governor to do anything crazy here. No elimination of vouchers and charters.
This is simply doing inflationary increases and making sure the percentage of state funding going to each sector (public, charter and voucher) matched the percentage of kids attending each sector.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, if the state had actually let “money follow the child”, Ohio’s public school students would have a fully funded Fair School Funding Plan and there would stillhave a $1.2 billion charter and voucher program!
Instead, state leaders have so overvalued private school vouchers and charter schools that now we have an unconstitutional EdChoice voucher program that doesn’t send a single dollar to a parent or student, charter schools that spend about double the amount per pupil on administration that public schools spend while tragically failing to graduate students, and a school funding formula that’s severely underfunded for the 84% of students who attend public school districts.
While Greg might tell school districts, “Quit your bitching!”, I might humbly suggest that school districts haven’t bitched enough.
So when people complain about property taxes, directly point fingers at the Ohio legislature and Governor because they’re doing what they’ve always done — force you to fund the only thing — public schools — the Ohio Constitution requires them to fund.
It’s governmental malpractice. And our kids are the ones who suffer.
This is a gift article, meaning that non-subscribers may open the link.
Traditionally, the Department of Justice is independent of the administration in power.
Trump has broken down all the guardrails that protected the Department from political interference.
Trump selected Pam Bondi as Attorney General to carry out his wishes. He selected his personal defense attorneys as Bondi’s top assistants. Hundreds of career officials were fired. Thousands have left. The ethics officer was fired, because he insisted that the Department abide by ethics rules. The pardons attorney was fired, because Trump wanted to give pardons to friends, like actor Mel Gibson, who wanted his gun rights restored despite his history of domestic violence.
The Justice Department is now completely under the personal control of Trump. It is an instrument of his whims.
In one example, the Department of Justice sued a prestigious law firm for discriminating against white men, even though the law firm is 97% white. Why? The firm has represented Democrats.
The agency responsible for investigating domestic terrorism has been gutted. Civil rights enforcement has turned to attacking racial inequities and defending aggrieved white men.
The New York Times is the one major newspaper that has not bowed to Trump or capitulated to his threats. We sometimes criticize the Times for its efforts to be “on the one hand, on the other,” but this is not one of those articles.
This is a straightforward demonstration of the politicization and gutting of a bedrock protector of our democracy.
This article documents the early stages of fascism.
If there was ever a symbol of decadence, greed, and heartlessness in 2025, it must be the “Great Gatsby” party that Trump provided for his uber-rich friends at Mar-a-Lago in the midst of the government shutdown.
At the same time, 42 million Americans were wondering if their food stamps (SNAP) would be available for the month. The Trump Department of Justice was in court arguing that the administration had no obligation to fully fund SNAP, and the decision was not in the hands of the courts anyway. So, no, as far as Trump was concerned, let the losers go hungry.
The party was indeed decadent, as the food and drink were abundant. Caviar, champagne, truffles, stone claw crabs. No expensive delicacy left behind.
Even more decadent–considering that this is the home of the President–were the skimpily clad showgirls who waved boa feathers to show off their bodies.
If the goal was to display the vast disparity in wealth and income that plagues our society, Trump succeeded.
I’ve gathered a few videos and commentaries. See what you missed.
This is Jon Stewart with commentary on the party and video of the festivities. I especially liked the barely clad young woman in a giant champagne glass. His Mar-a-Lago spiel starts at 5:00.
Josh Cowen is a prominent scholar of education policy. He spent 20 years as a voucher researcher and eventually concluded that vouchers are a failure. In every state that adopted and expanded vouchers, he found, the overwhelming majority of vouchers were claimed by parents whose children were already enrolled in private and religious schools or home-schooled. The small proportion of students who transferred from public schools to nonpublic schools experienced academic decline.
