The Trump administration wants automakers and other American manufacturers to play a larger role in weapons production, reminiscent of a practice used during World War II.
Senior defense officials have held talks about producing weapons and other military supplies with the top executives of several companies, including Mary Barra, chief executive officer of General Motors and Jim Farley, CEO of Ford Motor, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The Pentagon is interested in enlisting the companies to use their personnel and factory capacity to increase production of munitions and other equipment as the wars in Ukraine and Iran deplete stocks. The talks were preliminary and wide-ranging, the people said. Defense officials said American manufacturers might be needed to backstop traditional defense companies and asked whether the companies could rapidly shift to defense work.
GE Aerospace and the vehicle and machinery maker Oshkosh were among the companies involved in the talks with defense officials. The Defense Department “is committed to rapidly expanding the defense industrial base by leveraging all available commercial solutions and technologies to ensure our warfighters maintain a decisive advantage,” a Pentagon official said.
The discussions are the latest by the administration to put military manufacturing on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called a “wartime footing.”
The Trump administration has abruptly canceled an $11 million contract with Catholic Charities to shelter and care for migrant children who enter the U.S. alone, ending a relationship between the Catholic Church and the U.S. government dating back to the first arrivals of Cuban exiles in South Florida.
The development comes amid rising tensions between the administration and American Catholics over President Donald Trump’s heated criticism of the Vatican’s first American pope, Leo XIV. The pontiff has made opposition to the U.S. war with Iran, as well as concern for the welfare of migrants, a cornerstone of his ministry.
There are no lengths to which they will not go to punish their enemies — priests and kids.
Over at Slate this morning, Mark Joseph Stern examines a lawsuit brough by lawful Maine resident, Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz, against masked immigration agents who brutalized him in January and violated his constitutional rights. Stephen Miller may claim that they have absolute immunity from legal liability, Stern writes, based on the Bivens case we discussed here in February (Sue The Hell Out Of Them) about a way victims might get around such prohibitions (and threatened Trump blanket pardons).
Carvajal-Muñoz is now putting this theory to the test. It turns out that Maine already has a law on the books that authorizes damages against federal officials who deprive people of their constitutional rights. (So do several other states, including California.) Carvajal-Muñoz sued his kidnappers under this statute, alleging that they stopped, arrested, and imprisoned him on the basis of race in violation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments. (He is Latino.) He sued one ICE officer, Jack Cory Ravencamp—who can be seen on video pointing a Taser at Carvajal-Muñoz—by name. If his suit moves forward, he will likely uncover the identities of the many masked agents who participated in his abduction. He has demanded both compensatory damages to redress his own harms as well as punitive damages “to deter future unconstitutional conduct.”
Legal accountability seems to be on the minds of a lot of Trump officials just now.
Zeto’s First Draft touches on it this morning. Seeing a strong possibility that Democrats take control of the House in January 2027, Trumpers are doing some preemptive ass-covering:
Last year, various Trump administration officials made sure to purchase new legal insurance and professional-liability plans, sources familiar with the matter tell me, in anticipation of future investigations or subpoenas from prosecutors and Democrats. (It’s a smart move: Staffers on the House committee investigating Jan. 6 did the same thing before the 2022 elections, anticipating a Republican-run Congress around the corner.)
But in the past few months (including during Trump’s disastrous war in Iran, which has turbo-charged the levels of leaking, backbiting, blame-shifting, and paranoia within Team Trump’s own ranks), I’ve noticed something.
In my conversations with several senior administration officials, as well as other Trump advisers and elite Republicans close to the White House, their anxiety – over what Democrats might do to them after the midterms, or once Trump is out of power – has kicked up a conspicuous notch. Some of them have told me they’ve noticed a growing trend of Democratic politicians making public calls for aggressive prosecutions of Trumplanders in the future – a trend one Trump aide privately lamented as “kind of worrisome.”
Whether Democrats will follow through is something I find kind of worrisome. God help us that they don’t look forward not backward and let the criminals walk.
Pardons don’t cover state offenses, and many federal corruption offenses violate sister statutes at the state level. Pardons can’t stop Congress or inspectors general or a post-Trump truth commission from investigating, and airing their findings. Pardons can’t stop disbarment proceedings. And Democrats should absolutely put Republicans on notice that all of it is coming for them.
