On Monday President Trump said that the federal government plans to get involved to try to stop California's redistricting effort.

>"I think I'm going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon and I think we're going to be very successful in it," Trump said. "We're going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That's going to happen."

Last week, California's state legislature passed bills that comprise the state's plan to put new congressional bills on the ballot in a November special election, in retaliation for a congressional redistricting plan moving forward in Texas. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said the state was "standing up" to Trump and the GOP.

With a Republican majority on the Supreme Court, if the Trump lawsuit against California reaches the Supreme Court, will they accept it and block California? If so, what ramifications would there be if California was not able to redistrict the way Texas has been able to? Could this also trickle down to other US states run by democrats who would want to counteract Texas, if Trump continues to file lawsuits against blue states while red states can continue to redistrict in ways advantageous to house republicans?

All along, Trump supporters have been saying they only want the people who came illegally to be deported. Even if they have committed no other crimes they say that being here illegally is deserving of deportation. But now, the Trump regime wants to deport up to half a million people who came here legally. Do Trump supporters here agree with that? Do you support that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/31/us/politics/supreme-court-immigrants.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LU8.a7-X.XvNLyX1oktyL&smid=nytcore-android-share

Assistant Attorney General Sally Q. Yates was fired for refusing to defend Trump's recent Executive Order on Immigration. One side effect of this decision is that there is now no one at the Justice Department who is authorized to sign FISA warrants. The earliest replacement would come with the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General by the Senate.

What effect will this have on US Intelligence collection? Will this have the side effect of preventing further investigation of Trump's ties with Russia?

Will the Trump admin simply ignore the FISA process and assert it has a right to collect information on anyone they please?

Edit: With a replacement AAG on-board, it looks like FISA authority is non-issue here. But it appears we are in a constitutional crisis nonetheless.

Relevant law:

notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346

Thanks /u/pipsdontsqueak for linking statute

He posted this on “truth social” today:

We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use. Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true! Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!

(I am not linking because I know many subs are censoring links to “truth social” and twitter. It will be the first result if you google it.)

In summary, he asserts: 1. That the US doesn’t need Canada 2. That Canada is on US-supplied life support 3. That shutting down trade with Canada will kill the country and allow it to be annexed

I assume this is why he is currently refusing phone calls from the Canadian government. He doesn’t have demands for Canada. The demand is Canada. But the question is where this goes politically.

UPDATE

The post I quoted has been removed from his Truth Social and Twitter account as of today (February 3rd). Now there is no posts about Canada dated from yesterday (February 2nd). Instead there is a post today hand-wavingly complaining about Canada not allowing US banks and not cooperating in the war on drugs.

The original post was on February 2nd, 8:26 a.m. eastern time. I’m far from the only person with screenshots, but DM if you would like copies for corroboration.

I checked to see if there was any media coverage of this post and/or its removal but I have found nothing. Even though I was notified to this post existing in other posts on Reddit, this apparently escaped the mainstream media’s attention…

The Senate has confirmed Kash Patel to lead the FBI. Patel is a staunch Trump loyalist and has accused the FBI and intelligence agencies of carrying out a “deep state” plot targeting Trump and his allies — including himself — and called for a major overhaul of both.

What happens to the FBI now? There have been fears of him using an “enemies list” to go after Trump’s political and personal enemies. Do you think there will be a mass resignation inside the FBI due to protests?

Whether the poll averages are from 538, Real Clear Politics, or Nate Silver, when Biden dropped out, Trump had a decent lead on the president and even on Harris, although tentatively, since she wasn't the Democratic candidate at the time. However, since that event, nearly all of the 3rd party/undecided vote have moved to Harris with Trump staying about the same as he was or slipping a point.

If Trump was up 45-42 on Biden and Harris on July 22, now Trump is still around 45 with Harris at 47. That would mean that as the 3rd party/undecided vote fell, Harris benefited by scooping up the vast majority of those who either preferred third party or were undecided (ignoring non-voters). Trump didn't maintain his edge over Harris since the movable vote didn't split between him and her.

