Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Trump had another bad day in court

Tuesday was not a good one for Donald Trump’s attempts to remake the United States to better suit his “tastes.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a stop order on construction of Trump’s gilded, oversized, $400 million ballroom on the site of the Easy Wing he demolished without approval earlier this year (CNN):

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” Judge Richard Leon wrote.

Note the excalamation mark.

Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said he was delaying implementation of his ruling for two weeks to allow the government to appeal. But he warned that “any above-ground construction over the next fourteen days that is not in compliance” with his ruling “is at risk of being taken down depending on the outcome of this case.”

The Trump administration immediately told the judge it will appeal.

Trump claims to have secured private funds for the construction. Will he defy the court and move ahead anyway?

The crux of the issue, Leon concluded in his decision, was that Trump had not received approval from lawmakers to undertake the bold construction project, which he said was required by federal law.

“(U)nless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!” he wrote, adding that the good news” is that Trump and Congress can work to authorize the project.

Another exclamation mark.

Trump declared on Truth Social that the National Trust for Historic Preservation (the plaintiffs) are “a Radical Left Group of Lunatics.” In a separate screed, Trump announced that he and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum “are working on fixing the absolutely filthy Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.” He blamed Joe Biden for not knowing “what ‘CLEAN’ or proper maintenance is.”

Amidst all of his complaining, nonstop grifting, and pursuing plans for a massive triumphal arch in D.C. and a presidential library/hotel in Miami, where does Trump find time to impose new tariffs and prosecute a war with Iran?

But I digress.

In a second Trump loss, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss moved to permanently block Trump’s defunding of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service (Associated Press):

The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.

Moss ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”

As the saying goes, it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission. Trump does neither. He and his advisers count on the courts moving slowly while they move fast and break things they dislike while defacing others belonging to all of us. His M.O. is to dare people to stop him.

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Moss’ decision is “a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”

That would be the law Trump neither respects nor follows.

In one, indirect “win” for Trump this week, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy directed at “correcting” the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ persons (NBC News):

The 8-1 decision in favor of therapist Kaley Chiles on her claim brought under the Constitution’s First Amendment is likely to have national implications — more than 20 states have similar laws. It could also have an impact on other forms of medical treatment that involve speech.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that “the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Colorado’s law “does not just ban physical interventions,” Gorsuch wrote. It also “censors speech based on viewpoint.”

I’m finding no record that the White House made comment.

Is Trump planning a glare-a-thon?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning (10 a.m. ET) in a case testing whether Donald Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause means what it say or not. Trump, in his mind the nation’s foremost constitutional scholar, argues that the provision should exclude anyone born to undocumented immigrants or noncitizens temporarily present on U.S. soil. CNN is providing live updates.

The New York Times:

A ruling in favor of the Trump administration could redefine what it means to be an American. It could also have sweeping practical consequences, stripping citizenship from more than an estimated 200,000 babies born in the United States each year to undocumented immigrants.

The executive order, which was blocked by lower courts and has never gone into effect, would only affect babies born in the future. Opponents say a decision to uphold it would create chaos and uncertainty for newborns and their parents, and cast doubt over the status of millions of people who have already benefited from birthright citizenship.

Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he was considering attending the oral arguments today. He would be the first president in history to do so, the Times reports. Presumably, he thinks his holding a glare-a-thon during oral arguments will keep conservative justices in line. If he can keep his eyes open for it.

"This was about the babies of slaves" — Trump says he's going to the Supreme Court for the birthright citizenship arguments pic.twitter.com/MzGuGDvr2n

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 31, 2026

Trump suggests Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices who rule against him are "stupid" and "disloyal" pic.twitter.com/J0MEJns8dO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 31, 2026

Then again, Trump said he would walk down the CAPITOL with his Jan. 6 mob and did not.

After suggesting he might attend the hearing in November when the court heard arguments on whether he could use emergency powers to levy tariffs on goods from any country he pleases, Trump backed out. He lost that case in a 6-3 decision. He’ll think better of it again this morning.

