Editorial Note

Every so often, science stumbles onto something that doesn’t just answer a question. It asks a better one.

This is one of those stories.

You’ve probably spent your whole life believing cancer isn’t contagious.

For humans, that’s still true.

But if you’re a brown bullhead catfish living in a lake that straddles Vermont and Quebec, the rule apparently has an exception.

Researchers recently confirmed something nobody had ever documented before: a melanoma spreading from one freshwater fish to another. Not because every fish independently developed cancer, and not because a virus was triggering tumors. The cancer cells themselves were moving between fish, carrying the same genetic fingerprint from one host to the next. That discovery made headlines because it’s genuinely astonishing. It should have made headlines for another reason too, and that’s the one almost nobody’s writing about. Nature, The New York Times

Join me every morning.

If you enjoy independent journalism that follows evidence instead of talking points, Subscribe to Off Script with Tom Hicks. Free subscribers receive every morning’s edition in their inbox. Paid subscribers help keep this publication independent while receiving exclusive content and subscriber perks.

The contagious cancer isn’t the part of this story that’s been bothering me.

It’s the fact that someone had to notice it in the first place.

Think about what actually happened here.

An angler spotted strange black growths on catfish more than a decade ago. Scientists collected specimens, preserved tissue samples, sequenced DNA, and compared the genetic signatures of healthy fish against diseased ones. They ruled out viruses. They ruled out fish independently developing identical tumors over and over again. Eventually they landed on a conclusion that sounded almost impossible: every one of those tumors descended from a single original cancer. The cancer had effectively become its own parasite, moving from host to host instead of dying with the fish that first developed it. Nature EurekAlert

That’s extraordinary science, and it’s also exactly how science is supposed to work. Nobody woke up intending to discover the world’s first transmissible melanoma in a freshwater species. They were simply paying attention long enough to notice something that didn’t fit, and moments like that rarely happen by accident. They happen because somebody has the time, the funding and the institutional patience to keep asking questions after everyone else has moved on.

That’s the part I can’t stop thinking about.

We celebrate discoveries.

We rarely think about the discoveries that don’t happen.

Every scientific breakthrough has an invisible twin: the discovery that never happened because the expedition was canceled, the lab closed, the equipment wasn’t replaced or the graduate student chose another career. Those stories never make the evening news because nobody knows they exist. Ignorance leaves remarkably little evidence behind.

Knowledge has a strange blind spot. When it isn’t created, nobody notices. If a bridge collapses because maintenance was deferred, everyone sees it. If a hurricane forecast misses because weather satellites weren’t replaced, people eventually connect the dots. But what happens when the next breakthrough in wildlife biology never occurs because the graduate student who would’ve made it lost funding? What happens when a field station closes, long-term ecological monitoring quietly ends, or an experienced researcher leaves because the grant dried up? There’s no headline announcing the discovery that never happened because there can’t be. That’s what makes scientific research different from almost every other public investment. Its greatest successes are often impossible to predict before they happen.

No grant proposal in America ever began with the sentence, “We think we’re about to discover the first contagious cancer in freshwater fish.” If it had, reviewers probably would’ve laughed. Instead, researchers studied a lake. They watched. They sampled. They analyzed. Eventually, nature handed them something nobody expected. That’s usually how discovery works. Not through lightning bolts, but through patience. Science

And patience is becoming harder to fund.

The current administration has proposed significant reductions to several federal science agencies while freezing or terminating thousands of research grants across multiple disciplines. Scientists have repeatedly warned that long-term ecological monitoring and basic research are especially vulnerable because they rarely produce immediate political or commercial payoffs, even though they often produce the discoveries that reshape our understanding of the world years later. Nature News Reuters

That’s the uncomfortable part.

The research most likely to change how we understand the world usually looks obscure right up until the moment it doesn’t.

Nobody knew this particular lake was hiding a biological first.

So what about the lakes nobody’s studying?

What about the forests? The wetlands? The rivers? The deserts? Think about everything we haven’t found yet. Not because it isn’t there, but because there may be fewer people left to look.

One thing this discovery doesn’t mean is that we should panic. There’s no evidence this cancer can infect people. You’re not going to catch it from swimming in Lake Memphremagog, and scientists haven’t found any reason to believe it poses a risk to human health. Wildlife officials still recommend avoiding fish with obvious tumors or lesions, but that’s the same advice they’d give about any visibly diseased wild animal. Vermont Fish & Wildlife Nature

The real lesson isn’t what this cancer could do to us. It’s what it teaches us about how little we actually know. For generations we’ve treated “cancer isn’t contagious” as a rule. It turns out that’s more accurately described as an overwhelming tendency with a handful of extraordinary exceptions. Dogs have one. Tasmanian devils have another. Several marine bivalves carry transmissible cancers of their own. Now a freshwater fish joins that very short list. Science didn’t fail because the old rule had an exception. It succeeded because someone found it. That’s how knowledge is supposed to work. Science Nature

We keep arguing over research funding by asking what the return on investment is. Sometimes the return is obvious: a new drug, a safer bridge, a better weather forecast. Sometimes the return is discovering that something we believed for decades wasn’t entirely true. That doesn’t fit neatly into a campaign slogan or a budget spreadsheet, even though it changes our understanding of life itself. The researchers who spent years collecting fish, sequencing DNA and comparing genomes weren’t chasing a viral headline. They were doing the slow, methodical work that almost nobody notices until the day everybody does, and that kind of work has always demanded patience, along with a society willing to value questions before it knows the answers. Nature EurekAlert

Every administration has the right to set priorities. Budgets are finite, and every dollar spent on one program is a dollar that can’t be spent somewhere else. That’s a legitimate debate. What’s harder to debate is the cost of the questions that never get asked. You can’t measure a discovery that never happened. You can’t count the species nobody studied. You can’t identify the disease nobody had the resources to investigate. You can’t understand a changing world if fewer people are watching it.

That’s the invisible cost.

Maybe another scientist somewhere else would’ve eventually found this contagious cancer.

Maybe not.

We’ll never know.

What we do know is that this discovery happened because enough people, over enough years, had the freedom to keep looking after the first odd-looking catfish came out of that lake. That’s worth remembering the next time somebody dismisses basic research as wasteful or irrelevant.

Nature doesn’t stop writing new chapters because we decide they’re too expensive to read. It keeps going anyway.

Whether anyone is there to notice is up to us.

One Question Before You Go

If the most important scientific discoveries are often the ones nobody expects, how should we decide which research is worth funding before we know where it’ll lead?

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

THE RECORD

What the evidence actually shows.

• Researchers identified the first known naturally transmissible cancer in a freshwater animal, affecting brown bullhead catfish in Lake Memphremagog. Nature

• Genetic sequencing showed the tumors share a common origin, meaning the cancer cells themselves are spreading between fish rather than each fish developing independent tumors. Nature EurekAlert

• Scientists have found no evidence that the disease poses a risk to humans. Nature

• Naturally transmissible cancers have previously been documented in dogs, Tasmanian devils and several marine bivalve species. Science

• Researchers have warned that reductions in support for long-term basic research could limit future discoveries whose value isn’t immediately obvious. Nature News Reuters

The Bullshit Detector

Claim: “This proves cancer is contagious.”

Verdict: Mostly False.

This discovery doesn’t overturn decades of cancer biology. It documents an extraordinarily rare exception in a freshwater fish species. For humans, cancer remains a non-communicable disease. The bigger lesson isn’t that we’ve been wrong about cancer. It’s that science keeps refining what we know, and every so often those refinements are remarkable.

FREE FOR OFF SCRIPT SUBSCRIBERS

The Off Script Bullshit Detector

A practical guide to spotting misinformation, propaganda, and political nonsense before it fools you.

$4.95 in the Tom Hicks Media Store

More from Tom Hicks Media

If you liked thinking this hard before 9 am, I’ve got more for you. Panic Room Sports brings the same “slow down and look at the evidence” approach to the NFL. Tom’s Number Ones is a daily trip through Billboard history: pure nostalgia, zero politics. And if you need a break from humans overthinking everything, Lotus Purrspective is a cat’s unbothered take on the whole mess. All are free to subscribe.

☕ Buy Me a Cup of Tea

If Off Script makes your mornings a little smarter, a little more skeptical, or just a little more interesting, consider buying me a cup of tea. It helps support independent journalism without advertisers, corporate owners or political handlers.

If tea isn’t in the budget, sharing this article with someone who prefers evidence over outrage helps just as much.

Thank you for reading.

One Last Thing

The next breakthrough almost certainly won’t start with a press conference.

It’ll start with somebody noticing something a little out of place and having enough time, enough curiosity and enough support to ask, “That’s odd. I wonder why?”

Let’s hope there are still people around to ask.

#Science #CancerResearch #BasicResearch #Wildlife #Environment #ScienceFunding #PublicHealth #OffScript #TomHicksMedia

EDITORIAL NOTE

Off Script is independent journalism and commentary built on verified reporting, public records, and plain English. The facts are sourced. The opinions are mine. Nobody signs off on this before you see it, and nobody’s going to.

For nine years, Rubi Lama’s job was keeping other people alive.

She counseled members of Nepal’s LGBTQ+ community about HIV. She helped sex workers get tested, handed out condoms, connected people with medical care, and went into the places everybody else had already written off because that’s where the work was.

Then the United States pulled the money.

Now Lama’s back on the same stretch of highway in central Nepal, where transgender women wait after dark for cars to slow down. Except this time she’s not carrying condoms or offering an HIV test.

She’s hoping somebody will pay her for sex.

Read that again, because the obscenity of it gets lost if you move too fast.

A woman who spent nine years trying to prevent HIV is now standing in exactly the kind of situation she once helped other people survive because the job that let her do that work disappeared.

If a novelist wrote that, you’d tell them to knock it off. Too obvious. Too cruel. Too perfectly fucking bleak.

It’s not fiction.

It’s a policy decision made by people who’ll never see this highway, never meet Lama, and never have to sit with what happens after a customer drives away.

After the Trump administration gutted USAID and slashed foreign assistance in 2025, more than 280,000 aid workers worldwide lost their jobs. About 35,000 of those jobs disappeared in Nepal. The country’s leading LGBTQ+ organization says roughly 100 former workers have since entered sex work because they had nowhere else to turn. (Associated Press)

These weren’t pampered bureaucrats collecting fat checks in climate-controlled offices. They were local workers earning modest salaries to do the least glamorous jobs in public health: finding people society preferred not to see, persuading them to get tested, delivering medication, handing out condoms, and trying to make one dangerous night a little less dangerous.

Then somebody in Washington decided that work was a waste.

So the people doing it became disposable.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning for independent journalism with no talking points.

The Highway After Dark

Associated Press reporter Kristen Gelineau and photographer Bram Janssen followed former aid workers along the highway near Hetauda, where trucks slow down after dark and transgender sex workers negotiate with men who may be customers, attackers, or both. (Associated Press)

Some are earning two or three dollars per client.

That isn’t a meaningful career choice. It’s what survival looks like after hunger has kicked down every other door.

The workers described sexual assault, beatings, robbery, police harassment, and customers demanding sex without condoms. They now face the same dangers they once helped other people navigate, except the health network behind them has been ripped out too.

There’s an easy way to read this story: sad, distant, unfortunate. That version is neat. Comfortable. Almost antiseptic. It’s also bullshit.

These circumstances didn’t just happen. Weather didn’t do this. Bad luck didn’t do this.

The United States did this.

A government can end a program. It can decide another country should fund its own clinics. It can argue that foreign aid became bloated, badly managed, or disconnected from American interests. Some USAID programs undoubtedly deserved scrutiny.

What it can’t honestly do is kill funding overnight, destroy the local network delivering the services, fire the people who understood the communities, and then act like the consequences fell out of the sky.

That isn’t reform.

It’s demolition with paperwork.

You Can’t Audit a Hospital With a Bulldozer

USAID was easy to attack because most Americans knew it only as an acronym.

Four letters on a briefing slide.

An acronym doesn’t have a face. It doesn’t tell you it’s hungry. It doesn’t stand on a highway at midnight hoping the next car contains a customer instead of somebody who wants to hurt it.

The campaign against foreign aid depended on keeping everything abstract. Billions overseas. A grant with a ridiculous title. One example yanked out of context and waved around long enough to make the whole operation look like a scam.

Some of the outrage was deserved. Any organization spending billions across dozens of countries will have waste, failed projects, bad contractors, and administrative bullshit. That deserves an audit.

But an audit is supposed to tell you what works, what doesn’t, and what needs to change.

You don’t audit a hospital by bulldozing it while the patients are still inside.

You sure as hell don’t call that efficiency afterward.

The attack on USAID made little distinction between bloated consulting contracts and frontline HIV prevention. Programs froze before anyone figured out who depended on them or what would replace them. Waivers meant to protect lifesaving services often failed because the organizations involved had already lost staff, contracts, authority, or cash flow. (KFF)

Washington congratulated itself for the savings.

Nepal got stuck with the bodies.

A Public-Health System Lives in People

The workers who lost their jobs weren’t just names on a payroll.

They were the system.

They had relationships inside marginalized communities that took years to build. They knew who’d missed an appointment, who needed medication, who was being abused, and who was too frightened to be seen walking into a clinic.

That knowledge doesn’t live in a filing cabinet.

It lives in people.

Once those people are scattered, impoverished, or forced into survival work, some future administration can’t wander back in with a check and pretend it fixed everything. Trust has to be rebuilt. Workers have to be rehired. Patients who disappeared have to be found.

The infections that happened during the gap don’t unhappen because Washington changed its mind.

In Nepal, clinics serving vulnerable communities closed or sharply reduced services. More than 1,200 people reportedly lost access to PrEP, the medication used to prevent HIV infection. Condom distribution collapsed. Outreach workers who once promoted safer sex now face customers offering desperately needed money on the condition that no condom be used. (Associated Press)

The sequence is almost too sick to believe.

Eliminate the job that allowed someone to prevent HIV. Eliminate the medicine and condoms used to prevent HIV. Then push that same person into a situation where catching it becomes far more likely.

Somewhere in Washington, a spreadsheet records a savings.

That spreadsheet doesn’t show the woman standing beside the road.

Foreign Aid Was Never Just Charity

Foreign aid was usually sold as generosity, and that may have been the mistake.

Generosity sounds optional. It sounds like something nice people do until meaner people show up with a chainsaw and call themselves serious.

Public health abroad is also national defense.

Viruses don’t stop at customs. Drug-resistant infections don’t care which country funded the clinic. Nepal shares an open border with India and has a large migrant workforce moving between countries.

An outbreak doesn’t politely stay contained among the people Americans have decided are somebody else’s problem.

The United States understood this when George W. Bush created PEPFAR. The program became one of the most successful global-health efforts in history, supporting treatment for more than 20 million people and building testing, prevention, and disease-surveillance networks many countries couldn’t have created alone. (National Library of Medicine)

Those networks protected people overseas.

They protected Americans too.

Now the damage is showing up in the numbers. A study presented at the 2026 International AIDS Conference found that roughly 77,000 fewer children received U.S.-supported HIV treatment between October 2024 and October 2025 than during the previous year. Another assessment found more than 1,700 clinics or service sites had closed across 46 countries, with over 16,000 workers laid off. (Reuters)

Nepal isn’t some isolated nightmare tucked into one corner of Asia.

It’s a close-up.

The Moral Accounting

There’s a danger in writing about people “turning to sex work.”

Sex workers aren’t props in somebody else’s morality play, and sex work itself isn’t proof that a person has lost dignity. Adults choose it under all kinds of circumstances.

The issue here is desperation narrowing the available choices until the word barely means a damn thing.

When somebody accepts a stranger’s two dollars because the alternative is hunger, “choice” gets pretty thin. When discrimination has already shut most conventional employment to transgender workers, eliminating one of the few organizations willing to hire them does more than cancel a paycheck.

It closes an escape route.

These aid jobs provided income, but they also gave people standing. They were counselors, educators, and outreach specialists with knowledge their communities needed.

Several told the AP they wanted those jobs back. The pay was modest. What they missed was the purpose, the chance to help people, and the ability to imagine a future beyond the next meal. (Associated Press)

Washington took that from them without learning their names.

We know some of those names now: Rubi Lama. Princy Tamang. Barsha Magar. Bharati Thapa.

Say them.

Government policy loves passive language. Funding was reduced. Contracts were terminated. Programs were suspended.

Nobody in that language actually does anything to anybody. It all just happens, clean and bloodless, like a printer running out of paper.

Rubi Lama standing on that highway puts the subject and the verb back where they belong.

The United States cut the program.

She paid for it.

The Bullshit Detector

Claim: USAID was wasteful, so eliminating it saved taxpayers money.

Reading: MISLEADING.

USAID deserved scrutiny. That doesn’t mean every program was a waste, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean blowing up the structure overnight was financially smart. Cutting prevention now can create far higher costs later through outbreaks, emergency relief, instability, and the destruction of infrastructure Americans already paid to build.

Claim: Other countries should take care of their own people.

Reading: INCOMPLETE.

Local ownership is a reasonable long-term goal. Destroying a working system before a replacement exists doesn’t create independence. It creates a vacuum.

Claim: These cuts put America first.

Reading: UNPROVEN.

Weakening disease surveillance, destroying strategic relationships, and handing rival powers an opening may do the opposite. Slapping “America First” on a bad policy doesn’t magically make it patriotic.

The Off Script Bullshit Detector is free for subscribers and available for $4.95 from the Tom Hicks Media Store.

What We Chose Not to See

Americans are allowed to debate how much foreign aid this country should provide. We can demand receipts, measurable results, and an honest explanation of how the spending serves American interests.

What we can’t honestly do is pretend the money existed in a vacuum.

Every budget contains a moral decision buried inside the arithmetic. The people making it owe the public a straight answer about who will absorb the loss.

In Nepal, we’ve got that answer.

Former HIV counselors are standing on a highway where they once handed out condoms. Some are taking two or three dollars from men who may refuse to wear one. The clinics that supported them have closed. The medicine they promoted is harder to find. The community they protected is more exposed now, and so are they.

This didn’t happen because nobody understood what foreign aid accomplished.

It happened because knowing would’ve made the cuts harder to sell.

The administration wanted a triumph of efficiency. It wanted photographs of canceled contracts, shuttered offices, and officials grinning beside chainsaws.

It needed the public to see an agency being destroyed.

It needed the people underneath it to stay invisible.

The cameras got their spectacle.

Rubi Lama got the highway.

One Question Before You Go

When the government says it saved money by cutting a program, shouldn’t it also have to tell us exactly who’s expected to pay that cost instead?

More from Tom Hicks Media:

If you liked thinking this hard before 9 am, I’ve got more for you. Panic Room Sports brings the same “slow down and look at the evidence” approach to the NFL. Tom’s Number Ones is a daily trip through Billboard history — pure nostalgia, zero politics. And if you need a break from all of us humans overthinking things, Lotus Purrspective is a cat’s unbothered take on human behavior. All free to subscribe.

Subscribe now

Support independent reporting and commentary that follows the consequences after the political show moves on.

Buy Me a Cup of Tea

Off Script has no corporate sponsor and no billionaire hovering nearby with “helpful” editorial suggestions. A cup of tea helps keep the reporting independent and the Bullshit Detector properly calibrated.

One Last Thing

A country shows you its priorities through the suffering it’s willing to call somebody else’s problem.

#USAID #Nepal #ForeignAid #HIV #PEPFAR #PublicHealth #LGBTQ #TrumpAdministration #GovernmentCuts #OffScript

The real goal is cleaner than that, and it’s a hell of a lot uglier once you say it plainly.

Stop people from using judgment in the first place.

That’s the thread running through more of this moment than we’ve been willing to admit. The fight isn’t only about universities, grants, law firms, civil servants, scientists, public health, immigration, trans policy, or the courts. Those are the rooms where the fight is breaking out. The fight itself is over whether trained people are still allowed to apply standards without waiting for political permission.

That sounds abstract until you see how often the same move keeps showing up.

A lawyer takes the wrong client.

A university refuses the wrong demand.

A researcher uses the wrong phrase.

A civil servant applies the wrong statute with too much honesty.

A judge reads the wrong limit into presidential power.

A grant reviewer thinks merit matters more than loyalty.

Then the punishment arrives wearing a government badge and calling itself accountability. Bullshit, dressed up and given a podium.

The Trump administration reinstated the old Schedule F framework on January 20, 2025, under the title “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce.” The White House order brought back a system designed to move certain federal employees into a category with fewer civil-service protections, aimed at workers in “policy-influencing” roles. The administration’s language was all about responsiveness and democratic control. The practical message to the workforce was harder to miss: your professional judgment may now be judged by your political usefulness. (White House)

That’s where this story starts making more sense.

Because the target isn’t merely “the bureaucracy.” That word has become a handy garbage bag for everything people dislike about government. Too slow, too smug, too many acronyms, too many forms, too many people who can say no without seeming even mildly sorry about it. Fine. Some of that’s deserved. I’ve met paperwork that should’ve been taken out back and humanely composted.

Civil service exists for a reason. It’s supposed to put some distance between law and personal command. It’s supposed to give the government people who can say, “No, the rule doesn’t allow that,” even when the president, governor, secretary, mayor, sheriff, or deputy assistant king of the toner cartridge wants a different answer.

That’s judgment.

It isn’t glamorous. It doesn’t trend. It’s not a resistance hashtag. Most of the time it looks like somebody in a bad office chair reading a paragraph very carefully while drinking coffee that tastes like the building’s given up.

But it matters like hell.

A government without independent judgment becomes a chain of command with nicer stationery.

Subscribe to Off Script with Tom Hicks

Join me every morning for independent commentary, sourced arguments, and the occasional paperwork autopsy before breakfast.

Subscribers also get the Off Script Bullshit Detector free. Non-subscribers can grab it from the Tom Hicks Media Store for $4.95, which is cheaper than one bad pundit habit and a lot easier to carry.

The same pressure showed up in the campaign against law firms. In 2025, the White House targeted firms including Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie with executive orders or related actions that threatened security clearances, federal contracts, and access to government business. Reuters reported that the Paul Weiss order suspended security clearances while agencies reviewed whether those clearances were consistent with the national interest, and it also directed agencies to examine contracts involving the firm. (Reuters)

Perkins Coie fought back. In Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C. 2025), the firm won permanent relief after challenging an executive order aimed at the firm. The court record described an order designed to hamper the firm’s work before federal agencies and noted the connection between the order and clients pulling back from the firm. (GovInfo)

Susman Godfrey fought back too. In Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President, No. 1:25-cv-01107 (D.D.C. 2025), the firm won a permanent injunction against sections of the executive order targeting it. Reuters later described that ruling as part of a string of court victories for law firms targeted over legal work, diversity programs, and political associations. (Justia)

Don’t let the BigLaw names make this feel remote. The principle’s brutally simple.

If the government can punish lawyers for representing the wrong people, supporting the wrong causes, hiring the wrong associates, or belonging to the wrong political universe, it can make the right to counsel exist mostly on paper. You’ll still be allowed to hire a lawyer. The lawyer will just have to wonder whether taking your case costs the firm its federal clients, clearances, contracts, reputation, and sanity.

Call it what it actually is: leash training with a Justice Department letterhead.

The administration hasn’t let the matter die. Reuters reported this week that the Justice Department asked a federal judge to disqualify Susman Godfrey from representing the American Bar Association in its lawsuit against the White House, where the ABA alleges the administration unlawfully targeted firms over their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies, and political affiliations. (Reuters)

The Financial Times also reported that firms that reached deals with Trump are now facing demands for depositions and internal communications connected to those agreements, while the ABA case accuses the administration of operating an unlawful “law firm intimidation policy.” (Financial Times)

That phrase lands because it names the thing plainly.

Intimidation policy.

The goal isn’t to beat every lawyer in court. It’s to make everyone else watch what happens to the lawyers who don’t bend fast enough.

Once you see the pattern there, the university fights look less like isolated culture-war episodes and more like another front in the same goddamn war. Reuters reported on July 20, 2026, that the Justice Department opened a probe into Harvard over financial-aid programs tied to China, part of the administration’s broader scrutiny of elite universities. That scrutiny’s included federal funding threats tied to protests, diversity efforts, transgender policies, and climate initiatives. Harvard has described earlier federal actions as politically motivated attacks on academic independence. (Reuters)

Some people will hear “Harvard” and immediately stop caring. I get it. Harvard isn’t exactly a Dickensian orphan shivering beside a soup pot. It’s got money, lawyers, prestige, and enough institutional self-regard to power a small moon.