One way to keep Dems accountable for holding Trumpers accountable, Beutler suggests, is primaries:
Primaries (next cycle) Brian Schatz and Chuck Schumer will both be up for re-election starting next year. Schumer may step down from leadership and/or retire, but Schatz won’t. Both of them should draw primary challenges if they establish anything resembling a “look forward, not backward” policy for the caucus. Same with Hakeem Jeffries.
“[U]ntil there’s a major shakeup in Democratic leadership, we’re going to have to watch like hawks,” Beutler believes.
While the Trump family and cronies are cutting lucrative deals, illegally getting richer trading on insider information, and letting off wrongdoers with slaps on the wrist or presidential pardons, Democrats are working to break up monopolies that bilk consumers. (Not enough of them, to be sure. But take the wins where you can.)
A federal jury in New York on Wednesday found that concert and ticketing giant Live Nation is an illegal monopoly in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
The jurors came to their decision after around five weeks of the antitrust trial, according to NBC News. Deliberations in the case began on Friday. The ruling is essentially a rebuke to the Department of Justice’s settlement with Live Nation last month — reportedly ordered directly by President Donald Trump — in which the company agreed to a series of structural changes to its business, including changes to ticketing deals with venues, capping certainservice fees, and paying a $280 million fine.
In a statement shared with Variety, a representative for Live Nation said that the jury’s verdict is “not the last word on this matter” and that “pending motions will determine whether the liability and damages rulings stand.”
Live Nation will appeal. Pay attention to who wants to protect consumers from Live Nation/Ticketmaster:
The government initially filed suit against Live Nation two years ago during the Biden administration, with approximately 40 states also suing the company. The suit claimed that Live Nation has illegal dominance in the concert business, to a degree that harms artists, fans and venues. A victory in the lawsuit meant that Live Nation would part ways with Ticketmaster, with which it merged in 2010 during the Obama administration.
In February, Judge Aran Subramanian had narrowed portions of the suit but allowed others — claims related to the market for large amphitheaters, related to Ticketmaster’s role in the ticketing market, and state-level claims — to proceed to trial. Subramanian had dismissed claims related to concert promotion services and those related to the ticketing market’s impact on fans.
The DOJ settlement in March led to a series of structural changes to Live Nation’s business, including the company changing its ticketing deals with venues and allowing those businesses to use multiple vendors to sell tickets to fans, instead of working with Ticketmaster exclusively, although venues will still have that option. The settlement also required Live Nation to discontinue its exclusive booking arrangements with 13 amphitheaters across the U.S., and will allow touring artists to use other promoters when performing in its owned amphitheaters.
Six states accepted the Trumpy DOJ settlement in March: Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Dakota. Notice anything about them?
Whatever remedy the judge orders, it will likely shift the competitive landscape in the multibillion-dollar concert business, where Live Nation has been a colossus with no equal. Last year, the company put on 55,000 events and sold 646 million tickets around the world. According to testimony, Ticketmaster sells about 10 times as many tickets as its closest rival, AEG.
The Trump DOJ deal “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement issued in March:
“My attorney general colleagues and I have a strong case against Live Nation, and we will continue our lawsuit,” James said.
A release containing her statements said other states rejecting the settlement included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.
Notice anything about them? The overwhelming majority are blue states, swing states, or states with split partisan control.
James issued another statement Wednesday after the jury verdict:
“For far too long, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have taken advantage of fans and artists by raising prices for tickets and stifling any competition that threatened their power,” the statement reads. “A jury found what we have long known to be true: Live Nation and Ticketmaster are breaking the law and costing consumers millions of dollars in the process.”
North Carolina’s Attorney General, Democrat Jeff Jackson, addressed the verdict (as he is wont to do) on social media. “Our goal is simple: restore real competition, end the abuse of consumers and artists, and bring fair pricing back to live entertainment.”
View on Threads
About that fair pricing. Navigator Research this morning finds that:
Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, as majorities feel costs are rising and their personal financial situation is uneasy.
Americans report taking actions to help save money or increase income, including staying home rather than going out, selling personal items online or even selling blood plasma.
A majority continue to disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the economy, while Democrats have a slight trust advantage on addressing cost of living issues – though one-in-four trust neither party.
“Now do Media monopolies and the harm done to the public,” says a commenter.
Jackson is working on it. The Trump administration is working against it. Surprised?