The question before the court on Wednesday involves the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. The amendment reversed one of the Supreme Court’s most notorious decisions, the ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott case, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans.

The key provision of the amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That language was mirrored by Congress in a 1952 law, and has been understood in court rulings and executive actions for more than a hundred years to guarantee birthright citizenship.

In a key precedent, the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that Wong Kim Ark, a man of Chinese ancestry born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents, was a U.S. citizen.

In their brief to the court, plaintiffs argue that the 14th Amendment’s language “drew on and reaffirmed a centuries-old, common-law tradition of citizenship by virtue of birth, rather than parentage.” Trump disagrees. Strongly, of course.

A decision is expected by the end of June or early July. If past is precedent, it could be the last decision the court issues this session.

Trump: "We're gonna have to force ourselves upon them, which we have the right to do" pic.twitter.com/bGdL8j0s4H

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 31, 2026

If you’re a star they let you do it.

This will only hurt a little

It’s a universal truth they don’t teach in seminary or in epistemology: There’s never money enough for helping people, but always enough for killing them. War is like Jell-O that way.

Just ask any Republican (Axios):

Republicans are considering reductions in federal health spending to help pay for a budget bill containing as much as $200 billion to fund the Iran war and immigration enforcement.

Why it matters: New efforts to rein in health programs are sure to be controversial and open the GOP up to election-year attacks that they’re cutting health care to pay for an unpopular war.

Driving the news: Top House Republicans are looking at health care offsets addressing fraud in federal programs, as they did during last year’s debate over the budget law that made deep cuts to federal Medicaid spending and imposed first-time work requirements.

Also, wind and solar are unreliable sources of energy. Solar, when it’s dark. Wind, when it doesn’t blow. Just ask any Republican (who’s never heard of battereies).

But if you want an inexhaustible source of on-demand federal funding for a war that’s not a war (it’s an “excursion”), your Republican go-to is waste, fraud and abuse.

Just ask House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.): “There’s other items we’re looking at right now, especially in the areas of fraud and waste and abuse that we’re working through with our members.”

Donald Trump blew off concerns that fallout (not the real thing) from his war against Iran might cause some short-term pain for Americans at the gas pump. Trump allies in Congress who lack the fortitude to demand that Trump seek congressional approval for his not-a-war are ready to jump through hoops to find him money for it. They’re not shy about asking 300,000 Americans to share gas-users’ pain.

House Budget Committee chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) is reviving an idea that was considered last year to fund Affordable Care Act payments known as cost-sharing reductions.

• The Congressional Budget Office previously found the move would lower overall benchmark ACA premiums by 11% but result in 300,000 more uninsured people.
• It would cut the subsidy amount that some enrollees receive, thereby increasing out-of-pocket premium costs, while saving the government over $30 billion.

Arrington said in the House, “there is a boatload of waste and fraud.” Enough to power a war, apparently. But unless you’re MAGA, don’t be sucker enough to believe waste, fraud, and abuse can power your home. Unless Dear Leader tells you it can.

Trump: This is a view of the columns as they are going to be made. They're going to be hand-carved and they're beautiful. Top of the line. They'll be corinthian, which is considered the best, most beautiful by far. pic.twitter.com/VGEdSlSYqr

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026

Oh no. The legacy!

A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump from building a new grand ballroom on the former site of the White House’s East Wing, which the president had torn down last year.

Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, ruled that construction “has to stop!” until Congress “blesses this project through statutory authorization.”

 “The President may at any time go to Congress to obtain express authority to construct a ballroom and to do so with private funds,” Leon wrote. “Indeed, Congress may even choose to appropriate funds for the ballroom, or at least decide that some other funding scheme is acceptable.” He emphasized that Congress “will thereby retain its authority over the nation’s property and its oversight of government spending.”

He might as well have kicked Trump right in the … ballroom. NOTHING is more important to him.

Trump even brought out poster boards with depictions of the ballroom on Air Force One while speaking with reporters on Sunday. “They’ll be Corinthian, which is considered the best, the most beautiful by far,” he said of the ballroom’s columns, while holding up a visual aid.

