Question 1: Applying public records law to the Legislature and governor’s office

This question would make most records held by the  Legislature and the Office of the Governor public  records under the Massachusetts Public Records  Law. It creates two new exemptions, one for “policy development” and one for communication between the legislature and their constituents. The question is, in many ways, the continuation of a long-running feud between Massachusetts Auditor Diana DiZoglio and the Massachusetts state legislature (formally the “General Court”). She is joined this time by former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen (more on her in the discussion of Question #3). As I wrote two years ago when discussing 2024’s Question 1, relative to the ability of the Auditor to audit the legislature:

This question is the result of a long-running feud between the Legislature and State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who was previously a State Representative, a State Senator, and before that, an aide in the State House of Representatives. The origin of the feud is an incident that happened back in April of 2011, when DiZoglio was still working as a staffer in the State House, a State House court officer discovered DiZoglio and Braintree state Rep. Mark Cusack. This occurred after a late-night party when the chambers were closed, and initially looked like some hanky-panky had taken place. While House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office issued a report saying nothing inappropriate happened and no rules were broken, rumors and gossip ricocheted around the building, creating a toxic workplace for DiZoglio. She later said she was sexually harassed in the aftermath of the episode. Eventually, she was fired by her boss, Representative Paul Adams, and she was additionally pressured to sign a termination and non-disclosure agreement prepared by House lawyers. Needless to say, the whole thing left a decidedly bitter taste in her mouth.

DiZoglio got the best revenge, however, by being elected to the Massachusetts House in 2013, to the Massachusetts Senate in 2019, and now to the position of State Auditor in 2023. But DiZoglio is not satisfied. She feels that neither the House nor the Senate (currently led by the 2nd ever female Senate President) were sufficiently responsive to her concerns, which include not only non-disclosure agreements in particular but also transparency in general. This has led to her ongoing battle with the legislature. The problem with her proposal is that it arguably violates the “separation of powers” doctrine embedded in both the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions. 

2024’s Question #1 passed overwhelmingly by 72%, but the issue has been tied up in court ever since. The legislature claims that the Question violated the “separation of powers” doctrine, and the case has gone up to the Supreme Judicial Court. As of early October 2026, the SJC has not ruled on the merits. Instead, the SJC round was procedural: DiZoglio filed directly in the SJC in February 2026, through her general counsel. The petition asked the court to authorize appointment of a special assistant attorney general so her office could be represented, and to directly compel legislative leaders to comply with document requests under the 2024 law. In March, the court blocked her from bringing on Shannon Liss-Riordan as outside counsel, instead of using the Attorney General. The day after argument, they gave AG Campbell 30 days to decide whether she would represent DiZoglio. Campbell then said she would let DiZoglio appoint an attorney to go into court on four specific records requests that DiZoglio had made to kick off the litigation. The legislature then gave DiZoglio the four requested documents, so that the question now is whether the case is moot. It’s still lingering in Superior Court, without the SJC having considered it on the merits.

And here we are.

Be sure that the current Question #1 is aimed directly at the Legislature. Yes, the office of the Governor is also included in the proposed changes, but the executive branch and all of its agencies are already fully included in the public records law. The Governor’s personal office is not, but the new law proposed to exempt discussions “related to the development of public policy,” which means that most of the records generated by the Office of the Governor would be exempt anyway.

No, the real target here is the legislature, and that will create a new fight over separation of powers, as the Auditor is in the Executive Branch and the Legislature is its own branch. They will not be open to having the Auditor decide whether the legislature complied with the public records law. 

I think the likelihood is great that this question will pass overwhelmingly, just like Question #1 from two years ago. But it won’t make much difference. When it comes to questions related to the development of the budget, or the Commonwealth’s finances, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance already provides exhaustively detailed material in its budget submission, available on the Commonwealth’s website. Most of any additional materials will be governed by one of the two exemptions, either the policy development exemption or the constituent communications exemption.

And the rest of Question #1 will be tied up in court, just like Question #1 from two years ago.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

The Nine Ballot Questions

Some of my loyal readers remember that every two years I like to provide summaries of the Ballot questions, and arguments for why one should vote for or against them. For the 2026 Ballot, Massachusetts has an unusually large number of ballot questions: nine in total. It also has the unusual situation of having about half the ballot questions being formally unopposed.