Trump said that he didn’t want to suggest that his blasphemous post depicted him as Jesus Christ but rather that he is a doctor who is helping people. Yeah right.
Donald Trump defended his consumption of diet soda by suggesting it might help prevent cancer, according to recent comments shared by Mehmet Oz in an interview with Donald Trump Jr.
The remarks have even prompted some doctors to remind the public that, no, diet soda will not do anything to prevent cancer.
“Your dad argues that diet soda is good for him because it kills grass – if poured on grass – so, therefore, it must kill cancer cells inside the body,” Oz said on Triggered with Don Jr, the president’s eldest son’s podcast.
There’s more:
“You know, we were on Air Force One the other day, and I walk in there because he wants to talk about something, and he’s got an orange soft drink on his desk. He’s got a Fanta on the desk,” Oz said. “And I say, ‘Are you kidding me?’ So he starts to, like, sheepishly grin. He says, ‘You know, this stuff’s good for me – it kills cancer cells.’”
And here’s Dr. Oz, one of the top medical experts in Trump’s government:
Trump has long defended his preference for sweet drinks and fast food as part of his approach to staying healthy. “He doesn’t want to get sick, so he eats junk food, but it’s food made in large, reputable chains because they have quality control,” Oz said on the podcast.
They’re all a bunch of reality/talk show loons. Good God.
Of course this isn’t the first time Trump has assumed the role of America’s doctor:
Zachary Rubin, a Chicago-based pediatrician specializing in immunology, responded to the podcast by saying: “If Fanta is able to kill grass, then it could kill cancer cells, which means it must not be bad for you. Therefore, by the same logic, that would mean that bleach is a superfood, which we all know doesn’t make any sense.”
He then referenced Trump’s words during the Covid pandemic, when the president suggested alternative treatment methods such as injecting disinfectants and using “powerful light” inside the body.
“Maybe that’s why the president posted an AI image of himself in robes with glowing hands trying to heal somebody, because he thought that’s actually what doctors do,” Rubin joked.
Giorgia Meloni hits back after Donald Trump makes explosive remarks about Iran and nuclear war.
Trump: “She’s the unacceptable one; she doesn’t care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and blows Italy to bits in two minutes.”
Meloni: “As far as I know, nine nations possess nuclear weapons, and only one has ever used them. That nation is the United States.” “Mr. Trump needs to tone it down. No one throws around nuclear threats like Washington does, and he should watch his words.” A European leader directly calling out Trump like this – in these terms – is rare.
This👇is quite extraordinary, showing how much Trump is uniting Europeans on all sides 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 him
Elly Schlein, Leader of Italy's largest opposition party, (herself 50/50🇮🇹🇺🇸) furiously condemns Trump's attacks on her opponent Meloni. The whole Chamber stands up to… pic.twitter.com/etU9pHCCqZ
This is quite extraordinary, showing how much Trump is uniting Europeans on all sides 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 him Elly Schlein, Leader of Italy’s largest opposition party, (herself 50/50) furiously condemns Trump’s attacks on her opponent Meloni. The whole Chamber stands up to applaud the whole time.
“Italy is a free and sovereign country. Our Constitution is clear – Italy repudiates war. No foreign Head of State has the right to attack, threaten or disrespect our country or government. We are opponents in this Chamber, but we are all Italian citizens and Italian MPs. We are asking for unanimous condemnation of these attacks and threats”
Donald Trump could be dubbed the kiss of death following the defeat of far-right darling Viktor Orban on the weekend.
The ouster of the Hungarian prime minister marks the third European election in which the White House has tried to influence the democratic processes and outcomes – only for the voters’ verdict to swing the other way.
[…]
Orban’s defeat will accelerate a trend already underway, with far-right political figures recognising that aligning with Trump may no longer be the winning ticket it once was. The seemingly haphazard approach to war in Iran and the economic carnage it has wrought have become the breaking points.
Reform UK’s Nigel Farage has even downplayed the closeness of his relationship with Trump, telling The Financial Times last week, “I happen to know him, but that’s by the by”Weidel has reportedly told her German colleagues to pull back on visits to the US to cultivate ties with MAGA-land allies of Trump. AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla has described Trump’s interventions in Iran and Venezuela, and his designs on Greenland as “wild west” thinking.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, dubbed the Trump whisperer because of her closeness with the president, has also been critical over Iran as well as tariffs. Meloni suffered a bruising referendum election last month, which some viewed as a proxy vote against her closeness to the US. In a parliamentary speech last week, Meloni said: “As is normal among allies, we must clearly say even when we do not agree.”