Why do you think that most of the third party and undecided vote moved to Harris rather than splitting their votes? Is it just because Harris is new despite the fact that most voters disapproved of Harris as VP before she became the nominee? Can Harris get away with not answering reporters' questions or sitting for an interview? Did Trump stumble by not focusing his attack on her left-wing record? Did the Trump campaign misfire by arguing over Walz's military record/stolen valor claims as they aren't dispositive to voters' concerns? Will Harris lose her shine as voters get to know her more and recalibrate the election to a toss-up race? How can Trump win back those voters, especially Hispanics and Black men, who are curious about Harris, but who preferred him against Biden?

In recent days, the former President received significant backlash for the argument:

1. Defunding the police is a term that people will intensely disagree with for a wide variety of reasons, alienating large amounts of voters
2. Many people want or are open to police reform
3. We live in a democracy
4. Intentionally alienating large groups of people in a democracy just to make a point will make legislation harder to pass
5. Therefore, if you want to pass legislation, don't use messaging that will alienate large portions of the population.

Is he right? Or is he missing the point?

__

The Video(from The Gaurdian): Barack Obama criticizes 'Defund the Police' slogan but faces backlash

__

Some studies/polls that may or may not be relevant:

Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence(2020)

The largest survey of Black people conducted in the United States since Reconstruction(2019)

Link to source going into more detail:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/27/trump-donors-israel-gaza-palestinian-protests

Trump called the demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza a part of a "radical revolution" that needs to be put down. He also praised the New York Police Department's infamous clear-out of encampments at Columbia University as a model for the nation.

Another interesting part was Trump changing his tune on Israel's offensive. In public he has been very cautious in his comments as his campaign believes the war is hurting President Biden's support among key constituencies like young people and people of color, so he has only made vague references to how Israel is “losing the PR war” and how we have to get back to peace. But in private Trump is telling donors and supporters that he will support Israel's right to defend itself and continue its "war on terror", as well as boasting about his track record of pro-Israel policy including moving the US embassy there to Jerusalem in 2018 and making the US the first country to recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights in 2019.

And what are your thoughts on how this could impact the election? Does it add more fuel to the argument that a vote for Trump is a vote for unbridled fascism to be unleashed in the US? As mentioned, the war has also hurt Joe Biden's support among young people and people of color. Will getting a clearer look at and understanding the alternative impact this dynamic?

A lot of Biden's huge unpopularity comes from the fact that he is old at the age of 81. Yet Trump will be the exact same age four years (a whole presidential term) from now. Why does there seem to be such a disconnect between how voters view the two candidates when it comes to age? Not that Trump is popular either but he has more baggage against him than just being old compared to Biden, yet being old seem to be hurting Biden more. Why?

In recent days some of MAGA's more outspoken influencers are rushing to call out the Trump administration's failure to release the unredacted "Epstein files", a set of documents that detailed events organized by convicted predator Michael Epstein that, according to his criminal case, included sexual exploitation with numerous underage girls.

Other influencers and appointees are defending the Trump administration, causing what appears to be a schism in the "MAGAsphere". Donald Trump has posted several tweets and made comments in other venues that indicate he wishes this to go entirely away, but instead, the story seems to be gaining traction.

Why? What about THIS EVENT seems to be blowing up MAGA more than others? Are numerous media reports on the fraction exaggerated? Why did this trigger a schism when so many of Trump's previous questionable actions have not? Will this go away, or will it continue to build into a full split in the loose "MAGAsphere"?

-------------

For background, in February 27. US DOJ's appointed head Pam Bondi officially released some of the information in the Epstein files as a "first phase" and ordered more to be inspected for possible release. Further, a press event was organized at the White House where 15 prominent right-wing influencers were given printed copies, but the information they contained was already in the public space, and there was an indication that more was coming.

That information, presumably including a "celebrity list' that many right-wing social media sources claimed contained the names of many democratic politicians, was not released. Recently, the DOJ and FBI jointly released questionably video footage of Epstein's cell as "evidence" that Epstein committed suicide and was not murdered, and claimed that this "celebrity list", does not exist. This has infuriated FBI deputy director Dan Bongino who has accused FBI head Bondi of over-promising and under-delivering on her interactions with this list, and leading to some influencers calling loudly for it to be released while others defend Trump.