In his new Substack newsletter, Josh interviewed Gina Hinojosa, who is running for Governor of Texas in the Democratic primary. She has broad support in the party. Whoever wins will face Greg Abbott, who is running for an unprecedented fourth term. Abbott is a Trump man whose only goal is to cut taxes and enrich his billionaire pals, while ignoring the general welfare of the state’s people.
Here is the interview.
Today we’re launching a special feature of this newsletter—a series of spotlight interviews with political candidates, authors, and other public figures across the country. These interviews are going to be in a short, 5-Question format that I hope lets you get to know each person in a way that makes you want to know more.
First up: Gina Hinojosa. Rep. Hinojosa is a five-term state legislator in Texas, and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to take on Governor Greg Abbott.
I’m doing this interview just after Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won huge margins in their race for the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Both—and especially Spanberger—made renewing and reinvesting in public schools a central piece of their campaigns, to go alongside affordability and health care as major issues in their states.
A recent poll by the Texas Politics Project at UT-Austin, shows Gina Hinojosa poised to join them: Governor Abbott’s approval ratings are at a dismal 32%, with 36% of Texas saying the state is headed in the wrong direction.
Over the weekend, Gina appeared with California Governor Gavin Newsom at a Houston rally to celebrate the passage of Proposition 50 in Newsom’s state—a direct response to Abbott’s redistricting scheme in Texas.
Rep. Hinojosa has been endorsed by a vast array of Democrats and other community leaders across Texas, including both her colleague Rep. James Talarico and former Congressman Colin Allred, who are competing against each other for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate.
Here’s why Gina Hinojosa is running to reverse three decades of GOP control in Texas, and why 2026 is the year for her to do it.
State Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D) is running for governor in Texas (photo: Rep. GinaHinojosa).
1.) Hi Rep. Hinojosa. Thanks for taking a few minutes here. You’re running for governor of Texas. Obviously you’re running to serve Texans, but what do think people everywhere ought to know about who you are and why you’re running?
I never wanted to run for office. In fact, I made my husband promise to never run for office before we got married. But when my son was in kindergarten, his school was threatened for closure. I got angry. Several other inner-city schools were also on the chopping block. As part of a movement to save our schools, I ran for my local school board and won. We saved our schools for the moment. On the school board, I realized that schools would be under constant threat of closure so long as the state kept withholding funding from our neighborhood schools. So I ran for the Texas House, and I won. Once there, I was able to lead on negotiations to win a substantial increase in school funding–but that happened only because Governor Abbott was forced to focus on the real needs of Texans after a 2018 wave election for Democrats. After the 2020 election when Democrats underperformed, the priorities shifted back to the monied interests and schools came under increased pressure, culminating with the passage of a $1 billion school voucher bill this year. It’s no coincidence that Governor Abbott received a $6 million campaign contribution from an out-of-state billionaire who supports privatization. I realized that we would never have the Texas we deserve so long as we have a governor who can be bought. Texas needs a Governor who is for the people, not the billionaire class.
2.) You and I met when I came to Texas during the voucher fight—Governor Abbott took a bunch of money from out-of-state billionaires to ram school vouchers into your state. You were a leader in the fight to stop him, and although they were able to finally force voucher onto Texas families, I think there’s a lot for political candidates to learn from the success you did have standing up to Abbott and those billionaires for so long. What lessons did you take away from that fight?
We beat back Governor Abbott’s voucher scam in 2023 and that fight taught me that we can have powerful cross-party alliances when we focus on what is most important, our kids. I was proud to work with Texans from all parts of the state, both Democrats and Republicans, to beat back Governor Abbott’s voucher scam. We formed strong alliances that persist to this day. One night in a meeting that went late, I was talking to a Republican woman who had travelled to Washington on January 6th in support of President Trump. We came to the realization that we were being divided by culture wars and social issues that were a distraction from the real issue: the taking of our taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of the well-connected, rich elite. Once you see this, you can’t unsee it.
3.) Folks across Texas and all over the country also know your name from the redistricting fight—which Abbott started almost as soon as he was done pushing vouchers through. You and your colleagues had to leave the state at one point to try to stop him. Was there ever a point you wanted to just give up, go home, leave the fight to someone else?