Still, the issue isn’t whether Harvard’s lovable.

The issue is whether the federal government can turn academic independence into a hostage negotiation.

A university can be investigated for real violations. It can lose funds for unlawful discrimination. It can be audited, sued, embarrassed, and made to answer for actual misconduct. Nobody serious should object to that.

The warning sign is when enforcement starts looking like viewpoint management. When funding, tax status, foreign-student access, grant eligibility, and civil-rights investigations all become part of one pressure system, the target’s no longer a single violation. The target is institutional judgment itself.

Teach this.

Don’t teach that.

Investigate this.

Don’t study that.

Say the right thing about protests, diversity, gender, Israel, climate, China, history, admissions, donors, faculty, students, and America itself, or the federal government may discover a sudden and passionate interest in your paperwork.

Funny how that happens.

The grant fight fits here too, though it shouldn’t be allowed to swallow the whole story. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed revisions to the rules governing federal financial assistance. The Federal Register notice says the changes are meant to improve transparency, accountability, oversight, and compliance. It also frames past federal awards as vehicles for “woke” policy and proposes pre-issuance review for discretionary awards, with senior agency appointees reviewing whether awards advance the president’s policy priorities. (Federal Register)

Peer review survives in that structure, technically.

It just gets shoved into the advisory chair.

That distinction is everything. Expert review can still exist. Panels can still meet. Scores can still be assigned. Forms can still be filled. The whole thing can keep the shape of merit while moving the final power to political appointees whose job is to judge alignment with the president’s priorities.

That’s how judgment gets replaced without announcing its death.

No bonfire. No ban. No cartoon censor with a stamp.

Just a new approval layer, quiet as a filing cabinet.

A federal judge in Massachusetts recently blocked one version of the administration’s grant-cutting strategy. In State of New Jersey v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, No. 1:25-cv-11816-IT (D. Mass. July 17, 2026), Judge Indira Talwani barred the administration from using a disputed clause to terminate grants that no longer aligned with “program goals or agency priorities.” AP reported that the challenged cuts affected areas including public safety, disaster preparedness, and scientific research. (Associated Press)

That ruling matters, but it also shows why the deeper move is so dangerous.

Courts can sometimes stop a grant from being pulled after it’s been awarded. They can review the record, examine the clause, compare the agency’s action to the law, and say no. Good. That’s still a living system doing what living systems do.

But what happens when the pressure moves earlier?

What happens when researchers never propose the study because the topic feels politically radioactive?

What happens when nonprofits rewrite their mission statements before applying?

What happens when public-health officials stop using accurate words because accurate words have become funding hazards?

What happens when a young scientist looks at the political weather and decides to study something safer, smaller, less useful, and less likely to get somebody in Washington twitching?

There’s no court docket for the question that never gets asked.

That’s the quiet part of the war on judgment. It doesn’t only punish decisions after they happen. It changes the decisions people are willing to make in the first place.

The AI science push makes this bigger, not smaller. Reuters reported on July 22, 2026, that the administration plans to spend $5 billion on AI-powered research across fields including health, construction, drug discovery, and building materials, with 15 federal agencies involved and researchers using Energy Department supercomputers, AI tools, and datasets. (Reuters)

Again, AI in science isn’t the villain. Used honestly, it can help researchers see patterns, test hypotheses, and move faster through problems that would otherwise take years. I’m not against giving smart people better tools. Give them the big computers. Give them the clean datasets. Give them the ridiculous blinking dashboard if it helps them cure something before I need it.

The danger’s who gets to aim the machine.

If federal science is increasingly built around central datasets, supercomputing access, AI models, national missions, and politically reviewed grants, then the front-end judgment call becomes enormously powerful. Decide which questions are worthy, and you decide which data gets assembled. Decide which data gets assembled, and you decide which models get trained. Decide which models get trained, and eventually the public gets told the output is evidence.

By then, the missing questions are invisible. Nobody misses a question nobody remembers asking.

That’s how obedience puts on a lab coat.

And this is the piece we keep missing when we treat each fight as its own headline. Schedule F is a civil-service story. The law-firm orders are a legal-industry story. Harvard’s an education story. Grant review is a science-policy story. AI research is a technology story.

No.

They’re all judgment stories.

They’re all about whether people with training, standards, evidence, professional ethics, legal obligations, and institutional roles can still say, “This is what the facts require,” without first checking whether the answer flatters power.

That’s why authoritarian politics always goes after intermediaries. Lawyers, judges, inspectors general, scientists, auditors, professors, librarians, journalists, doctors, civil servants, election officials, and grant reviewers all have one thing in common: they stand between raw power and the public. They’re annoying by design.

A healthy government has to tolerate annoying people.

A sick one starts calling them enemies.

The administration’s defenders will say elections have consequences. They do. A president gets to set priorities. Agencies aren’t independent planets. Federal money should be accountable to the public. Bad grants should die. Waste should be cut. Universities shouldn’t get blank checks. Law firms shouldn’t be immune from scrutiny. Civil servants shouldn’t treat elections as mild weather events occurring somewhere outside their cubicles.

All true.

Also incomplete as hell.

Accountability means decisions can be explained, reviewed, challenged, and tied to law. Obedience means decisions have to satisfy the person at the top.

Accountability and obedience aren’t cousins. They’re enemies who occasionally borrow each other’s suits.

This is where the bullshit detector starts screaming. Every time the government says it wants “accountability,” ask who’s being made accountable to what. Accountable to statute? Fine. Accountable to evidence? Good. Accountable to transparent criteria? Wonderful. Accountable to the president’s mood, political needs, ideological vocabulary, personal grudges, and preferred television segment?

Call it what it actually is: courtier training with an accountability press release stapled to the front.

The most dangerous version of this doesn’t arrive with tanks in the street. It arrives as a personnel category, an executive order, a compliance review, a funding condition, a grant notice, a civil-rights probe, a security-clearance review, a subpoena, a settlement demand, a dataset policy, a procurement rule, and a memo from someone whose title has too many goddamn syllables.

It looks boring because boring is camouflage.

That’s why this article matters more than another day of outrage over whichever official said the dumbest thing into the nearest microphone. The dumb thing is bait. The structural thing is the trap.

A country can survive bad presidents, bad policies, and bad speeches. It’s done so with grim enthusiasm for a very long time. What it can’t survive for long is the steady removal of independent judgment from every institution that needs it.

When lawyers are afraid to represent.

When scientists are afraid to study.

When universities are afraid to teach.

When civil servants are afraid to say no.

When judges are treated as obstacles instead of constitutional officers.

When agencies stop asking what the law requires and start asking what the leader wants.

At that point, the republic still has buildings, flags, seals, hearing rooms, websites, acronyms, and forms.

It just has fewer adults, and a whole lot more paperwork pretending to be courage.

And that may be the real project here: not winning every dispute, not proving every critic wrong, not even controlling every institution directly. The real project is teaching everyone inside those institutions to pre-clear their own judgment.

No order needed.

They’ll learn.

They’ll soften the phrase, avoid the case, drop the client, rewrite the grant, delay the study, bury the finding, flatter the boss, dodge the topic, and call it prudence because prudence sounds a hell of a lot better than fear.

That’s how a free country learns to speak in a whisper.

And once that habit sets in, getting the courts to block one bad order won’t be enough. The paperwork can be rewritten. The title can be changed. The policy can be moved to another office. The threat can be implied instead of printed. Power’s very creative when it wants to avoid leaving fingerprints.

The defense has to be cultural as much as legal.

Professional judgment has to become something people are proud to use again. Not expert arrogance. Not credential worship. Not the fake priesthood of people who think a degree makes them immune from being wrong.

Real judgment.

The kind that reads the rule, checks the facts, listens to the evidence, knows the limits, admits uncertainty, and still has enough backbone to say, “No, that’s not what this means.”

That sentence is doing more work than most campaign slogans.

Because the opposite of democracy isn’t only dictatorship.

Sometimes the opposite of democracy is a room full of people who know better and have been trained to keep their damn mouths shut about it.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

Which institutions still have people willing to say “no” when power wants them to pretend the answer is yes?

BUY ME A CUP OF TEA

If this helped sharpen the picture, you can always Buy Me A Cup Of Tea and help keep this little independent operation caffeinated.

HASHTAGS

#OffScript #TomHicks #RuleOfLaw #CivilService #AcademicFreedom #FederalGrants #SciencePolicy #FreeSpeech #Accountability #Authoritarianism

Every once in a while I run across a story that refuses to leave me alone. Not because it’s the biggest story of the day, but because there’s a sentence buried somewhere in the middle that quietly changes the way I look at everything around it.

This is one of those stories.

I’ve used Ctrl+F more times than I could count—as a DJ digging through liner notes, as a paralegal buried in discovery, and now as a guy trying to get a newsletter out before the coffee gets cold. It’s one of the best inventions we’ve ever stumbled into. It’s also completely useless for the one job we keep asking it to do, and that gap between what we ask of it and what it can actually give us is what pulled me into this story.

Not the lawsuit itself.

The habit underneath it.

If you’ve seen the headlines, you’ve probably already filed this one away.

California. Minnesota. Research grants. Trump. DEI. Universities.

By now you know the drill. Before anyone reads the underlying documents, the story gets sorted into political buckets, everybody picks a side, and social media fills up with people arguing over headlines they didn’t write about court filings they sure as hell didn’t read. That’s become so normal we barely notice we’re doing it anymore.

I thought that’s what I was about to read, too.

Then I got to one paragraph and just stopped.

Not because it was dramatic. It wasn’t. There wasn’t a shocking confession or a smoking gun hiding in the filing. What actually happened is almost dumber than that, which is probably why I nearly read right past it.

It wasn’t buried in some obscure exhibit. It wasn’t hidden behind legal jargon. It was sitting there in signed court filings.

In Thakur v. Trump, federal agencies stipulated they used general criteria rather than assessing individual research grants one by one. The lawsuit involves grants awarded to institutions in California and Minnesota, and the plaintiffs argue the government relied on the same review process to terminate funding across both states. They’re now asking the judge to rule that the process itself violated the law rather than proceed to a full trial. Whether that process was lawful is still for the court to decide, but the fact that keyword-based screening was part of the review is no longer speculation—it’s in the court record.

I sat there for a minute thinking, okay...and?

Of course they searched the grants.

Why the hell wouldn’t they?

If someone handed me ten thousand grant applications and said, “Find every proposal that mentions a particular subject,” I’d search them too.

So would you.

So would every lawyer I know, every reporter, every auditor, every poor bastard who’s ever spent an afternoon trapped inside a six-hundred-page government PDF reaching for Ctrl+F like it’s oxygen.

Somewhere out there is a programmer who has no idea they collectively gave humanity back millions of hours of its life.

I’ve used Ctrl+F on everything from discovery productions to DJ liner notes to draft newsletters like this one. Every single time it did exactly what I asked it to do.

Not once did it tell me what any of it meant.

That part was always waiting for me.

So the searching wasn’t the story.

The story was what my brain did next.

Without even realizing it, I slid from they searched for these words to they found the thing they were looking for.

Those aren’t the same statement.

Not even close.

Ctrl+F doesn’t know what it’s looking at. It doesn’t know whether those words appear because a researcher is defending an idea, criticizing it, measuring it, quoting somebody else’s work, or explaining why the whole premise is wrong. It doesn’t know whether the phrase shows up once in a bibliography or fifty times because it’s the entire point of the grant. It doesn’t know if it’s sitting in the title or buried in a footnote nobody ever reads.

It can’t know.

All it knows is that you asked it to find a sequence of letters, and it faithfully points to every place they show up. Honestly, that’s one of the things I admire about it. Ctrl+F never pretends it understood a goddamn thing it found.

We do.

That’s the thought that wouldn’t leave me alone after I closed the filing.

Somewhere along the way we’ve become so impressed with retrieval that we’ve started giving it credit for judgment, and I don’t think we even noticed we were doing it. A search narrows the pile. That’s genuinely useful. But narrowing the pile isn’t deciding what belongs in it, what matters, or what happens next.

That’s where the human being is supposed to show up.

If this is the kind of journalism you enjoy, I’d love to have you join me every morning. Off Script is free to read, and paid subscribers get Point Blank, where I take one story and dig into it without the constraints of a daily newsletter. No advertisers. No corporate owners. Just independent journalism supported by readers.

Subscribe now

Subscribe today and join me every weekday morning for Off Script.

Maybe that’s what keeps bothering me.

The software finished its job the instant it handed the information back.

Everything after that belonged to us.

And somewhere along the way we’ve started acting like the software finished that job too.

Maybe that’s why I couldn’t let this go. The lawsuit is important, and whatever the judge ultimately decides will matter. A hearing on whether the court should rule on the existing record is scheduled for October. But I suspect the bigger story isn’t California or Minnesota. It isn’t this administration. It isn’t even these particular research grants. I think it’s a habit we’ve all picked up without realizing it. We’ve become so accustomed to computers finding things that we’re forgetting finding was never the hard part. Deciding what those things mean always was.

I kept wondering if I was making too much of it. After all, it’s one lawsuit. Maybe the court decides the government’s review process was perfectly lawful. Maybe it decides it was a load of horseshit dressed up in legal paperwork. That’s what courts are for. Judges examine evidence the rest of us don’t have, witnesses testify, lawyers make their arguments, and eventually somebody in a black robe tells everyone which claims survived contact with reality.

My job isn’t to decide that case. My job is noticing the question the lawsuit accidentally raised, because I don’t think it belongs only to lawyers. I think it belongs to all of us.

The more I thought about it, the more I started seeing the same mistake everywhere. Somebody searches an email archive and finds the word bonus.

Now what?

Did they uncover fraud? A perfectly legitimate compensation plan? A complaint from an employee? A joke that reads completely differently once you see the rest of the thread? A draft that was never sent?

Nobody knows yet. All anybody knows is that the word exists, and somewhere along the way we’ve started acting like finding the word solved the whole damn mystery. It didn’t. It just told you where to start looking.

The software did exactly what we asked it to do. The mistake belongs to us. We’ve started expecting tools to make judgment calls they were never designed to make.

A hammer doesn’t care whether you’re building a house or knocking one down. A calculator doesn’t care whether the numbers describe a family’s grocery budget or a money-laundering operation. Google Maps doesn’t care whether you’re driving to your grandmother’s house or the scene of a robbery. The tools don’t know, and they were never supposed to. Their job ends the moment they hand the information back. Ours begins there, whether we feel like showing up for it or not.

The more I thought about it, the less interested I became in this administration and the more interested I became in government itself. Governments are allowed to make bad decisions. They’re allowed to make unpopular decisions. They’re even allowed to make decisions courts eventually overturn. That’s part of living in a constitutional republic.

What they’re not allowed to do is pretend a search box did the thinking for them.

Government isn’t special because it has access to information. Most of us carry more searchable information in our pockets than entire federal agencies possessed a generation ago. What’s supposed to make government different is that somebody has to own the decision after the information has been gathered.

That’s what due process protects.

Not perfection.

Accountability.

Someone has to explain why a decision was made, defend it if a court asks, and own it if it turns out they got it wrong. A search box can’t do any of that shit. It can’t raise its right hand and swear to tell the truth. It can’t explain why one grant deserved another look while another didn’t. It can’t answer a judge’s questions or be cross-examined by opposing counsel. It can’t even tell you why it highlighted one sentence instead of another, because it didn’t. You told it what to look for, and it faithfully returned every match.

If the plaintiffs are right, that process unlawfully terminated research funding awarded to institutions in California and Minnesota. If the government is right, the court will say so. Either way, responsibility belongs to people, not software.

Which brings me back to the title.

I wasn’t trying to be clever.

I was reminding myself of something so obvious we’ve nearly stopped saying it out loud.

Ctrl+F is not government.

Neither is artificial intelligence, a spreadsheet, or an algorithm. They’re remarkable tools. I use them every day, and I’ll probably hit Ctrl+F three more times before this newsletter goes out. But none of them relieve me of the responsibility to think. They don’t relieve you of it either. And they sure as hell don’t relieve a government of it.

Maybe the plaintiffs in Thakur v. Trump prove their case. Maybe the government proves theirs. I’ll read the opinion when it comes out.

But I hope that’s not the only thing people remember from this lawsuit.

Long after this case is over, long after this administration is replaced by another one, and that one by another, we’ll still be surrounded by tools that retrieve information faster than any generation in history could have imagined. That’s an incredible thing. It also makes judgment more valuable, not less. The easier it becomes to find something, the more important it becomes to understand what you actually found.

Finding the answer has never been the hard part.

Recognizing it when you’re looking straight at it always has.

Before You Go

I put together a short field guide called the Off Script Bullshit Detector—the framework I use to separate information from interpretation before I write a single word. Paid subscribers get it free. Everyone else can pick it up at the Tom Hicks Media Store for $4.95.

If Off Script has become part of your morning routine, you can also buy me a cup of tea. No guilt. No paywall games. Just another way to help keep this publication reader-funded.

One Question Before You Go

What’s one place in your own work—or your own life—where you’ve caught yourself mistaking a search result for an answer?

I’d genuinely like to hear it.

One Last Thing

I still think about the programmer who built Ctrl+F.

They probably thought they were solving a navigation problem.

I doubt they imagined they were also giving the rest of us one more opportunity to confuse finding information with understanding it.

#CtrlF #Government #DueProcess #ThakurVTrump #CriticalThinking #OffScript

EDITORIAL NOTE: Off Script is an independent opinion publication. The reporting and public records cited below establish the facts. The conclusions, judgments, and occasional profanity are mine.

The going price for a presidential pardon is apparently $600,000.

Unless you do not get the pardon. Then, according to the contract at the center of this story, the price is supposed to drop to $300,000.

That is the position rapper Boosie Badazz now finds himself in after paying a Washington lobbying firm to pursue a pardon from Donald Trump. The pardon never arrived, and Boosie, whose legal name is Torence Hatch, has gone to arbitration trying to recover half of what he paid. It would be easy to laugh at the whole thing as a celebrity getting fleeced by a pair of notorious political operators.

That would also miss the point.

Boosie is not the scandal here. He is the customer whose transaction went bad badly enough that the rest of us got to see the receipt.

According to reporting by Jasmine Wright and Taylor Giorno of NOTUS, Hatch paid JM Burkman & Associates $600,000 in September 2025 to lobby for a pardon related to his federal gun conviction. The firm is run by Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl, two men whose political résumé already included hoaxes, a fraudulent robocall scheme, criminal guilty pleas, and millions of dollars in Federal Communications Commission penalties. Hatch’s lawyers say the agreement required the firm to return $300,000 if no pardon was secured by January 1, 2026. Burkman’s firm disputes that interpretation and says it performed substantial work on Hatch’s behalf. (NOTUS)

The arrangement was not hidden in a back alley or conducted with cash stuffed into a paper bag. Federal lobbying disclosures showed the firm reporting Hatch’s $600,000 payment as part of $3.2 million in lobbying revenue during 2025. This was a documented Washington business transaction, carried out by people who apparently believed presidential clemency could be pursued the same way corporations pursue tax breaks, defense contracts, or favorable regulations. (NOTUS)

That distinction matters. There is no public evidence that Trump personally accepted money from Hatch or agreed to exchange a pardon for payment. Saying Trump sold Boosie a pardon would go beyond the reporting and hand the White House an easy way to dismiss the entire story.

The documented truth is plenty ugly without embellishment.

A lucrative industry has grown around people who claim their political connections, personal relationships, and proximity to Trump can improve a client’s chances of receiving clemency. The product being sold may not be the pardon itself. It is access to the one man who can grant it, and in Trump’s Washington, access has become close enough to a currency that wealthy defendants are apparently willing to spend fortunes trying to buy it.

Hatch says the people he hired did more than promise to advocate for him. Messages described by NOTUS allegedly gave his legal team the impression that the pardon was moving through the White House and was nearly complete. At one point, Burkman reportedly claimed Trump had the pardon document “in hand and is ready to sign.” The pardon never appeared, and the White House later told reporters it had no record of receiving the application the firm supposedly pursued. (NOTUS; The Guardian)

There is a darkly funny version of this story in which Boosie paid six hundred grand to two men with a public history of political scams and then discovered they might not have the influence they claimed. He would hardly be the first rich person to learn that Washington is full of men whose connections grow considerably stronger during a sales pitch.

The funny version stops being funny when you ask why the pitch sounded believable.

Why would any serious lawyer, wealthy defendant, celebrity, or business executive believe that hiring the right Trump-adjacent operator could move a pardon application closer to the president? Why would someone think a visit to Mar-a-Lago, an introduction at a political event, or a well-placed phone call might matter more than a formal petition built on remorse, rehabilitation, proportionality, or justice?

Because Trump has taken Washington’s old access racket and stripped away much of the polite camouflage.

In an NPR interview with Ayesha Rascoe, Wright described a pardon economy in which people seeking clemency are encouraged to use anyone they know near the president, make their interest known to Trump’s circle, and find a way to get physically in front of him. Some are reportedly advised to visit Mar-a-Lago. The strategy is less about navigating a neutral legal process than navigating one man’s social and political orbit. (NPR/WUNC)

That does not automatically make every lawyer or lobbyist working on a pardon corrupt. People facing prison have always hired attorneys to prepare clemency petitions and advocate for relief. A lawyer can investigate the case, gather evidence of rehabilitation, identify sentencing disparities, and present an argument to the Justice Department or White House. There is nothing inherently improper about paying for competent representation.

The problem begins when legal advocacy becomes indistinguishable from purchasing proximity.

NOTUS reported in October that lawyers, lobbyists, longtime Trump allies, and political intermediaries were charging enormous sums to pursue clemency, with some arrangements reaching into the millions. People familiar with the process described competing pardon factions inside and outside the administration, while some figures in Trump’s orbit reportedly worried about the network making money from the business. By January, federal lobbying records showed pardon-related operatives collecting millions, including nearly $1.1 million paid by interests connected to a man Trump eventually pardoned. (NOTUS; NOTUS)

That last fact proves neither bribery nor a direct purchase. A person can spend a million dollars on advocacy, receive a pardon, and still leave no evidence that the president agreed to a transaction.

It does prove that the market exists.

People with money believe expensive political help can change their odds. Lobbyists believe the service is valuable enough to charge staggering fees. The president’s allies, acquaintances, donors, club members, and unofficial emissaries become potential doors into a constitutional process that was never supposed to depend on who could afford the best doorman.

The formal federal process looks very different. The Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney receives clemency applications, investigates them, and provides recommendations to the president. The department describes a process in which an applicant applies, the government investigates and recommends, and the president makes the final decision. Presidents have relied on the pardon attorney’s neutral advice for more than 130 years, although that advice has never limited the president’s constitutional authority. (U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Department of Justice)

Trump is legally free to ignore every bit of it.

Article II gives the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in impeachment cases. The Constitution does not require a president to follow Justice Department recommendations, explain his reasoning, consider a petitioner’s remorse, or use any particular standard at all. The power is intentionally broad because the founders believed a rigid justice system needed a human escape valve. (Constitution Annotated)

That breadth is exactly why the character of the person exercising it matters so much.

The pardon power cannot be reduced to an algorithm. It requires judgment. A president may confront an excessive sentence, a prosecution distorted by politics, a defendant who has genuinely changed, or a law that produced an unjust result. Mercy sometimes requires a decision no bureaucracy is brave enough to make.

But mercy and favoritism are neighbors. Without transparency, they can become impossible to tell apart.

When the formal process loses influence and personal access gains it, the public has no reliable way to know whether a pardon was granted because the case deserved another look or because someone found the right millionaire, lobbyist, donor, dinner guest, or golf-club acquaintance. The pardon itself may remain perfectly legal. The suspicion surrounding it does not disappear merely because no criminal statute was broken.

According to NOTUS, Trump and people around him wanted to accelerate the pace of pardons, while pardon attorney Ed Martin lost influence over parts of the process to the president and his inner circle. Internal factions reportedly argued over how clemency should be handled and who should control access to Trump. The result was described by people involved as chaotic, highly personal, and vulnerable to competing influence campaigns. (NOTUS; NOTUS)

Translation: the guardrails were not merely weak. They were treated as optional furniture.

That may be constitutional. It is also reckless.