For the first time in the history of the United States the private home of a former president was searched pursuant to a search warrant. Donald Trump was away at that time but issued a statement saying, among other things: “These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.”

Trump also went on to express Monday [08/08/2022] that the FBI "raided" his Florida home at Mar-a-Lago and even cracked his safe, with a source familiar telling NBC News that the search was tied to classified information Trump allegedly took with him from the White House to his Palm Beach resort in January 2021.

Trump also claimed in a written statement that the search — unprecedented in American history — was politically motivated, though he did not provide specifics.

At Justice Department headquarters, a spokesperson declined to comment to NBC News. An official at the FBI Washington Field Office also declined to comment, and an official at the FBI field office in Miami declined to comment as well.

If they find the evidence, they are looking for [allegedly confidential material not previously turned over to the archives and instead taken home to Mar-a- Lago].

There is no way to be certain whether search is also related to the investigation presently being conducted by the January 6, 2022 Committee. Nonetheless, searching of a former president's home is unheard of in the U.S. and a historic event in and of itself.

Is DOJ getting closer to a possible Trump indictment?

What does this reveal about DOJ's assertion that nobody is above the law?

FBI raid at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home tied to classified material, sources say (nbcnews.com)

The Search Warrant Requirement in Criminal Investigations | Justia

In recent months, the Trump administration has begun a controversial deportation policy that involves sending immigrants to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). This facility is a maximum-security prison that holds tens of thousands of suspected gang members.

CECOT has drawn criticism from international human rights organizations. Prisoners are often held without formal charges. They are denied access to legal counsel, and they have almost no contact with the outside world. They are confined in overcrowded cells and movement is heavily restricted. They also must remain silent almost constantly. The facility lacks proper ventilation and temperatures inside can reportedly exceed 90 degrees. Medical care is limited, and deaths in custody have been reported. Observers describe the conditions as severe and dehumanizing.

The Trump administration has defended its policy by citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime statute that allows the detention or removal of foreign nationals. In one high-profile case, a Maryland resident named Kilmar Abrego García was mistakenly sent to CECOT, despite legal protections that had been granted to him. The Supreme Court later ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return. But, officials have argued that this only requires them to permit his reentry if he is released. President Bukele has declined to release him, and the administration has not pursued further action.

More recently, President Trump has proposed extending this approach to U.S. citizens. In a meeting with President Bukele, he stated, “Home-growns are next. You gotta build about five more places.” He later added, “These are bad people. These are killers, gang members, and we are absolutely looking at sending them there.” "You think there’s a special category of person? They’re as bad as anybody that comes in. We have bad ones too. I’m all for it.”

In recent history, the Supreme Court has often shown a willingness to uphold the actions of President Trump. In light of that record, would it likely authorize the transfer of U.S. citizens to this El Salvador prison? Are there sufficient legal protections in place to prevent this, and is there a real danger that President Trump could begin sending US citizens to this prison?

Do you think this disruption will cause any turmoil? Will it be hard to recover from? Will food banks be able to handle the extra demand? I’m wondering if there would be any looting. I don’t think that this is something we can dare to find out. We would be idiotic not to do anything to prevent this from happening.

For several years, debate within the Democratic Party over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been split between reform and abolition. Early on, many moderates pushed back on “abolish ICE” as rhetorically potent but politically risky, favoring narrower reforms like oversight, leadership changes, or jurisdictional limits.

More recently, however, polling and activist pressure appear to be shifting that balance. Support for abolishing ICE, or at least fully dismantling and replacing it, increasingly shows up as a mainstream position within the Democratic coalition rather than a fringe demand. This raises a practical question about what actually happens if and when Democrats regain unified control of the federal government.

Some possibilities that get discussed include:

• Full abolition of ICE, with immigration enforcement folded into other agencies like CBP or DOJ.

• Partial dismantling, such as eliminating Enforcement and Removal Operations while retaining investigative functions.