I will admit feeling a certain frustration and exhaustion after 5 terms in the Texas House and in the trenches on every big, state fight that has mattered in the last 10 years. But rather than give up, I have shifted my focus and my fight to this run for governor. For me it’s not about giving up, but about finding my place. In this moment in history, many of us are trying to find our highest, best use. Once you find it, I believe the work gives energy rather than depletes.
4.) Like we do in my home state of Michigan, Texas has a big governor’s race and key campaigns like a tough Senate contest. I worry that there’s kind of an information overload right now for ordinary folks. How do you want voters—and frankly, donors—to think about which campaigns they should be paying attention to, and why the Texas governor’s race is one of them?
Great question. Here’s why our race for governor in Texas in 2026 should be the priority for every American. By the end of this decade, in a little more than 4 years, the Brennan Center predicts that Texas will gain 4-5 new congressional seats because of population growth that is expected to be reflected in the 2030 Census. Texas will be taking those congressional seats from Democratic-majority states like California. What this means is if Texas doesn’t flip blue by the end of the decade, there will not be Democratic control of Congress for a generation. And because congressional seats equate to electoral votes, the same is true for the presidency. If Texas does not flip blue before the end of the decade, there will not be a Democratic United States President for a generation. That’s just math. A Democratic governor of Texas can insist on fair maps and veto any maps aimed to silence the will of the voters. Recent history tells us that this midterm after Trump’s re-election is our best chance to make gains for Democrats. The 2018 midterm after Trump was elected the first time, Democrats swept in Texas. Democrats won 12 seats in the Texas House and made additional gains across the state without national “battleground” funding. This time we must be ready. The fate of the Union depends on it.
5.) What didn’t I ask about you, or your campaign, that you’d like folks in Texas and across the country to know heading into 2026?
We are in a moment in history. Not of our choosing, but it chose us. This moment doesn’t care that we are tired or scared. What happens in our country at this moment will determine whether or not our children inherit a country where they will live free and be able to pursue their dreams and happiness. The stakes couldn’t be higher and there is no escaping from that reality. What we can do is find and join collective efforts dedicated to meeting the moment. We can find support and camaraderie in these efforts. We are very fortunate that there are so many dedicated to doing what is good and right. In fact, I still believe that most Americans are committed to the greater good. (Ignore social media!) Get out there! Meet each other. There is power when we come together and there is peace of mind in asserting that power.
Bonus question: I don’t know any candidates with time to watch TV these days, but give this a shot: which show have you seen or streamed lately that you’re excited about—or can’t wait to check out one day ?
I love The Diplomat on Netflix! My favorite character is Hal.
For the record: I also love The Diplomat, though my favorite character is Todd.
Descendants of the celebrated painter Norman Rockwell wrote an article in USA Today protesting the Trump administration’s selective use of his work to portray an all-white America. The Department of Homeland Security has issued propaganda that includes Rockwell paintings to illustrate that the U.S. has no racial diversity. Whites only.
His children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren wrote this article.
If Norman Rockwell were alive today, he would be devastated to see that his own work has been marshalled for the cause of persecution toward immigrant communities and people of color.
The Rockwell family
A group of mostly White Americans stands beneath a billowing national flag, right hands to their hearts. Construction workers crawl ant-like over a close-up of the upraised torch in the hand of the Statue of Liberty. A craggy Daniel Boone in raccoon-skin cap gazes off into the distance against a purple background, cradling his rifle.
These are three Norman Rockwell paintings that recently appeared without authorization in social media posts by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. They bore these labels: “Protect our American way of life,” “Manifest Heroism” and a quote from Calvin Coolidge, “Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.”
Norman Rockwell – our father, grandfather and great-grandfather – painted more than 4,000 works during his career, many of them depicting what are considered classic scenes from 20th century American life: Boy Scouts, doctor visits, squabbling couples, soda shops, soldiers returning from war, linemen and so much more.
