Although not all of the relevant details are yet clear, according to U.S. Central Command, an Army AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed off the coast of Oman; the two crew members on board were rescued and are now in stable condition. Whether the incident was the result of a deliberate Iranian attack is the subject of some debate.

One day after the developments, Donald Trump spoke to The Wall Street Journal and downplayed the importance of the incident. In fact, according to the Journal, the president “repeatedly” said the downing of the helicopter “wasn’t a big deal.” Hours later, the Republican did a 180-degree turn, decided it was a very big deal after all, and approved a new military offensive against Iranian targets.

Trump offered additional insights on his perspective with a pop culture reference that he didn’t appear to fully understand. The Washington Post reported:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday night appeared to defend his latest military strikes on Iran by posting a short clip from “The West Wing,” the popular NBC television drama about a fictional U.S. president, in which the show’s characters debate their own military action.

In the video Trump promoted on his social media platform, he referred to an episode from the show’s first season in which Syria downed a U.S. military plane. The clip, which ran about a minute and a half, showed the fictional American president in the White House Situation Room, expressing his dissatisfaction with the idea of a “proportional response.”

Voicing support for a “disproportional response,” the fictional president declares, “Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, gentlemen — you kill an American, any American, we don’t come back with a proportional response. We come back with total disaster.”

This evidently resonated with Trump, who promoted the excerpt late Tuesday. What the incumbent president neglected to do, however, is to watch the rest of the episode.

In the show, the president eventually concedes his initial reaction was reckless and overly emotional, and that the kind of “disproportional response” he initially envisioned would lead to civilian casualties. Indeed, the whole point of the episode was that responsible global superpowers reject the very idea of a “disproportional response.”

Trump, in other words, got it backward.

It wasn’t the first time. Exactly one year ago, my MS NOW colleague Hayes Brown noted that Trump had touted “Les Misérables” while clearly missing the point of the production. A month earlier, the Republican tried to have a little fun with “Star Wars” day, but he inadvertently promoted an image that presented him as a villain.

These weren’t isolated incidents. In 2019, for example, the Republican White House tried to use “Game of Thrones” as part of a clumsy argument about the president’s border wall project, and the whole thing fell apart rather quickly. A year later, Trump talked about the Capt. William Bligh character from “Mutiny on the Bounty,” though it wasn’t altogether clear whether the president realized that Bligh is the villain of that story.

After his defeat in 2020, Trump talked obsessively about fictional character Hannibal Lecter, including a weird instance in which he referred to the infamous cannibal from “The Silence of the Lambs” as “the late, great Hannibal Lecter” and “a wonderful man.”

Maybe the president should just steer clear of making pop culture references? He’s clearly not good at it.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Still struggling with pop culture, Trump whiffs on point of ‘West Wing’ clip appeared first on MS NOW.

Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has maintained a rather high profile lately. In late April, for example, he appeared on CNBC and celebrated Donald Trump’s “palpable” commitment to the First Amendment. A few weeks later, Clayton also made the case on CNBC that the defunct $1.766 billion compensation fund had merit because “they” tried to “destroy” the president.

As recently as Monday, as the White House pushed conspiracy theories about election results in California, Clayton again toed the party line on national television, arguing the public is “right to question” the vote tallies.

If that was an audition for a promotion, it was apparently a successful one. On Thursday afternoon, Trump announced by way of his social media platform:

I am pleased to announce the Nomination of very Highly Respected Jay Clayton, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the former Head of Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the most prominent and successful Law Firms anywhere in the World, and the current United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to be the next Director of National Intelligence and, importantly, to serve in my Cabinet. Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay. I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

If confirmed, Clayton would succeed outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard, whose resignation will take effect next week.

Clayton isn’t as outlandish a choice as Bill Pulte, whom the president recently tapped to serve as the acting DNI, but it would be an exaggeration to say his looming nomination is entirely uncontroversial.

In mid-November, Trump went even further than he usually does in directing the Justice Department to target his perceived political foes and critics, announcing that he wanted then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and federal law enforcement officials to investigate former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, among others, over their alleged Jeffrey Epstein ties.

Four hours later, Bondi did as she was told, announcing via social media that she was tapping Clayton, who chaired the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, to “take the lead” on the matter.

In other words, the president’s new choice to serve as the director of national intelligence — an office that Trump has freely admitted that he wants to weaponize for political purposes — has spent the last seven months investigating Trump’s opponents at the president’s insistence.

It’s the sort of thing that should give senators pause while weighing whether to confirm him.

What’s more, despite the statutory qualifications for the office, which require a DNI to have significant experience in intelligence, Clayton is a former Wall Street lawyer with no background in intelligence.

As for Pulte, it’s not yet entirely clear whether Trump sees him as the odd man out, or whether the White House still expects the highly controversial director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency to serve as acting DNI until there’s a confirmation vote on Clayton. Watch this space.

The post Trump says he will nominate Jay Clayton to succeed Tulsi Gabbard as the DNI appeared first on MS NOW.

For nearly a year and a half, the list of Jan. 6 rioters who received pardons from Donald Trump only to run into fresh trouble with the law after receiving clemency has grown, reaching unsettling lengths.

Hoping to determine exactly how long the list is, Lawfare, a nonprofit legal issues publication, published a study last week that found at least 97 people charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol have since been accused of new crimes.

Jake Lang, however, stands out as a special case. The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday:

A far-right influencer who has repeatedly tried to inflame racial tensions around the Karmelo Anthony case was arrested Tuesday and accused of making terroristic threats.

Jake Lang was booked into the Dallas County jail and faces a charge of terroristic threat to place the public in fear of serious bodily injury, interrupting public services, or influencing a government, according to jail records. He was arrested by Texas Department of Public Safety officers, and bail is set at $1 million.

Lang was arrested after he allegedly threatened extrajudicial mob violence against a Black teenager.

If his name sounds at all familiar, it might be because Lang was also arrested last week and charged with criminal trespass outside a rally in Texas.