The president also claimed on Sunday that the military is constructing a “massive complex” under the ballroom. “I’m so busy that I don’t have time to do this,” he said. “I’m fighting wars and other things,” Trump told reporters. “But this is very important, because this is going to be with us for a long time, and it’s going to be, I think it will be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

That’s not all:

Trump has been occupied with several different of construction-related projects since retaking office — from the ballroom, to renovations of the Kennedy Center, to building a grand arch in Washington, D.C., to reimagining the city’s various monuments. Shortly before Judge Leon handed down his ruling on Tuesday, Trump posted to Truth Social that he and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum “are working on fixing the absolutely filthy Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.” Trump blamed the state of the iconic pool on “Sleepy Joe” Biden. Most have been undertaken without the standard architectural reviews and congressional oversight typical of major renovations of public buildings.

Here comes the tantrum:

Give him a bottle and put him to bed. He’s tired and cranky.

Those of you who’ve been around a while will remember Stuart Rothenberg, the election analyst who, along with Charlie Cook, were the original stat guys who predicted outcomes. I always thought he was a Republican even though he was known as a non-partisan. It turns out I was right about that. In this feature on his open contempt for Donald Trump he admits that he always strove for objectivity but did vote Republican all those years. When Trump came along he could not stay quiet about what he was seeing. Lauren Egan at the Bulwark writes:

One explanation for the shift could be that Rothenberg is still matter-of-fact about the way politics works—that he didn’t change but politics did, in the Trump-dominated landscape—and so his more blunt language is just what candor requires nowadays. But that’s not how Rothenberg explains it. Instead, he says he has become more outspoken and less “neutral” because he believes that the times demand he take a stand.

“There was always a sense when people were listening to me or reading what I wrote, that I was an honest broker. My job was not to impose ideology on my readers, and that worked fine,” Rothenberg told me in a recent interview. “But then Trump entered the scene.”

“I just decided it was more important to try to save the country or deal with Trump as an adversary rather than as a neutral person,” he added. “How can you be neutral about Donald Trump?” […]

“He’s a giant asshole, arrogant, just the kind of person I hated growing up. And he was a bully. So for me, I just wanted to go out and speak the truth,” Rothenberg, who grew up in New York City, told me. “I was still trying to be analytical rather than ideological because, as I say, I’m not trying to tell anybody who to vote for. But Trump is such an extreme case.”

Thank you! To me, that perfectly expresses what I thought most Republicans would have done when that weirdo entered the race — what any sane person would do. That so many of them signed on to him is one of the most illuminating aspects of this whole political drama. I knew the right was full of shit before but I did think that at least a majority of Republicans were rooted in reality. It turns out that was wrong.

Maybe it’s true of Democrats as well but we haven’t seen that tested. None of the Dem presidents have been certifiable crazy men like Trump. But we now know that a large majority of Republicans will follow any ignorant bully right over the cliff because it thrills them to own the libs and wield their hate against all the people who aren’t like them.

Rothenberg and a small cadre of other Republicans showed that they are still tethered to a shared reality with the rest of the world. It’s good to see it. But the fact that are so few still chills me to the bone.

Apparently, people believe that Julia Stratton’s come from behind victory for the Illinois Democratic Senate nomination was at least somewhat based on that ad. Dan Pfeiffer asks whether that’s something that should be replicated in order campaigns:

I ask the question — Is Fuck Trump a good message for Democrats?

1. Desperately Seeking Attention

Attention is the mother’s milk of politics in 2026. Every politician needs it and it’s never been harder to get. The old formula for putting your face in front of voters was two-fold. First, get the news media to cover you. This was never easy, but it was possible. You make “news” by announcing a new policy, launching a new effort, or saying something interesting in front of a TV camera. In state and local campaigns, that meant talking to the local press. Unfortunately, the local press is a shell of its former self. There are fewer outlets, and many of the ones that still exist do not have the resources to cover politics the same way.

The second way to get attention was to buy it. Campaigns would spend millions of dollars to run ads during the television programs most watched by their target viewers. While they still spend millions, those ads reach far fewer people in a world where streaming video is the norm and large platforms like Netflix don’t allow political ads.