The president does not own the pardon power. He temporarily holds it on behalf of the country. It is not a loyalty reward, a fundraising tool, a favor for friends, or a luxury concierge service for defendants with enough money to reach Palm Beach. The fact that the Constitution gives the president enormous discretion does not turn every use of that discretion into an honorable one.

Trump’s mass clemency for January 6 defendants showed the other side of the same system. On returning to office, he granted pardons or commutations to more than 1,500 people charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol. Those pardons did not require six-figure lobbyists because political loyalty had already supplied the access. Clemency became a sweeping reward for a group Trump had spent years describing as victims and patriots, including people convicted of assaulting police officers. (Lawfare)

Lawfare reported in June 2026 that at least 97 people who received January 6 clemency had also been arrested, charged, or convicted in separate criminal matters since participating in the riot. The cases ranged widely and do not prove that the pardons caused later misconduct. They do show how little individual scrutiny was involved in a blanket act of political mercy. (Lawfare)

At the expensive end of the system, people pay lobbyists millions hoping to reach Trump.

At the political end, entire groups receive clemency because Trump has adopted their cause as his own.

Different customers. Same governing principle.

The decision flows from personal access, usefulness, loyalty, celebrity, or political identification rather than a process the public can examine and trust. Sometimes the person pays. Sometimes the person has already paid in devotion. Either way, the neutral machinery of justice becomes secondary to the president’s personal judgment and appetite.

That is where the Boosie story lands much harder than a simple tale about a rapper demanding a refund.

Boosie may have been misled. He may prevail in arbitration. The firm may prove it performed exactly the work it promised. None of us has seen all the evidence, and the dispute will have to be resolved on the contract and the facts.

But the central fact is already sitting in public view: a man paid $600,000 because he believed connected Washington operators could help obtain mercy from the president of the United States.

Nobody involved seems to have found the premise absurd.

That is the scandal.

Congress probably cannot place meaningful substantive limits on the president’s pardon power without a constitutional amendment. It could require more disclosure from lobbyists, improve reporting around clemency advocacy, demand publication of pardon applications and recommendations after decisions are made, or expose who received money to influence the process. Any reform would have to respect the president’s Article II authority, but respecting the Constitution does not require keeping the public blind.

Sunlight would not prevent a president from issuing a rotten pardon.

It would make the rot easier to see.

Trump has spent years converting public institutions into extensions of his personal court. Loyalty outranks competence. Proximity outranks procedure. Rules remain in place until they interfere with what he wants, at which point they become somebody else’s problem.

The pardon market is what grows naturally in that soil.

When everyone understands that one man decides and that one man responds to personal relationships, public flattery, political allegiance, celebrity, grievance, and face-to-face appeals, a market will form around reaching him. Washington did not need a written price list. It only needed a president who made access seem more valuable than process.

Boosie paid $600,000 and got nothing.

The country may be paying considerably more.

THE OFF SCRIPT BULLSHIT DETECTOR

Political influence usually hides behind respectable language: advocacy, consulting, relationship management, strategic access. The Off Script Bullshit Detector is a practical guide to spotting the tricks politicians, pundits, and professional bullshit artists use to make corruption sound ordinary.

It is free for paid Off Script subscribers and available to everyone else for $4.95 through the Tom Hicks Media Store.

SUBSCRIBE TO OFF SCRIPT

This publication follows the reporting wherever it leads, including the places political parties would prefer nobody look too closely.

Subscribe now

Subscribe to Off Script with Tom Hicks for independent journalism, commentary, and analysis without party scripts or cable-news talking points.

1. Join me every morning.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

Should every person paid to seek a presidential pardon be required to disclose the client, the amount, the officials contacted, and the arguments made?

Tell me what you think in the comments.

BUY ME A CUP OF TEA

Independent work takes time, research, and a stubborn refusal to pretend obvious bullshit is normal. Buy Me a Cup of Tea. You can help support it by clicking.

ONE LAST THING

The Constitution gave the president the power to forgive.

Trump’s Washington figured out how to send an invoice.

#OffScript #DonaldTrum #TrumpPardons #PresidentialPardons #Clemency #PayForPlay #Corruption #RuleOfLaw #JusticeDepartment #January6 #WashingtonLobbying #IndependentJournalism

I read a lot of stories every day, and most of them wind up filed away in one of three categories: interesting, important, or “Jesus Christ, we’re doing this now?” This one landed squarely in the third pile.

The headline was about a Hawaii Supreme Court justice unloading on the United States Supreme Court. Predictably, the internet immediately divided itself into the usual camps. One side treated the opinion like the second coming of James Madison. The other acted as though Hawaii had declared judicial secession, planted a pineapple flag over the courthouse, and told Chief Justice John Roberts to send troops.

Neither reaction interested me very much because both managed to dodge the part that made me put down my phone and say, out loud, “What the fuck?”

The real story is that we have reached a point where nearly every major institution in the United States seems convinced it is the only one left that deserves to be trusted. Congress says presidents are lawless. Presidents say Congress is useless. Federal judges say state officials are violating the Constitution. State officials say federal judges are unelected tyrants. Politicians call the press corrupt, the press calls politicians liars, and a frightening number of Americans now treat elections, courts, prosecutors, universities, public-health agencies, and even basic arithmetic as legitimate only when they produce the result they were already rooting for.

Apparently, the only institution anybody trusts anymore is the one that agrees with them, which is a shitty foundation for a constitutional republic. The American system was designed around separate institutions fighting like hell while still recognizing that the other institutions have a legitimate job to do. It was never built on friendship. It was built on managed hostility, with ambition checking ambition and power checking power before any one branch became so dominant that the rest of the government turned into furniture.

The whole damned thing rests on an assumption almost nobody talks about anymore: the people inside those institutions have to believe the system itself is still worth preserving. I am no longer sure they do.

Support independent journalism that refuses to whisper when the story demands a raised voice.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

The case that triggered all this is Granillo v. State, SCWC-22-0000740, decided by the Hawaii Supreme Court on July 15, 2026. Daniel Granillo was convicted in 1990 of kidnapping and sexual assault after an FBI expert testified about hair and fiber evidence that supposedly tied the complainant to Granillo’s car. Decades later, scientific reviews and the Justice Department concluded that this kind of microscopic comparison testimony had claimed to prove more than the science could actually support. The Hawaii court held that the evidence was false, important to the prosecution’s case, and damaging enough to require a new trial.

On that question, the court’s reasoning is hard to argue with. If the government used scientific evidence that later turned out to be bullshit, the defendant should not be forced to carry the burden of that mistake forever simply because everybody believed the bullshit at the time. Bad science does not become good science because a jury heard it thirty-six years ago.

Justice Todd Eddins wrote the majority opinion, and for most of it he did exactly what judges are supposed to do. He went back through the trial record, looked at what the later scientific reviews found, worked through the law, and explained why a conviction built partly on false forensic testimony could not be brushed aside as just another old case with some newly discovered evidence.

Then he got to the United States Supreme Court, and holy shit.

Eddins did not offer a polite disagreement with one case or write the usual judicial throat-clearing about respectfully declining to follow reasoning that was not binding under state law. He reached back through Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), then argued that the Roberts Court’s conservative majority had embraced the same kind of selective history once used to preserve slavery and segregation.

Then he wrote this:

“Hawaiʻi’s Constitution takes no instruction from it.”

That is seven words, and every one of them carries a fucking crowbar.

He accused the Roberts Court of overriding Congress, overriding voters and serving its own ends. He cited Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), and Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), among other cases, as evidence that the Court has weakened democratic safeguards while expanding the power of wealthy interests, presidents and gun owners.

He also wrote:

“The Roberts Court sees only white.”

That’s a state supreme court justice accusing the highest court in the country of looking at American history through a white lens and then using that distorted history to govern modern life. You can applaud that language, despise it, or think it is overdue, reckless, brave, and self-indulgent all before lunch. What you cannot honestly call it is ordinary.

This is where the right-wing headline writers started yelling that Hawaii intends to defy the Supreme Court, which is legally sloppy and politically convenient.

Here is what is actually going on. A state constitution can protect more rights than the federal Constitution does, and a state supreme court gets to interpret its own constitution. When the decision rests entirely on state law, Washington usually cannot come barging in and rewrite it just because the U.S. Supreme Court would have reached a different result under the federal Constitution.

That is federalism, the same federalism conservatives have spent generations praising whenever Texas wants to do something Washington hates. Funny how the majesty of state sovereignty suddenly becomes a national emergency the moment Hawaii uses it to protect rights instead of restricting them.

So no, Hawaii is not announcing that it can ignore binding federal law whenever it gets pissed off. Eddins says that Hawaii’s courts do not have to treat the Hawaii Constitution as a cheap photocopy of whatever the Roberts Court currently says about the federal Constitution.

And look, that distinction matters. There is a difference between saying, “Our constitution protects this right on its own,” and saying, “The people in Washington have become so full of shit that we are done taking constitutional guidance from them.”

The first one is normal constitutional law. The second one is a state judge firing a goddamn warning shot at Washington.

“That is not defiance. That is the design.”

That is Eddins’ defense, and he is not entirely wrong.

States have always been allowed to provide stronger privacy rights, better search protections, wider voting guarantees, and higher standards of fairness than the federal government requires. The federal Constitution is the floor. States do not have to lie down on it and pretend there is no ceiling.

What bothers me is where this goes next. There is a difference between a state court doing its own constitutional job and a state court digging a bunker because it has decided the United States Supreme Court is no longer a serious institution.

That is where this stops being just a Hawaii story.

The Roberts Court has earned a good deal of the contempt now directed at it. Let’s not polish that turd. The Court has spent years handing down decisions that often look suspiciously like Republican policy outcomes wearing rented historical costumes. Its conservative majority will dig through eighteenth-century statutes, nineteenth-century social practices, and whatever Samuel Alito found behind the refrigerator if that is what it takes to produce the desired result.

The Court’s ethics disasters have made everything worse. Lavish gifts, undisclosed travel, billionaire benefactors, politically active spouses, and a code of conduct with all the enforcement power of a strongly worded refrigerator magnet have done little to reassure the public that these people understand why anyone might question their judgment.

You cannot spend years acting untouchable and then clutch your pearls when another judge notices. You cannot overturn half a century of reproductive-rights precedent in Dobbs, invent sweeping presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, cripple voting-rights protections, expand gun rights through a history test that sends courts rummaging through laws written when women could not vote, and Black people could be owned, and then act surprised when state judges conclude that your constitutional compass may be lodged firmly up your ass.

That does not mean every Roberts Court decision is wrong. It means the Court has burned through an enormous amount of public trust and seems remarkably unconcerned about the smoke.

Here is the part that ought to bother people on the left who are currently cheering Eddins like he just hit a walk-off home run.

Imagine this same opinion coming out of Texas five years from now. Imagine a deeply conservative Texas Supreme Court declaring that a newly liberal United States Supreme Court had abandoned the Constitution, twisted history, embraced partisan outcomes, and forfeited any right to tell Texas judges how to think.

Then imagine that court announcing that the Texas Constitution “takes no instruction” from Washington because progressive justices had recognized broader abortion rights, gun restrictions, transgender protections, or federal voting safeguards.

Would liberals call that courageous state constitutionalism?

Bullshit.

They would call it nullification. They would call it judicial insurrection. They would want the Justice Department involved before the ink dried.

Now turn it around. The conservatives currently describing Eddins as unhinged would be selling commemorative coffee mugs if Alabama told a liberal Supreme Court to kiss its ass.

That is where all the grand talk about constitutional principles usually falls apart. Everybody loves independent institutions when their side controls them. The minute the other side gets the same idea, suddenly everybody rediscovers the importance of hierarchy, restraint, and respect for authority.

That is sports fandom in a robe.

The danger goes well beyond hypocrisy, although there is enough of that here to power the electrical grid. This kind of selective respect spreads. Every time one institution declares another one illegitimate, it hands the next guy a ready-made excuse.

Presidents ignore court orders because the judges are political. Legislatures reject election results because the voters were supposedly fooled. Governors defy federal policy because Washington has overstepped, while federal agencies bulldoze state objections because local officials are obstructing national law. Now courts are doing it to one another, with one bench looking across at another and saying, “Those people are hacks, so why the hell should we listen to them?”

Everybody calls it an emergency. Everybody says they had no choice. Everybody is somehow the last adult left in the room.

A room full of people screaming that they are the only adult is usually called a fucking bar fight.

That is what makes the Hawaii opinion so important. It did not create this crisis. It exposed it.

Eddins wrote down what millions of Americans already believe: the institutions controlled by the other side are not merely wrong. They are fraudulent, corrupt, and undeserving of respect.

That belief has been growing for years. Donald Trump poured gasoline on it by teaching his supporters that any institution capable of restraining him must be corrupt by definition. Elections he loses are rigged. Prosecutors who charge him are partisan. Judges who rule against him are crooked. Intelligence agencies are conspirators. Journalists are enemies. Civil servants are a deep state. Even Republican officials become traitors the moment they refuse to lie for him.

Trump did not invent the disease. He saw it, exploited it, and built an entire political movement around it.

The left has its own version, usually dressed in better grammar. Courts are illegitimate when conservatives control them. States are heroic when they resist Republican administrations. Executive power becomes necessary when Congress will not act. Norms that mattered yesterday become inconvenient little obstacles because the stakes are supposedly too high to keep following the old rules.

And I understand the temptation. Every side believes its emergency is the real one. Every side thinks this time is different.

Maybe it is.

The problem is that every moment starts looking different once enough people decide the rules are for suckers.

The Constitution does not enforce itself. It is paper, precedent, habit, and a collective agreement that the whole thing still counts. It works because presidents comply with rulings they hate, judges recognize authority they resent, legislatures accept electoral losses, states obey federal law, and citizens continue believing the system is something more than a rigged machine operated by their enemies.

Take away that belief, and the Constitution does not rise out of the National Archives and start smiting people. It just sits there while everybody ignores it.

That is why I cannot dismiss Eddins’ opinion as a liberal tantrum. He may be describing the Roberts Court accurately. Hell, I think he is right about a lot of it. State constitutions may be becoming the last meaningful line of defense for rights the federal courts no longer seem terribly interested in protecting.

But if that is where we are, then let’s stop pretending everything is basically fine.

We now have state supreme court justices openly saying the United States Supreme Court is racially distorted, hostile to democracy, and not worth taking constitutional instruction from. You can agree with every word and still recognize that this is a five-alarm legitimacy crisis.

And here is the bitch of it: ordering everyone to be more respectful will not fix it. Respect is not a fucking participation trophy. John Roberts cannot demand credibility while presiding over a Court that behaves as though transparency and accountability are things for lesser people.

The Court has to earn some of that authority back.

At the same time, state judges need to understand what they are opening the door to when a legal opinion turns into a declaration of war. Saying the quiet part out loud may feel wonderful for a day. The precedent for every state supreme court to dismiss Washington as just another bunch of partisan hacks could be with us for generations.

This is where I keep getting stuck. Eddins may be right about the Roberts Court. The Roberts Court may deserve every blistering word he wrote. But I still cannot pretend it is healthy when state judges start talking about the nation’s highest court like it is just another political outfit with nicer furniture.

Both things can be true, and that is the part everybody keeps missing because they are too busy deciding which robe to cheer for.

The real question is not whether Eddins was rude. It is whether he was right, and what the hell it means for the country if he was.

Hawaii absolutely has the right to interpret its own constitution. But there is a difference between using your own rulebook and deciding the referees in Washington are crooked, incompetent, and no longer worth listening to.

That is not some dry argument between judges. That is a country’s institutions beginning to look at one another with the same contempt the public already feels toward all of them.

I keep coming back to the same thought. The American constitutional system was built to survive disagreement, ambition, conflict, ego, corruption, and a staggering amount of human stupidity. It was not built to survive every participant deciding that nobody else has legitimate authority.

The referees can argue. They can call each other blind, reverse decisions, write brutal dissents, and point out every bad call in the book. But once they decide the other referees are crooked, the argument is no longer about the rules.

It is about whether there is still a game.

And all of us sitting in the stands cheering because our side finally told the other side to go fuck itself might want to think hard about what happens when nobody comes back onto the field.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

When does a court’s duty to defend constitutional rights become more important than its duty to preserve public respect for the judicial system?

THE OFF SCRIPT BULLSHIT DETECTOR

Political bullshit works because it arrives wrapped in urgency, outrage and selective facts before most people have time to ask who benefits from the story.

The Off Script Bullshit Detector is my practical guide to slowing the spin down, checking the evidence, and figuring out when somebody is trying to play you.

It is free for Off Script subscribers and available for $4.95 through the Tom Hicks Media store.

GET YOUR VERY OWN BULLSHIT DETECTOR

Independent journalism does not come with a corporate expense account. It comes with research, caffeine, and the occasional need to stare at a court opinion while muttering obscenities.

BUY ME A CUP OF TEA

#OffScript #SupremeCourt #HawaiiSupremeCourt #JohnRoberts #ToddEddins #StateConstitutions #Constitution #Federalism #RuleOfLaw #JudicialLegitimacy #AmericanDemocracy #IndependentJournalism

I know what reporters are supposed to ask at a presidential press conference. I also know what I would occasionally have to fight myself not to ask.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That is not the professional version, obviously. The professional version would contain fewer syllables, no profanity, and considerably less honesty. But watch enough politicians stand behind microphones and say things that are false, absurd, cruel, or completely detached from the known world, and eventually you start wondering whether professionalism has become another word for sitting politely while somebody pisses on your leg and disputes the weather.

The reporter asks a careful question. The politician does not answer it, so the reporter tries again with the apologetic tone of someone asking a restaurant manager whether the kitchen might remove the dead insect from his soup.

The politician talks over the question, insults the reporter, changes the subject, complains about the previous administration, and calls on somebody else. Later, six people around a television desk discuss whether the exchange will help or hurt him with independent women in suburban Pennsylvania.

The lie was apparently not the story.

The reporter’s tone was.

SUBSCRIBE TO OFF SCRIPT

Independent journalism for readers who are tired of press releases, party scripts, and people pretending obvious bullshit requires further study.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

For a long time, I thought the problem was media bias. Then I blamed cable news, which certainly earned its share. Social media deserves to be dragged into the alley for questioning, and Donald Trump has spent years showing how much nonsense a politician can get away with when he possesses no shame, and the people covering him are still trying to observe rules he abandoned decades ago.

None of those explanations quite got me there. They explained pieces of what I was watching, but not how American media could be timid and hysterical at the same time.

Then it hit me.

I was not looking at one broken media system. I was looking at two.

One part of the press has been housebroken. It knows where the food bowl is, who controls the door, and what happens when it scratches the furniture. It has been trained to value access, decorum, balance, respectable language, and the appearance of neutrality, even when the person standing in front of it is lying through his teeth.

The other part has gone feral. It attacks on command, lives on grievance, and expects to be rewarded whenever the audience enjoys the noise.

One side is terrified of appearing unfair. The other has built a business model around unfairness.

We are left choosing between deference without courage and aggression without discipline.

THE PRESS THAT KNOWS WHERE THE FOOD BOWL IS

The housebroken press is not necessarily dishonest. Most reporters at major news organizations are trying to get the story right, usually under brutal deadlines and with fewer resources than the public realizes.

Some of the finest journalism in the country still comes from those institutions. Reporters expose corruption, uncover abuse, force records into public view, protect confidential sources, and keep digging long after powerful people would prefer that everyone move along.

The problem is not that institutional journalism has no standards. The problem is that it has surrounded itself with so many rules involving tone, access, balance, process, and professional distance that the whole operation can start looking like an extremely expensive obedience school.

You can hear it in the language.

A lie becomes “a disputed claim.” A racist statement becomes “racially charged.” A threat to violate the Constitution becomes “a break with political norms.” An official who refuses to answer a straightforward question is said to have “pushed back.”

Pushed back against what? Reality?

I worked around the law long enough to know the difference between an answer and a response. An answer addresses the question. A response is any collection of words that arrives after it.

Politicians have turned the response into an art form. Ask about the economy and they talk about immigration. Ask about immigration and they talk about crime. Ask about crime and they blame the previous administration. By the time the reporter gets another chance, the room has accepted that words came out of the politician’s mouth, so something must have been answered.

In a courtroom, a lawyer can object when a witness refuses to respond. A judge can tell the witness to stop screwing around and address the question.

At a political press conference, the witness owns the courtroom, controls the microphone, chooses the next lawyer, and can leave whenever he gets bored.

That is not accountability. It is a ceremony honoring the memory of accountability.

POINT BLANK

A press conference is not accountability merely because reporters are present.

If the official controls the room, ignores the question, chooses the next reporter, and leaves without answering, the public has witnessed access, not scrutiny.

Everybody gets something except the truth.

The reporter is allowed to ask. The official is allowed to ignore the question. The television network gets its video, the newspaper gets a quote, and the political operation gets another free opportunity to deliver its message.

Everyone technically completes the assignment.

The public goes home empty-handed.

THE PRESS THAT NO LONGER CARES ABOUT FAIRNESS

The feral side does not have a politeness problem because it does not give a damn whether anyone thinks it is fair.

Its job is not to challenge the audience. Its job is to reassure the audience that it has been right about everything from the beginning.

There is always an enemy, usually several. Every election is the last chance to save the republic. Every disagreement is a betrayal. Every mistake by the opposition proves corruption, while every mistake by an ally was misunderstood, taken out of context, secretly brilliant, or caused by the other side.

That is not reporting. It is emotional room service.

The audience orders outrage, and the host brings it upstairs while it is still hot.

Conservative talk radio perfected much of the model, but it no longer owns the patent. Liberal television, podcasts, websites, newsletters, and social-media personalities have learned the same trick. The language changes, and the villains rotate, but the transaction is almost identical.

The host identifies the tribe’s enemies, explains why those people are evil or stupid, and sends the audience to bed feeling smarter than everyone watching the other channel.

That kind of aggression can feel refreshing after you have watched an institutional reporter politely accept a fourth consecutive non-answer. At least somebody is calling bullshit.

The catch is that the feral host usually calls bullshit only when it comes from the other team.

When an ally lies, the lie becomes exaggeration, strategy, humor, trolling, or one of those remarks we are told not to take literally, despite being expected to treat every flattering promise as sacred.

Aggression backed by evidence is journalism. Aggression governed by audience loyalty is entertainment wearing a press pass.

The housebroken side sometimes lacks courage. The feral side lacks brakes.

HOW THE CAGE DOOR OPENED

You cannot tell this story without talking about the Fairness Doctrine, but you also cannot dump the entire mess in Ronald Reagan’s lap and walk away feeling clever.

For decades, the Federal Communications Commission required licensed radio and television broadcasters covering controversial public issues to provide a reasonable opportunity for contrasting viewpoints. It did not apply to newspapers, and it did not require equal time for every crank who could locate a telephone.

The doctrine rested on the belief that broadcasters were using a limited public resource, the airwaves, and that the privilege came with an obligation to the public.

It was never the golden age some people remember. Giving federal officials a role in deciding whether broadcasters had been sufficiently fair carried obvious dangers. I do not want any administration, Republican or Democratic, grading journalism for ideological balance.

Still, when we threw out the doctrine, we also discarded much of the principle underneath it: using the public airwaves involved a responsibility to someone other than the owner, advertisers, and ratings department.

In 1987, the Reagan-era FCC stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine. Congress passed legislation that would have written it into law, and Reagan vetoed it. (Federal Communications Commission)

Reagan did not sign a document ordering broadcasters to lose their minds. The media market was already changing, cable was expanding, and the old doctrine had become increasingly difficult to justify.

But 1987 was a turning point.

Rush Limbaugh entered national syndication the following year and showed station owners that political programming did not have to serve a broad public. It could make very good money serving one large, intensely loyal piece of it.

As an old radio guy, I understand why it worked.

Radio is intimate in a way television rarely manages. A good host does not sound as though he is addressing an audience. He sounds like he is talking directly to you while you drive home, sit in the garage, or pretend to work.

That relationship can inform people, entertain them, or keep somebody company on a rotten day. It can also convince millions of listeners that the voice coming through the dashboard is the only honest person left in America.

Once station owners learned that anger created loyalty and loyalty created ratings, nobody needed a degree in political science to see where this shit was headed.

Cable took the lesson, added pictures, and stretched it across twenty-four hours. The internet removed the cost of entry. Social media handed everyone a microphone and rewarded whoever could make the most people furious before breakfast.

The animal was not merely out of the cage.

It had become the programming strategy.

THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES FOR PAID SUBSCRIBERS

Paid subscribers support independent reporting, deeper analysis, and journalism that does not have to pretend every lie deserves a polite hearing.

Subscribe now

Already a paid subscriber? Keep reading.

Read more

INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM • NO TALKING POINTS

I spent enough years working around the law to recognize a familiar maneuver.

When someone cannot get the authority they want through the normal process, they start searching for another door. Maybe there is an old regulation they can stretch. Maybe there is grant money they can hold hostage. Maybe they can frighten people into complying before anyone gets around to asking whether they have the legal power to demand it.

Sometimes the threatening letter is more useful than the law itself.

That appears to be where the Trump administration is heading with elections.

President Donald Trump went on national television Thursday night to demand passage of the SAVE America Act, a sweeping Republican election bill that has passed the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

By Friday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin was standing inside the White House complex, threatening states that did not follow the administration’s election demands with lost federal funding, investigations, financial penalties, and, depending on how far officials resisted, prison.

Congress had not passed Trump’s bill overnight.

The administration had simply started acting as though it had. (Reuters)

THE BILL CONGRESS HASN’T PASSED

The SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of United States citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. It would also impose new identification requirements, expand voter-roll verification procedures, and establish processes states would be required to follow when applicants cannot immediately produce the specified documents.

The House passed the legislation in February, but it has not cleared the Senate. That matters. The Constitution gives Congress a role in regulating federal elections, but Congress exercises that power by passing laws, not by watching the executive branch assemble a substitute out of databases, funding conditions, and press-conference threats. (U.S. House of Representatives)

Instead of waiting for Congress, DHS has begun tying certain federal grants to state compliance with the administration’s preferred election procedures. States seeking portions of FEMA’s homeland-security funding must use the federal SAVE system to check voter-registration records and meet new requirements involving voting equipment. DHS plans to withhold 20 percent of the affected grants until states demonstrate compliance. (Reuters)

Cybersecurity assistance turned into a leash.

This is what makes Mullin’s announcement more important than Trump’s speech.

Trump begged Congress to give him the election law he wants.

Mullin explained what the administration intends to do while it waits.

A SPREADSHEET WITH A SCARY FONT

Mullin said DHS had identified more than 250,000 potential noncitizens registered to vote in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. He sent letters asking election officials in those states to review their voter rolls and respond within two weeks.

That sounds alarming until you reach the part where DHS did not publicly explain its methodology, provide evidence supporting its totals, or establish that the people identified were actually noncitizens.

Potential matches are not confirmed cases. A database discrepancy is not a fraudulent voter. A record that does not contain complete citizenship information is not proof that the person attached to it is ineligible.

Without the methodology, this is a spreadsheet with a scary font. (Reuters)

Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar rejected the federal numbers as “wildly speculative at best” and said DHS had not provided evidence backing them up. Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt said his office would examine whatever information DHS supplied but would not turn over citizens’ private data. Schmidt also noted that noncitizen voting is extremely rare in Pennsylvania and nationwide.

Those are not officials refusing to protect elections.

Those are officials asking the federal government to show its work. (Reuters)

The administration’s analysis reportedly relied on publicly available data that election experts say may be too incomplete or outdated to determine whether an individual voter is a citizen. That distinction becomes especially important when a preliminary match could lead to an investigation, removal from the voter rolls, or a criminal accusation. (Associated Press)

THE DATABASE IS NOT A VERDICT

The federal SAVE system was originally developed to help government agencies verify the immigration status of applicants seeking certain public benefits or licenses.

It was not designed as a national voter-roll purge machine.

The administration has since expanded the information available through SAVE by incorporating data from additional federal systems. Voting-rights organizations warn that some of those databases, including Social Security records, may contain incomplete or outdated citizenship information. A naturalized citizen can therefore appear in a record that still reflects an earlier immigration status.

That is not proof of fraud. It is proof that human beings maintain government databases. (Campaign Legal Center)

A responsible verification process treats a database result as a lead requiring further examination.

The Trump administration is treating preliminary matches as a headline, then using the headline to justify more federal authority.

That reverses the proper order of evidence. First comes the accusation. The supporting proof can apparently arrive later, assuming anyone still remembers to ask for it.

DO WHAT WE SAY OR FACE PRISON

Mullin said election officials could be held accountable through fines, penalties, and even prison if DHS gives them information and they choose not to act.

Think about what he was threatening.

These are state officials administering elections under state and federal law. They are not employees of the Department of Homeland Security. They do not report to Mullin. Yet the secretary stood at the White House and suggested that declining to follow federal instructions could expose them to punishment or incarceration. (Reuters)

Mullin did not identify the statute that would allow DHS to imprison a secretary of state for refusing to act on an unverified database match.

He did not explain what crime the official would have committed.

He did not specify who would investigate, who would prosecute, or how an election administrator exercising lawful state authority suddenly becomes a federal criminal.

The threat was the policy.

Whether the administration ultimately has the authority to carry it out may be less important, at least initially, than whether state officials believe resistance could cost them funding, consume their offices with investigations, or place them personally in legal danger.

You do not need to win every case when the threat itself produces compliance.

THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T MAKE DHS THE NATIONAL ELECTION BOARD

The Constitution gives state legislatures the initial authority to determine the time, place, and manner of congressional elections. It also allows Congress to alter those regulations by passing federal law.

It does not assign that legislative power to the president or the Secretary of Homeland Security. (Library of Congress)

Congress has broad authority over federal elections, and the federal government may enforce valid voting laws. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Washington cannot simply order states or state officials to administer a federal regulatory program.

In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Court held that Congress could not force a state to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. The federal government may regulate directly, offer states lawful choices, or attach proper conditions to federal programs. It may not simply transfer its governing responsibilities to the states by command. (Oyez)

Five years later, in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Court struck down a federal requirement directing state and local law-enforcement officers to conduct background checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Congress could create a federal system, but it could not conscript state officers to operate it. (Oyez)

The Court reaffirmed that anti-commandeering principle in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. 453 (2018), explaining that Congress may regulate private conduct directly but may not issue direct orders to state legislatures. (Supreme Court)

No court has ruled on every element of the precise DHS program Mullin described. I am not going to declare the entire plan unconstitutional before its details have been tested in court.

But the constitutional problem is obvious.

DHS may share credible evidence with state officials. The Justice Department may investigate actual violations of federal law. Congress may pass valid election legislation.

That is a long way from ordering state officials to adopt the administration’s preferred database, act on preliminary matches, surrender private voter information, and follow federal instructions or risk losing money and going to prison.

Mullin never identified the law that supposedly grants DHS that authority.

That is not a footnote he forgot.

That is the whole tell.

THE SHADOW VERSION OF THE SAVE AMERICA ACT

The SAVE America Act would require states to verify citizenship, expand federal influence over voter registration, and create new legal obligations for election officials.

Congress has not enacted that law.

The administration is now pursuing many of those same objectives anyway. DHS is pressing states to use a federal citizenship database, review voter rolls on Washington’s timetable, and comply with new federal expectations backed by threats of lost funding, investigations, fines, and even prison.

That is why I keep calling this a shadow version of the SAVE America Act.

It does not arrive as a single bill with a single vote and a single presidential signature. It arrives through grant conditions, agency directives, database searches, Justice Department investigations, and public threats.

The result is much the same. When Congress refuses to enact the president’s election policy, the executive branch begins implementing pieces of it anyway.

THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT NON-CITIZEN VOTING

Non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal.

When credible evidence shows that someone voted illegally, investigate it. Prosecute it. Present the evidence in court.

What we are seeing here is something else.

The administration announced an enormous number without demonstrating how it reached that number. It threatened officials before establishing violations. It attached election rules to anti-terrorism funding. It raised fears about foreign access to voting machines without providing evidence that foreign countries had manipulated American vote totals. (Reuters)

Mullin claimed foreign adversaries possess components used in American voting equipment and said they could potentially access or alter election information. Election-security experts have long recognized that electronic systems require safeguards, but state and local officials use equipment testing, physical controls, post-election reviews, and paper records in most jurisdictions to detect or prevent manipulation.

Mullin offered no evidence of a foreign government changing votes in an American election. (Associated Press)

This is not a normal evidence-first investigation.

It is an effort to establish the conclusion first: American elections are unsafe, state officials cannot be trusted, and only greater presidential control can save them.

Once that conclusion is accepted, almost any demand can be sold as election security.

THE PART WE SHOULD NOT MISS

Trump spent years insisting that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Courts, recounts, audits, election officials from both parties, and members of his own administration found no evidence of fraud capable of changing the result.

He never accepted that answer. (Reuters)

Now the country is approaching another election that could cost Republicans control of Congress.

Trump is not merely preparing his supporters to distrust an unfavorable outcome. His administration is building federal machinery that can be used to challenge voter rolls, pressure election administrators, withhold money, demand private information, and open investigations before and after ballots are cast.

That is the larger story.

A president who has never accepted an election loss is attempting to gain more control over how the next election is administered.

The danger is not limited to whether DHS successfully removes a particular voter or forces one state to use a particular database.

The danger is the precedent: when Congress refuses to enact a president’s election policy, the president’s agencies may attempt to impose it anyway.

CONGRESS SAID NOT YET

There is a reason legislation has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president.

The process is supposed to force public debate, negotiation, amendment, accountability, and recorded votes. It is often slow and frustrating because handing the government new power is supposed to require more than one man demanding it during a television speech.

The Senate has not passed the SAVE America Act.

That does not mean the president gets to declare the legislative process defective and order his Cabinet to produce an executive-branch imitation.

Congress did not say yes.

For now, it said not yet.

The administration’s answer appears to be that it does not intend to wait.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

When Congress refuses to give a president the election powers he wants, should federal agencies be allowed to create those powers through grant conditions, databases, investigations, and threats?

Leave your answer in the comments.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

Off Script is independent, reader-supported journalism without party talking points or corporate supervision.

Subscribe to receive every new investigation, analysis, and editorial directly in your inbox.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

THE OFF SCRIPT BULLSHIT DETECTOR

Political language is designed to make power sound harmless.

The Off Script Bullshit Detector is a practical guide to recognizing manipulation, evasions, propaganda techniques, and claims that collapse the moment someone asks for evidence.

It is free for Off Script subscribers and available to everyone else for $4.95 through the Tom Hicks Media store.

BUY ME A CUP OF TEA

Independent reporting requires time, research, and enough caffeine to read federal election legislation without losing the will to live.

#ElectionSecurity #VotingRights #SAVEAmericaAct #DonaldTrump #MarkwayneMullin #DHS #Federalism #Constitution #Democracy #OffScript

INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM • NO TALKING POINTS

About ten minutes into President Trump’s primetime address Thursday night, I realized I wasn’t watching a speech about the 2020 election.

I was watching a sales pitch.

The packaging was familiar. China. Voter records. Dead voters. Election officials are behaving suspiciously. Ballots supposedly headed for “burn bags.” A federal government that either failed to uncover the truth or actively helped hide it. Trump moved from one allegation to the next with the confidence of a man who believed the sheer volume of suspicion would eventually add up to proof.

Then he arrived at the product he had been selling all along: the SAVE America Act.

That was the moment the speech snapped into focus. This wasn’t primarily an attempt to settle an old argument. It was an attempt to convince Americans that the election system remains so corrupted, so vulnerable and so thoroughly untrustworthy that Congress has no choice but to pass the legislation Trump wants before the 2026 midterms.

And maybe he’s right. Maybe there is evidence sitting somewhere that changes everything we thought we knew about 2020.

But after six years of promises, investigations, lawsuits, recounts and “bombshells” that landed with the force of a damp washcloth, I’m done accepting trailers.

Show me the fucking movie.

Independent journalism should follow the evidence, especially when the evidence is politically inconvenient. Join me every morning at Off Script and receive the Off Script Bullshit Detector free as a subscriber benefit.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

I KEPT WAITING FOR THE RECEIPTS

Trump’s central argument was that Chinese actors obtained American voter information and that the government failed to treat the matter with the seriousness it deserved. He presented the information as another missing piece in the long-running case that the 2020 election was compromised.

China collecting information about Americans is not hard to believe. China runs one of the most aggressive intelligence operations in the world. It steals government secrets, corporate research and personal data whenever it gets the chance. Russia does it. Iran does it. We do it to other countries. Nobody who has spent five minutes paying attention to international intelligence should be shocked that a foreign government wanted access to American voter information.

But collecting voter data and changing election results are two completely different fucking conversations.

Voter-registration information is publicly available to varying degrees in many states. Campaigns, political parties, commercial data firms, journalists and researchers use it every day. A foreign adversary obtaining voter data could use it for targeting, propaganda, intimidation or influence operations, all of which would be serious. It still would not prove that a voting machine was penetrated, a ballot was altered or a single vote total was changed.

Trump kept sliding from one idea to another as though the bridge between them had already been built.

It hasn’t.

The public White House material supporting the president’s address calls for passage of the SAVE America Act, voter-identification requirements, and the removal of noncitizens from state voter rolls. Those are policy positions. They can be debated honestly without pretending that access to voter information automatically proves a stolen presidential election. (The White House)

That distinction matters because foreign influence in an election is not the same as foreign manipulation of an election.

Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 campaign were real. Foreign governments routinely push propaganda, amplify political divisions, and try to manipulate what Americans see online. Those operations are dangerous precisely because they can affect public opinion without touching a voting machine.

If Trump has evidence that China went beyond influence and successfully changed vote totals in 2020, that evidence should be released in a form that allows Congress, election-security specialists, and the public to examine it.

Not fragments.

Not hints.

Not a handful of words peeking through black redaction bars like hostages trying to signal from a basement window.

Evidence.

THE DOCUMENTS THAT PROVED TOO LITTLE

Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, appeared with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC after the speech and said Trump had lied to the American people about what the intelligence showed. Himes also described the released material as so heavily redacted that readers were left with scattered words and pieces rather than enough context to support the president’s conclusions.

I’m paraphrasing Himes because I was watching the interview live and an official transcript was not available before publication. I’m not asking you to take his word as gospel, either. Himes is a Democratic politician responding to a Republican president. He has his own perspective, his own incentives, and his own side of the argument.

But his basic objection is impossible to dismiss: How can the public evaluate an explosive intelligence claim when the material offered as proof has been stripped of most of its meaning?

A redacted document may be necessary to protect sources and methods. I understand that. You cannot casually expose intelligence assets because somebody wants to score a point on television.

You also cannot redact the living hell out of a document, display the surviving nouns and verbs, and then insist those fragments prove a sweeping conclusion that the missing context might completely change.

That’s not transparency. It’s political shadow puppetry.

The administration is asking the public to trust its interpretation of information that the public is not permitted to evaluate. That may be unavoidable in certain national-security matters. Still, it becomes a much bigger problem when the president uses the secret interpretation to undermine confidence in an American election and push legislation affecting the next one.

If the evidence is strong enough to justify a primetime presidential address, it ought to be strong enough to survive scrutiny from more than the people who arranged the speech.

TRUMP’S OWN GOVERNMENT ALREADY LOOKED

Here’s where the story becomes especially difficult for Trump.

The federal agency responsible for helping protect election infrastructure in 2020 was part of his own administration. After the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency joined election officials in stating that there was no evidence any voting system had deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or otherwise been compromised.

The statement called the November 3 election “the most secure in American history.”

I’ve never been particularly fond of that phrase. It sounds like something written by a public-relations department that was determined to tempt fate. No system involving millions of people, thousands of local jurisdictions, and equipment manufactured by different companies is perfect.

But CISA’s actual finding matters more than the slogan: Its officials said they had found no evidence that voting systems changed the result. (CISA)

Trump fired CISA Director Chris Krebs shortly afterward.

That is worth remembering because Thursday night’s speech made the problem sound as though the government never examined it. The government did examine it. Trump simply rejected the conclusion when it failed to support what he wanted to believe.

The same thing happened with his Justice Department. Attorney General William Barr, hardly a member of the Joe Biden fan club, said the department had not uncovered fraud on a scale that could have changed the outcome.

State officials conducted audits and recounts. Courts heard challenges. Republican officials in states Trump lost defended their results. Lawsuits failed not because every judge was part of some grand conspiracy but because allegations that sound tremendous at a press conference still require evidence when they enter a courtroom.

That last part tends to get lost.

There is an enormous difference between saying something happened and proving it happened under rules where the other side gets to challenge your witnesses, inspect your records, and ask uncomfortable questions.

Television rewards certainty.

Courtrooms are less impressed.

THE REPUBLICAN PROBLEM NOBODY EXPLAINS

There’s another question that has bothered me since 2020, and Thursday night’s speech did nothing to answer it.

If Democrats, China, election officials, voting-machine companies, and assorted unseen conspirators possessed the power to secretly steal the presidency from Donald Trump, how did they manage to forget about the rest of the ballot?

Republicans gained seats in the House in 2020. They won Senate races. They won governorships, state legislative races, and local offices, frequently on the same ballots Trump says were corrupted against him.

Think about what the conspiracy theory requires us to believe.

The people capable of manipulating a national election managed to change enough presidential votes in exactly the right places, left countless Republican victories untouched, and produced no operational trail capable of surviving six years of scrutiny.

That would be the most disciplined political conspiracy in human history, carried out by people who normally cannot agree on where to order lunch.

Maybe somebody has an explanation for that.

I haven’t heard it.

The much simpler explanation is that millions of voters made different choices in different races. Some voted for Biden and a Republican member of Congress. Some disliked Trump but preferred Republican candidates lower on the ballot. Split-ticket voting isn’t sorcery. It’s what happens when voters are allowed to make more than one decision.

The allegation of a stolen presidency becomes much harder to sustain when the same election machinery produced Republican victories that nobody in the party seems eager to overturn.

Funny how the machine only becomes suspicious when it prints a result you don’t like.

THEN CAME THE REAL REASON FOR THE SPEECH

By the final stretch of the address, Trump’s repeated references to the SAVE America Act made the political purpose impossible to miss.

The White House describes the legislation as requiring voter identification and proof of citizenship, while directing states to remove noncitizens from voter rolls. Trump has made it a major administration priority and has argued that Americans should view its requirements as basic election safeguards. (The White House)

Those proposals deserve a real debate.

How would proof-of-citizenship requirements affect married women whose birth certificates carry a different name? What documents would be accepted? What happens to elderly voters who no longer have easy access to their records? How would states prevent eligible citizens from being removed because of incomplete or outdated federal data?

Those are not excuses to ignore election security. They are the practical questions Congress is supposed to answer before it changes the rules for millions of voters.

Instead, Trump used 2020 as the emotional foundation for the bill.

If Americans believe China may have compromised an election, ordinary policy objections begin to sound trivial. Questions about implementation can be brushed aside as partisan obstruction. Anyone opposing the bill can be accused of opposing secure elections.

That is a much easier sales pitch than defending every provision on its own merits.

It is also why the timing matters. The midterm elections are approaching. The legislation remains stalled. Republican leaders have not demonstrated that they possess the votes needed to move it through the Senate in its current form.

So Trump went on national television and told the country the old emergency never ended.

THIS IS HOW YOU PREPARE PEOPLE TO REJECT THE NEXT RESULT

I don’t know whether Trump intends to declare some kind of national emergency over the election system. Anybody telling you they know that is getting ahead of the evidence.

What I do know is that Thursday night’s speech continued a pattern that has become impossible to ignore.

Trump is teaching his supporters that an election he loses is probably corrupt before the next ballots have even been cast.

That matters whether or not the SAVE America Act passes.

It gives him a ready-made explanation for Republican losses in November. It tells voters that normal election safeguards cannot be trusted. It makes every clerical error look like a plot and every delay in counting ballots feel like proof that somebody is stealing something.

Once people accept that framework, evidence becomes almost irrelevant.

A court ruling against Trump proves the courts are corrupt. An intelligence assessment against him proves that the intelligence agencies are corrupt. Republican election officials who certify a loss become traitors. Missing evidence proves the cover-up is working.

The theory cannot be disproved because every attempt to disprove it becomes part of the theory.

That isn’t healthy skepticism.

It’s a trap.

ONE LAST THING

I’m not asking anybody to trust the government blindly. Jesus Christ, half the reason Off Script exists is that governments, politicians, and major institutions regularly deserve more skepticism than they receive.

But skepticism has rules.

You examine the evidence. You compare claims. You consider whether the explanation accounts for the facts. You remain willing to change your mind when better information appears.

What you don’t do is begin with the answer you want and declare every contradictory fact part of the conspiracy.

If the administration possesses evidence showing that China altered the 2020 election, release enough of it for independent people to evaluate. Let intelligence specialists examine it. Let election officials respond. Let Congress hold hearings where witnesses answer questions under oath.

I will read every page.

But I am not accepting a conclusion because it was delivered from behind the presidential seal. A podium is not proof. Volume is not proof. Repetition is not proof.

After six years, “Trust me” doesn’t cut it.

Show us the fucking receipts.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

Did Thursday night’s speech give you genuinely new evidence about the 2020 election, or did it give you new reasons to support legislation you already favored?

KEEP YOUR BULLSHIT DETECTOR FULLY OPERATIONAL

Already an Off Script subscriber? Your subscription includes the Off Script Bullshit Detector free. Check the email sent to subscribers for your download link.

Not a subscriber? Subscribe to Off Script and receive the guide as a subscriber benefit, or purchase a standalone copy for $4.95 through the Tom Hicks Media store.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

☕ BUY ME A CUP OF TEA

Off Script is independent, reader-supported journalism. Buying me a cup of tea helps keep the receipts hot and the bullshit detector fully operational.

#DonaldTrump #ElectionSecurity #SAVEAmericaAct #Election2026 #VotingRights #JimHimes #OffScript #IndependentJournalism

Trump booked himself a 9 p.m. prime-time address tonight and promised “really big news.” He confirmed that “free and fair elections” would be the main subject, then said he would throw in a “hodgepodge” of other matters while he had everybody’s attention. (AP News)

Nothing settles a nervous country quite like hearing that the president’s surprise national address will have roughly the same editorial discipline as a yard-sale table.

What we know is that Trump is expected to discuss alleged vulnerabilities in American voting systems and newly declassified intelligence involving possible foreign interference. His administration has spent more than a year digging through election material, and a White House task force led by conservative journalist John Solomon has been reviewing China-related intelligence ahead of tonight’s performance. (Reuters)

So we know the time. We know Trump thinks whatever he has is enormous. We know classified paper will probably be waved around because classified paper makes ordinary bullshit look important.

The rest is being saved for the season finale.

Some of what Trump reveals may genuinely matter. Foreign governments do try to interfere with American elections. Voting equipment should be tested hard enough to make the manufacturers sweat. Any legitimate weakness should be fixed before somebody gets a chance to crawl through it.

But Trump’s favorite move is to take a real concern, strip away every inconvenient fact, and keep inflating what remains until it looks like proof of whatever the hell he wanted to prove in the first place.

That’s the scam tonight.

A VULNERABILITY ISN’T A STOLEN ELECTION

Start with the fact that Trump would probably prefer to be buried under seventeen American flags and a soundtrack from Air Force One.

The intelligence being considered for release does not show that China changed votes, manipulated vote totals, or altered the result of the 2020 presidential election. According to people familiar with the material, it concerns whether China possessed the ability or intention to disrupt the election. That’s a legitimate intelligence question. It is also a long fucking distance from proving China stole Trump’s presidency. (Reuters)

The official 2021 intelligence assessment made the distinction clear. Russia conducted an influence operation intended to damage Joe Biden and help Trump. Iran ran one intended to hurt Trump’s reelection prospects. China considered an influence effort but ultimately did not deploy one, although an intelligence official dissented from part of that finding.

Influence means propaganda, fake accounts, stolen information, and carefully aimed horseshit designed to change what Americans believe.

Interfering with the vote itself means tampering with registrations, ballots, tabulation, or reported results.

On that harder question, the intelligence community found no indication that any foreign actor attempted or succeeded in altering any technical part of the 2020 vote. No changed registrations. No manipulated ballots. No foreign hand crawling into a machine and dragging votes from one column to another.

That part is real, and ignoring it would be stupid. But using it to pretend China crawled inside a voting machine and stole Trump’s presidency is dishonest horseshit.

Foreign governments absolutely try to fuck with our heads during elections. Social media has made that easier by turning millions of Americans into unpaid distributors for any inflammatory garbage that confirms what they already believe.

Take the threat seriously. Expose the fake networks. Shut down whatever operations can be shut down.

