Elizabeth N. Saunders

Once again, where is the CNO? SECNAV? After what just happened in Quantico, when will the military top brass speak up?
I asked this after the disgrace at Ft. Bragg, too.

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

*DEVELOPING*: I've updated my scoop with previously unreported details about the State Dept. staffer who requested the sword, NARA's response, and that the gift Trump gave King Charles III wasn't even a replica of Eisenhower's West Point Officer's Sabre:
lastcampaign.substack.com/p/exclusive-...

In sum, the President is certainly entitled "a great level of deference," Newsom II, 141 F.4th at 1048, in his determination that he "is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). But "a great level of deference" is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground. As the Ninth Circuit articulated, courts must "review the President's determination to ensure that it reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law PAGE 22 - OPINION AND ORDER Case 3:25-cv-01756-IM Document 56 Filed 10/04/25 Page 23 of 31 within a 'range of honest judgment.'" Id. at 1051 (quoting Sterling, 278 U.S. at 399). Here, this Court concludes that the President did not have a "colorable basis" to invoke § 12406(3) to federalize the National Guard because the situation on the ground belied an inability of federal law enforcement officers to execute federal law. Id. at 1051-52. The President's determination was simply untethered to the facts. c. Whether there is a Rebellion or Danger of Rebellion Defendants also aroue that the Sentember 28 2025 federalization order is authorized

If a federal judge, appointed by Trump, can call him “simply untethered to facts,” our White House press corps can as well.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Earlier this morning, on President Trump's orders, I directed a lethal, kinetic strike on a narco-trafficking vessel affiliated with Designated Terrorist Organizations in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility. Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike, and no U.S. forces were harmed in the operation. The strike was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics - headed to America to poison our people. Our intelligence, without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics, the people onboard were narco-terrorists, and they were operating on a known narco-trafficking transit route. These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!

Further premeditated killing by the Trump administration.

Labelling the victims of these strikes as "narco-terrorists" does not magically make these attacks legal.

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told

There are no more constraints on a president’s ability to use military force, and this president is using all that power to target civilians. All Americans should be extremely alarmed.

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told

Yet another no good, very bad day for the Constitution

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...

Applications are now open for the 2026-27 predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowships with the America in the World Consortium!

Applicants from all disciplines whose research bears directly on American grand strategy, broadly defined, are welcome to apply.

Deadline: December 1

You could not more perfectly invert the whole point of the power of the purse than this false notion the legislature cutting off appropriations means the executive gets more power.

What?????????

This is lawless, inhumane, and cruel. It’s also official government policy personally endorsed by the president and his cabinet. The president may be immune but those who serve him are not.

There are a hundred other crimes and inhumane actions this admin is committing, but as a quick 'n easy slogan, "I will end these criminals who are bankrupting our country and violently kidnapping our neighbors" is hard to beat.

Civil Society Institutions Under Authoritarian Encroachment A broad range of views on democracy to help break the stalemate caused by partisan conflict.

“Authoritarianism succeeds by making dissent costly. When the authoritarian gale sends citizens running for cover, civil society organizations must anchor democratic principles.”

A must-read from my colleague and amazing writer Turkuler Isiksel.

democracyproject.org/posts/civil-...

Surreal moment for America. Needless to say, if the normal police ever pulled something like this — pulling every single person out of an apartment building and handcuffing them to run warrant checks — they would be sued into oblivion.

Yet ICE is going to get away with it entirely.

The great @kschake.bsky.social does not mince words about what Trump and Hegseth did yesterday in that packed auditorium.

Thread with details that are significant re AAUP vs Rubio.

Congratulations!

It’s publication day 🥳 my book is officially out in the world thanks to @stanfordpress.bsky.social, and I celebrated by giving it the 6+1 treatment at the @duckofminerva.bsky.social.

WE WON: "This case -– perhaps the most important ever to fall w/in..this district court squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in US..have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally “yes, they do.”"

Congratulations @veenadubal.bsky.social and @aaup.org!

(solemnly) You've had mail.