In February, he was also arrested in Minneapolis after destroying an ice sculpture that was outside the state Capitol, which came around the same time Lang was charged with threatening a police officer who served at the Capitol.

In other words, nearly 100 rioters have been accused of new crimes after receiving pardons from Trump, but only one has been charged on four separate occasions. (Lang has denied wrongdoing.)

Highlighting the broader pattern, the editorial board of The New York Times recently published an opinion piece arguing that the American public “deserves to understand the mayhem that the Jan. 6 pardons have unleashed.”

Given the circumstances, the appeal was hardly unreasonable.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter arrested yet again, accused of making terroristic threats appeared first on MS NOW.

As this week got underway, the public saw Donald Trump abruptly end his latest “Meet the Press” interview when NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked the president whether he had evidence to support his election conspiracy theories. “You’re either crooked or you’re stupid,” the Republican told the host instead of answering the question like an adult who wasn’t making stuff up.

Unprompted, Trump returned to the subject Wednesday at an unrelated White House event, telling reporters:

They rigged the election, the second election, as you probably heard and probably know, most of you know, that happened and now it’s been proven, and it will be proven as time goes by, even more so. We have things that you won’t believe. When we release the full files, you’re not going to believe how crooked the second, the 2020 election was.

He made the comments while surrounded by congressional Republican leaders, who simply nodded along.

Trump: "They rigged the election. Now it's been proven, and it will be proven even more as time goes by even more so. We have things that you won't believe. When we release the full files, you won't believe how crooked the 2020 election was."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-10T16:04:29.518Z

There’s probably no point in rehashing what reality-based observers already know: The election wasn’t rigged; it isn’t “proven”; Trump and his team haven’t found “things”; there is no “they”; etc.

What I found notable about this, however, was the idea that there might still be people out there who are willing to believe that the president may yet uncover and release some evidence of a conspiracy that did not and does not exist.

Six months ago, for example, Trump sat down with Politico’s Dasha Burns, and when she brought up the president’s views on Russia’s war in Ukraine, his brain quickly shifted to what he described as the “rigged election.” Trump declared at the time, “It’s going to come out over the next couple of months too, loud and clear, because we have all the information.”

A couple of months came and went. The “information” never surfaced, because there is no such information.

For nearly six years, Trump and his team, like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, have said the evidence to support the election conspiracy theories really is on the way. Any day now. Just you wait. It’ll be awesome.

My advice for those waiting for the president to follow through on his vow: Stop. He can’t produce that which does not exist.

The post Hoping to persuade the gullible, Trump vows to share proof of 2020 conspiracy theories appeared first on MS NOW.

Immediately after professing his “love” of inflation at a White House event, Donald Trump went on to tell reporters on Wednesday afternoon about an operation he’s been eager to disclose.

“You know, I can say it now, something you didn’t know,” the president said. “You know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran — until right now.” He said this operation involved 22 ships that traveled “with no lights” and went undetected because Iranians “don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it.”

Trump added, by way of a statement published to his social media platform, that this was “a secret mission.”

Soon after, during a congressional hearing, Energy Secretary Chris Wright was asked if he knew what the president was talking about. The Cabinet secretary conceded he was “unaware” of the developments Trump described, and he assured lawmakers the president was merely “talking casually.”

That wasn’t much of an answer, and it left unresolved the obvious underlying questions: Had Trump disclosed an actual secret mission? Had he kept it from his own energy secretary?

The New York Times shed additional light on the subject soon after.

As often happens with Mr. Trump, the truth was less dramatic. According to a senior U.S. military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the president was referring to an American effort to steer the passage of dozens of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

While the operation was surreptitious enough — the U.S.-guided vessels have been turning off their transponders to avoid detection when crossing the narrow waterway — it could hardly have been news to Iran. Late last month, The New York Times published an article about the effort, reporting that U.S. Central Command had shepherded around 70 commercial ships through the strait.

In other words, when the president said “nobody” knew of the operation, he apparently meant nobody except everyone who read the Times’ article that was published on May 31.

I had a professor in college who used to joke about politicians who “burst through open doors.” This comes to mind often when watching the current White House.

Indeed, it came up last week when Trump said it was a “big thing” that he and his team had persuaded Iranian officials to agree not to pursue a nuclear weapon. Except, as anyone who’s followed the issue has long understood, Iran has been saying this same thing for more than a half-century.

I can appreciate the broader political dynamic: Trump, struggling in the polls and short on successes, appears desperate to share some good news, especially about a war that hasn’t gone according to his expectations. But pointing to meaningless accomplishments and disclosing operations that have already been disclosed aren’t going to turn things around for him.

The post Bursting through an open door, Trump hyped an already disclosed ‘secret mission’ appeared first on MS NOW.

Control of the Senate in the next Congress might very well come down to the closely watched contest in Maine, where longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins is seeking a sixth term. On the surface, Democrats have reason for cautious optimism: Collins is New England’s only remaining GOP senator, and recent polling suggests many Mainers are ready for a change in a year that’s shaping up to be a rough one for the incumbent’s party.

But against that backdrop, Maine Democrats have decided to take a gamble on nominating oyster farmer Graham Platner, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The list of controversies from his background is not short: Platner has faced difficult questions about online comments downplaying sexual assault in the military, his since-removed tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol, allegations he sent sexually explicit texts to several women who were not his wife and, most recently, allegations from three ex-girlfriends about volatile personal behavior, some of which he’s denied.

Platner nevertheless easily won his party primary this week, and soon after, the National Republican Senatorial Committee circulated a memo warning donors and allies to take him seriously.

“The political fundamentals in Maine remain challenging, and it is a fatal mistake to assume Platner is too damaged to win,” the NRSC wrote. “He is currently leading.”