Just don’t let anybody pretend a propaganda campaign is the same thing as altering votes.

A vulnerability is a place somebody could get in. It is not proof that anybody did. My house has windows. That doesn’t mean the Chinese government is sitting on my couch eating the last slice of pizza.

This distinction should survive a conversation between two drunk people at a bar.

Once Trump gets behind the lectern, watch the words start changing shape. Capability becomes intention. Intention turns into action. By the end of the performance, a theoretical weakness may be presented as final proof that every lunatic thing he has said about 2020 was true.

He doesn’t need a smoking gun.

He needs a fog machine.

THE MACHINES HAD FLAWS. THEY WEREN’T HACKED.

Last year, a contractor working for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence examined voting machines taken from Puerto Rico. The analysis found flaws. It did not find evidence that the machines had been hacked. Another report identified security concerns and suggested additional safeguards, including software updates. (Reuters)

That’s what a security review is supposed to do. Find the weak spots. Patch the software. Replace whatever cannot be secured.

You don’t take a theoretical vulnerability, dress it in a trench coat and introduce it on national television as a completed crime.

The Puerto Rico operation began amid unproven claims that Venezuela had interfered in the island’s elections. Investigators found vulnerabilities in cellular technology and software, but the probe produced no clear evidence of Venezuelan interference. (Reuters)

That matters because Trump’s people keep working backward.

A normal investigator begins with evidence and tries to determine what happened. These guys begin with the verdict Trump wants, then rummage through every file cabinet in Washington, hoping something inside can be made to resemble evidence if they hold it sideways and turn off the lights.

Election machines should be tested constantly. Software should be patched before officials get around to asking nicely. Anything touching the vote count ought to be guarded harder than the nuclear codes and the Coca-Cola formula combined.

Fix every flaw you find. Replace every system that can’t be secured.

But stop pretending an unlocked window proves there was a burglar, especially after you searched the goddamn house and found nobody inside.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning for the story hiding underneath the story.

Subscribers also get the free Off Script Bullshit Detector, because the country is producing bullshit faster than one guy can safely process it alone.

THE DISSENT TRUMP MAY SELL AS A BOMBSHELL

The 2021 intelligence assessment wasn’t unanimous on China.

Christopher Porter, then the national intelligence officer for cyber issues, argued that China could interfere and might have intended to do so. His dissent appeared in the public assessment, and he later wrote a more detailed classified paper expanding his position. (Reuters)

There’s nothing wrong with an intelligence analyst disagreeing with his colleagues. Keeping dissents in the record is how you stop a room full of smart people from nodding one another into a catastrophic mistake.

The scam begins when somebody pulls that dissent out of the larger assessment, removes the majority conclusion, and sells the minority opinion as the secret truth Washington tried to hide.

People who reviewed Porter’s classified paper disagree about its strength. Some described it as a detailed examination of Chinese thinking. Others said it relied on a narrow slice of raw intelligence that might not have represented the Chinese government’s actual position. Officials are reportedly worried Trump could exaggerate its significance and leave viewers believing China affected the election result. (Reuters)

Maybe Porter saw something his colleagues undervalued. Maybe tonight’s release will add useful information. Let’s see the documents and judge the evidence honestly.

But a dissent isn’t a confession from Beijing.

It isn’t proof that votes moved.

And it sure as hell isn’t a permission slip to rewrite history.

The same goes for the claim that China obtained American voter data. Former officials say much of that information was already publicly available and could have been collected online rather than stolen from a protected voting system. Voter data can help a foreign operation target propaganda. It cannot climb into a ballot box and change a vote. (Reuters)

You can already see how the sales pitch works.

Take a legitimate concern. Remove every inconvenient qualification. Add a classified stamp and dramatic lighting. Let Trump say “China,” “voter data,” “machines,” and “2020” close enough together that viewers construct the accusation for him.

Tomorrow, when people say Trump claimed China stole the election, the White House can point to the transcript and whine that he never used those precise words.

That’s how bullshit survives a fact-check. The lie lives in the impression while everybody argues over the sentence.

THIS ISN’T ABOUT 2020 ANYMORE

Trump has spent nearly six years hunting for something that transforms his 2020 defeat into a victory stolen from him.

He had recounts. He had audits. He had court cases, Republican election officials and his own Justice Department. Again and again, reviews found no significant fraud capable of changing the result. (AP News)

He lost.

That should have been the end of it. In a functioning republic, sometimes your guy loses, and you go home pissed off. You don’t spend six years sending the federal government back through the evidence like a drunk searching the carpet for a cocaine rock that was never there.

Trump keeps digging because this stopped being about 2020 a long time ago.

He has made voting restrictions a central project of his second term, demanding voter-identification requirements, documentary proof of citizenship, and sharp limits on voting by mail while the country approaches midterms that will determine control of Congress. (AP News)

Last week, his administration wiped out the remaining membership of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, the federal body that helps election officials, certifies voting systems, and maintains the national registration form. The two Democratic commissioners were fired, the remaining Republican resigned, and all three had previously been confirmed unanimously by the Senate. (Reuters)

The commission had resisted Trump’s demand to add documentary proof of citizenship to the federal registration form. A judge had already permanently blocked most of that effort, ruling that election rules belong to Congress and the states rather than the president. (AP News)

Clearing out the commission doesn’t erase the ruling.

It gets rid of the people who told Trump no.

And if you believe removing every remaining member of an election commission four months before the midterms is merely a boring personnel decision, I’ve got a classified folder full of bridges I’d like to sell you.

Trump doesn’t need to prove China changed one vote in 2020. He needs enough Americans to believe the next election is already crooked before anybody casts a ballot.

He needs normal election administration to look corrupt. He needs federal control to sound like a rescue. He needs every Democratic victory in November to arrive pre-poisoned with fraud accusations before election workers finish counting.

Then, when he demands more power, frightened people may hand it over and thank him for protecting them.

Forget the classified folder for a minute and watch what the bastard asks for after he scares everybody.

That’s where the theft usually happens.

THE MEN WITH GUNS NEAR THE POLLS

This week, Senator Amy Klobuchar asked acting Attorney General Todd Blanche whether he would commit to keeping armed federal agents, including ICE officers, away from polling places.

Blanche said he would “follow the law.” (Axios)

That answer is courtroom Vaseline. It sounds responsible until you notice it slid right past the actual fucking question.

Blanche had already asked a conservative audience why anyone should object to ICE officers at polling places. Other administration officials have also refused to give a firm guarantee that immigration agents will stay away, although a Homeland Security spokesperson says ICE currently has no plans to target polling locations. (Axios)

Federal law prohibits officials from bringing or keeping troops or armed men at polling places. Its written exception is narrow enough to pass through a keyhole: force necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States. A violation can bring up to five years in prison and disqualification from federal office. (Legal Information Institute)

So why the hell can’t the acting attorney general simply say that armed immigration agents have no business hanging around while Americans vote?

The administration answers that undocumented immigrants cannot legally vote, so nobody should object to ICE being nearby. That argument skips past the minor inconvenience that noncitizen voting is already illegal and is exceptionally rare. (AP News)

Nobody has to be arrested for the intimidation to work.

Put armed ICE officers outside a polling place and some American citizens will turn around. People with undocumented spouses will think twice. Naturalized citizens who have watched this administration treat citizenship papers like a temporary hall pass may decide voting isn’t worth the risk of dragging their families into an encounter with federal agents.

You don’t send ICE to a polling place to catch imaginary truckloads of fraudulent voters.

You send them because the badge can scare legal voters you’d rather not see inside.

Now place that possibility beside tonight’s warning about foreign interference and vulnerable machines. Imagine Trump declaring an election emergency, insisting nobody can trust local officials and demanding federal action to “protect” the vote.

The speech stops looking like a public-service announcement.

It starts looking like paperwork for what comes next.

LISTEN TO WHAT HE DOESN’T SAY

Trump understands television better than most politicians because he knows viewers remember how a speech felt long after they forget the words.

He doesn’t need to build a clean argument tonight. He needs people to go to bed believing somebody found something terrifying in a classified drawer.

When he says a system could have been compromised, listen for evidence that it was.

When he says China wanted to interfere, listen for proof that China altered an actual vote.

When he calls intelligence newly declassified, ask whether the information is new or whether an old disagreement has simply been pulled out of storage and given a fresh coat of menace.

When he talks about voting-machine vulnerabilities, remember that investigators found flaws without finding evidence those flaws had been exploited. (Reuters)

Don’t let him pile possibility on top of suspicion until the stack looks like proof.

Then listen carefully when he gets to the proposed solution.

What power does he want?

Who does he want controlling the election?

Which law or safeguard does he expect Americans to surrender because he scared the shit out of them first?

That’s usually where the trick happens.

I’LL WATCH THE WHOLE DAMN THING

This speech is happening whether the country needs it or not.

Whatever Trump says will be carved into clips and memes before he reaches the second teleprompter. By midnight, half the country will be screaming over words most of them never heard in context, while cable panels argue about his tone and the actual claim crawls out the back door.

So I’m going to sit through the whole damn thing tonight so you don’t have to.

Tomorrow morning, I’ll tell you what Trump actually said. I’ll strip away the staging, separate the evidence from the insinuation and tell you whether his “really big news” amounts to anything more than another attempt to make a lost election look stolen.

Maybe there’s something real in there. If there is, I’ll tell you.

If he spends the night waving around a recycled dissent, smearing the line between vulnerability and intrusion, and building an excuse to fuck with November’s election, I’ll tell you that too.

Plain language. No panel-show fog. Receipts attached.

My honest guess is that whatever Trump holds up tonight matters less than what he intends to do with it.

The speech may be designed to plant one sentence his allies can repeat until Election Day:

The president warned us.

Warned us about what?

Whatever they end up needing an excuse for.

Trump doesn’t have to convince the whole country that 2020 was stolen. He needs enough people to believe the next election is already crooked, enough public officials too frightened to contradict him and enough confusion to make federal intervention sound reasonable.

The “really big news” may be whatever document he waves at the camera tonight.

The real story is what the son of a bitch plans to do with it tomorrow.

And in November.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

What would Trump have to show you tonight to convince you this is a genuine election-security finding and not another excuse to grab more control?

BUY ME A CUP OF TEA

Independent journalism runs on research, stubbornness, and an unreasonable amount of tea.

GET THE OFF SCRIPT BULLSHIT DETECTOR

Off Script subscribers get the Off Script Bullshit Detector free with their subscription.

It’s a practical field guide for spotting manipulated language, manufactured experts, and the rhetorical sleight of hand politicians reach for when the facts won’t cooperate.

Subscribe now

Not subscribed? You can buy the Off Script Bullshit Detector for $4.95 from the Tom Hicks Media store.

ONE LAST THING

Come back tomorrow morning.

I’ll have watched the entire speech, checked every claim that matters and swept up whatever shit Trump leaves scattered across the national conversation.

#DonaldTrump #ElectionSecurity #VotingRights #2026Midterms #OffScript #IndependentJournalism

Mexico figured out something Washington keeps hoping the rest of us won’t notice. Letting ICE investigate ICE is like asking the guy holding the bloody knife whether anything unusual happened in the kitchen.

For months, Mexico did what governments are expected to do when their citizens die in another country’s custody. It sent diplomatic notes, asked for explanations, demanded investigations, and raised the cases with American officials while waiting for the machinery of government to cough up something resembling an honest answer.

What it got instead was the federal fog machine.

ICE maintained control of the records, and federal officials maintained control of the public story. Families were left waiting for answers from the same system that had taken custody of their loved ones and handed some of them back in coffins.

Mexico has had enough of that shit.

It’s now asking state attorneys general and prosecutors to open criminal investigations into the deaths of Mexican citizens in ICE custody and during immigration operations. It has sent formal demands to detention facilities accused of practices that may have contributed to those deaths, is considering civil action against the private companies running the centers, has contacted the Justice Department, and is pushing for scrutiny through the United Nations human-rights system. (Reuters)

That’s not one angry diplomatic letter sliding into a federal inbox and dying a quiet death. Mexico is coming at ICE from every direction it can find.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning for the story hiding underneath the story.

The count behind Mexico’s action is seventeen Mexican citizens. Fourteen died after ICE took them into custody, while three more died during enforcement operations. Mexico wants American authorities to examine whether crimes were committed and whether officers, detention personnel, contractors, or anyone else responsible should face consequences. (AP News)

Fourteen people died in custody. That phrase gets tossed around so often it starts to sound almost administrative, like somebody misplaced fourteen files somewhere in a filing cabinet.

But custody means the government controlled where those people slept, whether they saw a doctor, whether their symptoms got taken seriously, and whether help showed up before it was too fucking late. They couldn’t walk out, call another hospital for a second opinion, or decide the place looked dangerous and take their chances somewhere else.

The government had them. Then they died.

At that point, “we’re reviewing the matter” isn’t an answer. It’s bureaucratic incense, waved around until everybody gets tired of the smell of the body.

MEXICO STOPPED ASKING NICELY

Mexico could have sent another furious note to Washington. The administration could have made the right noises about cooperation and mutual respect, then dropped the whole thing into whatever federal drawer holds accountability until the news cycle wandered off to the next disaster.

Instead, Mexico went to state prosecutors.

That was smart as hell.

It doesn’t make these cases immune from federal interference. Federal officers can still raise immunity arguments, and their lawyers can try to move proceedings into federal court, challenge subpoenas, dispute jurisdiction, and stretch every fight out until the witnesses need reading glasses.

But Washington no longer has one complaint to smother.

State officials may now have to decide whether to investigate. Private detention operators could face civil claims and discovery. The Justice Department has formally been put on notice, and international human-rights officials are being asked to look at the same deaths. Mexico has created several places where evidence might surface and several officials who may eventually have to explain why they acted or why they didn’t. (AP News)

Mexico isn’t betting everything on one heroic prosecutor. It’s making sure ICE can’t end the story by closing one door.

That matters because we’ve already watched what happens when the federal government controls the death, the evidence, and the investigation.

Minnesota showed us.

THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY MAGIC TRICK

Federal agents killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti in separate shootings during the immigration crackdown in Minnesota earlier this year. State and local officials wanted to run their own investigations, but federal authorities withheld crucial evidence for months. Minnesota officials eventually had to sue the administration just to get access to material tied to those deaths and another federal shooting. (Reuters)

Think about how insane that is.

Federal agents were involved in the killings, after which federal authorities collected the evidence, controlled access to it, and decided what the public would hear. Local prosecutors were told, in effect, to wait outside while Washington examined Washington.

Then everybody was supposed to trust the process.

That’s one hell of an accountability system, provided your definition of accountability is go fuck yourself.

Only this week did Minnesota prosecutors finally receive a large batch of evidence, including body-camera footage, statements, electronic records, and Good’s SUV. They’re still reviewing what they were handed and whether it’s complete. (The Guardian)

Meanwhile, half a year passed.

That delay wasn’t harmless. Time is the federal government’s favorite solvent. Public outrage cools, cameras leave, witnesses get harder to find, and memories get challenged. Officials keep saying an investigation is underway without explaining what’s being investigated or whether the people doing the investigating have any interest in embarrassing their own agency.

When the government controls the scene, the evidence, and the clock, delay becomes a weapon.

Minnesota didn’t just show Mexico that federal cooperation might be slow. It showed that local investigators could be forced to sue for the privilege of examining killings that happened in their own state.

No wonder Mexico decided another diplomatic request wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

“When the agency involved in a death controls the evidence, the investigation, and the public explanation, accountability becomes whatever that agency says it is.”

THE DEATHS DIDN’T WAIT FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS

While Minnesota was still fighting for evidence from January, ICE agents killed two more men in vehicles within days of each other.

In Houston, an ICE agent shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo. DHS acknowledged that agents had been looking for somebody else, and his family said he’d lived in the United States for decades with no criminal record. Federal officials claimed he used his vehicle as a weapon, while witnesses and local officials demanded independent scrutiny of that story. Mexico pointed to his death as it moved past diplomatic protests and into criminal complaints. (AP News)

Then an ICE officer killed a 26-year-old Colombian man in Biddeford, Maine, during another enforcement operation. Officials said he wasn’t the intended target, and the agents involved weren’t wearing body cameras. Federal authorities again said the vehicle posed a threat. Maine’s attorney general has opened a state investigation, while the FBI is also investigating. (The Wall Street Journal)

You don’t need a journalism degree to see the pattern here. ICE goes looking for one person and ends up killing somebody else. The dead man is in a car, the agents aren’t wearing body cameras, and DHS announces almost immediately that the vehicle became a weapon. Anyone trying to verify that version runs straight into an agency controlling most of what would prove or disprove it.

That isn’t proof that every official account is false. It is proof that nobody with a functioning bullshit detector should take those accounts on faith.

The Houston and Maine shootings aren’t why Mexico acted in the first place. The heart of Mexico’s case is still the fourteen citizens who died while already in ICE custody. But those roadside killings show that this culture of force, secrecy, and institutional self-protection doesn’t stay confined to detention centers.

ICE can be reckless after it locks someone in a cell, and it can be reckless during an operation on a public street. Once somebody’s dead, though, it gets remarkably disciplined about deciding who gets to see the evidence.

ICE has now suspended traffic stops as an arrest tactic after the Houston and Maine shootings. It is also moving toward requiring body-camera coverage and reviewing training for vehicle encounters. Agencies don’t suspend a tactic because everything went beautifully. They suspend it when the bodies become harder to explain. (The Wall Street Journal)

THE CELLS ARE WHERE THE EXCUSES RUN OUT

Street encounters can get chaotic. That doesn’t excuse bad tactics or unnecessary force, but it gives federal officials room to talk about split-second decisions and rapidly changing threats.

Custody is different.

There’s no split second when a sick person spends hours asking for medical care. There’s no sudden ambush when symptoms get documented, staffing is inadequate, or somebody decides a detainee can wait until morning.

When the government confines a person, it takes on the responsibility of keeping that person alive. That’s the deal. You don’t get to lock somebody in a building, decide when he sees a doctor, decide whether his pain matters, and then act baffled when he leaves in a body bag.

That is your fucking responsibility.

Mexico’s pressure on private detention operators may prove especially important because those companies live in the comfortable gap between public power and private accountability. ICE supplies the detainees, contractors provide the beds and medical systems, and taxpayers foot the bill.

Then somebody dies, and everybody starts pointing at the contract.

A civil case can force questions that a DHS press release never will. Who requested medical care? What symptoms were recorded? How many qualified staff members were working? Were previous complaints ignored? Did the company follow its contract, and did ICE know the facility was failing?

More importantly, civil discovery can force documents into the open. Emails, staffing reports, medical logs, incident reports, and internal warnings don’t give a shit how polished the official statement sounded.

Mexico is trying to pry the machine open from several sides because it knows one investigation can be contained. Several investigations get messy, and messy is where the truth sometimes escapes.

WASHINGTON CAN FIGHT THIS, BUT IT CAN’T ERASE IT EASILY

Mexico hasn’t discovered some magical loophole that strips ICE of federal protection. Washington still has immunity claims, jurisdiction fights, and enough taxpayer-funded lawyers to turn a subpoena into a retirement plan.

The administration can resist requests until judges force compliance and drag every legal fight out long enough that families run out of money before the government runs out of excuses.

Mexico knows that, too.

It’s betting that ICE can contain one investigation more easily than it can contain several. A state prosecutor may decline one complaint while another office opens a file. A civil case might survive long enough to reach discovery, or a detention employee could decide he isn’t carrying the whole institution’s sins alone. An international review may preserve testimony and records that would otherwise remain scattered across agencies and contractors.

Mexico doesn’t need every route to work. It needs one of them to reach somewhere ICE cannot control.

That might be a subpoena producing records nobody expected to see, a witness finally answering questions under oath, a video blowing the official version to hell, or a medical log showing somebody begged for help while a contractor kept billing the government.

That’s the danger for ICE.

For years, the agency has treated accountability like a thunderstorm: keep your head down, deny what you can, and wait for it to pass. Mexico is turning it into paperwork with names, dates, lawyers, prosecutors, and demands attached.

That shit is harder to wait out.

THIS COULD BECOME A PLAYBOOK

Other countries will be watching because their citizens can disappear into American detention centers, get hurt during enforcement operations, or die while federal officials control the evidence, too.

Mexico is showing them another way to respond. A government doesn’t have to lean entirely on diplomatic pressure. It can support state criminal complaints, pursue private detention contractors through civil courts, involve local medical examiners, and bring the cases before international institutions.

Most legal campaigns don’t get a clean Hollywood ending, and none of these efforts will produce a conviction or massive judgment. The immediate goal is simpler: make concealment harder.

ICE’s greatest protection has always been centralization. Its agents take control of the scene, federal officials lock down the evidence, government lawyers decide who gets access, and the spokespeople rush out the first version before anyone outside the building can challenge it. By the time records finally emerge, the country has usually moved on to the next outrage.

Mexico’s strategy scatters that pressure. State prosecutors, civil lawyers, international officials, detention companies, medical examiners, and grieving families may all end up asking some version of the same question:

What the fuck happened to these people?

Minnesota showed how easily local investigators could be shut out, while Houston and Maine proved that somebody else could be killed before anyone finished examining the last death. The custody cases make the underlying failure even harder to excuse because ICE controlled nearly every part of those people’s lives and still failed to keep them alive.

Mexico’s answer is brutally simple: stop leaving all the questions with the people holding the evidence.

ICE may still control the badge, but Mexico is making damn sure it no longer controls every room where the dead get discussed.

That may be the part Washington didn’t see coming.

Mexico doesn’t need every complaint, lawsuit, or international review to succeed. It only needs a prosecutor willing to issue subpoenas, a contractor forced to surrender its records, or a witness prepared to tell the truth somewhere ICE can’t edit it.

For years, ICE has counted on controlling the scene, the evidence, and the clock.

Mexico just started taking those advantages away.

GET THE OFF SCRIPT BULLSHIT DETECTOR

Not subscribed yet? Join Off Script and get The Off Script Bullshit Detector: A Field Guide for Catching the Part They Hoped You’d Miss free.

It was built for stories exactly like this one: loaded language, missing evidence, strategic delays, official certainty, and all the other tricks powerful people use when they’d rather manage your reaction than answer the damn question.

Subscribe now

Join Off Script and get The Off Script Bullshit Detector, normally $4.95, free with your subscription.

Already subscribed? Check the email I sent a couple of days ago. Your free copy is waiting there, assuming the hamster didn’t file it under “important things I’ll definitely remember later.”

Prefer to buy it outright?

BUY THE BULLSHIT DETECTOR — $4.95

Keep the receipts hot and the bullshit detector fully operational.

Know someone who still thinks this is merely another diplomatic complaint? Send them this article.

[SHARE BUTTON]

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

When federal agents control the death, the evidence, and the investigation, can state prosecutors force real accountability, or will Washington find another way to bury it?

Comments

New here? Off Script follows the story past the press release and into the part somebody hoped you wouldn’t notice.

#ICE #Immigration #Mexico #HumanRights #Accountability #ImmigrationDetention #OffScript

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced today, July 13, 2026, that the United States is launching what the State Department itself titled “State Department Launches Campaign to Dismantle International Criminal Court’s Threat to American Sovereignty.”

That’s not spin. That’s the actual headline they put their own name on.

The tools on the table, according to a State Department official who briefed Reuters: travel bans, visa revocations, expanded sanctions, and diplomatic pressure aimed at getting other countries to reject the ICC’s authority over Americans.

Suggested image: The International Criminal Court building in The Hague, with an American flag or a Trump administration official incorporated naturally into the composition.

Rubio isn’t hiding the ball on motive either. He’s framing this as sovereignty, full stop. Of course he is. Sovereignty is one of those magnificent Washington words that can make almost anything sound principled. Military intervention becomes national security. Economic coercion becomes diplomacy. Protecting powerful people from prosecution becomes a noble defense of the republic.

But sovereignty and immunity are not the same thing.

Sovereignty means the United States has legitimate authority over its own territory, laws, institutions, and citizens.

Immunity means Americans may act beyond our borders, affect people who never voted for our government, and remain untouchable by any institution our government cannot control.

Trump isn’t satisfied with saying the ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States. He wants the rest of the world punished for disagreeing.

Join me every morning.

Subscribe to Off Script and get the Bullshit Detector free of charge.

Not ready to subscribe? You can also buy it for $4.95.

Get yours in the Off Script store.