White House withdraws Antoni’s nomination to lead BLS | CNN Politics The White House has sent paperwork to the Senate to withdraw the nomination of E.J. Antoni as head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, three sources told CNN.

Media freedom and moral outrage still can do things:
www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/p...

Legal Organizations Across the Ideological Spectrum Urge Court to Reinstate Lawsuit Against Trump Administration’s Unconstitutional Attack on Academic Freedom | American Civil Liberties Union Federal interference in academic affairs at Columbia University violates the First Amendment, the brief argues

“If the gov't can punish professors and universities for viewpoints it dislikes, then no field of research, no classroom discussion, & no scholar’s speech is safe. That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids.” Cato joins ACLU, other groups in amicus supporting AAUP's Columbia suit. @cato.org

It really is telling how student newspapers have become the trustworthy sources for what’s happening on their campuses. We see it also at Ohio State, where a right-authoritarian university president speaks in happy talk while The Lantern tells the truth. It’s happening at Stanford too.

BREAKING: Just hours before the fiscal year ended, a federal judge in R.I. has ordered the Trump administration to preserve $233 million in FEMA funds it attempted to abruptly steer away from 8 blue states.

Without that order, the states would've lost the money at midnight.

This opinion rightly rebukes misuse of power by cabinet secretaries, decries the role of ICE, highlights others who have fought back (shout-out to law firms that resisted) and quotes extensively from the supposed free-speech warriors who use the government's power to chill free speech.

Relinking the full decision here. If you've made it all the way down to the end of this thread, thanks for following along. I obviously am not endorsing every word of Judge Young's decision, even though I believe his opinion is worth highlighting. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Judge Young: "This case ... squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally 'yes, they do.' 'No law' means 'no law.'"

I have never seen such a blistering rebuke of a President by a federal judge. He is telling us clearly to stand up for our liberty against a dictator. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Screenshot of text from a judicial ruling, with two passages highlighted. The first: "This is indubitably true. The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies -- all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act. A broad swath of our people find this refreshing in what they may feel is an over regulated society. After all, lawyers seem to have a penchant for telling you what you can’t do. President Trump simply ignores them." The second, a footnote: "Let’s be honest. In our secret heart of hearts, many of us are tiny Trump wannabes. After all, who does not feel the urge to stride about, “sticking it to The Man,” wrecking institutions and careers simply because we find them irksome? Most of us, however, ascribe to Shakespeare’s famous adage: “O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant." MEASURE FOR MEASURE, act 2, scene 2.66."

Screenshot of a footnote from a judicial ruling. It reads: >>>The federal courts themselves are complicit in chilling would-be litigants. It is not that we are less than scrupulously impartial. We demonstrate our judicial independence and utter impartiality every day whatever the personal cost. It is, rather that in our effort to be entirely fair, thorough, and transparent, we are slow, ponderously slow. This in turn means we are expensive, crushingly so for an individual litigant. Frequently, the threat of federal civil litigation, however frivolous, is enough severely to harass an individual and cause his submission. The flurry of activity on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket is itself a tacit admission that, when dealing with an administration that is admittedly seeking to “flood the zone,” it needs to intervene to correct rulings that, if not immediately remedied, will remain in effect far too long. <<<

Screenshot of a page from a judicial opinion, with this passage highlighted: "While the President naturally seeks warm cheering and gladsome, welcoming acceptance of his views, in the real world he’ll settle for sullen silence and obedience. What he will not countenance is dissent or disagreement. He recognizes, of course, that there are legislative and judicial branches to our government, co-equal even to a unitary Presidency.57 He meets dissent from his orders in those other two branches by demonizing and disparaging the speakers, sometimes descending to personal vitriol.58"

Screenshot of a passage from a judicial opinion: "I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct? "

Wow. You've never seen a judicial opinion like this. A Reagan-appointed federal judge has ruled against Trump's policy re: ideological deportation.

And he has used the opinion to teach Americans about Trump and the law—with great clarity, humor, and grace.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Young’s opinion, which rules that the Trump admin illegally targeted pro-Palestinian students for deportation, is absolutely scathing.

“In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police…ICE brings indelible obloquy to this administration and everyone who works in it.”