From 1916 to 1963, he regularly painted covers for the Saturday Evening Post, which by and large depicted only White people. The scarcity of people of color in Rockwell’s paintings has led those who are not familiar with his entire oeuvre to draw the conclusion that his vision was of a White America, free of immigrants and people of color. But nothing could have been further from the truth.
Norman Rockwell used art to confront racism, injustice in America
In January of 1964, just one month shy of his 70th birthday, his iconic painting “The Problem We All Live With” appeared in Look magazine. The painting was inspired by the experiences of Ruby Bridges, a 6-year-old girl who had been escorted by U.S. Marshals to desegregate her New Orleans school in 1960.
“The Problem We All Live With”–Norman Rockwell
The painting focuses on a young Black girl in a white dress walking to school surrounded by unmistakable signs of racism and violence. A horrifying epithet scrawled across a wall dotted by rotten tomatoes recently hurled and the burly bodies of the four U.S. Marshalls accompanying her all point to the horrifying historical moment depicted in the scene. But perhaps most haunting of all is that title: “The Problem We All Live With,” an eternal present tense, inviting us to engage with the ravages of racism in our society, to open our eyes to the injustice and violence.
“I was born a White Protestant with some prejudices that I am continuously trying to eradicate,” Rockwell said in an interview in 1962. “I am angry at unjust prejudices, in other people and in myself.”
If Norman Rockwell were alive today, he would be devastated to see that not only does the problem Ruby Bridges confronted 65 years ago still plague us as a society, but that his own work has been marshalled for the cause of persecution toward immigrant communities and people of color.
We ‒ as his eldest son, grandchildren and great-grandchildren ‒ believe that now is the time to follow in his footsteps and stand for the values he truly wished to share with us and all Americans: compassion, inclusiveness and justice for all.
***********************************
In addition to the contested use of Rockwell’s paintings, the Trump administration’s Department of Labor has used the retro images below as part of its recruitment/branding campaign (slogans like “Make America Skilled Again,” “Build America’s Future,” “American Workers First,” “Your Nation Needs You”). The DOL ran them on social media (USDOL posts on X/Twitter, Facebook and Instagram). The posters present America as an all-white nation of male workers. No diversity. Broad shoulders. Blonde hair. Open-collar. He-men. Red-blooded white American men. No Rosie the Riveter.
Judge J. Michael Luttig was appointed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, where he served until 2006. He was a prominent conservative jurist, but was repulsed by the Trump regime, especially Trump’s contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. He became one of the most outspoken critics of Trump. In this post, he criticized the Supreme Court for ignoring death threats to judges who disagreed with Trump.
This week, David French and I have both addressed the death threats on the lives of the federal judges who dare to rule against Donald Trump.
David did so this morning in the chilling piece in the New York Times linked below, and I did so on Tuesday in an hour-long interview with Meghna Chakrabarti of NPR’s On Point, one of the most thoughtful, intelligent interviewers I have ever had the pleasure to talk with.
During my conversation with Meghna, she played on air the actual audio of the death threat made to Federal Judge John McConnell referenced in David’s article. It was bone chilling. When Meghna asked for my reaction to the threat, I first thanked her on behalf of the entire Federal Judiciary for playing the audio for all of America to hear and then said “America is weeping at this moment, Meghna. America is weeping. I wish you could send this audio to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
I went on to say that the unconscionable attacks on the federal courts and individual federal judges by Donald Trump and his Attorney General will not only continue, but will continue to escalate until Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court of the United States denounce the President and the Attorney General for their unconscionable threats against the nation’s Federal Judiciary.
I explained that up to now, the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court have acquiesced in these assaults on the federal courts, tacitly condoning them, when the Chief Justice and the Court have no higher obligation under the Constitution of the United States of America than to denounce these attacks.