The United States has never joined the ICC. That matters. There are serious legal arguments about whether the court should exercise authority over citizens of a country that never ratified the Rome Statute. Those arguments deserve to be made. The court deserves scrutiny too — it’s been slow, politically vulnerable, and accused for years of leaning harder on weak countries than powerful ones.

But that isn’t where this stops.

The administration has already told the court it won’t cooperate with investigations involving Americans. Controversial, sure, but recognizable as a dispute over law. What’s happening now is something else entirely. It’s an attempt to make other sovereign nations adopt the American position through the threat of American retaliation — and I’m calling it that plainly because it’s exactly what a State Department official described to reporters this morning.

When Washington tells another country its continued support for an international court could jeopardize visas, aid, or access to the American financial system, it’s not defending sovereignty as a principle. It’s using American power to override somebody else’s.

That’s the part Rubio’s patriotic language conveniently leaves out.

America’s message, boiled down: we’re sovereign enough to reject the court. You are not sovereign enough to support it.

That’s not a legal standard. That’s a pecking order.

The ICC was created to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression when national courts won’t act. It’s supposed to be a court of last resort, not a global district attorney wandering the planet looking for parking violations. Its defenders say atrocities don’t become legally invisible because the accused holds a government title. Its critics say the court lacks accountability and applies its authority selectively. There’s room for an honest argument here.

Trump has no interest in having it.

The current campaign’s roots go back further than people remember. CNN’s reporting today traces the administration’s hostility toward the ICC to Trump’s first term, when the court’s investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan first drew Washington’s fire. That history helps explain today’s animosity — it doesn’t excuse what’s happening now, but it’s honest to say this grudge has been building for years, not months.

Then came Netanyahu. On November 21, 2024 — before Trump returned to office — the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes connected to the war in Gaza. The United States rejected the warrants, and once Trump returned to power, the pressure escalated. He signed an executive order sanctioning ICC officials on February 6, 2025. More sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors followed on August 20, 2025. Now comes the broadest move yet.

That pairing tells us plenty. Americans and Israelis aren’t being protected because international law suddenly became illegitimate. They’re being protected because they belong to the preferred category. They are ours. And “ours,” under this administration, increasingly means exempt.

Trump isn’t defending the principle that nations should govern themselves. He is demanding the power to decide which nations are allowed to judge anyone.

There’s a legitimate debate over whether the ICC handled the Netanyahu case correctly. Fine. Debate it. Challenge the warrants. Dispute the jurisdiction. Build a coalition to amend the Rome Statute. That’s how governments behave when they believe law matters.

Sanctioning judges, threatening prosecutors, and squeezing allied governments until they abandon the institution is what governments do when they believe power matters more.

The point is isolation. Make cooperation with the court feel risky. Make governments nervous about supporting it. Make lawyers, witnesses, banks, and institutions wonder whether contact with the ICC is worth the trouble. You don’t have to abolish an institution if you can make touching it feel radioactive.

The easiest response to all this is that the ICC is weak anyway — no police force, dependent on member states for arrests, and missing the U.S., Russia, China, and India from its membership rolls entirely. So why care?

Because weak accountability is still different from no accountability. The court has investigated or prosecuted atrocities connected to Darfur, Ukraine, Libya, the Philippines, Palestine, and Venezuela. For victims in those places, it’s sometimes the only institution even attempting to build a case. Destroying the ICC won’t produce a better court. It’ll produce a larger vacuum, and strong governments will keep prosecuting their enemies while dictators keep calling every investigation political.

Buy Me A Cup of Tea

Support Off Script and help keep the receipts organized and the bullshit detector calibrated.

There’s another problem here, and it’s bigger than the ICC. Other governments are listening. Russia can say the court is a Western political weapon. China can say international-human-rights scrutiny violates sovereignty. Every government accused of atrocities can borrow Washington’s vocabulary, swap the flag, and repeat the argument.

Why should anyone accept international judgment if the most powerful country on Earth considers itself exempt?

Every leader believes his circumstances are special. Every military insists its intentions were defensive. That’s exactly why courts exist — not because prosecutors are infallible, but because the accused can’t be the only authority deciding whether the accusation is legitimate. This administration rejects that premise whenever the accused belongs to its protected circle. It doesn’t want an impartial court. It wants a veto.

A court that can prosecute only the enemies of powerful countries is not an international court. It is an accessory.

The ICC may need reform — stricter limits, clearer jurisdiction, faster proceedings, a better answer to the charge that international justice lands hardest on countries with the least power to resist it. Dismantling the court does none of that. Threatening allied governments does none of that. Sanctioning judges and prosecutors does none of that. Those moves don’t improve international law. They teach the world that law survives only until it inconveniences Washington.

That lesson won’t stay confined to The Hague. Sooner or later, another government will use the same logic against American troops, American diplomats, or American allies. It’ll reject the institution, punish the investigators, pressure its neighbors, and call the whole thing sovereignty.

We’ll recognize the tactic. We taught it to them.

Trump doesn’t want sovereignty. He wants immunity — the kind backed by sanctions, money, military power, and a warning to every smaller country not to confuse its independence with permission to disagree. A world without any credible mechanism for judging the powerful isn’t a world made safe for America. It’s a world made safe for whoever has the biggest weapon and the fewest scruples.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

Should the United States be able to punish allied countries simply because they continue supporting an international court Washington rejects?

Join me every morning.

Subscribe to Off Script and get the Bullshit Detector free of charge.

Not ready to subscribe? You can also buy it for $4.95.

Get yours in the Off Script store.

#Trump #InternationalCriminalCourt #ICC #MarcoRubio #InternationalLaw #USForeignPolicy #Accountability #OffScript

There he is.

Mitch McConnell is alive, awake and sitting beside Elaine Chao, holding the sports section of Sunday’s Washington Post like somebody understood exactly what the internet would demand from a proof-of-life photograph.

Good.

That answers the worst question.

It also raises another one: Why the hell did it take four weeks?

McConnell hadn’t been seen publicly since a June 14 fall at his Kentucky home put him in the hospital. His office now says he was briefly unconscious, developed mild pneumonia, underwent extensive testing and has moved to a rehabilitation facility. He says he didn’t suffer a stroke, heart attack, fracture, concussion, tumor or hemorrhage, and that he plans to finish the term that ends in January.

That’s far more information than the public had twenty-four hours ago.

The photograph matters too. It shows McConnell conscious and apparently alert. Unless somebody produces credible evidence otherwise, we should accept the obvious conclusion: Mitch McConnell isn’t dead, secretly brain-dead or being kept alive by a Republican Senate caucus running a Weekend at Bernie’s franchise.

The ugliest rumors were wrong.

The people asking why a sitting senator had disappeared without a meaningful explanation weren’t.

Those things can both be true, although Washington prefers a simpler arrangement. Once the wildest theory gets knocked down, everybody who asked a reasonable question is supposed to feel embarrassed and quietly leave the room.

No.

A photograph can answer whether a man is alive. It doesn’t erase the month his office spent refusing to provide a clear account of why he’d vanished, how serious his condition was or whether he could still do the work of a United States senator.

The picture settles one argument.

It doesn’t settle the larger one.

Subscribe now

Join Me Every Morning.

WHAT WE KNOW NOW

According to the statement released in McConnell’s name, he fell while walking through his home, lost consciousness briefly and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Doctors ran tests and treated him for pneumonia. He’s now in rehabilitation, where he says he’s rebuilding strength and working to prevent another fall.

That account is plausible. At 84, with lasting mobility problems from childhood polio and a history of serious falls, a long recovery wouldn’t be surprising. He suffered a concussion and fractured rib in a 2023 fall and has had several public episodes in which he appeared to freeze while speaking.

He says he stayed quiet because he comes from a generation that doesn’t like showing vulnerability.

I believe that part.

Mitch McConnell has spent most of his adult life projecting control. He’s never looked eager to invite the public into the room while something human is happening to him.

But personal discomfort doesn’t fully explain institutional silence.

McConnell isn’t a retired executive recovering in private. He’s the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, a senior member of the chamber and one of only two senators representing Kentucky. His absence affects committee work, floor votes and the Republican majority’s ability to move legislation and nominations.

That turns a private medical event into a public question whether McConnell likes it or not.

Nobody needed his bloodwork. Nobody needed pictures of the fall or footage from physical therapy.

A basic explanation would’ve done.

He fell. He lost consciousness. He developed pneumonia. He’s recovering. He can’t return yet.

That’s essentially what his office finally told us.

It could’ve told us weeks ago.

THE PHOTOGRAPH CHANGES THE STORY

Before the photograph appeared, the absence itself was the story. McConnell’s office was speaking for a senator the public couldn’t see, hear or question. His colleagues said they’d spoken with him and found him mentally engaged, but those reassurances came from people inside the same political system that benefited from keeping his seat officially occupied.

The photograph changes that.

It’d be dishonest to keep writing as though McConnell remains completely invisible. He doesn’t. We’ve seen him. The image appears current, and the newspaper in his hands was clearly included to answer the claim that his office had pulled an old photograph out of a drawer.

Fair enough.

We asked for evidence. They produced some.

That should count.

But the photograph also confirms something else: the office knew visual evidence mattered. It knew the vacuum had grown large enough to fill with rumors, fake images and increasingly deranged speculation. It knew a current photograph could kill most of that in a few seconds.

So why wait?

Maybe McConnell looked worse before Sunday. Maybe doctors advised against a photograph. Maybe he refused until the rumors became intolerable. Maybe Elaine Chao finally told everybody to stop being ridiculous and take the damn picture.

All of that is possible.

His office hasn’t explained it.

The photograph proves Mitch McConnell is alive. It doesn’t prove four weeks of official silence was acceptable.

THEN LINDSEY GRAHAM DIED

The timing makes the story harder to separate from Lindsey Graham’s sudden death.

Graham died July 11 after returning from Ukraine. He’d been campaigning for another term and had already won South Carolina’s Republican primary.

One day he was traveling, meeting foreign leaders and planning the next campaign.

Then his Senate seat became a legal and political problem.

South Carolina’s governor can appoint someone to complete the remainder of Graham’s current term. The state must also deal with replacing him as the Republican nominee for the full term beginning next year, setting off a compressed election process before November.

That’s the brutal reality of elected office. The mourning starts, and almost immediately somebody has to answer questions about appointments, ballots and who controls the seat.

Kentucky would face a different process if McConnell’s seat became vacant.

The state changed its law in 2024 and eliminated the governor’s power to appoint a temporary senator. A vacancy now requires a special election, and Kentucky would have only one sitting senator until voters selected a replacement. How that law would work this close to the already scheduled November election remains unsettled.

That doesn’t mean McConnell’s office timed its statement or photograph to avoid a special election. We don’t have evidence of that, and we shouldn’t pretend we do.

It does mean his medical status carries political consequences far beyond his hospital room.

As long as McConnell remains in office, there’s no vacancy. As long as there’s no vacancy, Kentucky doesn’t have to test a new and legally awkward election process during the final months of his term.

That reality is enough to justify scrutiny.

We don’t need to invent the rest.

THE INTERNET DIDN’T CREATE THE VACUUM

McConnell’s office will probably feel vindicated by the photograph. The senator’s alive. The most grotesque claims were false. A fake medical image had already circulated online, and conspiracy merchants were doing what they always do when facts are scarce: manufacturing their own.

They deserve criticism.

So does the secrecy that gave them room to work.

Officials act as though public suspicion arrives out of nowhere. They release almost nothing, leave obvious questions unanswered and then become offended when the vacuum fills with bullshit.

The internet didn’t cause McConnell to disappear for weeks.

The internet didn’t decide that “he remains in contact with staff” was enough of an update for an 84-year-old senator who’d been hospitalized since mid-June.

The internet took the uncertainty and made it stupider.

That’s what it does.

The answer isn’t to indulge every rumor. It’s to stop treating basic disclosure as a gift powerful people may offer whenever they’re emotionally ready.

McConnell didn’t owe us humiliation.

He owed us clarity.

BUY ME A TEA

Keep independent scrutiny alive and the official story under observation.

WHAT THE PICTURE DOESN’T SHOW

The photograph doesn’t establish when McConnell can return to Washington.

It doesn’t show whether he can walk safely, endure a full Senate schedule or cast votes in person. It doesn’t tell Kentucky how much work he’s doing or how much authority has shifted to staff while he recovers.

His statement says he remains engaged with Senate business and has stayed in contact with colleagues and aides. That’s relevant. It’s also difficult for the public to evaluate from the outside.

The sensible position isn’t to demand that he resign because he spent a month in the hospital.

It’s to demand continued honesty about whether he can finish the job.

Recovery isn’t predictable. McConnell may regain strength and return. He may be physically unable to handle the schedule. He may remain mentally sharp while needing more help than he’s willing to show publicly.

None of that is shameful.

Pretending certainty would be.

His office has finally given the public a serious update. It now has to keep doing that rather than disappear behind the statement and treat Sunday’s photograph as a lifetime exemption from further questions.

THIS IS WHAT RESPONSIBLE SKEPTICISM LOOKS LIKE

Responsible skepticism means changing your conclusion when new evidence arrives.

Yesterday, the public hadn’t seen Mitch McConnell. Today, it has.

Yesterday, his office had offered little detail about the hospitalization. Today, it has described the fall, loss of consciousness, pneumonia, testing and rehabilitation.

That changes the story.

It doesn’t make the previous secrecy responsible. It doesn’t prove McConnell can return to the Senate. It doesn’t remove the political consequences if he can’t finish his term.

But it does kill the idea that he’s secretly dead.

Good riddance to it.

The serious question was never whether McConnell’s office had hidden a body. It was whether elected power can operate indefinitely through staff, statements and private assurances while the person holding that power remains beyond meaningful public scrutiny.

The photograph narrows that question.

It doesn’t close it.

ONE LAST THING

There’s a bad habit in political commentary: once you commit to a theory, every new fact has to be forced into it.

We’re not doing that.

The McConnell photograph is real evidence. It deserves to be treated as real evidence. Anyone still insisting he’s dead has left skepticism behind and wandered into fantasy.

But nobody should let the photograph rewrite the previous four weeks.

His office gave Americans almost no useful information while a sitting senator remained hospitalized and absent from public life. It waited until speculation had become a national sideshow before releasing the kind of update that could’ve prevented much of it.

McConnell is alive.

That’s good news for him, his family and anybody who prefers reality to internet fan fiction.

The remaining question is whether he can return and serve.

Kentucky deserves a straight answer as soon as one exists.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

Did McConnell’s photograph settle your concerns, or do voters still deserve clearer answers about whether he can finish his term?

GET YOUR FREE COPY OF THE OFF SCRIPT BULLSHIT DETECTOR

It’s my birthday today , which usually means people are supposed to give me something.

I’m flipping that around.

As my birthday gift to subscribers, I’m giving every Off Script subscriber a free copy of The Off Script Bullshit Detector — a quick field guide to the tricks politicians, media outlets and professional bullshit artists use to make weak claims sound convincing.

It normally sells for $4.95.

Subscribers get it free.

Already a subscriber, download your free copy here.

Not a subscriber?

Buy The Off Script Bullshit Detector For $4.95 here.

Consider it my way of saying thanks for reading, subscribing and helping keep independent work alive.

Also, birthdays come and go. Bullshit is apparently immortal.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for independent reporting and commentary that changes when the facts change—and keeps asking questions when they don’t answer enough.

#MitchMcConnell #LindseyGraham #USSenate #KentuckyPolitics #GovernmentTransparency #PoliticalAccountability #OffScript

Welcome to The Blind Spot.

Every Sunday, I’m going to take one story everybody thinks they understand and look for the part sitting just outside the frame. The thing buried under the headline, skipped in the coverage or politely ignored because it complicates the version people have already decided to believe.

That’s the job.

The Make America Healthy Again crowd was right about a lot of things.

Our food supply contains too much cheap, heavily processed garbage. Chemical companies have wormed their way too deeply into the agencies regulating them. Manufacturers are allowed to introduce ingredients under rules that often amount to letting the fox inspect its own droppings and declare the henhouse sanitary. Americans are exposed to pesticides, plastics, and industrial chemicals that the government has studied too little, regulated too slowly, or ignored because the companies making billions from them hired better lobbyists than the public did.

Those are real problems. They deserve real anger.

That is what makes the rest of this such a goddamned betrayal.

MAHA looked at a country being slowly poisoned by corporate power and helped elect the people most committed to removing the few restraints corporate power still had. It identified the arsonists, handed them the keys to the fire station, and is now furious that the smoke alarms have stopped working.

The broken EPA promise is the headline.

The bigger story is what MAHA has quietly decided public health should become: your problem.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

Last December, after MAHA activists circulated a petition demanding that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin be fired, Zeldin promised them a formal EPA agenda addressing pesticides, dangerous chemicals, and other environmental threats to public health.

For months, the EPA said the agenda was being drafted. At one point, officials said it had reached its “final stages.”

Eight months later, there is no agenda.

When the Associated Press asked what happened to it, the EPA suddenly explained that MAHA was an “ongoing effort,” not a single report. The agency also complained that treating MAHA as a document awaiting release fundamentally misrepresented how it operates.

That would be a more convincing explanation had the EPA not spent months saying it was writing the damned document.

This is the bureaucratic equivalent of telling your family Thanksgiving dinner is almost ready, disappearing into the kitchen until midnight, and then announcing that turkey was never supposed to be a physical object. It was a continuing culinary commitment.

The missing report matters because a written agenda creates accountability. It identifies goals, deadlines, and priorities. It gives activists, journalists, and Congress something more substantial than Lee Zeldin’s facial expression against which to measure progress.

An “ongoing effort” can mean anything. In Washington, it usually means somebody would like credit for beginning a journey without the inconvenience of ever arriving.

The EPA says its actions should speak for themselves.

Fine. Let’s listen to the bastards.

Zeldin’s EPA has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda, moving to roll back environmental rules, freeze clean-energy funding, disrupt agency research and overturn the federal finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health.

That is the same agency supposedly leading a national crusade against pesticides, microplastics, and toxic chemical exposure.

You don’t need a Ph.D. in environmental science to see the structural flaw here. A pair of functioning eyes and the ability to recognize bullshit will do.

THE MOVEMENT THAT WANTED OPPOSITE THINGS

MAHA was built around a contradiction its leaders hoped nobody would examine until after the election.

Its supporters wanted aggressive protection from corporations while joining a political movement that treats corporate regulation as an attack on freedom. They wanted fewer pesticides in food and fewer bureaucrats empowered to restrict pesticides. They wanted safer water and an EPA with weaker enforcement. They wanted the government to protect children from chemical exposure while cheering every time Trump bragged about demolishing another piece of government.

Those ideas cannot coexist indefinitely.

Sooner or later, somebody has to tell a chemical company no. Somebody has to test the water, study the herbicide, inspect the factory, set the exposure limit and drag the company into court when it lies about what it dumped into the river.

That somebody is usually a regulator.

Regulators can be slow, timid, captured, and maddening. Agencies protect themselves. Scientists can communicate like they are trying to lose an audience on purpose. Lobbyists slip through revolving doors so fast they ought to be generating electricity.

But removing the regulator does not frighten the corporation into better behavior. The pesticide company does not become honest because Lee Zeldin freed it from the crushing tyranny of paperwork.

It becomes less regulated.

That is what deregulation means, no matter how many goddamn American flags you put behind the podium.

“You cannot protect Americans from corporate toxins while treating every restriction on corporate behavior as government tyranny.”

MAHA activists are now shocked that the administration has not delivered the pesticide restrictions they expected. They are angry that former industry lobbyists hold influential EPA positions and frustrated that promised protections keep shrinking into partial actions, proposed studies, and announcements that look better in a press release than they do in the bloodstream.

Kyle Kunkler, a former soybean-industry lobbyist, now leads pesticide policy at the EPA. Nancy Beck, formerly an executive with the American Chemistry Council, holds a senior position in the agency’s chemical-safety office. Another former council executive serves as her deputy. The EPA says its political appointees consulted ethics officials about potential conflicts.

I’m sure that settles everyone’s nerves.

Nothing says “we’re finally taking on corporate chemical power” quite like putting corporate chemical power behind the desk with a government email address.

MAHA’s bargain with Trump was understandable in one respect. Many Americans believed neither party was taking chronic disease, food additives or corporate influence over medicine seriously. Kennedy gave those voters a language for their anger, and Trump gave Kennedy a path into power.

The price was visible from the beginning.

MAHA attached a public-health movement to a political machine built around deregulation, fossil fuels, corporate tax cuts and hostility toward government expertise. Its supporters convinced themselves they could borrow that machine long enough to impose tougher rules on some of the richest industries in America.

That was never a plan.

It was a hostage negotiation conducted by people who had already handed over the goddamn hostage.

Trump did not embrace MAHA because he experienced a spiritual awakening while wandering through the organic produce section. He embraced it because Kennedy brought voters. The movement received appointments, speeches and influence over selected issues that did not threaten the administration’s larger economic commitments.

When those interests collide, the outcome isn’t hard to predict.

The administration may pressure cereal companies to change dyes because they can reformulate the product, redesign the box, and sell the result for another seventy-five cents. It may promote exercise because push-ups do not employ lobbyists.

Ask that same administration to impose serious costs on pesticide producers, fossil-fuel companies, or industrial agriculture, and watch the bold health revolution suddenly turn into an ongoing effort.

MAHA had enough leverage to alter the menu.

It never had enough power to throw the polluters out of the kitchen.

To be fair, MAHA has produced some worthwhile pressure and a few genuine accomplishments. HHS and the FDA have pushed companies to phase out petroleum-based synthetic food dyes and encouraged a transition toward alternatives.

Good.

Get unnecessary crap out of children’s food, and I will applaud without checking which team gets the point. A useful reform does not become evil because Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supports it, any more than a stupid idea becomes brilliant because my side posted an infographic about it.

The problem is that these limited victories sit inside a much larger political project that is weakening the country’s ability to protect people from harmful products, pollution and disease.

Changing the color of Froot Loops does not excuse handing the chemical industry a crowbar and directions to the regulatory office.

THE BLIND SPOT

Here is the part almost everyone is missing.

MAHA is not merely failing to strengthen public health. It is quietly changing who is responsible for it.

For most of the modern era, the basic promise of public-health regulation was that ordinary people should not need a toxicology degree to survive breakfast. You were not supposed to spend half your life investigating whether the cereal dye affects children, whether the frying pan contains PFAS, whether the tap water carries industrial runoff, or whether the herbicide sprayed near your kid’s school was approved after rigorous testing or after some lobbyist bought lunch.

That was supposed to be the government’s job.

The system never worked perfectly. Sometimes it barely worked at all. Corporations bought influence, regulators missed obvious dangers, and agencies waited until people got sick before deciding that perhaps the mysterious foam floating down the river deserved a closer look.

Still, there was supposed to be a floor beneath the public. The government was expected to make ordinary life reasonably safe before the consumer entered the store.

MAHA is replacing that floor with a shopping list.

Buy organic when you can afford it. Install an expensive water filter. Avoid seventeen categories of food. Read every label while standing under fluorescent lights with a cart full of melting groceries. Research each vaccine until you understand immunology better than the doctor you no longer trust. Find a “clean” brand, a functional physician, a private testing service, and a supplement company whose founder seems sincere during three-hour podcasts.

Every danger becomes a personal consumer decision, and every parent becomes an unpaid epidemiologist with a Costco membership.

When something goes wrong, responsibility comes sliding downhill. You should have researched the ingredient, bought the cleaner product, filtered the water, or questioned your doctor. You should have known the government could not be trusted.

That sounds like empowerment until you notice who has quietly gotten off scot-free: the manufacturer, the polluter, the chemical company, and the government that was supposed to regulate all three.

MAHA promised to hold corporations accountable. Its governing coalition is doing something far more convenient for corporations: letting them sell the risk while families get told to shop their way around it.

That is not public health.

That is public health with surge pricing, and it’s a hell of a racket.

“MAHA didn’t remove corporate power from American health. It moved the cost of surviving that power onto individual families.”

This system works wonderfully for wealthy people. They can buy organic groceries, reverse-osmosis systems, whole-house air filtration, private dental care, concierge doctors, and enough supplements to make their kitchen look like a vitamin warehouse after a tornado.

Poor families get the same contaminated air, the same aging pipes and the same industrial chemicals, followed by a lecture about personal responsibility.