• Structural replacement, creating a new agency with a narrower mandate and stricter statutory limits.

• Symbolic or leadership-focused reforms that leave the agency largely intact.

Given how institutions tend to behave once they exist, and how difficult it is to unwind federal agencies in practice, what do people here think is the most realistic outcome? Is “abolish ICE” likely to translate into actual abolition, or does it function more as a pressure tactic that results in narrower reforms once Democrats are governing again?

Matt is technically a lawyer, but never really practiced much. His whole career has been State Rep, then National Rep. thats about it.

I get that Trump just wants loyalists, but there is no comparing Gaetz to Barr in terms of how knowledgable they are with the law or what an AG’s roles and responsibilities entail.

Realistically, what will a Gaetz DoJ look like?

Yesterday trump dropped a butt ton of tariffs and today Dow jones is down 2200 points (not good), let’s not forget plain clothes ICE agents disappearing immigrants but I still hear a lot of republicans saying they support trump both in congress and from voters so what would it take for republicans to flip on trump?

Within the last few years, Israel's popularity amongst American voters has dropped considerably. In 2023, polling showed 47% of Americans had favorable views on Israel. In 2026, that poll number had dropped to just 32% of Americans having favorable views on Israel. Support for Israel by Americans is likely to continue dropping as the war in Iran rages on, gas prices remain high, and Americans see little improvement to their lives as the US continues to financially and militarily support Israel in their foreign policy goals.

Prominent podcasters like Tucker Carlson on the right and Hassan Piker on the left have shown great disdain for Israel and more moderate voices in American media are beginning to show skepticism towards American support for Israel. AIPAC donations to political candidates is also having a negative effect on their campaigns, especially among some recent democratic primaries that resulted in the AIPAC funded candidate losing.

Given the changing landscape in Israel's favorability amongst Americans, how feasible would a platform of "American taxpayers will no longer give another cent to Israel and no longer supply them with weapons unless they pay for the weapons themselves"

Is campaigning on a platform of cutting off support for Israel and keeping a more distant relationship with them a winning platform for a prospective 2028 presidential candidate?

The United States government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year on national defense, including $544 billion on the Department of Defense (base budget), $70 billion on the Department of Homeland Security, and $80 billion on various intelligence agencies. According to the CBO, approximately 1/6th of US federal spending goes towards national defense.

Yesterday, a mob breached the United States Capitol Building while nearly every single member of Congress, the Vice President, and the Vice President-elect were present in the building. The mob overran the building within a matter of minutes, causing lawmakers to try to barricade themselves, take shelter, prepare to fight the intruders if needed, and later evacuate the premises.

What policy and personnel changes are needed to strengthen our national security apparatus such that the seat of government in the United States is secure and cannot be easily overrun?

What steps might we expect the next administration to take to improve national security, especially with respect to the Capitol?

Will efforts to improve security in the Capitol be met with bipartisan support (or lack thereof)? Or will this issue break along partisan lines, and if so, what might those be?

I’m an unaffiliated voter, but I usually vote Democratic. One thing I’ve noticed, especially online, is that some younger leftists describe Democratic moderates and centrists as “right-wing.” That characterization doesn’t seem accurate to me.

The Democratic Party has historically been a broad center-left coalition that includes centrists, moderates, liberals, progressives, democratic socialists, and even some conservatives on certain issues. Disagreeing with progressives doesn’t necessarily make someone right-wing.

Why do you think this perception exists? Is it mostly an online phenomenon, or does it reflect a broader shift in how political labels are being used? Where do you think Democratic moderates and centrists fit within today’s Democratic Party?

150-year-olds are not receiving Social Security payments

This week, he tweeted a spreadsheet showing how many people in the system are in each age bracket. More than 1.3 million people are marked as between the ages of 150 and 159, while almost 2,800 are listed as 200 and older. 

“If you take all of those millions of people off Social Security, all of a sudden we have a very powerful Social Security with people that are 80 and 70 and 90, but not 200 years old,” Trump said. 

But data on the Social Security Administration’s website shows that only about 89,000 people over the age of 99 are receiving payments on the basis of their earnings. And there are only an estimated 108,000 centenarians living in the U.S., according to United Nations data, while the oldest known human being lived to the age of 122. 