Even Polish President Karol Nawrocki, who was granted an Oval Office audience with Trump as a candidate ahead of last year’s election, has begun to distance himself. Two of Nawrocki’s top advisers have made comments criticising Trump in recent weeks over the war in Iran and the president’s attack on Pope Leo.
French elections next year, headlined by the presidential race to succeed the centrist Emmanuel Macron, loom as the next litmus test. The potential candidate for the far-right’s National Rally, Jordan Bardella, is leading in the polls, but he, too, has taken a sharper line against Trump.
Not that Trump really cares at this point. He likes King Charles and enjoyed having his boots licked but in reality, he considers Europe (and everyone except for Russian and China) to be inferior nations that should literally be American vassal states. This does not bother him.
But it should bother us. America is not omnipotent and needs allies. At this moment we literally have none, not even Hungary whose people roundly rejected his buddy Orban last weekend and, in effect, the United States. We are on our own, which Trump actually prefers because he’s a fool and doesn’t understand how the world works.
Maybe the post war world order had run its course. But we could have reformed it without destroying all of our alliances in the process. Instead we elected a monstrous cretin who thinks he runs the world by his own broken instincts and non-existent morals.
a very confused Trump: "Look at Justice Ginsburg. She was not exactly a young woman. The election was taken. They had a Democrat who could've appointed a liberal justice. About two minutes after the election, she went out." (Ginsburg died in September 2020, when Trump was… pic.twitter.com/6Hw6bQzlaE
He’s very addled these days and is having a lot of trouble expressing himself clearly. I suspect he meant to say that she should have retired before Obama’s term was up and instead ended up saying something that sounds like someone else was president in 2020. It’s happening a lot.
Trump: "You call it the Strait of Hormuz or the Hormuz Strait. The only thing you can't call it is the Trump Strait. They don't like that idea." pic.twitter.com/RFfouzzQjW
Incredible: "I asked people that are deep into the psychological world, I said why is it that that a voter votes for the opposite party, even when you have a good president" https://t.co/7qCTE9Sgt9
“You have the authority to go ahead and release more [of the Epstein files], do you not?” Blanche was asked Tuesday on Fox News. “And you have the authority to go to Congress, perhaps?”
“No, we have released everything,” Blanche replied. “So listen, we reviewed six million pieces of paper. What we released with anything that’s associated with the Epstein file. So we are not sitting on a single piece of paper.”
“Nothing?”
“Nothing that should be released. If we find something else tomorrow, we’ll release it. I don’t anticipate we will. So the misguided assumption that there is more to be released is because we reviewed millions and millions of pages within the department, millions of which had nothing to do with Epstein.… If we didn’t release it, it’s because it was not responsive to the law, and therefore not part of the Epstein files.… By law, we had to make certain redactions.… But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted.”
Yeah right.
Todd Blanche needs a reminder that there’s a legally binding subpoena for documents that is different than the law.
This investigation is not a hoax. The DOJ needs to release the rest of files. https://t.co/GDzLlorpR9
— Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) April 14, 2026
Prosecutors working for Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., made an unannounced visit to the headquarters of the Federal Reserve on Tuesday. Three officials from Pirro’s office arrived at the Fed’s headquarters construction site in downtown Washington and said they wanted a “tour,” Robert Hur, the central bank’s outside counsel, told Pirro’s office in an email, which was seen by NBC News.
Pirro’s deputies also said they wanted to “check on progress” in the yearslong renovation of the Fed’s historic buildings overlooking the National Mall, Hur said. Hur indicated in his email Tuesday that investigators were turned away from the site. The attempted visit was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
The surprise move by Pirro’s office came as its investigation into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s congressional testimony last year about the Fed’s renovation project has been rapidly losing steam. The probe first broke into public view in January, when Powell announced that subpoenas had been served to the central bank.
[…]
On March 13, Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., agreed with Powell. In a ruling, Boasberg blocked the subpoenas that Pirro’s office had served on the Fed, saying that “the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime.”