Stratton ran this ad because she needed attention. She needed something that went viral online, generated conversation, and ensured that people knew who she was and considered voting for her.

Getting attention often means courting controversy — saying and doing edgy things that will get people talking. To get attention, you also need to be willing to piss some people off. The algorithms that distribute political news value engagement. An angry comment is worth as much as a positive one.

Running an ad with a bunch of Illinoisans saying “Fuck Trump” will get people paying attention. Many more people saw the ad on social media or through news coverage than when it ran as a commercial.

Getting attention is important. How you use that attention once you have it is even more important.

2. Why This Ad Worked for Stratton

When the ad was first posted, there was a lot of agitation among Stratton supporters and other Democrats that she had gone too far. People worried the ad seemed too desperate and would elicit backlash.

I was less worried.

“Fuck Trump” is a clever way to capture the rage that Democratic voters have — not just at Trump, but also at Democratic leadership, the media, corporations, and everyone else they believe has failed to respond to the threat he poses.

There was little worry about backlash within the Democratic electorate about being too anti-Trump, even with the profanity. Stratton was running in a Democratic primary in Illinois, a state Kamala Harris won by 11 points in 2024. There is no serious Republican running. So even if the ad was too much for some Independents and disenchanted Republicans, it wouldn’t hurt her in the general election.

The part of the ad that worked for me — and this is the lesson for other Democrats — is that once Stratton had your attention, she used it to tell the viewer about her biography, her policy stances, and that popular Democratic politicians like Governor J.B. Pritzker and Senator Tammy Duckworth were backing her candidacy.

Unlike so much of the viral slop churned out by various political actors these days, Stratton’s ad is attention-getting with a purpose.

3. What About the Profanity?

Just a few years ago, the idea of a politician running an ad with the F word in it would have seemed insane. Politicians never swore in public, and certainly not in ads and videos.

This is one of the many things that have changed since Trump came down the escalator 11 years ago. Our political culture has coarsened, and perhaps more importantly, politicians can now communicate with voters in ways other than broadcast television networks regulated by the FCC and their profanity standards.

Politicians are swearing all the time now. They call “bullshit” and add a “fucking” for emphasis to their tweets and other posts.

Look, I have no problem with profanity. If you listen to Pod Save America, you may think I have a profanity problem, because I swear more than I should (apologies to those who listen to the podcast in the car or at home with their kids around). There are limits — notably, Stratton and Pritzker don’t actually say “Fuck Trump” in the ad (although Duckworth does).

Even so, the bigger issue is that too many politicians see profanity as a proxy for authenticity. Adding the F word to your focus-grouped statement doesn’t change how voters see you. It just makes you look even more like a phony.

4. Can You Be Too Anti-Trump?

There are very few fresh ideas in political ad-making, so it’s likely that a lot of ad makers will see the success of the “Fuck Trump” ad and try to come up with their own off-brand version.

The biggest question raised is whether there is a danger in being too anti-Trump.

In the 2026 Democratic primaries and the 2028 presidential primaries, you can see Democrats being incentivized to follow the same path Stratton did — with or without a primary. Turn the contest into a question of which Democrat is the most anti-Trump. The good news for Democrats in 2026 is that there are no contested primaries in most of the critical Senate races in the red states we need to win a majority. While anti-Trump sentiment crosses party lines these days, there are limits to the efficacy of a “Fuck Trump” message when you need to persuade a significant number of Trump voters to win.

With a midterm electorate in this political environment — and Trump’s poll numbers where they are — I’m not really worried about Democrats being too anti-Trump. This will differ based on the partisanship of the district and state, but I just don’t foresee an anti-anti-Trump backlash.

In 2028, a huge number of Democrats will be competing for attention and grassroots donations. Being vehemently anti-Trump is a great way to acquire both of those precious commodities. Gavin Newsom has used this exact strategy to jump to the top of the hypothetical 2028 polls.