With this in mind, Donald Trump decided to weigh in on the race during an unrelated White House event on Wednesday afternoon, formally endorsing Collins and condemning her Democratic rival in stark terms. The president told reporters in the Oval Office:

I watched that thug that’s up in Maine. He’s a thug. … I mean, he’s worse than any human being that’s ever run for office, probably. I don’t know him. I don’t want to say bad, but I just, look, I mean, nobody’s ever had a record like that. […]

I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s a thug. I know thugs. I had to deal with thugs. I built a lot of buildings, I dealt with the toughest people on earth. I dealt with worse than thugs. This guy’s a thug. He’s a low-level thug. … he’s just an outright pig. He’s like a pig; I watched him a couple of times. He’s like a pig, that’s what he reminds me of. I come up with good names for people.

To be sure, it’s fair to say Platner is a controversial candidate who will have to prove himself over the next 21 weeks. Unlike most Democratic Senate candidates, the Mainer will have to make the case, not just for his vision and priorities, but that he’s overcome mistakes from his past.

But I’m not sure if Trump fully appreciates just how poor a messenger he is for his message.

After all, the president is a convicted felon who was under federal criminal indictment as recently as two years ago. Trump also ran a fraudulent charity, a fraudulent “university” and his business was found to have engaged in systemic fraud.

In the E. Jean Carroll civil case, a jury found him liable for sexual abuse, and Carroll is one of many women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Relatedly, much of the public is probably familiar with the infamous “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump said, in the context of his aggressive pursuit of women, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

This is just a small sampling of a record that includes countless examples of racism, in addition to remarks denigrating American military heroism. (He likes people “who weren’t captured,” for example.)

If Republicans want to make the case that Platner is a controversial candidate, there’s little point in denying the claim. But for Trump, of all people, to say the Mainer might be “worse than any human being that’s ever run for office” is a remarkable failure of self-awareness.

The post Why Trump is the wrong messenger to make the case against Maine’s Platner appeared first on MS NOW.

The challenge in picking Donald Trump’s favorite distraction is that the competition is brutally fierce. The president’s ballroom vanity project, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and the White House venue for the upcoming UFC fight are certainly near the top of the lengthy and growing list.

But don’t forget about his interest in a massive “triumphal” arch just across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial, in front of Arlington National Cemetery. The Washington Post reported:

Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends.

According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years. Construction experts said that timeline — which would involve two 10-hour daily shifts — is aggressive for a nonemergency project.

To be sure, the controversy surrounding the arch was already messy. For one thing, there’s an ongoing lawsuit that may very well succeed. For another, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently told Congress that the project is only at the “discussion” stage, and when evidence to the contrary emerged, Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, argued that the Cabinet secretary came “pretty damn close” to committing perjury.

In case that weren’t quite enough, the Washington Post reported last month that the administration was moving forward with plans to start work on the arch “by piggybacking on an existing, unrelated contract for engineering services” a mile away, which in turn would “allow the administration to bypass a potentially lengthy public bidding process.”

As a rule, when a White House has to rely on subterfuge to advance its ambitions, it’s a bad sign.

At this point, common sense might suggest that Congress would intervene, but the White House has already made clear that it intends to circumvent lawmakers. Trump was quite explicit on this point a few weeks ago, declaring at an Oval Office event, “We don’t need Congress to sign off on it. We’re doing it.”

But now that the details of the administration’s plan are coming into focus, the controversy has taken an even more farcical turn. Indeed, Trump and his team don’t just want an arch; they want it to be built at extraordinary speed, as if there were some kind of emergency need for the project. (There is not.)

The Post’s report added, “The arch also would be built with concrete clad in granite, unlike the nearby Lincoln Memorial and other monuments that were constructed with natural stone like marble and limestone — another way to expedite its construction, experts said.”

Maybe the president wants to see the arch in place before the end of his second term for ego purposes; maybe he’s worried that if he doesn’t rush, his successor might pull the plug on the boondoggle. Either way, the fast-track process is tough to defend.

Looking ahead, however, there’s another element to this that’s worth keeping in mind: safety.

Those familiar with the geography of the nation’s capital might realize that there’s a large airport in Arlington, just across the Potomac from Washington, D.C., and that the flight path for many arrivals takes airplanes above where the proposed arch would sit.

With this in mind, the Post went on to report, “The Park Service said the project would require large cranes, including one that may be 320 feet tall and another that could be as high as 300 feet. The planned site for the arch is on a flight path to nearby Reagan National Airport, where planes can sometimes fly at around 500 feet of altitude, raising concerns about safety.”

Congressional Democrats have made no effort to hide their efforts to block the project, and if Republicans lose control of Congress in the midterm elections, this would likely be one of many points of contention next year. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post To build his ‘triumphal’ arch, Trump envisions 20 hours per day of construction appeared first on MS NOW.

Headed into this week, analysts expected to see another surge in inflation, and on Wednesday morning, those projections proved true: The consumer price index climbed to its highest level since April 2023, and inflation continued to outpace wage growth, exacerbating the affordability crisis.

The data left the White House not only with a policy challenge but also with a political one. How would Donald Trump and his team try again to convince the American public that the unpopular and unnecessary war in Iran is worth the economic sacrifice?

As it turned out, the president decided not to even make the effort. Instead, when asked for his reaction to the latest discouraging news, the Republican said the latest inflation data was “great,” adding, “I love the inflation.”

Reporter: Are you concerned, Mr. President, about the latest inflation number which came out this morning?Trump: No, I love it. I love the inflation.

— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) 2026-06-10T16:09:56.011Z

He later told The New York Post about the point he was trying to convey. “The numbers are going to be phenomenal because what’s showing is that despite the fact that we’re in a war, the numbers are much lower than anticipated, and when we’re out of that war, the numbers will be at lower numbers than they were even before it started,” the president said.

There were substantive problems with the defense — there’s no evidence to suggest that the “anticipated” inflation hike was even worse than the status quo, for example — coupled with the fact that Trump noticeably failed to provide this context when he was talking to the White House press corps, on the record and on camera. (The number of people who will see the “I love the inflation” clip will far outnumber those who see the New York Post’s article.)

But just as notable is the recent history. In fact, it was only four weeks ago when a reporter asked Trump, “When you’re negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?”