On Tuesday, Hur pointed to Boasberg’s ruling in his email. “As you know, Chief Judge Boasberg has concluded that your interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was pretextual,” he wrote. “Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it.”
Pirro suggested in a statement Tuesday night that the investigators were justified in having tried to inspect the renovation project despite the judge’s ruling. “Any construction project that has cost overruns of almost 80% over the original construction budget deserves some serious review,” she said. “And these people are in charge of monetary policy in the United States?”
Oh have another glass of Two Buck Chuck and STFU, Jeanine.
I still can’t believe she’s the USAT for DC. It’s a joke but sadly par for the course. If there is a more obvious sign of the decline of our country than that, I don’t know what it is.
News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month.
“Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said when reminded that Powell has said he won’t leave the Fed while the Justice Department investigates a $2.5 billion renovation project at the bank. Powell has also said he will remain as chair of the Fed’s rate-setting committee until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate, following the precedent of previous chairs.
[…]
Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time.
The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy.
The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiously, calling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”
It’s hard to know exactly how the Supremes will come down on this but if I had to guess, this is likely to be one of the cases where they defy him, simply because it affects the economy directly and they seem to be at least a little bit concerned about how that might affect business.
Janet Yellen, an actual expert and former Treasury secretary, had some thoughts on Trump’s looney insistence on lowering interest rates at a time of rising inflation:
Speaking at HSBC’s Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong, Yellen sounded the alarm on monetary policy independence, saying that she has “never seen a threat of this level to the Fed before”. “How often does the president of a developed country express the view that the interest rate should be set to reduce the debt service cost?” she said. “This is what you hear in a banana republic.” Managing interest rates for the sake of the government budget, she said, has led to “hyperinflation” in such countries.
[…]
She predicted that Trump’s nominee for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, would struggle to establish “credibility” with colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee if he argued that productivity gains from artificial intelligence justified lower interest rates.
Alongside other members of the administration, Warsh has compared the current macroeconomic moment to the 1990s, when Alan Greenspan, then the Fed chair, gambled on holding rates steady amid a productivity boost from the emerging IT sector.
“[Greenspan] looked at evidence in a different way than many economists do. But I think he was very much respected for his economic expertise on the FOMC. And people listened to what he said very respectfully and took it seriously.” “I don’t think that Warsh walks in with that level of credibility,” said Yellen, who participated in those debates as a Fed board governor from 1994 to 1997.
When asked by Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo about Warsh’s chances in the Senate, Trump said, “We’re going to have to find out.” “He might not, but that’s why Thom Tillis is no longer a senator,” Trump said. “He quit.”
Tillis, despite announcing plans to retire from Congress at the end of his term this year, is still an active U.S. Senator and would have full voting rights if Warsh’s confirmation comes up for a vote before January 2027.
[…]
Tillis’ beef isn’t with Warsh specifically — a point he has reiterated on several occasions — but with the DOJ’s investigation into Powell’s testimony last year about the Fed’s renovation of its two historic main buildings on the National Mall.
“I love the candidate. I won’t spend my five minutes [in committee] asking him about his credentials, because he has them,” Tillis said. “I’ll spend five minutes talking about a bogus investigation that’s going to cause me to vote no, unless they end the investigation.” “There’s no way to sugarcoat this,” he continued. “There’s one way out of the box, canyon, and they’ve got to decide whether or not they’re going to do it.”
The great Christian thinkers St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas gave us just war theory, reconciling Christian ethics with the existence of evil in the world and the necessity of warfare.
According to this view, which is embraced by the Catholic Church, a war can only be fought for a just cause and has to be waged in keeping with moral standards minimizing harm to civilians.
Leo has wrongly made it sound as though no war can possibly be just — and regardless, his opposition to the Iran war isn’t dispositive or binding on anyone else.
The pontiff might consider that Trump first talked of attacking Iran when the regime was in the midst of slaughtering thousands of protesters in the streets.
And if the current government fell and gave way to one with more respect for the rights of its people, it would be a boon to Iranians and a large step toward a safer and more peaceful region.
The great theologian Rich Lowry lectures the Pope on Just War theory. Lol.
Mike Johnson on the Pope: “If you wade into political waters, you should expect some political response & the Pope has received some. Frankly I was taken a bit aback by him saying something about ‘those who engage in war, Jesus doesn’t hear their prayers’ or something. There’s ‘just war’ doctrine.'”