That may be a great way to win the primary, but it may not be the most compelling message in the general election. I don’t say this because there will be some fondness in the electorate for Trump, or nostalgia for the Trump era, as it comes to an end. It’s more that I think voters are going to be bored and tired of Trump. He will be old news. They are going to be desperate to turn the page on the Trump era and will be looking for someone who has a vision for what comes next.

In summary, Fuck Trump is a fine message. There is no need to pearl-clutch about it — but it won’t be sufficient to build the governing majority we need.

There’s no reason you can’t do both. And if one of his henchmen like Vance or Rubio gets the nomination in 28, “fuck Trump and his little dog too” will be perfectly serviceable. The rage will not have abated. But yes, by then people are going to want to hear some good news about the future. But I would caution that part of that really needs to include accountability. If we let this go again it’s inevitable that it’s going to come back in full force whenever the Republicans gain some political power again, something I think is entirely possible if the Democrats fail to deal with what’s happened.

Following up on the post below:

🚨 FIRST LOOK: The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library is officially here.

Over the past six months, I have poured my heart and soul into this project with my incredible team at @Trump.

This landmark on the water in Miami, Florida will stand as a lasting testament to an… pic.twitter.com/azV1hx0HG2

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) March 31, 2026

Eric Trump:

FIRST LOOK: The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library is officially here. Over the past six months, I have poured my heart and soul into this project with my incredible team at @Trump. This landmark on the water in Miami, Florida will stand as a lasting testament to an amazing man, an amazing developer, and the greatest President our Nation has ever known.

These images have never been seen by the public — until today. Enjoy!

He’s at 33% in the latest poll.

Not a parody, not a comedy show item. Donald Trump has designed for his Presidential Library main hall, as its highlight, a 10m tall golden statue of himself. pic.twitter.com/9JSyxdw8iD

— RS Archer (@archer_rs) March 31, 2026

Trump at war:

1. Start war. Do not tell allies.

2. Blow stuff up.

3. Demand regime change.

4. Blow up more stuff.

5. Demand unconditional surrender.

6. Get angry when enemy fights back.

7. Make threats.

8. Back down. Repeat.

9. Demand allies finish war.

10. Walk away. pic.twitter.com/oFNBBlZt5H

— Terry Moran 🇺🇸 (@TerryMoran) March 31, 2026

Hegseth indicates reopening the Strait of Hormuz is not a core US objective: "We've been willing to lead, President Trump has led the entire time, but it's not just us. You might want to start learning how to fight for yourself." pic.twitter.com/LDQXCijhSS

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 31, 2026

If one didn’t know better one might assume the United States was about to declare war on its (former) allies.

Trump and his minions don’t seem too understand that we don’t live in a bubble and the global economy exists whether they like it or not. Setting aside the immorality of this juvenile commentary, it’s just so short-sighted and foolish. It’s certainly possible that if the Americans pull out the Europeans will step in and make some agreement over the Strait. I’ve read they’re already in place to do so. And if that happens Trump will strut around like he’s Richard the Lionheart saying this was the plan all along. Maybe he’ll even get away with it — the U.S. is now just a big dumb giant asshole and it doesn’t pay for anyone to rub salt in our wounds right now. But the world will know that he blew up a bunch of stuff and killed a bunch of people for absolutely no reason and they won’t forget.

This Bulwark segment with Sue Gordon, former top intelligence chief, is well worth watching if you want an intelligent analysis of what we’re dealing with. Gordon knows her shit and this take doesn’t come from a partisan perspective.

I know you probably don’t want to hear his voice or look at this face anymore.I know I don’t. But if you can stomach it, watch this manic rant and ask yourself what you would have thought 15 years ago if someone had told you this freak would someday be president:

Trump Texts Norwegian Prime Minister To Clarify He Does Not Want Nobel Prize, Fourth Time This Week
“Just so we’re clear,” reads text sent at 2:47 AM

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump reached out to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre early Tuesday morning to reiterate,… pic.twitter.com/z0go4Bx72I

— Gandalv (@Microinteracti1) March 30, 2026

At least once a day I have to pinch myself to make sure this isn’t just some interminable nightmare. It still can’t really believe we would have done this to ourselves twice.