Without hesitating, the president replied, “Not even a little bit.” The Republican added that, as part of his focus on preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons, “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

It was a brutal quote, not only because of its callousness, but also because Trump has spent so much time proving the underlying point true. As my MS NOW colleague Zeeshan Aleem added, “The truth, in this case, is that Trump obviously doesn’t care about ordinary Americans’ financial well-being. It’s sticky not just because he said it, but because he has long been acting like it.”

Nearly a month later, all of this has returned to the fore, not just because of the data, which paints an ugly picture, and not just because of the administration’s misguided policies, which are directly responsible for making the cost of living worse, but also because of the frequency with which the president expresses his public indifference.

The latest Economist/YouGov poll found that just 29% of the public approve of his handling of the economy — 10 points lower than Joe Biden’s worst poll on the same issue. With the midterm elections just 21 weeks away, it’s a number that will likely generate understandable panic among Republican officials and candidates.

But it’s not the only survey of interest. A recent Fox News poll asked respondents, “Do you think Donald Trump cares about people like you, or not?” Only 37% of Americans said they believe the president does in fact care about people like them.

There’s no reason to assume that number can’t sink lower.

The post ‘I love the inflation’: What makes Trump’s comments on the affordability crisis different appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest from Northern Ireland: “The family of a man who lost an eye in a knife attack appealed for ​calm on Wednesday after the incident triggered a wave of anti-immigrant violence in Belfast overnight, with masked men burning families out of their homes and torching vehicles. The appeal ‌came as a Sudanese man appeared in court charged with attempted murder and as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and politicians in Northern Ireland condemned the violence by ‘masked thugs’ that had targeted ethnic minorities.”

* In related news: “The British government hit out at X owner Elon Musk Wednesday, accusing him of whipping up tensions online ahead of disorder in Belfast.”

* The tenuous state of a dubious ceasefire: “Trump said the U.S. is going to hit Iran ‘hard’ today when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about his statement earlier that Tehran will ‘pay the price’ for taking ‘too long’ to reach a peace agreement. ‘Well, we’re going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard, resuming bombing,’ he said.”

* The latest casualty figures from Lebanon: “Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 3,666 people, including 131 healthcare workers, and injured more than 11,300 since the U.S. and Israel began their war with Iran in late February, the Lebanese health ministry reported yesterday.”

* The changing nature of modern warfare: “Ukraine is wreaking havoc on unarmored trucks and trains in the battlefield’s rear, using drones with upgraded engines and batteries, integrated Starlink communication systems and new artificial-intelligence capabilities. The ramped-up attacks are causing fuel shortages, complicating troop rotations and reducing Russian military activity on the front.”

* This seems like a reasonable request: “Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Wednesday that Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for acting director of national intelligence, submit to a full security check before assuming the post, including an examination of his financial holdings and foreign contacts.”

* Some market trends can’t be stopped despite the White House’s best efforts: “Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power. Data released Wednesday by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the United States despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8%, Ember said.”

* A bizarre schedule for a nonemergency vanity project: “Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends. According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 6.10.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

For months, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, had championed legislation to send additional security aid to Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s invasion. The proposal, however, was stuck: House Republican leaders refused to consider it, and so the bill languished.

Last month, however, it became unstuck: Proponents of the legislation managed to go around the GOP leadership thanks to a discharge petition — a tactic that allows members to bring a bill to the floor if it’s formally endorsed by a majority of the House. As MS NOW reported last week, the Ukraine aid package cleared the House with 226 votes, including 18 Republicans.

This week, it happened again. NBC News reported:

The House tonight passed another Democrat-led bill that made its way to the floor after a group of Republicans bucked their party’s leadership and joined Democrats in forcing a vote.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, which would force employers to start negotiating with a newly certified union within 10 days of receiving the request, passed with the support of 20 Republicans and all Democrats.

Critics will note that both this bill and the Ukraine aid still have to clear the Senate, where the measures’ fate remains uncertain, and they would still need Donald Trump’s signature to become law. It’s a fair point.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said in an online written statement, “If the House Floor was managed properly, discharge petitions would never be needed. A successful discharge petition is clear and direct evidence of a poorly managed House Floor — because it demonstrates that the will of the majority of the People is being thwarted by the privileged few.”

Fitzpatrick didn’t mention House Speaker Mike Johnson by name, but given the context, he didn’t have to.

Indeed, it might not be immediately obvious just how embarrassing these latest developments are for the Louisiana Republican and his leadership team.

In the past century or so, successful discharge petitions have been very rare. The reason is simple: Such petitions have long been seen as a slap in the face of a sitting House speaker.

As New York magazine’s Ed Kilgore recently explained, “Indeed, prior to Johnson’s ascent to the Speakership, only two 21st-century discharge petitions achieved the 218 signatures needed to trigger a floor vote.”

This roughly once-per-decade average has undergone a dramatic revision under the Louisiana Republican’s tenure. In the last Congress, which ended in early January 2025, there were two successful discharge petitions, which was itself a significant total. Meanwhile, in the current Congress, which is far from over, there have been six successful discharge petitions, which The Hill accurately described as “extraordinary.”

The first came in March 2025, and it dealt with proxy voting for new parents serving in Congress. In November 2025, another discharge petition advanced the Epstein Files Transparency Act; five days later, a measure to repeal an executive order that gutted federal workers’ union rights also received 218 signatures.

The list grew longer as discharge petitions related to extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, providing temporary protected status for Haitian migrants and extending aid to Ukraine all crossed the necessary threshold.

Usually, members embarrass Johnson by ignoring his wishes and voting against legislation he has urged them to support. But this flurry of successful discharge petitions, which has no modern precedent, makes the House speaker appear even more diminished.

Kilgore’s recent piece added, “Signs of weakness invite further revolts by House members who fear voters more than this mild-mannered former backbencher from Louisiana, whose authority is totally dependent on Trump’s backing, which can be erratic during times when the president is distracted by nonlegislative matters like ending wars and naming things after himself. Politicians, like guard dogs, can smell fear and irresolution.”

