The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I reread it today; nothing in the law allows a president to defund PBS and NPR. In fact, Congress specifically sought to insulate public media from political pressure.
“Airplanes can’t fly without weather observations and forecasts; ships crossing the oceans rely on storm forecasts to avoid the high seas; farmers rely on seasonal forecasts to plant and harvest their crops which feed us.”
Call me old fashioned, but I think any president creating a meme coin hustle to recruit anonymous financial backers and rewarding the biggest spenders with “a night to remember” private dinner with the president kinda feels like an impeachable offense.
COMPARE: the results of fighting back to the results of not fighting back
Statement on the Academic Freedom and Independence of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education
The American Political Science Association (APSA) is deeply concerned by recent attacks on the independence of colleges and universities in the United States. Over the past few weeks, there have been…
"Wine moms" or "resistance libs" or whatever they're called are basically the only faction that hasn't shamed or embarrassed themselves over the last decade, and probably our only hope, so put respect on their f'ing name.
If you want a sober, expert description of why we should now characterize the US as a competitive authoritarian regime —not a democracy— and what we can do about it— I highly recommend spending an hour listening to Erica Chenoweth and Steven Levitsky in this video: www.youtube.com/live/nS-nJQN...
We are speedrunning the Declaration of Independence, folks.
Those trying to understand the tariffs as economic policy are dangerously naive.
No, the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief.
1/ A 🧵 to explain his plan and how we fight back.
I thought Congress was in charge of setting spending levels but what do I know
Is it really too much to ask media outlets reporting on invading Greenland & Canada to lead with "THIS IS WILDLY ILLEGALLY UNDER BOTH OUR NATO AND UN TREATY COMMITMENTS, WHICH ARE ALSO PART OF US LAW"? The normalization of this is wildly inappropriate & there is no excuse for it.
Elites who have failed the Lando test:
-Columbia University
-Harvard University (in process)
-Paul Weiss
-Wilkie Farr
-Skadden Arps
-Noah Feldman
As @ericjeisner.bsky.social and I explain here, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who breathe life into its words. That's why John Tyler could get away with an unconstitutional claim to be president—an error that has stuck. If we don't stand up for the Constitution, it quickly erodes.
The rule of law, being destroyed right in front of us.
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law"
Note to editors and producers: If an executive order demands action that is illegal or outside of the president’s authority, then you should not describe it as ordering something. You should say it seeks to achieve some outcome and then note it is illegal or beyond the power of the president.
Members should just be posting these every day
This is a very important point. Breathlessly vague headlines and summaries of these executive orders created for the executive powers it does not have. This kind of press contributed to authoritarian regime change.
Trump's Executive Order regarding election regulations are empty words 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼
Confederate monuments were *quite literally* an effort to “perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history” by promoting the Lost Cause work of white supremacists who wanted to rewrite the history of the Civil War and, yes, Reconstruction.
"Creating a ruckus" is his euphemism for wrote an op-ed in a newspaper. The Constitution protects all people under U.S. jurisdiction (not just citizens) from government actions penalizing them for speech, use of the free press, or peaceful assembly.
President Trump Issues Dangerous Executive Order That Would Shift to Presidency More Power Over the Conduct of Federal Elections and Potentially Disenfranchise Millions of Voters electionlawblog.org?p=149153
The President does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to dictate the content of voter registration forms. This EO is an incredibly dangerous power grab. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
This is, quite literally, how democracies die www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/u...
So WIRED talked to actual federal auditors about how government auditing works—and how DOGE is doing the opposite.
“In no uncertain terms is this an audit,” claims the second auditor. “It’s a heist, stealing a vast amount of government data."
“There are 13 million legal foreign residents (green card holders) in the US. If the administration can deport Khalil, it means those 13 million people must live in fear if they dare speak up or publish something that runs afoul of government views.” journalism.columbia.edu/news/cjs-fac...
Chief Judge Boasberg rules in favor of @aclu.org and @democracyforward.org on #AlienEnemiesAct
Temporary Restraining Order granted.
Based on strength of argument that "the AEA does not provide a basis for the President's proclamation."
Clearly the right legal outcome
Read @ilyasomin.bsky.social
“coordinated personnel changes– are consistent with a strategy of “personalizing” the security forces. That personalization is a hallmark of strongman rule.”
theconversation.com/what-happens...
1/ This is wildly illegal. That is not a question on which reasonable legally informed folks can disagree.
It doesn't fucking matter that he ran on doing illegal things. They are still illegal.
And striking at Congress's power of the purse is worse than illegal. It's anti-constitutional.