Also, a quick reminder that  the Initiative and Referendum process is governed by Article 48 of the Amendments to the state Constitution (later modified by Articles 74 and 81) which creates two citizen-driven mechanisms: (1) the initiative statute (or, on occasion, the initiative constitutional amendment) and (2) the popular (veto) referendum.

In 2026 there are eight questions that are statute-based initiatives, and one that is a veto referendum.

Article 48 bars certain subjects from both initiative and referendum:

  • religion and religious institutions, including public aid to sectarian institutions
  • the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, or compensation of judges, and the reversal of judicial decisions
  • the powers, creation, or abolition of courts
  • measures limited to a particular town, city, or political subdivision
  • specific appropriations from the treasury
  • a list of Declaration of Rights guarantees, including just compensation for takings, jury trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of speech, press, elections, and assembly

A measure that is substantially the same as one qualified for or submitted at either of the two preceding biennial state elections is also barred. 

Here are the nine ballot questions approved for the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ones where there is no “opponent website” are the five that are unopposed. Over the next week I will be examining the nine questions and providing you with my personal take, which is, of course, not unbiased. But at least a little bit informed.

No. Question
1 Initiative Petition for a Law to Improve Access to Public Records Full text of measure Proponent website
2 Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Labor Relations Policies for Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees Full text of measure Proponent website
3 Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement All-Party State Primaries Full text of measure Proponent website Opponent website
4 Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Election Day Registration Full text of measure Proponent website
5 Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Limiting State Tax Collection Growth and Returning Surpluses to Taxpayers Full text of measure Proponent website Opponent website
6 Initiative Petition for a Law to Protect Water & Nature Full text of measure Proponent website
7 Initiative Petition for a Law to Allow Single-Family Homes on Small Lots in Areas with Adequate Infrastructure Full text of measure Proponent website
8 Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Regulating Marijuana Full text of measure Proponent website Opponent website
9 Referendum on an Existing Law on an Act Modernizing Firearm Laws[a] Full text of law Keep law website Repeal law website

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

The Gotcha Moment that Didn’t Happen

There was a video on my Facebook feed that I have to admit I didn’t get. It was apparently from today’s hearing where the Republicans are trying to get Jack Smith and prove that his investigation of Trump was illegitimate. Here’s the video:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2148662619117337

It turns out that Eric Schmitt, the Republican senator from Missouri, questioned Smith about February 3, 2024. He first established that Smith said he had never met Fulton County DA Fani Willis or special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who at the time were handling Georgia’s election-interference prosecution of Trump. Schmitt then asked whether Smith had traveled to Atlanta and attended the Atlanta Hawks–Golden State Warriors NBA game that night. Smith said no.

That was supposed to set up the reveal. Schmitt said his office had obtained text messages from members of Smith’s team supposedly showing that Smith was at a basketball game, and he warned Smith to think carefully so that he wouldn’t “perjure yourself.” After Smith continued to deny attending the Hawks game, Schmitt said, “I think you’ve already perjured yourself.”

The apparent theory behind the questioning was that Smith secretly traveled to Atlanta , to meet with Willis and Wade. Therefore his denial of contact/coordination may be false.

That would have been potentially significant. Smith was running the federal Trump election case while Willis and Wade were running the separate Georgia state case. Evidence that Smith had secretly traveled to Atlanta and met with them could have raised legitimate questions about coordination between the two prosecutions, particularly if Smith had previously denied such contacts.

But the factual premise fell apart.

Smith said that he did remember attending a basketball game around that date. It wasn’t an NBA game in Atlanta. It was Iowa vs. Maryland women’s college basketball at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Caitlin Clark was playing for Iowa. That game occurred on exactly February 3, 2024; Iowa won 93–85 and Clark scored 38 points. Smith also said the U.S. Marshals Service had accompanied him, meaning there should be government records corroborating where he was.