The question, then, is less whether we’ll see more successful discharge petitions and more a question of when, as Johnson’s weak hold on power unravels further.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post The more lawmakers go around Mike Johnson, the more obvious his weakness becomes appeared first on MS NOW.

During an Oval Office event on Wednesday afternoon, a reporter asked Donald Trump for his reaction to the news that inflation has reached a three-year high. The president responded that the new data was “great,” adding, “I love the inflation.”

And while that was strange, it quickly got worse. As part of his explanation for why he professed his “love” of inflation, Trump went on to say, “You know, I can say it now, something you didn’t know. You know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran — until right now.”

He said this operation involved 22 ships that traveled “with no lights” and went undetected because Iranians “don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it.”

Even at face value, this was difficult to understand. The president loves inflation because the United States is taking oil out of the Middle East?

Complicating matters, there was also uncertainty about the nature and accuracy of Trump’s claims, even within his own White House Cabinet. MS NOW reported as part of the network’s liveblog coverage:

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who was simultaneously testifying before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, told lawmakers that he did not know of any such operation.

Wright said he was not aware of “millions” of barrels of oil having been extracted from Iran, but he said earlier in the hearing that the U.S. military ‌had ⁠helped get some oil out of the Strait of Hormuz.

As a rule, Wright can be counted on to toe the party line on pretty much anything Trump says, but when pressed by Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes of Ohio on the president’s public comments, Wright said Trump was merely “talking casually.”

SYKES: *plays audio of Trump claiming US is stealing Iranian oil*WRIGHT: I think the president is talking casually SYKES: Do you think that it's appropriate to 'talk casually' about war?WRIGHT: I think you talk to all different audiences and you talk in all different styles

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-10T18:22:57.391Z

When Sykes followed up by asking about the propriety of a president speaking “casually” about a war, the energy secretary was reduced to saying, “I think you talk to all different audiences, and you talk in all different styles.”

What did that mean in this context? Your guess is as good as mine. It’s similarly unclear whether Wright’s use of the word “casually” was meant to convey the idea that sometimes Trump just says stuff without any meaningful regard for accuracy.

That said, it’s certainly possible that 22 ships moved through the Strait of Hormuz. The New York Times noted, however, “He did not say what time period he meant. Ordinarily, dozens of oil tankers would pass through the strait each day, and thousands would have done so since the war began, if not for Iran’s blockade.”

The post Energy secretary says Trump was speaking ‘casually’ with claim about taking out oil appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump’s recent record on U.S. attorneys and other federal prosecutors is a rather embarrassing mess. Some of the Republican lawyers have been purged for political reasons, some have resigned and some were forced out by the courts.

But perhaps most important of all are the president’s prosecutors who have actually tried to do their jobs in line with the White House’s agenda.

In Nevada, Sigal Chattah, a member of the Republican National Committee, has led a U.S. attorney’s office for the last year, and according to a Bloomberg Law report published last week, she’s used her office to “launch investigations at the behest of former clients and friends,” and also “opened a probe targeting her past political foe.”

In Illinois, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros’ tenure has become highly controversial, as evidenced by the intensifying mess surrounding his office’s handling of the “Broadview Six” case.

In Wyoming, interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming Darin Smith botched some criminal cases so badly that federal judges had to intervene. (Senate Republicans soon after rewarded Smith with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.)

But let’s also not overlook Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney who’s leading the office in the Central District of California.

Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker, has cultivated quite a reputation, reportedly ignoring the recommendations of senior prosecutors and demanding that the office pursue MAGA-aligned cases without regard for insufficient evidence. Last year, he also dropped a fraud case against a fast-food chain owner who just happened to be a major Trump donor.

This week, Essayli apparently thought it’d be a good idea to appear on Glenn Beck’s program, where he vowed to bring criminal charges in “one to two months” related to his party’s conspiracy theories regarding California elections. The Republican prosecutor seemed to suggest that he hasn’t yet collected real evidence, though he apparently plans to address this problem by turning to the public for help. The New Republic reported:

First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli — who oversees 500 attorneys — went on The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to beg listeners to help him find evidence of election fraud.

“I expect people will be charged. … We have set up a tipline. I’ve set up a dedicated email. … We are looking for any sort of widescale conspiracy, if you will. … If anyone knows anything … if you’ve witnessed anything … if you saw someone collecting ballots in a suspicious way, or doing something odd with ballots, we wanna know about that.”

The circumstances were, among other things, bizarre. Federal prosecutors rarely appear on programs such as Beck’s; they almost never predict future prosecutions against alleged criminals who haven’t yet been identified; and it’s even more unusual for them to effectively try to crowdsource evidence collection.

What’s more, this is not a comprehensive list. Other Trump-appointed prosecutors in other jurisdictions have failed in other embarrassing ways.

The longer the list becomes, the worse it is for the rule of law and law enforcement. If you voted for the Republican ticket because you expected Trump and his team to be “tough on crime,” I have some bad news for you.

The post Trump-appointed federal prosecutor seeks public help on election conspiracy theories appeared first on MS NOW.

In the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, Senate Republican leaders knew that Donald Trump was pressuring their members to reject certification of Joe Biden’s victory, but they pleaded with GOP senators to discard the outgoing president’s wishes. In fact, Senate Republican leaders told members there wasn’t even any point in trying, since the radical scheme wouldn’t work anyway.

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the then-majority whip, publicly conceded in December 2020 that the plan to reject election certification “would go down like a shot dog.”

Trump wasn’t pleased. In fact, the defeated president labeled Thune a “RINO” — “Republican in Name Only” — on social media, adding, “South Dakota doesn’t like weakness. He will be primaried in 2022, political career over!!!”

In 2022, Thune ran unopposed — in both the primary and the general election. What’s more, his career was far from over, and he became the Senate majority leader early last year.

In 2026, there’s a relative détente between Thune and Trump, though in recent weeks, it’s become increasingly clear the two Republican leaders are not on the same page.