After my interview with Meghna, I forwarded the audio of the death threat to Judge McConnell to a number of the national media, with a note saying simply that “if the national media would saturate the American public with this chilling death threat against Judge McConnell, it could change the course of history.”
David French:
“Have you ever written words that you thought might get you killed? Have you ever written words that you worry might get someone you love killed?
That’s the reality that federal judges are facing across the nation. Our awful era of intimidation and political violence has come for them, and it represents a serious threat to the independence and integrity of the American judiciary.”
She read the full transcript of the recent interview of Trump by Norah O’Donnell of “60 Minutes.” The final interview was heavily edited, which is standard practice. The actual interview lasts for about an hour, but only 20 minutes is aired. If you recall, Trump sued CBS for $10 billion for airing an edited version of the “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. He claimed that the interview was intended to hurt his candidacy, a totally meritless claim, since editing is routine and he suffered no injury. Rather than fight for its most prestigious news team, CBS caved and paid Trump $16 million. The corporation paid off Trump so that its merger with Paramount would be okayed by the FCC, which is the hands of a Trump flunkie.
Not mentioned by HRC was that O’Donnell asked Trump if he pressured Pam Bondi to prosecute James Comey and Letitia James. He denied it. She let it pass instead of showing the tweet in which he directed her to prosecute them. She should have asked why he did it, not whether he did it. The evidence was public.
HRC wrote:
At the end of her interview with President Donald J. Trump, recorded on October 31 at Mar-a-Lago and aired last night, heavily edited, on 60 Minutes, Norah O’Donnell of CBS News asked if she could ask two more questions. Trump suggested previous questions had been precleared when he mused aloud that if he said yes, “That means they’ll treat me more fairly if I do—I want to get—It’s very nice, yeah. Now is good. Okay. Uh, oh. These might be the ones I didn’t want. I don’t know. Okay, go ahead.”
O’Donnell noted that the Trump family has thrown itself into cryptocurrency ventures, forming World Liberty Financial with the family of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East. In that context, she asked about billionaire Changpeng Zhao, the co-founder and former chief executive officer of Binance. Zhao is cryptocurrency’s richest man. He pleaded guilty in 2023 to money laundering, resigned from Binance, paid a $50 million fine, and was sentenced to four months in prison.
Trump pardoned him on October 23.
O’Donnell noted that the U.S. government said Zhao “had caused ‘significant harm to U.S. national security,’ essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around.” She asked the president, “Why did you pardon him?”
“Okay, are you ready?” Trump answered. “I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. And what I wanna do is see crypto, ‘cause if we don’t do it it’s gonna go to China, it’s gonna go to—this is no different to me than AI.
“My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me. I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100%. This man was, in my opinion, from what I was told, this is, you know, a four-month sentence.”
After he went on with complaints about the Biden administration—he would mention Biden 42 times in the released transcript—O’Donnell noted, “Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned [Zhao].” She asked him: “How do you address the appearance of pay for play?”
Trump answered: “Well, here’s the thing. I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other….” O’Donnell interrupted: “But he got a pardon….” Trump responded: “I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government. And they’re good—my one son is a number one bestseller now.
“My wife just had a number one bestseller. I’m proud of them for doing that. I’m focused on this. I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government.” And then he was off again, complaining about the former president and boasting that he would “make crypto great for America.”
“So not concerned about the appearance of corruption with this?” O’Donnell asked.
Trump answered: “I can’t say, because—I can’t say—I’m not concerned. I don’t—I’d rather not have you ask the question. But I let you ask it. You just came to me and you said, ‘Can I ask another question?’ And I said, yeah. This is the question….”
“And you answered…” O’Donnell put in.
“I don’t mind,” Trump said. “Did I let you do it? I coulda walked away. I didn’t have to answer this question. I’m proud to answer the question. You know why? We’ve taken crypto….” After another string of complaints about Biden, he said: “We are number one in crypto and that’s the only thing I care about.”
If, among all the disinformation and repetition Trump spouted in that interview, he did not know who he was pardoning, who’s running the Oval Office?