And that’s when Sen. Amy Klobuchar apparently figured out what had happened: Iowa’s team is the Hawkeyes, which Smitt’s team apparently interpreted as the Atlanta Hawks.

Oops.

Of course, by then Schmitt had already accused Smith of having perjured himself and of being a “dirtbag.”

I guess if you’re going to have a big “gotcha” moment on live Television it helps if you get you’re facts straight. The Hawks ain’t the Hawkeyes.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

This is just September

Conservative Trump supporters used to love to say that the rest of us had Trump Derangement Syndrome, but of course, by now it should be clear that Trump himself is the one who is completely deranged. Just consider what he’s done in September.

  • He opened Labor Day Weekend with a stream of 36 tweets, which included images of Trump with George Washington, Trump as Hulk Hogan, Trump as a superhero and Trump conquering outer space, a redrawn map of North America that includes Greenland, and tweets that threatened a lawsuit over crime statistics and banned the Canadian Bombardier from being sold in the United States, among other things.
  • He refused to attend the 9/11 Memorial in New York because he would not be allowed to give a political speech (and also he would have to stand throughout the ceremonies like the other American Presidents) and instead went to Washington D.C. where he did give a political speech and promptly fell asleep.
  • At the midterm RNC Convention he twice promised people (in consecutive night speeches) a $5000 “Trump bonus” if the GOP retained the House and the Senate, despite never having delivered on the $5000 “DOGE” checks or the $2000 “tariff bonus” checks that he had promised us. Also, he did not limit his promise to people who voted for the GOP (so he wanted to send me a check?) but the money had to be spent in the United States (which would be administratively unenforceable). 
  • In bilateral trade negotiations with Canada (separate from the USMCA), Canada walked away from the negotiations after last minute demands from the United States to (1) have a veto power of Canadian trade deals, (2) add changes affecting Canadian cultural and language policies, and (3) refuse to include medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Consequently, the U.S. imposed new 50% tariffs on selected Canadian goods and Canada retaliated with tariffs of 15%, 25% and 50% on various American goods.
  • The European Union subsequently offered Canada “associate” membership, a first, as Canada redirects its political energies towards mainland Europe.
  • Trump barred CNN, MS-NOW and Politico from the White House grounds for reporting that he did not like, which was overturned a few days later by a Trump-appointed judge. 
  • It was reported that Russian Oligarch (and close Putin ally) Umar Kremlev paid for a part of Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding to Bettina Anderson. Kremlev reportedly paid for renting one of the private islands, an elaborate fireworks display and other substantial expenses.
  • The United States signed an agreement with Denmark and Greenland, which essentially had the same provisions as an agreement that President Truman signed in 1951, except that included a “poison pill” provision that renders the agreement ineffective if the United States leaves NATO. This, after all of Trump’s saber rattling about invading Greenland.
  • President Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping, the news about which was primarily that it made no news, and that Trump made no progress on any diplomatic front despite the important issues that China and the United States should be making progress on.

That, my friends, is your President of the United States of America.  And that’s only September. Wait until October is complete.

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

The Stupidest Trade War Ever

To say that our trade war with Canada is stupid is being unkind to the word “stupid.”

Why are we doing this? 

That is an excellent question without an excellent answer.

It seems to be mostly to give Donald Trump the chance to embarrass and bully a neighbor. Trump has, of course, long wanted Canada to become the “51st” state (a Constitutional impossibility) in part (I read recently) so that the United States would “look bigger” on a map. With Canada, the United States would be the second biggest country after Russia.

I can’t prove that that’s true.

But it feels like it’s true.

Regardless, let’s set up the context. The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which was Trump’s replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement, requires among other things that the agreement be renegotiated six years after its July 1, 2020 signing. That would have been July 1 of 2026. Canada and Mexico were willing to extend USMCA; the United States was not. 

Separately, Trump threatened to impose 50% tariffs on Canada because (he claimed) Canada had discriminated against the United States with respect to autos, alcohol and dairy. Canada has imposed some tariffs on the United States mostly in retaliation for tariffs that the United States earlier earlier in the Trump administration. So, the two countries’ representatives had been increasingly intensifying negotiations since July to work this stuff out.