“Thune has to say ‘no’ to Trump a lot,” Punchbowl News reported. “And second-term Trump clearly doesn’t like this at all.”

Consider the developments from the past few weeks:

• Trump tapped Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence, and Thune made his dissatisfaction known.
• Trump announced a $1.776 billion compensation fund, widely panned as a “slush fund,” and Thune told reporters he was “not a fan” of the provisionally discarded idea.
• Trump endorsed Ken Paxton in Texas’ Senate race, and Thune again made his dissatisfaction known.
• Trump peddled new election conspiracy theories, and Thune said anyone touting such theories needs to “prove if there was cheating.”
• Trump told Thune to fire Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, to eliminate the filibuster, to end the chamber’s “blue-slip” practice and to pass the anti-voting SAVE America Act — and Thune ignored all these directions.

To be sure, the president hasn’t thrown any recent tantrums about the South Dakotan, but with the way things are going, it’s hard not to wonder if the dam might soon break.

The post With increasing frequency, GOP’s Thune and Trump are not on the same page appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial race, Republican primary voters advanced Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and state Attorney General Alan Wilson to a runoff. That’s notable in its own right, though it was also of interest to see who didn’t make the cut.

Among those who fell short were two incumbent GOP members of Congress, Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace, the latter of whom finished an embarrassing fifth. They join a growing group of incumbent members of Congress who gave up their House seats to seek statewide office, only to fall short in party primaries.

Among Republicans, the list includes Texas’ Wesley Hunt and Chip Roy, Georgia’s Buddy Carter and Iowa’s Randy Feenstra. Among Democrats, Texas’ Jasmine Crockett, Illinois’ Raja Krishnamoorthi and Illinois’ Robin Kelly are in the same unfortunate club.

As Punchbowl News summarized, “It’s a tried-and-tested strategy: Spend a couple of terms in the House, build up political support and then run for statewide office. But this election cycle has been rough for House lawmakers seeking promotions.”

* In Texas’ closely watched Senate race, the latest statewide poll, commissioned by the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found Democratic state Rep. James Talarico with a narrow lead over Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 47% to 44%.

* Last year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired Nancy Lacore, a three-star admiral and former chief of the Navy Reserve. This year, Lacore is running for Congress as a Democrat, and this week, she won a primary in the race to succeed Mace.

* California’s gubernatorial race is officially set: Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News personality, finished second in the first round of balloting and will face Xavier Becerra, a former Democratic congressman who served as Joe Biden’s health secretary, in the fall.

* Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has backed several progressive candidates in recent months, and his preferred candidates have fared quite well in a variety of Democratic primaries nationwide.

* American Bridge, a prominent super PAC aligned with Democratic politics, announced this week that it’s kicking off a roughly $50 million ad campaign targeting Republicans in more than a dozen House districts and four Senate races.

* And in Alaska’s closely watched Senate race, the newest candidate, a man named Dan Sullivan, continues to make clear that he’s serious about his candidacy despite the fact that he shares a name with Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent.

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.10.26: House members fail again in bids for higher office appeared first on MS NOW.

There was an unintentionally funny scene on Capitol Hill this week when Republican Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia pretended to have a phone conversation to avoid a question that he apparently didn’t want to answer. It was a reminder that Wittman appears to have missed his calling as a professional actor, since he really committed to the bit.

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) faked a phone call for roughly 90 seconds after being asked about Speaker Mike Johnson’s comments regarding potential Social Security cuts.

The phone's screen remained visible, with his cheek inadvertently tapping different parts of the display. pic.twitter.com/y3ST5AX651

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) June 10, 2026

Just as notable as Wittman’s odd performance, however, was the question the congressman was trying to avoid. Specifically, he was asked about provocative comments House Speaker Mike Johnson made a day earlier, which have started generating additional attention. The Washington Post reported:

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) suggested Monday that he would release a plan next year to address ballooning entitlement spending, leading to Democratic attacks.

“The reason we are in trouble is because over 74 percent of federal spending is on autopilot, mandatory spending,” Johnson told a Louisiana radio station. “That’s your entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and then things like Social Security. They have to be adjusted and fixed.”

As part of the same on-air interview, Congress’ top Republican lawmaker added, “We have a plan to do that next year.”

To be fair, Johnson didn’t say a word about what’s in his “plan,” so it’s impossible to say whether and how he and other GOP officials would cut these popular social insurance programs.

But therein lies the problem: To hear the House speaker tell it, Republicans already have a plan related to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, although Johnson suggested the party won’t pursue its goals until 2027, presumably in the hope that the GOP holds onto its narrow majority on Capitol Hill.

The follow-up question is obvious: Why wait? If Republicans have a plan, why not share it and talk about its merits?

Indeed, in an American Civics 101 sort of way, Johnson should want to present his vision, on the promise of pursuing it in the next Congress. If the public approves of the plan, voters can back GOP candidates in the midterm elections, and Johnson can try to make the case early next year that his party’s agenda has a popular mandate.

Unless, that is, the House speaker believes Americans won’t like his plan, which is why he wants to keep it under wraps until after Election Day has come and gone.

For those who actually care about the future of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, Johnson’s apparent reluctance to share the details of his plan isn’t exactly reassuring.

The post Speaker Johnson eyes a new ‘plan’ for Social Security and Medicare to be shared in 2027 appeared first on MS NOW.

💾

As 2026 got underway and much of the country was mortified by the deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, the public backlash was swift and quantifiable. An Economist/YouGov poll found that a 47% plurality of Americans said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was making Americans less safe, while a 46% plurality said ICE should be abolished altogether.

A Quinnipiac poll released at about the same time found that 57% of Americans disapproved of the way ICE was enforcing immigration laws.

The need for reform seemed obvious. In fact, an NBC News poll released in February found that almost 3 in 4 U.S. adults supported either “reforming” or “abolishing” the agency.