They live near the highway, refinery, factory, or farm field because those are the places they can afford. They drink from the public water system because building a private purification plant beneath the sink is not high on the grocery budget. They buy what the nearest store carries because the nearest store may be a Dollar General with two bruised bananas and an entire aisle devoted to orange food.

They also tend to have less time to “do their own research,” because working two jobs leaves damn little room for comparing competing interpretations of a mouse study from Denmark.

Public protection matters most for people who cannot purchase private protection.

That is why regulation exists. It puts some responsibility on the company making the product instead of assigning a frightened mother homework after her kid develops symptoms.

MAHA saw that corporate influence had weakened the regulatory floor. Rather than rebuilding it, the movement helped elect people who showed up with sledgehammers.

THE BUSINESS MODEL OF DISTRUST

MAHA did not invent distrust of doctors, pharmaceutical companies, or public-health agencies. Plenty of that distrust was earned. Drug companies committed fraud. Agencies hid mistakes. Officials sometimes spoke with too much certainty during COVID and treated reasonable questions like hostile acts. Corporate medicine often feels designed to process billing codes more efficiently than actual human beings.

Questioning authority is healthy.

Assuming every expert is lying is fucking reckless.

The CDC’s current measles data show thousands of confirmed cases across 2025 and 2026, while kindergarten vaccine exemptions rose during the 2024–2025 school year.

This isn’t some argument taking place inside a policy seminar. Kids are catching a disease we damn near wiped out.

MAHA did not invent the anti-vaccine movement or cause every parent to refuse an MMR shot. It did something broader and more corrosive: it gave institutional suspicion a home inside the federal government.

Once you destroy trust in shared institutions, the public does not become magically independent. Most people do not build personal laboratories and begin reviewing raw data.

They look for a new authority.

That vacuum gets filled by influencers, wellness entrepreneurs, supplement companies, podcast doctors, and professional contrarians who face fewer disclosure rules than the institutions they accuse of concealing everything.

The new salesman looks less corporate because he’s wearing a baseball cap and talking into a microphone beside a houseplant.

He is still selling you something.

MAHA did not free American health from commercial influence.

It changed the salesmen.

BUY ME A TEA

Help keep the research deep and the bullshit detector fully operational.

THE MICROPLASTICS MAGIC TRICK

The EPA’s handling of microplastics offers a perfect demonstration of how the new system works, and it’s a hell of a shell game.

In April, the agency loudly announced that it was adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to a draft list of drinking-water contaminants that could eventually be regulated. EPA called the move historic and presented it as a major MAHA action.

That produced the desired headlines.

Then, in late June, the EPA omitted microplastics and pharmaceuticals from the mandatory monitoring program used to collect nationally representative information about unregulated contaminants in drinking water. The agency said it could not develop a suitable analytical method within the required timeframe.

There is legitimate scientific difficulty in detecting, measuring and assessing microplastics. EPA’s own research describes significant gaps and ongoing work to develop methods for evaluating exposure and health effects.

That is precisely why the monitoring infrastructure matters, goddammit.

You cannot announce that you are following the science and then decline to collect the information required to determine what the science says. That is like promising to investigate a murder, refusing to examine the body, and explaining that fingerprints remain technically complicated.

The EPA got the MAHA headline.

The contaminants got more time.

That pattern is likely to define the entire relationship. Study something, call it a win. Put it on a candidate list, call it a win. Restrict one narrow use while leaving broader exposures untouched; call it a win. Promise an agenda, abandon the agenda, and explain that the real agenda was the friends we made along the way.

Meanwhile, deregulation proceeds with admirable, infuriating punctuality.

The pesticide companies get policy.

MAHA gets a sticker.

ONE LAST THING

There is still a worthwhile movement buried inside MAHA.

Americans should demand cleaner food, stronger chemical testing and less corporate influence over medicine. They should be furious that chronic illness is enormously profitable while prevention remains an underfunded afterthought. They should insist that companies prove products are safe before families become the experiment.

Those demands do not belong to Kennedy, Trump, Republicans, Democrats, podcast hosts, or shirtless men who believe exposure to cold water qualifies them to rewrite immunology.

They belong to the public.

But a real public-health movement has to accept a truth MAHA keeps trying to dodge: personal choices cannot substitute for public protection.

You cannot shop your way out of polluted air or supplement your way around contaminated groundwater. You cannot ask every parent to investigate thousands of chemicals while manufacturers employ scientists, lobbyists, and entire legal departments to keep those chemicals on the market.

Freedom without safeguards is mostly the freedom of the stronger party to screw the weaker one.

When the government abandons the field, corporations don’t follow it home. They stay right where they are, selling products, shaping research, influencing policy and telling you that any resulting harm was caused by your poor lifestyle choices.

MAHA said corporations had captured the government.

Then it helped elect a government determined to surrender.

That is more than a broken campaign promise. It is how a movement created to make America healthier ended up making the country easier to poison.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

When the government stops protecting the public and tells every family to protect itself, is that freedom or abandonment?

Subscribe now

The first Blind Spot was my birthday present to you. The next one belongs to paid subscribers. Join me, and help keep looking where the rest of the press stopped looking.

#MAHA #EPA #PublicHealth #EnvironmentalHealth #Pesticides #CorporatePower #OffScript #TheBlindSpot

I’ve been alive long enough to watch UFOs change names, survive every debunking, outlive the Cold War, and become respectable enough for the Pentagon to give them a website.

That is one hell of a career arc.

They started as flying saucers, became UFOs, and now we’re supposed to call them unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAPs, because apparently the Pentagon decided the subject needed more syllables before serious people could discuss it without giggling.

Fine. Call them whatever you want.

There is still strange shit flying around up there, trained military personnel keep seeing it, and the federal government keeps responding with the verbal equivalent of a man caught standing next to an open safe saying, “This probably isn’t what it looks like.”

The latest release includes 40 files: videos, documents, audio recordings, and images collected from the Pentagon, NASA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Department of Energy. Some are historical. Others involve more recent encounters near military operations, nuclear facilities, and restricted airspace.

Do the files prove aliens are visiting Earth? No. Do they prove the government still has a stack of incidents it cannot adequately explain? You bet your ass they do.

Subscribe now

Independent journalism for people who are tired of being told not to notice the weird parts.

I’VE HEARD THIS STORY BEFORE

I grew up during the golden age of flying saucers.

UFOs were everywhere. They were on television, in magazines, in movies, and occasionally hovering over some farmer’s field after everybody in town had gone to bed except the one guy nobody believed even before the aliens showed up.

The pictures were always blurry. The witnesses were always nervous. The government was always confident there was nothing to see while behaving exactly like an institution with something it desperately didn’t want you to see.

That was the formula, and it still is.

The technology has changed. The cameras are better. The pilots are better trained. The sensors are more sophisticated. Somehow, the pictures still look like they were taken through a dirty shower door during an earthquake.

That should make us cautious without making us stupid.

One of the newly released reports involves an unidentified object entering restricted airspace over the Pantex nuclear weapons facility near Amarillo, Texas. Officers pursued it. The facility went into lockdown. Witnesses described an object with no visible propulsion system and no obvious sound before it moved away and disappeared.

Maybe it was a drone. Maybe it was classified technology. Maybe it was a balloon with a goddamn security clearance.

Whatever it was, it wandered into protected airspace over a facility connected to nuclear weapons, and the people responsible for protecting that airspace could not identify it.

I don’t need little green men climbing down a ladder before I decide that deserves an answer.

THE TWO MOST ANNOYING CAMPS IN AMERICA

UFO stories bring out two kinds of people, and both of them make me want to leave the room.

The first group sees a blinking light over Phoenix and immediately concludes that visitors from another galaxy have arrived to warn us about climate change, nuclear war, or the evils of gluten.

These people never merely suspect aliens. They know. They’ve connected the dots, read the secret documents, watched seventeen hours of YouTube, and developed an unusually intense opinion about cattle mutilation.

The second group is just as exhausting.

They hear “unidentified” and instantly translate it into “fake.” Every witness is confused, every instrument malfunctioned, every pilot was mistaken, and every unexplained object was either a balloon or Venus apparently taking a wrong turn near a military base.

That isn’t skepticism. That’s religion with worse lighting.

Real skepticism does not begin with the answer already stuffed in its pocket. It asks what happened, examines the evidence, and admits when the evidence is lousy, incomplete, or genuinely strange.

That last part matters because some of these cases are genuinely strange.

Another released account came from a military aviator with decades of experience. He and several others saw a small object moving in the opposite direction at high speed. They recorded it briefly. Later analysis suggested it may have been rectangular. The pilot said its behavior was unlike anything he had encountered in nearly 30 years of flying.

Maybe he was wrong. Experienced people can be wrong. Sensors can misread. Our eyes aren’t especially reliable, particularly at speed, at altitude, and under stress.

But when several trained observers see the same thing and none of them can identify it, “they were probably confused” is not an explanation. It’s what you say when you’re tired of thinking.

“WE DON’T KNOW” IS A COMPLETE SENTENCE

Here is the part people hate: we don’t know.

Those may be the three most honest words in the English language, which is probably why government officials use them only when all other bullshit has failed.

People cannot stand an empty space. We’ll fill it with aliens, weather balloons, secret aircraft, religious prophecy, swamp gas, Chinese surveillance systems, or whatever explanation lets us stop feeling uncertain.

I understand the impulse. Uncertainty is uncomfortable. It sits there scratching at the door and refuses to wrap itself up neatly before bedtime.

But sometimes the evidence does not support a clean answer. That does not mean anything can be true. It means the responsible answer is still unresolved.

A UFO is not automatically an alien spacecraft. It is an object that has not been identified with the information available. That distinction has been buried beneath decades of bad television, tabloid nonsense, government secrecy, and guys named Dale claiming they were selected as Earth’s regional ambassador to the Pleiades.

Still, “unidentified” does not mean “imaginary.”

If a military sensor tracks an object, pilots see it, and analysts cannot determine what it was, then something happened. Maybe the explanation is boring. Most explanations probably are.

Boring answers are still answers.

Give us one.

When the government spends decades hiding ordinary secrets, it shouldn’t act shocked when people suspect extraordinary ones.

The federal government helped create the UFO industry it now treats as an embarrassing relative at Thanksgiving.

It classified reports. It concealed military programs. It mocked witnesses. It denied interest while quietly continuing to investigate. Then officials wondered why the public stopped believing them.

Governments conceal things constantly, and most of those things are not alien bodies. They hide surveillance capabilities, weapons systems, operational failures, embarrassing mistakes, and expensive hardware that performs like a toaster someone left in the rain.

That should make us more careful about UFO claims, not less curious.

A strange object near a nuclear facility matters even if it came from Earth. If it was foreign surveillance, we need to know. If it was secret American technology, someone needs to explain why other American personnel were left chasing it. If it was a sensor failure, that matters too, especially if we plan to depend on that sensor when the incoming object is carrying something worse than a camera.

And if it was none of those things, well, now we’ve got ourselves an interesting fucking afternoon.

THE GOVERNMENT BUILT A MYSTERY MACHINE

The Pentagon says it must protect classified sensors, intelligence methods, and military capabilities.

That is reasonable. You probably don’t want to publish a convenient user manual explaining exactly what American radar can detect, at what range, and under which conditions.

The problem comes when officials remove every meaningful detail, release a video that looks like a moth attacking a porch light, stamp half the page black, and tell the public there is nothing interesting going on.

That approach has all the reassuring warmth of a landlord saying, “Don’t worry about the smell.”

The latest files include recordings from incidents near China and historical material involving strange green fireballs reported around Los Alamos in 1949. Scientists studied those fireballs and apparently failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Think about that for a minute. This pattern has been running for more than 75 years.

Something appears near a sensitive location. Witnesses report it. Experts examine the evidence. The government opens a file. A firm conclusion never arrives. Decades later, someone releases the paperwork and passes the mystery to a new generation.

That’s why UFOs never die.

The story contains secrecy, danger, technology, government incompetence, paranoia, wonder, and the possibility that we may not be the smartest thing in the universe.

Judging by recent events, that last part is becoming easier to believe.

MAYBE WE’VE BEEN ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION

The usual question is whether aliens are visiting Earth.

That’s the fun question. It is also probably too big for the evidence we have.

A better question is this: What are military personnel seeing, and why can’t the government identify it?

That question does not require belief in extraterrestrials. It does not require trust in the Pentagon. It only requires enough intellectual honesty to admit that unexplained incidents deserve investigation.

Some people are afraid to take UFO reports seriously because they don’t want to look foolish.

I think dismissing evidence because the subject attracts lunatics is far more foolish. Lunatics are attracted to politics, religion, medicine, professional sports, cryptocurrency, and Facebook neighborhood groups.

We still investigate all of those, although I remain open to shutting down the neighborhood groups.

The responsible position is not exciting enough for television.

Most UFO sightings probably have ordinary explanations. Some remain unresolved. None of the newly released files proves extraterrestrial visitation. The government almost certainly knows more than it has released, even if what it knows involves classified aircraft, foreign drones, sensor limitations, and a very large stack of paperwork nobody wanted to finish.

Something is up there. That’s about all we know.

Maybe one day the answer will arrive in a clear photograph, a declassified file, or a silver craft landing on the White House lawn. Until then, keep looking up and wipe the goddamn lens first.

Buy Me A Cup of Tea

Help keep Off Script independent, curious, and willing to open the file everyone else shoved into a drawer.

ONE LAST THING

If aliens have been monitoring Earth, I suspect they’ve spent the past few years arguing over whether we qualify as intelligent life.

I’m not loving our chances.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

Do you think some UFO sightings represent something genuinely unknown, or have secrecy and bad evidence kept an ordinary mystery alive for 80 years?

#UFOs #UAP #PentagonFiles #GovernmentSecrecy #OffScript

Sometimes I wonder if I’m reading the same news as everybody else.

Not because I think I’ve stumbled onto some grand conspiracy nobody else noticed. Hell, most days the story is exactly what everybody says it is. The weird part is that my brain has this annoying habit of getting hung up on one little detail while everybody else is busy talking about the big picture, and this morning it was one word.

Reunited.

According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the alliance came out of its summit in Ankara “reunited,” and I damn near laughed.

Not because I think NATO is collapsing, and not because I think Rutte’s an idiot. Hell, if I had his job, I’d probably need bourbon with my breakfast. What got me was that one little word.

Reunited?

Really?

Maybe I’m getting old. That’s entirely possible. I reached the age where I can walk into the kitchen looking for something, get there, and spend five minutes trying to remember what the hell I came in for. But unless my memory has completely gone to shit, “reunited” used to mean people who’d actually been separated.

Families reunite.

Old friends reunite.

The cast of an old television show reunites because somebody figured out they could make another twenty million bucks selling our nostalgia back to us.

That’s a reunion.

Thirty-two countries spending two days arguing over defense spending, trade, military commitments, and who ought to be paying for what?

Hell, that’s every condo association meeting in America.

Subscribe now

If you enjoy looking at the news from an angle the talking heads usually miss, pull up a chair. Join me every morning for Off Script.

See, this is the kind of crap that fascinates me. I’ve always been a word guy. Give me one interesting word, and I’ll happily ignore the rest of the article while I chase that poor bastard around the page trying to figure out what it’s doing there. Words aren’t just words. They’re little windows into the way people want us to see the world.

Take “right-sizing.”

That’s layoffs with better public relations.

“Revenue enhancement?”

That’s taxes after somebody put on a necktie.

“Unexpected challenges?”

That’s government-speak for, “Well... we screwed something up.”

Now we’ve apparently added “reunited” to the list.

I don’t think that’s an accident. Nobody reaches into a bag of Scrabble tiles, pulls out seven random letters, and accidentally creates the perfect diplomatic talking point. Somebody looked at that summit, thought about everything that happened, and decided “reunited” was the word they wanted the rest of us carrying around in our heads.

That’s interesting as hell.

“I’ve always been a word guy. Give me one interesting word and I’ll happily ignore the rest of the article while I chase that poor bastard around the page trying to figure out what it’s doing there.”

Look, I’m not naïve. I understand why Rutte chose that word. His job isn’t just running meetings. His job is reassuring allies, discouraging adversaries, calming markets, and trying to keep thirty-two countries moving in roughly the same direction. Walking up to the microphone and saying, “Well... nobody called anybody an asshole and nobody threw a fucking chair, so I guess we’ll take the win,” probably isn’t considered proper diplomatic language.

Still, there’s a hell of a difference between survived the meeting and reunited, and that’s what keeps bugging me. Not because I think he’s lying. I don’t. It’s because I think institutions have a habit of reaching for the friendliest word in the dictionary, even when it’s doing a hell of a lot more work than it ought to.

WAIT... WHAT?

Think about how often this happens. Companies don’t shrink the product. They “refresh the packaging.” Politicians don’t reverse themselves. They “evolve.” Nobody gets fired anymore. They’re “transitioning to new opportunities.” Hell, if my electric company ever sends me a notice saying they’re “reimagining my monthly billing experience,” I’m hiding my wallet.

Everybody’s got a dictionary these days, and somehow every dictionary just happens to make the speaker look a little better.

That’s bullshit.

Not because the words are always false. It’s because they’re often carefully chosen to sand the sharp edges off reality until the whole damn thing feels easier to swallow. The event doesn’t change. The language does. Before long, people aren’t arguing about what happened anymore. They’re arguing about the carefully wrapped version that got delivered to the evening news.

Maybe NATO is more united today than it was before the summit. I honestly don’t know, and neither do you. That’s another thing that cracks me up about modern commentary. Everybody acts like they know what happened inside closed-door meetings. They don’t. They know what they were told happened. Those are two very different things, and confusing them is how perfectly intelligent people end up arguing over press releases like they’re eyewitness accounts.

What I do know is this: if I’d watched my family spend two days arguing over money, responsibilities, who wasn’t pulling their weight, and whether Uncle Frank had once again brought that damn potato salad nobody actually likes, then everybody smiled for one picture before getting back in their cars, I wouldn’t tell my neighbors we’d had a reunion.

I’d tell them Thanksgiving was over.

That’s not me insulting my family.

That’s me using the word that actually fits.

Maybe that’s what bothers me so much. Somewhere along the way we started treating plain English like it wasn’t sophisticated enough. Every institution now seems to have its own dialect. The government has one. Corporations have one. The military has one. Universities have one. Spend enough time listening to any of them and you begin to realize they’re all playing the same game.

They’re not always changing the facts.

Sometimes they’re just changing the labels.

And labels matter because labels shape pictures.

Say “reunion,” and I picture hugs, laughter, old memories, maybe somebody crying at the airport. Say “survived another ugly meeting” and I picture something completely different.

Same event. Different movie playing in my head.

That’s the power of one little word.

BUY ME A TEA

If today’s rabbit hole made you smile, think, or mutter, “Son of a bitch...,” you can help keep the coffee hot and the bullshit detector fully operational.

There are days when I think being a word guy is a pain in the ass. Normal people read an article and move on with their lives. I read one sentence, trip over a single word, and spend the next hour wandering around my living room talking to myself like a lunatic.

Then again, maybe that’s exactly what I’m supposed to be doing.

Because once you start paying attention to the words people choose, you start seeing things you would’ve missed otherwise. You notice when “temporary” quietly becomes “indefinite.” You notice when “mistake” becomes “miscommunication.” You notice when “we’re still arguing” somehow morphs into “we’re reunited.”

And once you notice it...

Good luck unseeing it.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

What’s one word or phrase you’ve heard recently that made you stop and think, “Aw, come on... that’s not what that means?”

ONE LAST THING

I’m perfectly willing to believe NATO came out of that summit in better shape than it went in. What I’m not willing to do is hand over perfectly good words without asking a few questions first.

Call me old-fashioned.

I’ll keep the dictionary.

#OffScript #Politics #Language #Media #NATO #Commentary

I almost skipped this story.

The minute I saw Trump and communism in the same headline, I figured I knew the whole routine. He says something loud. The internet divides itself into its usual food groups, one side performing outrage, the other performing applause. By dinner, nobody has learned a damn thing except which people they already agreed with.

But I clicked anyway.

Reuters, in a story highlighted by Ground News, reported that Trump had invoked “communism” 81 times over a two-week period as Republicans tested their message for the 2026 midterm elections. Eighty-one times in two weeks isn’t a stray line at a rally. That’s a word that wandered into a speech, looked around, and never found the exit. Reuters described it as part of a broader effort to turn recent progressive primary wins into a national midterm attack line.

Then I hit the paragraph that made me stop reading the story I thought I was reading.

According to Reuters, Trump’s team wasn’t just using the word. Advisers were testing whether “communism” or “socialism” produced the stronger reaction with voters. “Communism” triggered a stronger emotional response among many Republican voters, the reporting said, while “socialism” might land better in certain districts.

Suddenly, I wasn’t reading about Trump being Trump. I was reading about grown adults with clipboards deciding which fear word tests better, the same way somebody decides whether “New and Improved” outsells “Now with 20% More.”

Not which policy makes the stronger argument.

Which word gets the better response rate, like democracy’s just another product line that needs a spokesperson and a fucking jingle?

My bullshit detector didn’t just hum.

It went off like a fire alarm in a building that’s actually on fire.

Politics has always tested messages. Candidates poll slogans, trial-run attacks, hire consultants to find out which phrases make voters nod, squint, donate, or change the channel. Nobody should pretend campaigns were pure little temples of civic virtue until the internet showed up and spilled Mountain Dew all over the Constitution.

But there’s a difference between testing how to explain an idea and testing which label scares people faster.

That difference matters.

The word “communism” is not just another insult, especially for people who grew up when I did. It carried the Soviet Union, nuclear anxiety, the Berlin Wall, Cuba, Korea, duck-and-cover drills, and that background hum of maybe the world ends before dinner. If somebody was called a communist during the Cold War, it wasn’t the same as being called annoying on Twitter. It could put your loyalty on trial, cost you your job, and get you run out of your own neighborhood, all with one word and no evidence required.

None of that means every fear was invented. Soviet espionage was real. Communist governments did terrible things. The Cold War wasn’t a branding exercise. It was a genuine global conflict with enough nuclear weapons to make sanity look like a hobby we briefly considered.

Subscribe now

Join me every morning.

Off Script is independent editorial journalism for readers who are tired of talking points, canned outrage, and political theater dressed up as analysis.

The McCarthy era hangs over this conversation for a reason, but we should be careful with it. Senator Joseph McCarthy rose to power in the early 1950s, claiming communist infiltration had spread through the federal government. The larger Cold War context was real, and there were legitimate espionage concerns in that period. But McCarthy’s name became shorthand for something more corrosive. Accusation outran evidence. A label got powerful enough to end a career before the facts even showed up to the hearing.

That’s the lesson worth carrying forward. Not that every anti-communist argument is McCarthyism—that would be lazy. The lesson is that fear words need discipline. They need definitions. They need evidence.

Otherwise, they’re not arguments.

They’re clubs, and somebody’s always swinging one. It’s usually aimed at whoever can’t afford a lawyer.

What makes the Reuters story so useful is that it shows the machinery behind the language. We’re getting a glimpse of the testing room, somebody in a conference room trying to figure out which label moves which voter in which ZIP code. That may be normal campaign practice, but normal doesn’t always mean healthy.

Lead paint was normal, too.

We eventually had a meeting.

The deeper problem is that fear is efficient. It doesn’t require a policy comparison or a working knowledge of political theory. Fear says there’s a threat.

Pick a side.

That’s why campaigns like it, and that’s why half of social media sounds like people one headline away from biting through a doorknob.

Ideas take time.

Fear moves faster.

That doesn’t mean voters are stupid. Voters are busy, tired, worried about money, and buried under more information than any normal person can process without developing a facial twitch. If a campaign can package a complicated political argument into one emotionally loaded word, plenty of people will respond to the package before they inspect the contents.

That’s human.

It’s also dangerous.

Democracy depends on disagreement, but it also depends on a basic level of shared language. Otherwise, every debate turns into a branding contest, and branding contests don’t produce citizens.

They produce customers.

Customers react to messages. Citizens are supposed to evaluate them. That’s the quiet shift underneath stories like this. When politics borrows too heavily from advertising, the voter stops being treated as a participant in self-government and starts being treated as a target demographic.

That’s how you end up testing “communism” against “socialism” like they’re two subject lines for a Labor Day mattress sale.

None of this means campaigns should never test messages. Of course they will. Politics is persuasion. If you believe your policies are good, you want to explain them in a way people understand.