It looked like it was worked out until the United States, in last minute maneuvers, added a bunch of new items to the equation.

  • First, we essentially demanded veto power over the kind of trade agreements Canada could make with other countries.
  • Second, we demanded changes in French-language & cultural protections, and specifically Canada’s Online Streaming Act and Canadian-content regime which can require streaming services like Netflix and Amazon to contribute money toward Canadian content.
  • Finally, the United States refused to include medium- and heavy-duty trucks as part of he tariff relief.

The first two items here (especially the first) really have to do with questions of Canadian sovereignty. I don’t know what genius on the American team really thought that the Canadians were going to give them a veto power over agreements they might make with other countries.

The Canadians also objected to the United States team bringing these other issues in at the last minute when most everything had already been decided.

And now here we are, in the stupidest trade war of all time. Just remember that (using 2024, which is a good pre-trade-war baseline) total two-way trade was about $917.4 billion. The U.S. exported nearly $441 billion in goods and services to Canada and imported roughly $477 billion from Canada.

Canada is going to turn more and more to other trading partners. They are already turning to the European Union, and the EU in turn is turning towards Canada. The EU is, of course, the second largest economy after the USA. Canada is also going to turn to the United Kingdom and China. And also a bunch of other countries.

And we’re going to find ourselves more and more isolated. Thanks, Great American Dealmaker.

 

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

You Can’t Keep Up with the News

I just want to point out that these days you really cannot keep up with the news. Especially if you’re writing a blog. I mean, in the last week, we’ve had all of the following news stories:

  • The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee votes to refer Dr. Fauci for criminal prosecution for Contempt of Congress.
  • Trump tries to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed again, this time alleging unproven mortgage fraud as “gross negligence” instead of criminal violation.
  • Todd Blanche is confirmed in a 50-49 vote after Bill Cassidy joins John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of NC in relenting their opposition.
  • It is reported that Trump secretly rode in an airport catering truck and switched planes during his departure from Turkey after a NATO summit.
  • Netanyahu rejects the “Board of Peace” proposed 15 point Gaza peace plan, and explains no withdrawal until Hamas is completely disarmed first.
  • Iran demands that the US withdraw from the Strait of Hormuz, lift the naval blockade, unfreeze assets and compensate Iran for war damages before they will open the Strait.
  • Trump signs an executive order reducing childhood vaccines from 17 to 11, and breaking up the MMR vaccine (allegedly to combat autism).
  • The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency approves a preliminary charter for World Liberty Financial (the Trump family cryptocurrency) to become a bank. 
  • The USS Abraham Lincoln is being replaced by another carrier after 250 days at sea (including broken plumbing, food shortages, etc.)

Each one of those stories deserves its own blog post. But I can’t keep up.

The remarkable Heather Cox Richardson writes a substack post almost every day, but she is (1) a professional historian, and (2) now making literally millions from her substack.

It is the firehose theory for how to govern. Steve Bannon and others of Trump’s allies have promoted that idea in the past.

I heard some people fret on social media that it’s going to take years to unravel all the damage that Trump has done in his first two years, never mind if he makes it to four.

Maybe.

But there is a potential silver lining to that. If it does take years, we’ll also have years of evidence to remind people about what happens when a raving lunatic and his grifter family get their hands on the reins of government.

This wasn’t an accident.

With Fox News and right wing media riling up their listeners for 25 years with lie after lie after lie, at some point people were going to believe that somebody like Donald Trump (Donald Trump!) was the solution to their problems.

Narcissistic playboy Donald Trump was going to come fix their lives. Or at least he was going to punish the people they thought should be punished.

And now they only have themselves to blame. Like Brent Jindra, the Triple Trump voter whose Russian wife, Galina Bobreneva, was detained by ICE at Burbank Airport in July 2026.

Oops.

Insert Schadenfreude here.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

What is the Obsession with Fauci?

With this week’s histrionics before Senate Rand Paul’s Committee, it begs the question as to why we’re relitigating the Covid pandemic now, six years, four months and 21 days after it officially started over here.

Are Republicans still mad about mask mandates and school closures now?

And they call us snowflakes?