Democratic officials seized on those public attitudes and demanded that Congress impose new restrictions and safeguards on federal immigration agencies as part of pending spending bills that fund ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Four months later, the Republican majority ignored the polls, circumvented Democratic lawmakers and narrowly approved a spending package that will fund ICE and CBP for the remainder of Donald Trump’s second term, throwing an additional $70 billion at immigration enforcement. (The party used the budget reconciliation process, which prevented Senate Democrats from imposing a 60-vote threshold in the upper chamber.)

GOP leaders beat back efforts to include a provision formally killing off the idea of a White House compensation fund, but that wasn’t the only thing missing from the package: The legislation includes literally nothing in the way of new safeguards or restrictions on federal immigration agencies or their enforcement tactics.

In other words, polls showed strong public support for changes to the status quo. Republicans decided they did not care.

In a written statement, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said, “House Republicans are choosing to hand over $70 billion more in taxpayer dollars to fund ICE and Border Patrol’s chaos in our communities. This is on top of the $140 billion they already gave ICE in their ‘Big, Ugly Bill.’ MAGA Republicans refused to negotiate on popular and essential reforms to responsibly enforce our immigration laws while respecting the civil liberties of our people. I voted hell no.”

The Maryland congressman added, “ICE and Border Patrol aren’t targeting ‘the worst of the worst.’ College students, nurses, babies and children, pregnant women, cancer patients, and even American citizens have been rounded up in their lawless, brutal raids. This corrupt agency is making all of us less safe. We need affordable health care, not an open money spigot for ICE corruption and masked federal agents killing American citizens and disappearing our neighbors from the streets.”

The president is expected to sign the package into law, probably as early as Wednesday.

The post Republicans ignore public calls for reforms, throw another $70 billion at ICE and CPB appeared first on MS NOW.

The specific details of what transpired on Monday are still coming into focus, but according to U.S. Central Command, an Army AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed off the coast of Oman and the two crew members on board were rescued and are in stable condition. Whether the incident was the result of a deliberate Iranian attack is the subject of some debate.

The Trump administration accused Iran of downing the helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz, while officials in Tehran said it was instead caught in the crossfire of drone attacks against commercial vessels.

Of particular interest, though, was Donald Trump’s reaction. On Tuesday morning, the president spoke to The Wall Street Journal and downplayed the importance of the incident. In fact, according to the Journal’s article, the Republican “repeatedly” said the downing of the helicopter “wasn’t a big deal.”

It soon became a very big deal, indeed.

A few hours after the president told the Journal that the incident wasn’t especially important, he used his social media platform to announce that Iranians “shot down” a U.S. helicopter, which would necessitate a military response. With this in mind, MS NOW reported overnight:

The United States military said it completed its latest round of strikes on Iran on Tuesday following the earlier downing of a U.S. helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. Central Command announced.

The Associated Press reported that Iran said it retaliated with attacks in Bahrain and Kuwait and claimed it targeted a military base in Jordan that hosts U.S. forces. Jordan later confirmed that it had shot down five missiles.

We remain in the middle of a ceasefire in which the fire hasn’t ceased.

Why did Trump go from “repeatedly” saying the downing of the helicopter “wasn’t a big deal” to approving another round of military strikes? The Wall Street Journal went on to report that it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine who recommended additional military action, which led the president to change his mind. (This reporting has not been independently verified by MS NOW.)

As for the road forward, early Tuesday, Trump said that a deal to end the war could be reached “in two or three days.” Roughly 24 hours later, the American president said largely the opposite, writing online, “Iran’s Military is a complete and total mess. Much of it, like their Navy and Air Force, doesn’t even exist anymore — They have been completely defeated. Iran is all talk and no action. The Bully of the Middle East is DEAD!!! They’ve taken too long to negotiate a deal that would have been great for them, now they will have to pay the price!!!”

This didn’t make a whole lot of sense — it was weird to see Trump claim that Iran is powerless and “all talk and no action” while also accusing it of having “shot down” a U.S. helicopter — though the combination of military strikes and mixed messages once again suggest the end point to the conflict is not near.

The post Trump peddles more mixed messages after accusing Iran of downing a U.S. helicopter appeared first on MS NOW.

For months, Donald Trump and White House officials had a habit of insisting that the president had delivered an economy with “no inflation.” The public has heard a lot less such talk lately, and there’s no great mystery as to why. CNBC reported:

The consumer price index, a broad gauge of goods and services costs across the U.S. economy, rose at a seasonally adjusted 0.5% for the month, putting the annual inflation rate at 4.2%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday. Both numbers were in line with the Dow Jones consensus.

Inflation climbed above 4% for the first time in three years, though the increase met expectations amid concerns over how much the surge in energy prices would impact the economy. The level was the highest since April 2023 and above the 3.8% level from April.

The figures were entirely in line with a variety of related metrics related to the rising cost of living, including the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, the core personal consumption expenditures price index and wholesale prices, all of which recently hit three-year highs.

All that related data, incidentally, was released shortly before White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told Fox News that Trump had transformed the U.S. into an “extraordinary paradise.”

Asked for his reaction to the developments, Trump said the latest inflation data was “great,” adding, “I love the inflation.” (He went on to claim that his love for inflation is based on a secret program that takes Iranian oil. It’s unclear whether that program exists in reality.)

Q: Are you concerned about the latest inflation numbers that came out this morning?TRUMP: No, I love it. I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over — do you know we've been taking out millions of barrels of oil? You know who doesn't know? Iran until right now.

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-06-10T16:08:03.927Z

As for what’s driving the discouraging data, it is — to the surprise of no one — energy costs that are pushing prices higher, which is the direct result of the war with Iran.

Perhaps most importantly, NBC News’ report emphasized that inflation’s rise “has surpassed wage growth,” which necessarily exacerbates the affordability crisis gripping American consumers.

Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council and the top economist at the White House, has argued in recent weeks that rising inflation should be blamed on Democratic policies in blue states. Those claims, like much of what Hassett has to say, have been thoroughly discredited.

And no one is buying it. The latest national CNN poll found that 77% of respondents, including a majority of Republican voters, agreed that Trump’s policies have increased the cost of living. The same poll found that just 30% of Americans approve of the president’s handling of the economy, a career low for the Republican across both terms. That mirrored the results of the latest national Associated Press poll.