It appears House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doesn’t want to know. At a news conference today, journalist Manu Raju noted: “Last week…you were very critical of Joe Biden’s use of the autopen…[you said] he didn’t even know who he was pardoning. Last night, on 60 Minutes…Trump admitted not knowing he pardoned a crypto billionaire who pleaded guilty to money laundering. Is that also concerning?”
Johnson answered: “I don’t know anything about that. I didn’t see the interview. You have to ask the president about that. I’m not sure.”
Pleading ignorance of an outrage or that a question is “out of his lane” has become so frequent for Johnson that journalist Aaron Rupar of Public Notice, who is very well informed about the news indeed, suggested today that journalists should consider asking Johnson: “Do you ever read the news, and do you agree it’s problematic for the Speaker to be so woefully uninformed?”
Johnson continues to keep the House from conducting business as the government shutdown hit its 34th day today. Tomorrow the shutdown will tie the 35-day shutdown record set during Trump’s first term. Representative Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), whom voters elected on September 23, is still not sworn in. She has said she will be the 218th—and final—vote on a discharge petition to force a vote requiring the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files.
Trump and Johnson continue to try to jam Democratic senators into signing on to the Republicans’ continuing resolution without addressing the end of premium tax credits that is sending healthcare premiums on the Affordable Healthcare Act marketplace soaring. They continue to refuse to negotiate with Democrats, although negotiations have always been the key to ending shutdowns.
To increase pressure, they are hurting the American people.
The shutdown meant that funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits on which 42 million Americans depend to put food on the table ran out on October 31. Although previous administrations—including Trump’s—have always turned to contingency funds Congress set aside to make sure people can eat, and although the Trump administration initially said it would do so this time as usual, it abruptly announced in October that it did not believe tapping into that reserve was legal. SNAP benefits would not go out.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund payments for SNAP benefits using the reserve Congress set up for emergencies. Since that money—$4.65 billion—will not be enough to fund the entire $8 billion required for November payments, McConnell suggested the administration could make the full payments by tapping into money from the Child Nutrition Program and other funds, but he left discretion up to the administration.
Today the administration announced it would tap only the first reserve, funding just 50% of SNAP benefits. It added that those payments will be delayed for “a few weeks to up to several months.” The disbursement of the reserve, it continued, “means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November, disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely.”
“Big ‘you can’t make me’ energy,” Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall noted. It’s also an astonishing act of cruelty, especially as grocery prices are going up—Trump lied that they are stable in the 60 Minutes interview—hiring has slowed, and the nation is about to celebrate Thanksgiving.
The shutdown also threatens the $4.1 billion Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that helps families cover the cost of utilities or heating oil. Susan Haigh and Marc Levy of the Associated Press note that this program started in 1981 and has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress ever since. Trump’s budget proposal for next year calls for cutting the program altogether, but states expected to have funding for this winter. Almost 6 million households use the program, and as cold weather sets in, the government has not funded it.
When the Republicans shredded the nation’s social safety net in their budget reconciliation bill of July, the one they call the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” they timed most of the cuts to take effect after the 2026 midterm elections. But the shutdown is making clear now, rather than after the midterms, what the nation will look like without that safety net.
In the 60 Minutes interview, O’Donnell noted an aspect of Trump’s America that is getting funded during the shutdown. She said, “Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood, and the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raids gone too far?”
“No,” Trump answered. “I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by the—by the judges, the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama.” (In fact, a review by Kyle Cheney of Politico on Friday showed that more than 100 federal judges have ruled at least 200 times against Trump administration immigration policies. Those judges were appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, and 12 were appointed by Trump himself.)
It appears that the administration did indeed ignore today’s deadline for congressional approval of the ongoing strikes against Venezuela, required under the 1973 War Powers Act. It is taking the position that no approval is necessary since, in its formulation, U.S. military personnel are not at risk in the strikes that have, so far, killed 65 people.
Diane Ravitch's blog 