That’s legitimate.

But the line gets blurry when the goal becomes emotional activation first and meaning second. Once that happens, the word doesn’t have to be accurate.

It only has to work.

That’s the part we shouldn’t get used to.

And if we do, we’ve stopped being citizens and started being an audience.

“The campaign may win the A/B test. The public loses the conversation.”

Reuters suggests the strategy plays stronger with Trump’s base and some infrequent GOP voters, weaker with independents and younger voters. Campaign people will care about that because campaign people are paid to care about what wins.

The rest of us should care about something else.

What does this do to the conversation?

If “communist” becomes a catch-all label for Democrats, it loses precision. If “fascist” becomes a catch-all label for Republicans, it does the same. If every opponent is an existential threat, every election turns into the end of the world, and every ordinary policy disagreement ends up wearing a costume three sizes too dramatic for the occasion.

That may be good for fundraising.

It’s lousy for a republic.

Either way, the A/B test tells us something we shouldn’t shrug off. The next election won’t only be fought over policies. It’ll be fought over words chosen because they perform well under pressure.

Campaigns are testing which words win elections. Nobody’s measuring what those words cost the conversation.

One Question Before You Go

When a campaign uses a political label, do you ask whether the word is accurate—or whether it was chosen because someone already tested how it would make you feel?

One Last Thing

The next time a politician reaches for a word that seems designed to make your blood pressure jump, pause for half a second before reacting.

Somewhere, there may be a consultant very proud of that word.

If you enjoy independent journalism that looks beyond the headlines and asks why the story matters, consider buying me a tea.

☕ Buy Me a Tea

It helps keep the research thorough, the questions uncomfortable, and the conversations going.

#OffScript #Politics #PoliticalLanguage #MediaLiteracy #Trump #Communism #Socialism #McCarthyism #CampaignStrategy #IndependentJournalism

Museums aren’t warehouses. They’re memory. Every artifact on display got there because somebody decided it mattered, and every empty space exists because somebody decided something else didn’t. That’s true whether you’re talking about a dusty Civil War uniform, a lunch counter from the Civil Rights Movement, or a moon rock. History doesn’t just happen. Somebody curates it, which explains why politicians eventually come for museums. They always do.

The latest fight started when the White House accused Smithsonian leadership of pushing political activism instead of objective history.

According to AP, the administration says it’s trying to restore public trust. Smithsonian officials say they’re protecting independent scholarship.

Fine. That’s the press-release version. I’m more interested in the part underneath it, because this isn’t really a fight over display cases in Washington. It’s a fight over who gets to write America’s owner’s manual.

Subscribe now

Join Me Every Morning.

Here’s something nobody likes admitting. No museum is completely neutral. The moment you have room for one hundred artifacts instead of one hundred thousand, you’re making choices. Which stories deserve center stage? Which deserves a paragraph? Which disappear into climate-controlled storage where almost nobody will ever see them again?

That’s not corruption. It’s curation, and the problem starts when people pretend their own choices are simply “objective” while everybody else’s are propaganda. Funny how that works. Every administration believes it’s correcting the mistakes of the last one. Every generation believes the previous generation got the story wrong. Every movement insists it’s finally telling the truth.

Maybe sometimes it is. But once the government starts deciding which version of history deserves official approval, you’d better start paying attention, because power rarely stops where it says it will.

This isn’t even new. Kings commissioned paintings that made them look heroic. Dictators rewrote textbooks. Empires erased conquered cultures. Democracies aren’t immune to the temptation either. They just argue about it louder.

Different century.

Same damn instinct.

“The fight isn’t over the past. It’s over who gets to define the country’s memory.

Here’s the part that really gets me. Everybody claims they want history without politics.

Bullshit.

What they usually mean is history with politics they happen to agree with, and those aren’t the same thing. Real history is messy. Heroes disappoint you. Villains occasionally do something decent. Great achievements sit right beside shameful chapters. Nations, like people, are capable of extraordinary generosity and breathtaking stupidity, sometimes in the same decade.

Sanding off either side doesn’t produce truth.

It produces marketing copy with a gift shop attached.

Notice what isn’t happening here. Very few people are asking how museums should balance scholarship, evidence, competing interpretations, and public accountability. Instead, we’re watching another political custody battle. One side says the museum’s been captured. The other says the government’s trying to capture it. Maybe both accusations deserve scrutiny. That’s what skepticism is for, because once you decide your own side no longer needs questioning, you’ve stopped looking for the truth and started shopping for confirmation. That’s a dangerous habit whether you’re sitting in the Oval Office, running a museum, or scrolling social media while pretending headlines count as research.

History deserves better than becoming another campaign ad.

So do we.

The saddest part is that most Americans will never visit the exhibit at the center of this fight. They’ll only hear somebody else’s description of it, which means millions of people will end up arguing over a place they’ve never seen, using talking points written by people whose job depends on winning the argument.

That’s not curiosity.

It’s outsourcing your brain to whoever shouted first.

“The first fight is never over history. It’s over who gets to tell it.”

The Smithsonian won’t be the last institution caught in this tug-of-war. It never is. Schools. Libraries. Archives. Monuments. Textbooks. They all become battlefields sooner or later because they’re all fighting over the same scarce resource: memory. And memory shapes identity.

Control enough of yesterday, and today’s arguments get a whole lot easier.

That’s why this story matters. Not because museums suddenly became political, but because people in power never stop trying to decide which version of America gets framed on the wall.

One Question Before You Go

If no institution is completely free from bias, who should have the authority to decide how a nation’s history is presented?

Subscribe now

If you appreciate independent journalism that follows the receipts instead of the script, subscribe and join me every morning.

Bastardonia Fact: The Ministry of Receipts reminds citizens that honest questions don’t damage history. It’s damaged by people who think questions are no longer necessary.

#TheUnredactedBastard #History #Smithsonian #Politics #Power #Democracy #Receipts #Journalism

Benjamin Netanyahu does not want Turkey to get F-35s.

That’s the headline. That’s not the story.

The story is that the prime minister of Israel went on American television and urged the American government not to sell American fighter jets to Turkey, a NATO ally, because it might threaten Israel’s military edge in the Middle East. The Trump administration is reportedly reviewing whether Turkey can rejoin the F-35 program after getting booted in 2019 for buying Russia’s S-400 missile defense system.

Fine. That’s a real concern. A NATO member running Russian air defense while shopping for America’s most advanced fighter jet isn’t exactly a nothing-to-see-here situation. Even by NATO standards, where the family reunion always has a drunk uncle and three unresolved border disputes, that one earns scrutiny.

But it’s still not the big question.

The big question: when did American foreign policy become something every ally gets to negotiate from the passenger seat?

Who’s driving?

Subscribe now

Join Me Every Morning.

Every country looks out for its own interests.

Israel does. Turkey does. Ukraine does. Saudi Arabia does. Every European country lecturing America about democracy while quietly hoping we keep underwriting the neighborhood does too.

None of that is scandalous.

That’s foreign policy.

The scandal is that Americans rarely get invited to ask whose interests our own government is protecting when these calls get made.

Because this isn’t just about jets. It’s about the machinery behind the jets: who gets listened to, who gets ignored, who gets a meeting, who gets a call, who gets a “strategic relationship,” and who gets told to shut up and pay the bill.

Turkey isn’t some minor player. It runs NATO’s second-largest military and sits in one of the most strategically important spots on earth, bordering the Middle East, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and the general neighborhood where empires go to develop a drinking problem.

It matters.

So does Israel, whose security has anchored U.S. Middle East policy for decades, with Congress writing Israel’s “qualitative military edge” into law and requiring review of major regional arms sales.

So yes, this is complicated.

But complicated isn’t a magic spell that makes the American public disappear.

Washington has a habit of turning foreign policy into a private conversation among governments, defense contractors, lobbyists, think tanks, and TV guests wearing their serious faces.

The public gets handed the receipt after the money’s gone, the weapons are shipped, the alliance is strained, and somebody on cable insists we had no choice.

Funny how often we have no choice after everyone important already chose.

“The American taxpayer is always treated like the last person who needs to know what American power is being used for.”

Everyone in this fight has a real argument and a selfish reason for making it.

Turkey can say it’s a NATO ally that shouldn’t be treated like a permanent second-class member of the club. Israel can say arming an increasingly hostile regional power threatens its security. Washington can say Turkey’s S-400 purchase created a legitimate risk to the whole F-35 program.

All true enough, and none of it answers the only question that actually matters.

Where’s the American argument?

Not the Israeli argument delivered in English.

Not the Turkish argument dressed up in NATO paperwork.

Not the defense industry’s argument hiding behind words like “interoperability” and “regional balance.”

What serves the United States?

That question should come first.

Instead, it wanders in late, looking confused, like it got the wrong address, wondering who’s driving this thing and why nobody waited for it.

The problem isn’t that Netanyahu spoke up. Of course he did. Speaking up for Israel is his job. The problem is that American leaders have spent decades teaching the entire planet the same ugly lesson: you don’t need to persuade the American people to get what you want from the United States.

You need to pressure the American power structure. Find the right administration. Buy the right committee. Court the right donors. Rent the right lobbyists. Book the right cable-news segment. Wrap your national interest in American language and wait for Washington to salute it like the idea was ours all along. Then, if anyone objects, call them naive.

That trick has worked for decades. Wars, weapons packages, blank checks, sanctions, bases, aid, intelligence sharing—every tool sturdy enough to turn “national security” into a phrase big enough to smuggle a piano through customs. The public nods along because the adults are handling it.

The adults, you may have noticed, have not been having their best century.

“Every foreign government has a national interest. The question is whether America still does.”

There’s a lazy version of this article that turns into “Israel bad,” “Turkey bad,” “Trump bad,” or “NATO bad.” That version can go stand in the corner and think about what it did.

The sharper version is about leverage. America built a global system where everyone depends on American power, then acts surprised when everyone tries to influence American power. That’s what power attracts: requests, threats, flattery, warnings, emergency briefings, moral blackmail, strategic guilt trips—the whole diplomatic bake sale. Washington, meanwhile, has spent so long enjoying being the indispensable nation that it’s started mistaking dependency for influence.

That’s how you end up with a foreign leader publicly telling the United States what weapons it should sell to another foreign country while the American public is left trying to figure out whether this is about NATO, Israel, Russia, Iran, Erdoğan, Gaza, defense contractors, Trump’s personal relationships, or some classified bullshit we’ll finally read about twelve years from now in a report that’s half black ink.

The answer?

Probably yes.

That’s the problem.

Keep the receipts hot and the bullshit detector fully operational.

BUY ME A TEA

If this piece was worth the read, buy me a cup of tea. It keeps the lights on and the receipts coming.

The F-35 isn’t just a plane. It’s a floating argument with wings.

Who gets it? Who doesn’t? Who gets punished, who gets forgiven, and who suddenly gets waved through on the grounds of “strategic necessity”? Who gets told to wait, and who gets told America has already moved on?

Those decisions shape the world because they reveal the real hierarchy. And right now, that hierarchy is a mess.

America says Turkey is an ally, but maybe not the kind trusted with the good toys. America says Israel is a partner, but sometimes behaves as if Israel has a reserved seat inside U.S. decision-making. America says Congress provides oversight, but half the time that oversight looks like lawmakers discovering the fire after somebody unplugged the smoke alarm and sold it to a donor.

Meanwhile, the public gets patriotic wallpaper: flags, troops, security, stability, deterrence, partnership, shared values.

Shared values are lovely. I’d just like to see the invoice, because every time Washington starts talking about “shared values,” there’s usually a weapons system, a regional bargain, or a campaign donor standing nearby trying not to look too excited.

That’s why this F-35 story matters. Not because Turkey definitely should get the jets. Maybe it should. Maybe it shouldn’t. Not because Netanyahu is necessarily wrong to sound the alarm. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t.

It matters because the whole conversation exposes how rarely American foreign policy actually begins with America.

Instead, it begins with alliance management, regional balance, strategic commitments, historical obligations, domestic political pressure, lobbying, military contracts, and personal relationships between leaders who shouldn’t be trusted to split a dinner check, let alone redraw the security map of the Middle East.

Somewhere near the bottom of that list—after the briefing papers, the donor calls, and the strategic talking points—somebody remembers to mention the American taxpayer.

Not as the boss.

As the funding source.

That’s backwards.

The next time somebody tells you America “has to” do something overseas, ask a question so simple it’ll make the room uncomfortable.

Who decided that?

Who asked for it? Who benefits? Who lobbied for it? Who gets the weapons? Who gets the contracts? Who gets the political win? And when all the speeches are over, what does the American taxpayer get besides another bill and another lecture about why asking those questions is somehow irresponsible?

Foreign governments are supposed to fight for their own interests. That’s literally their job. American presidents are supposed to fight for America’s.

Somewhere along the way, Washington got so busy managing everyone else’s priorities that it forgot something embarrassingly basic.

The customer is supposed to come before the vendors.

The people paying for the aircraft carriers, the aid packages, the intelligence operations, the military bases, and the fighter jets aren’t sitting in Jerusalem, Ankara, or Brussels. They’re sitting in places like Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Texas, and Connecticut, wondering why they’re always the last ones consulted about where their money—and their country—are headed next.

Maybe Turkey should get the F-35s. Maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe Netanyahu is right. Maybe he’s wrong. Those are legitimate debates, and reasonable people can disagree about every one of them.

But there’s an even bigger question hiding underneath all of it.

Who gets a vote when America decides what America does?

Lately, it feels like everybody has a seat at that table: allies, lobbyists, defense contractors, think tanks, campaign donors, regional experts, and former officials who somehow keep rotating through the same revolving door.

The American people seem to get invited only after the decisions have already been made, when it’s time to applaud, pay the bill, and be told there was never any other option.

That’s backwards.

A government can have allies all over the world without forgetting who hired it. It can honor alliances without surrendering its own judgment. It can listen to every foreign leader on Earth, then close the door, look at the map, and ask one question before making a decision:

What serves the United States?

That should be the first question asked in every Situation Room meeting.

Too often, it feels like it’s the last.

And if America ever reaches the point where everyone else’s national interest automatically outranks our responsibility to define our own, we won’t have lost our military.

We’ll have lost the reason for having one.

ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO

When American weapons, money, and power are on the table, who do you actually think gets the final say?

And if you’re not sure, ask yourself who’s driving.

If you want the version of this newsletter that doesn’t hold back, upgrade.

Subscribe now

Paid subscribers get every Bastard piece first, uncut, with nothing softened for the algorithm.

Bastardonia Fact: In Bastardonia, allies may offer advice, warnings, and strongly worded statements. They may not grab the steering wheel from the back seat.

#ForeignPolicy #F35 #Turkey #Israel #NATO #Netanyahu #Trump #MilitarySpending #NationalSecurity #TheUnredactedBastard

I knew something was wrong before the first firework ever went off.

I was sitting on my couch waiting for America’s 250th birthday celebration to begin when it hit me that I was looking forward to the whole thing about as much as a root canal. That wasn’t just disappointing. It honestly bothered me.

Hell, I’d been looking forward to this anniversary for years. Not in some obsessive, mark-the-calendar kind of way. I didn’t have a countdown clock on the refrigerator or an America 250 coffee mug sitting on the kitchen table. But every now and then it’d drift through my head, and I’d catch myself smiling.

America’s going to turn 250 while I’m still around to see it.

That’s going to be one hell of a birthday party.

That’s how I’d always pictured it.

Then June rolled around, and I kept waiting for the excitement to arrive with it. Every time another America 250 story drifted across my screen, I’d stop and read it. Another television special? Sure. Another interview? Fine. Every few days, I’d think, Maybe this is the one that’ll finally get me fired up.

It never did.

By the time the Fourth rolled around, I realized I wasn’t excited anymore—I was hoping to become excited, and that’s a hell of a thing to admit because those aren’t the same emotion. One happens naturally. The other feels like trying to talk yourself into having fun at a party after you’ve already decided you’d rather be home. I actually caught myself arguing with myself.

“Come on, Tom. Quit being such a cynical bastard. It’s your country’s 250th birthday. Light the damn fuse already.”

I wanted to. That’s the part I don’t think enough people understand. I wasn’t sitting there hoping the whole thing would bomb so I could write a sarcastic article afterward. Hell, if that had been my attitude, this piece would’ve been finished by breakfast. I’d have spent fifteen hundred words making fun of politicians, tossed in a Bastard’s Law, called everybody idiots, and gone on with my day.

Instead, I found myself rooting for the celebration. I wanted it to surprise me. I wanted it to shut up the cynical little voice that’s gotten louder as I’ve gotten older. I wanted to finish the night thinking, Well, you dumb son of a bitch...you almost missed something special.

About twenty minutes after the broadcast started, another thought wandered into my head, and once it got there, it refused to leave.

This doesn’t feel like America’s 250th birthday.

It feels like somebody’s trying to recruit me into a multi-level marketing scheme.

You know the feeling I’m talking about. Everybody’s smiling just a little too hard. Every sentence promises you’re witnessing something historic. Every five minutes you’re reminded how lucky you are to be there. After a while, you stop listening because your brain quietly starts looking for the nearest exit and wondering how long it’ll take before somebody asks you to buy the starter kit.

That’s when I finally understood what had been bothering me all month. The celebration wasn’t making me uncomfortable. The absence of anticipation was. I wasn’t rooting against America’s 250th birthday. I was rooting for it, and that realization bothered the hell out of me.

Subscribe now

Join Me Every Morning.

By Sunday morning, I had stopped asking whether the celebration had been good or bad because that wasn’t the question anymore. The question that kept following me around the house was a lot simpler, and a lot more personal.

Why had I spent weeks trying to manufacture a feeling that used to show up all by itself?

I poured another cup of coffee, sat back down, and let my mind wander. It wandered exactly fifty years… 1976.

That’s when everything finally started making sense.

The funny thing is, I never realized I’d been carrying that year around with me until this week. Not the politics. Not the headlines. The feeling. Before anybody starts writing to tell me I’m looking at the Bicentennial through rose-colored glasses, let me save you the trouble. Nostalgia is a lying son of a bitch. It’ll convince you your first apartment had “character” instead of mold, your first car was dependable instead of a money pit, and every song on the radio was better simply because you were younger when you heard it.

I’m not trying to tell you America was better in 1976. It wasn’t. We’d just come through Watergate. Inflation was chewing people up. Plenty of Americans were convinced the country was headed straight to hell. Sound familiar? We argued about politics, complained about the economy, and worried about where the country was headed. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I wasn’t remembering a perfect America.

I was remembering an America that knew how to look forward to something.

Walk into a department store that summer, and it looked like Uncle Sam had signed a six-month lease. Flags hung from the ceiling. Cardboard liberty bells filled the windows. There were commemorative plates, glasses, coffee mugs, books, coins, shirts, hats, belt buckles...if somebody could slap an eagle on it, somebody else figured they could sell a million of them. Looking back, half of that stuff probably would’ve fallen apart before Labor Day.

Who gave a shit?

Nobody bought it because it was valuable.

They bought it because they were already excited.

That’s the part people miss when they laugh about all the Bicentennial junk. They think the merchandise created the excitement. It didn’t. The excitement created the merchandise. Nobody had to invent anticipation because anticipation was already there. Companies weren’t manufacturing a feeling. They were cashing in on one.

The same thing was happening everywhere else. Television couldn’t stop talking about the Bicentennial because people wanted to watch. Schools had projects because kids wanted to be part of it. Churches planned celebrations. Civic clubs organized parades. Every town seemed determined to have the biggest fireworks show for fifty miles. It wasn’t one giant production trying to convince America that history was happening.

America already believed history was happening.

That’s the feeling I kept waiting for this year.

Not better fireworks, a bigger stage, or a slicker television production…

…The feeling.

Instead, I found myself watching a celebration that never seemed as big as the moment it was supposed to represent. I kept getting pulled out of it by little things. A section of the stage had already collapsed during rehearsal. Earlier events had power problems that shut down attractions while vendors stood there watching their ice cream melt in the July heat. Weather delays weren’t anybody’s fault, but by then, it all blended together into the same impression.

This felt like a production trying to catch up with history instead of history carrying the production.

Now, before somebody accuses me of nitpicking, let me say this. I’ve spent enough years around radio and television to know live events can go sideways in a heartbeat. Murphy’s Law has probably collected more production credits than most executive producers.

But you’ve got two hundred and fifty fucking years to plan a two-hundred-and-fiftieth birthday party. If there was ever a day to empty the playbook, this was it.

The longer I watched, the more that damned multi-level marketing comparison refused to leave my head. You know those meetings where everybody keeps telling you you’re witnessing the opportunity of a lifetime? Every smile is just a little too big. Every sentence ends with an exclamation point. Every five minutes, somebody reminds you how lucky you are to be there. After a while, you stop listening because your bullshit detector starts asking a simple question.

If this is really that amazing...

Why do you have to keep telling me?

Real moments don’t need a sales pitch.

They walk into the room, take over the room, and leave people talking about them for years afterward.

If you’d like to help keep the receipts hot and the bullshit detector fully operational, you can buy me a tea.

BUY ME A TEA

I wish I could tell you I figured all of this out the moment the fireworks ended.

I didn’t.

For a couple of days, I kept telling myself I was writing an article about a disappointing celebration. I figured I’d spend a few paragraphs talking about production problems, take a couple of swings at the organizers, make fun of the MLM vibe, and call it a day.

Turns out I was writing about something else entirely. The story wasn’t on the stage. It was sitting on my couch before the celebration ever started.

That’s the part I couldn’t shake.

I wasn’t disappointed because America’s 250th birthday failed to entertain me. I was disappointed because I’d spent weeks waiting for somebody else to hand me a feeling I used to bring with me. That realization didn’t hit me all at once. It just sat there for a while, staring back at me until I finally admitted what it was trying to tell me.

When you’re nineteen, anticipation comes easily. Christmas. Concerts. Vacations. The first date with somebody you can’t stop thinking about. Even your country’s birthday. Half the fun is looking forward to it. The event almost becomes secondary because you’ve already been living it in your imagination for weeks before it ever arrives.

Somewhere along the way, I lost that.

Maybe we all did.

We’ve become world-class at sharing outrage. We can turn a ten-second video into a week-long national argument. We can spend days dissecting one politician’s sentence, another politician’s tweet, and manufacture enough anger to keep every cable news network fat and happy for another decade.

But shared anticipation?

That feels like it’s quietly disappeared.

Maybe that’s why this anniversary got under my skin so much. I wasn’t looking for a perfect production. I wasn’t looking for perfect politicians. Hell, I wasn’t even looking for a perfect celebration. I was looking for that feeling that made nineteen-year-old Tom walk into the summer of 1976 thinking, This is going to be something I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

Instead, I found myself sitting on the couch trying to negotiate with my own emotions.

“Come on...maybe the next speech.”

“Maybe the fireworks.”

“Maybe now.”

Nothing.

And that’s when I finally understood what had been bothering me since before the Fourth even arrived. I wasn’t mourning America’s 250th birthday.

I was mourning the anticipation.

Because anticipation is really another word for hope. It’s believing something wonderful is just around the corner before anybody has to convince you of it. It doesn’t need a marketing campaign. It doesn’t need a slogan. It sure as hell doesn’t need somebody on a stage reminding you every five minutes that you’re witnessing history.

You just know.

That’s what I remembered from 1976. Not perfection, or politics.

Just anticipation.

Maybe that’s the thing worth fighting for over the next 250 years. Not finding a way to agree on everything—Lord knows that’s never going to happen—but finding a way to look forward to something together again.

Because I’d hate to think the next great American milestone is going to arrive with half the country cheering, the other half booing, and everybody going home remembering the argument instead of the occasion.

We’ve made it two hundred and fifty years.

I’d like to believe we’ve still got one more great birthday party left in us.

I keep coming back to the image of myself sitting on that couch before the first firework ever went off. I thought I was waiting for a celebration to begin.

What I was really waiting for was a feeling I’d assumed would still be there.

It wasn’t.

And I think that’s what I’ve really been mourning all along.

One Question Before You Go

When you look back on America’s 250th birthday a few years from now, what do you think you’ll remember more—the celebration itself, or the way it made you feel?

Subscribe now

Join Me Every Morning.

Bastardonia Fact

The national motto of Bastardonia is: “We tried explaining it nicely.”

#TheUnredactedBastard #America250 #FourthOfJuly #Bicentennial #AmericanHistory #Commentary #Patriotism #Culture