There’s no reason to assume those results won’t continue to get even worse.

This post, which updates our related earlier coverage, has been revised to include the quote from Trump..

The post Trump professes his ‘love’ of inflation as consumer costs reach a 3-year high appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest on the downed helicopter: “President Donald Trump blamed Iran for downing a U.S. Army helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday and said the United States must respond to the attack. A drone boat rescued two Army aviators who were aboard the Apache attack helicopter when it went down near the waterway that Iran has effectively closed during its war with the U.S. and Israel. Trump said in a social media post that both service members ‘are safe and uninjured.’”

* It would be great if this were true, but hasn’t he said the same thing too many times before? “U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday said that, despite the exchange of strikes between Iran and Israel, a deal to end the war in the Middle East could be reached ‘in two or three days.’”

* Meanwhile, in Lebanon: “Israeli airstrikes pummeled the city of Tyre in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, killing at least eight people and wounding dozens more, in the latest sign that a new U.S.-brokered cease-fire has failed to take hold.”

* On Capitol Hill: “The House on Tuesday narrowly voted to take up Republicans’ $70 billion immigration enforcement bill, clearing a key hurdle to enacting the measure to fund President Trump’s deportation crackdown through the end of his term. The vote was 213-211 along party lines, with every Democrat opposed. A final vote on the legislation, which if passed would go to Mr. Trump’s desk, was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.”

* A staggering statistic: “In the first years after birth, the human brain develops at a remarkable pace. Every second, more than a million new neural connections spring into being, shaping a person’s physical and emotional health for the rest of their life. Since the Trump administration entered the White House last year, at least 500 babies and toddlers have spent some of that pivotal time in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

* Speaking of ICE: “Mismanagement at a massive Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Texas created unsafe conditions that contributed to detainee deaths and suffering even as millions of wasted tax dollars enriched contractors, according to a federal report released Tuesday.”

* In case this isn’t obvious, 2032 is during the next president’s term: “Social Security ’s retirement trust fund is projected to face a funding shortfall in 2032, a year earlier than last year’s projections, according to an annual report released Tuesday, while Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits in 2033, which is unchanged from last year’s estimate.”

* Trump-appointed judges aren’t just wrong when issuing rulings: “A judge on the largest U.S. federal appeals court is facing a judicial misconduct inquiry after news reports over the weekend revealed that he had been criminally ​charged over a parking lot dispute in Idaho in April. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Murguia of the 9th ‌U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an order released on Monday said she had initiated a judicial misconduct complaint against U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson after he was hit with misdemeanor charges of battery and malicious injury to property on April 22.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Tuesday’s Mini-Report, 6.9.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

Kash Patel’s tenure as FBI director has been a national embarrassment in a great many ways, but among the most jarring developments this year is the sheer volume of bureau personnel who have been purged for political reasons, leaving the agency destabilized.

MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian noted the ongoing purge “is without precedent in the modern history of the bureau. It raises questions about whether the Trump administration is trying to turn the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency into an instrument of presidential whim — exactly the thing he baselessly accused his opponent of doing.”

That was 10 months ago. Things are worse now. MS NOW’s Dilanian and Carol Leonnig reported late last week, for example:

FBI Director Kash Patel fired a group of bureau intelligence analysts Friday over a rescinded 2023 memo about “radical traditionalist Catholic ideology” that has long been a focus of Republicans despite an investigation that found no anti-Catholic bias, three people familiar with the matter told MS NOW.

The analysts worked in the FBI’s Richmond office, where the memo originated, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to sensitive personnel issues. They said at least five analysts were included in the firings.

That these firings were tough to defend is notable in its own right — there’s little to suggest the FBI analysts did anything wrong — though I’m also struck by the degree to which they tie into a broader pattern.

One week earlier, Dilanian reported that Patel also fired a senior intelligence analyst, Deputy Assistant Director Emily Morales, who played a role in the FBI’s 2017 assessment of the motives of the gunman who attacked a House Republican baseball practice.

That came on the heels of Patel firing a dozen FBI agents and staff for their role in investigating Trump’s classified documents scandal. In the process, the bureau director gutted the global espionage unit, known as CI-12, shortly before the start of the war in Iran.

A month earlier, Paul Brown, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Atlanta field office, was also forced out, not because he’d done anything wrong, but because he questioned the value in re-investigating Georgia’s election results from six years earlier.

Around the same time, the FBI also purged the acting assistant director in charge of the New York field office, a former special agent in charge in New Orleans, as many as six agents in Miami, as well as agents who were pushed out for their involvement in the baseless “Arctic Frost” investigation in 2020.

A month before that, we learned about a lawsuit filed by 12 FBI agents who were fired for having taken a knee during racial justice protests in 2020 as part of an effort to de-escalate a situation that threatened to intensify.

Last August, Patel and his team ousted three experienced bureau leaders, including Brian Driscoll, a widely respected figure among rank-and-file agents who was removed after he helped prevent a mass firing of thousands of FBI officials who worked on Jan. 6 cases.

During his confirmation hearing early last year, Patel, a former podcast personality, assured senators that the bureau under his leadership “will not go backwards. There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no retributive actions taken by any FBI should I be confirmed as FBI director.”

As things stand, that testimony appears increasingly ridiculous.

Work on cases related to the criminal investigations into Trump? Fired. Work on Jan. 6 cases? Fired. Refuse to needlessly humiliate a former director? Fired.

It reached the point last fall when the FBI Agents Association said Patel was not only imposing “chaos” on the bureau, but that he’d also “disregarded the law and launched a campaign of erratic and arbitrary retribution.”

The FBI Agents Association added at the time that the director’s antics had created conditions that make “the American public less safe.”

Months later, as the number of those caught up in Patel’s personnel purge continues to grow, it’s tough to feel any better about the state of federal law enforcement.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Kash Patel’s FBI purges become a defining feature of his controversial tenure appeared first on MS NOW.