It seems like there’s a good chance that this is a kind of “wag the dog” distraction from the fact that Donald Trump has exacerbated inflation and that there is no end in sight for his useless war with Iran. 

Otherwise, what’s the point?

First of all, Trump’s contribution to “Operation Warp Speed” is one of the very few successes of his first term as President. At that point, he and Fauci were actually on the same side.

Second of all, Fauci did not impose mask mandates or social distancing requirements or mandatory vaccinations. That was mostly done by various governors and mayors and the CEO’s of hospitals and the like.

Also, who gives a shit whether the Covid started in a wet market or at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? It can’t be proven definitely one way or another. The better science, I am told — and unlike a lot of MAGA types, I’m no fucking virologist — is that it started in a wet market. But if it had started at the Institute, so what? 

Also, the Institute is a research facility under the Wuhan Branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s not under Fauci’s control, or, for that matter, anyone in the United States government. Fauci served as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and NIAID provided some funding to the Institute through the EcoHealth Alliance. Some of that funding supported coronavirus research involving collaborators at the Institute, and some of that work might have involved “gain-of-function” research.

Also, NIAID did not fund research that would have been prohibited under U.S. policies. This research is used to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics. It is not illegal in any sense of the word.

Now, did Fauci make some mistakes along the way? Of course, who doesn’t? One of them was clearly to leave a kind of “diary” on the servers of Health and Human Services. 

Does he exhibit a certain amount of hubris in those diaries? Yes he does. 

Is that unfortunate? Yes it is.

But as one of my friends likes to say, the last guy who was perfect and they nailed him to a cross.

People seem to forget the scope of this pandemic. It was worldwide.

There were 350 vaccine candidates that entered preclinical or clinical development, and more than 35 ultimately received authorization or approval somewhere in the world. Those vaccines came from well over a dozen countries, including China, Russia, India, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Iran, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, France, and Belgium.

Fauci did not control vaccine development in any of those places, or even here in the United States.

The two mRNA vaccines that were successfully developed were done so by Moderna (in the United States) and by Pfizer-BioNTech (jointly in Germany and the United States). These vaccines were not developed by the government but by private companies, albeit with a lot of assistance from the U.S. Government.

Which was controlled by Trump, not by Fauci.

Experts estimate that about 70.7% of the world’s population received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, that with a world population of roughly 8.1 billion, that corresponds to approximately 5.7 billion. That this probably saved in the neighborhood of 20 million lives.

Out of the approximately 5.7 billion people receiving at least one dose, there are almost no reported cases of deaths resulting from adverse vaccine events. There were a few reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and myocarditis and pericarditis, none of which are normally fatal.

Instead of complaining about vaccine mandates, people should be celebrating the absolute miracle that these things were able to be developed in a matter of months, instead of years.

By the way, some commentators have noted ironically that Republicans were able to locate and release Fuaci’s “diary” but have still not managed to release the complete Epstein files.

So get a grip, Republicans. Fauci is no evildoer, and most of what he did was done with the explicit approval of Trump’s first administration. He’s 85 years old and hasn’t been in office for several years.

Maybe you people could focus on something that is actually happening now, like the war in Iran that Trump promised not to start, and clearly has no idea how to end.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

This Year’s World Cup

The quadrennial World Cup  will be over tomorrow, and either Spain or Argentina will emerge as champions. I just want to make three observations. 

Ticket Prices

Ticket prices have really gotten out of control. We saw some games back in 1994 when the old Foxboro stadium was one of the venues. We saw Maradona’s last game before he was thrown out of the tournament after testing positive for ephedrine. We saw Baggio squeeze Italy past Nigeria and again against Spain. My sister and I went to Giants Stadium to see Germany lose to Bulgaria. For tickets we paid between $45 and $65; we paid $85 for play-off tickets and we paid $125 apiece (the most we had ever paid for a sporting event) for the game in Giants stadium. That was 32 years ago, but those prices were reasonable and we could accommodate them.

Now?

Around $1250 on StubHub for Haiti vs. Scotland. More for the better games.  No thank you.