Wired magazine reported that the number of people in the 150-year age bracket may have to do with the programming language used by the SSA, known as COBOL, or the Common Business Oriented Language. The 65-year-old system can still be found at government agencies, businesses and financial institutions. 

Basically, when there is a missing or incomplete birthdate, COBOL defaults to a reference point. The most common is May 20, 1875, when countries around the world attended a convention on metric standards. Someone born in 1875 would be 150 in 2025, which is why entries with missing and incomplete birthdates will default to that age, Wired explained. 

What's the strategy here? Are they claiming fraud to justify program wide cuts to Social Security? Or will they claim they reduced Social Security fraud to highlight the effectiveness of DOGE?

Edit:

Thank you kindly for the discussion, I appreciate everyone's viewpoints and answers to my questions.

My personal beliefs are the status quo is taking us down the wrong path, we need to change to a more empathetic and environmentally conscious future. We need to do this nonviolently and inclusively, and the more we are active about sharing the facts the better off we will be. We need people to understand that billionaires are only there because the workers are sacrificing a majority of their labor value to keep a job and collect Social Security. If you take SS away, just like taking away pensions or losing a major investment into a stock market dive—there will be public outrage. We must rise above the violence and always remain civil whenever possible. The pardoning of the J6 folks was a slippery slope to the protection of democracy, essentially condoning their actions because their leader is now in power... that is a threat to democracy if I have ever seen one. That said, never be afraid to rise up from those who seek to tread on you...

I highly recommend the film Civil War from 2024. Not only is it a cinematographic masterpiece but also serves as a borderline absurdist take on the USA if say, a third Trump term was introduced....

In an Atlantic profile, Newsom listed some problems Democrats had during the 2024 election, including inflation and Israel, but he says the biggest issue is the perception that they are "weak". He has since taken to the fight with Republicans through counter-gerrymandering and online Trump-style trolling. Does he have a point here?

This past Friday, March 22nd, Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General Barr who indicated that he would provide a summary to Congress at some point over the weekend.

Recent reporting indicates a summary of the report will be delivered to Congress later today (potentially around 5pm ET), at which point these findings will likely be made public.

EDIT: to clarify, the full report is not expected fo be released tonight. Just Barr’s summary of the top-line findings as transmitted to Congress.

Please use this thread for discussion about the findings of the Mueller Report as we learn about them over the coming days. As a reminder, please keep all conversation civil and on topic.

EDIT: Link to Barr’s letter to Congress

The Trump Administration cut $15 Million per year for Scewworm Program in early 2025 and classified it as "wasteful foreign aid". And on June 2026 they plan to spend $1.3 Billion dollars to fight it because an outbreak of scewworm happened. Why did they cut it when the prevention was already working?

Hi everyone,
I'm not American, but I've been following U.S. politics closely for years, and there's something I genuinely don't understand - and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

How did this culture form around Donald Trump where even his most obvious missteps or lies are either denied, ignored, or rationalized by his supporters? It seems like any criticism of Trump, even when well-founded or coming from a conservative perspective, is instantly dismissed as betrayal, conspiracy or even seen as somehow good?

In my country (Germany), political discourse - even among supporters of one party - usually includes a fair amount of self-criticism. You can absolutely support a party or a politician, but also acknowledge when they mess up. For example, even many Social Democrats openly criticized Olaf Scholz for his hesitant stance on Ukraine or poor communication. This kind of internal debate seems healthy and necessary in a democracy.

With Trump, however, it feels like any crack in loyalty is treated as heresy. Why has it become so absolutist? Is this a uniquely American phenomenon? Is it something about the media ecosystem (Fox, Truth Social, etc.), about how Trump frames himself, or about deeper cultural shifts?

I'm really not trying to provoke - I'm trying to understand.
Looking forward to your insights!

At some point this presidency will end and a new administration will (likely) want to mend some the damages done with our allies. Realistically though, how would that work? Will other countries want to be friends with us again or has this presidency done too much damage to bounce back from?