Can you imagine paying for the Brazil-Norway game and discovering that Erling Haaland wasn’t playing because Norway had already qualified for the second round?

My sister and I decided to go to the “Road to 26: Brazil v France” friendly at Gillette Stadium to have a substitute experience. Cost us $270 a piece. Expensive, but doable. It was a great game. Mbappé scored. Vini Jr. played. And that was our substitute “World Cup” experience. If you add the cost of flying to the United States, acquiring accommodations, paying for parking or the $80 roundtrip from South Station to Foxboro, you have to be willing to spend quite a bit of money for the World Cup experience.

Who has that kind of money?

Enough people, apparently.

One other thing that has changed between 1994 and 2026 is that we now have extraordinarily televisions, through which you can see the action much more clearly than in many cases when you’re out there live. Oh sure, you miss the energy, but you’ll save $1500 or thereabouts.

The Browning of European Countries

The browning of European countries has been obvious for a while when you’re talking about national teams like France and England, but there are now other national teams that have joined the club. Take Switzerland. I lived there in 1975-76 during my father’s sabbatical, and it was the most rigid, lily-white little country you could imagine, albeit in a spectacular location. And look at them now.

The national team is a mixture of black and brown, with lots of players who were either born in another country (Breel Embolo or Yvon Mvogo, for example) or whose parents were refugees from somewhere else (Albania, Turkey, Macedonia, Senegal, the Congo, Angola, Tunisia, Nigeria, etc.). No matter what Donald Trump and MAGA want, black and brown people are coming, even to places like Switzerland. Eastern European countries are currently less integrated, but if it happened in Switzerland it will happen in those countries as well.

National Pride

One of the lovely things about the World Cup is the exhibition of national pride. I remember back in 1979 when Marvin Hagler first fought Vito Antuofermo, and a column that a Boston Globe writer wrote about sitting at a bar in South Boston watching the fellas there cheer for the black Hagler (who was from Brockton) instead of the white Antuofermo (from New York) because he was “our guy.”

And so it is with the World Cup.

People can cheer for their teams without reservation. It turns out that the “tartan army” of Scotland conquered Boston to cheer on their team, and Boston loved them right back. Many visitors found that — divorced from the politics of Donald Trump — they really like the United States, with our bottomless cups and ranch dressing and easy parking and gigantic sandwiches.

The Brazilians and Argentinians make every game involving their teams feel like a “home” game because of the passion and number of their fans. People actually enjoyed being with fans of other nations, as they bonded over the love of soccer.

Imagine that.

The whole thing has gone much better than I anticipated, frankly, ticket prices and Donald Trump’s interference with Folarin Balogun’s red card notwithstanding. Americans will likely never become fans of the game — there’s too much histrionics and not nearly enough scoring — but our women will continue to outperform our men and at least provide opportunities for female athletes.

And it will happen all over again (this time in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco) four years from now.

Posted in Culture, Politics | Leave a comment

Trump’s Nothingburger Speech

There was a time when I was young and naive when I thought being able to vote over the Internet might be a good idea. That was maybe two decades ago, and I’m much more realistic now. I mention this because, last night, the Idiot-in-Chief gave a speech which was an absolute nothingburger. It took place at 9 PM eastern standard time, and only Fox News broadcast the thing in full.

Trump announced the declassification of documents on alleged election-system “vulnerabilities” and made three main claims:

  1. That China obtained access to roughly 220 million U.S. voter files; 
  2. That more than 270,000 noncitizens are registered to vote across California, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; 
  3. That U.S. voting machines are easily hacked. 

He also accused intelligence officials of running a “shadow government” that suppressed evidence of Chinese election meddling and kept it out of his briefings. 

Trump used the speech to push Congress to pass the SAVE America Act (with proof-of-citizenship voter registration requirements), which passed the House in February but failed a Senate procedural vote in March. 

Notably, he stopped short of claiming votes were actually altered or results changed.

The answer to these three charges is: 

  1. Yes, China has our voting registration data because it’s publicly available. Nothing nefarious there.
  2. The alleged noncitizen-voter figure comes from matching commercial data against voter rolls, a method experts say produces significant false positives (and has proven to be completely unreliable, often falsely flagging U.S. citizens).
  3. U.S. machines aren’t internet-connected and are backed by auditable paper ballots, making them hard to compromise at scale (this is where I had previously been naive). 

Nothing new here, and nothing that could possibly be considered proof that votes were changed in 2020 at a scale that would have flipped the election to Trump.

Despite pre-speech teasers of “really big news,” Trump’s actual content was a meandering release of document tranches he framed as proving the system is “so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.” We think not.

The SAVE America Act was the real ask; Trump explicitly tied the “crisis” framing to pressuring Congress. But there’s nothing to indicate that the Congress is shifting its position, especially the Senate.

And there it is. A big fat nothingburger until Trump tries to federalize the election in November.

 

Posted in Law, Politics | Leave a comment

The Anti-Weaponization Fund

With Todd Blanche’s nomination for Attorney General to be heard this week, I though it might be a good time to review Trump’s attempt to create an “anti-weaponization” slush fund for his allies (including pardoned January 6th Participants), which was engineered by Blanche.

This will be a two-part post, because there is too much detail here to stuff into one post. Regardless, it will be difficult to discuss this effort without overwhelming the reader with arcane legal minutiae, but we’re going to do our best. Let’s start by reviewing the time-line of how this all came about.

  • 2018-2020: Charles Edward Littlejohn, an IRS contractor, surreptitiously acquires approximately 15 years of Trump’s unmasked tax returns and leaks them to the New York Times and ProPublica. The leaks occur entirely during Trump’s first term, when his own appointees control the Treasury and the IRS.
  • September 2020: The New York Times begins publishing a series of articles based on the leaked returns, revealing that Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017, and paid no income taxes at all in ten of the previous fifteen years.
  • October 12, 2023 : Littlejohn pleads guilty to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax return information and is subsequently sentenced to five years in federal prison on January 29, 2024.
  • January 29, 2026: Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization file suit in U.S. District Court against the IRS and the Treasury Department, seeking at least $10 billion in damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7431, the Internal Revenue Code’s civil damages provision for unauthorized disclosure of tax return information. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams. 
  • April 9, 2026: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appoints Trent McCotter (a Federalist Society-connected appellate lawyer from the Boyden Gray firm) as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, just six weeks before the settlement announcement.
  • April 2026: Judge Williams appoints three independent law firms as friends of the court, recognizing that no genuinely adverse party exists to protect the public interest, given that Trump controls both sides of the litigation.
  • Late April/Early May 2026: White House and DOJ officials begin privately exploring settlement options. 
  • May 2026: Judge Williams denies a request to delay the case amid settlement talks. In the same order, she raises the threshold question of whether Trump and the defendant agencies are “sufficiently adverse” for an Article III case or controversy to exist
  • May 18, 2026 — Morning: Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization file a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit “with prejudice” (meaning that it cannot be filed again). Critically, the settlement agreement is deliberately never docketed with the court.
  • May 18, 2026 — Morning: The DOJ simultaneously announces the creation of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The fund is to be drawn from the federal Judgment Fund (a permanent congressional appropriation normally used to pay court-ordered tort judgments and settlements) without seeking new congressional authorization. The number $1.776 billion (evoking 1776, a date explicitly invoked by January 6 participants) is stated in DOJ documents not to represent the value of Trump’s claims but rather “the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims.”
  • May 18, 2026: It emerges that the settlement agreement was signed on behalf of the United States not by a government lawyer but by Stanley Woodward (a private criminal defense attorney who has represented Kash Patel, Peter Navarro, Walt Nauta, and numerous January 6 defendants) raising immediate questions about his authority to legally bind the United States.
  • May 18, 2026: A second, amended document (this time signed by Blanche himself) is released, containing a provision that the United States “releases, waives, acquits, and forever discharges” Trump, his sons, the Trump Organization, and “related or affiliated individuals” from any and all claims the IRS could have asserted against them. (Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s top lawyer, resigns in protest.)
  • May 18, 2026: Judge Williams issues a brief order stating she has been “stripped of jurisdiction” because the settlement was never docketed, leaving her “no settlement of record” to review or supervise.

That’s the chronological narrative that we’re dealing with. The legal problems with this scenario are equally numerous:

  1. Statute of Limitations: suit is supposed to be filed within two years of when the damage was done, and that was back in December of 2020 (or at the very latest in January 29, 2024, when Littlejohn was sentenced). Trump filed his suit within exactly two years of sentencing but clearly he knew long before that.
  2. The Adverseness problem: since Trump is both the plaintiff and the defendant there is no “case or controversy” or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. Trump could have sued while Biden was President, but he didn’t do that.
  3. The Statutory Damages: The suit was brought under an IRS privacy statute (6 U.S.C. § 7431) for which the statutory punishment is $1000 per violation. Since we’re talking 15 years and four plaintiffs, (Trump, Don Jr., Eric, and the Trump organization) we’d be looking at $60,000. 
  4. The Contractor Problem: Charles Edward Littlejohn was a contractor, not a federal employee, and the Department of Justice had previously taken the position that the government cannot be held liable under §7431 for the actions of a contractor.
  5. The Control Problem: The leak occurred entirely during Trump’s first term, when his own appointees controlled Treasury and the IRS. If anyone was negligent in their supervision, it was Trump’s own people.
  6. The Fund-Creation Problem: The Trump Administration had no authority to create a separate fund or to use the federal Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. § 1304) from which to pay a settlement related to a civil tax complaint.
  7. The Fund-Administration Problem: The Fund is to be administered by a commission appointed by the Attorney General, with the president able to remove any member without cause. The commission operates with no public transparency, no oversight mechanism, and no process for public input. This is not how commissions normally operate.
  8. The Potential Recipients: The potential recipients of the Anti-Weaponization Fund  have no relationship to the original complainants (which only included Trump, Don Jr., Eric and the Trump organization) and have only been vaguely identified. So far those would be (1) individuals prosecuted or investigated in matters connected to Trump-era investigations, (2) persons involved in the January 6 cases and (3) others alleging politically motivated treatment by federal agencies or prosecutors. One should note that there are thousands of potential claimants for the tax privacy violations, but none of them have been included as recipients for payouts.
  9. The Fund-Termination Problem: The fund terminates December 15, 2028 (just after the next presidential election) with any unspent money reverting to an account of Trump’s choosing.
  10. The 14th Amendment Problem: Under the 14th Amendment insurrection debt clause (which prohibits the United States paying “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion”) it can be argued that January 6th participants are essentially being paid for participating in an insurrection, especially without very detailed guardrails imposed on the Anti-Weaponization Commission for deciding whether someone had a valid claim. 
  11. The Fund Amount is Untethered to Any Damages: There is no actuarial calculation that informs the $1.776 billion figure. The figure is entirely symbolic and references “1776” (which the January 6th insurrectionists invoked for their rebellion) and could just as easily have been $1.776 million. Now, 1,583 people were arrested and charged federally in connection with January 6th; 1,270 of those people were convicted of some offense; of those, 1,009 plead guilty, 221 were found guilty at trial and 40 were convicted through stipulated proceedings.If all 1270 people who plead guilty were paid the full amount in the fund, they would each be entitled to an average of $1.398 million in compensation.
  12. The Pardon Problem: President Trump has the power to pardon his sons and the Trump Corporation (and maybe even himself) of any criminal tax-fraud offenses. (The Trump Corp. has already been convicted of state-law tax fraud offenses in New York, which is not reviewable.) Here Trump is trying to extend a kind of virtual pardon power to himself and his family in civil cases by essentially making himself and his family judgment proof. (it’s doubtful that Trump’s could bind future iterations of the DOJ under future administrations, but they can certainly throw some sand into the machine.)

Here we have identified an even dozen legal problems, any of which by themselves could collapse what Trump is trying to do. If Obama had done any one of these things, Republicans would likely have been apoplectic about this behavior. Together they represent a kind of legal malpractice on the part of the Department of Justice in which it breached its duty to the citizens of this nation, acting on both sides of the dispute, and would have caused us (the taxpayers) $1.776 billion in damages if they had succeeded.

Posted in Law, Politics | Leave a comment