For many years, millions of American voters have cast ballots through the mail without incident. Secure systems were created in red states and blue states alike; the public found the practice convenient; the process has long featured reliable safeguards; and even the most ardent election conspiracy theorists struggled to uncover any meaningful evidence of fraud or irregularities.

Donald Trump has nevertheless convinced himself that postal balloting is a national scourge that needs to be dramatically curtailed.

Trump: "We're the only country in the world that has mail in ballots"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-12T19:09:59.328Z

....So, a few things.

First, I have no idea how Trump came to believe that voting by way of the mail is inherently corrupt. It’s not, and he has never offered anything resembling evidence to the contrary. He just keeps asserting the falsehood, apparently hoping that nonsense will become true by way of repetition.

If the president ever uncovers anything to bolster his claim, he’s welcome to present his findings to the public. In the meantime, however, his assertions are impossible to believe.

Second, the idea that no other country allows its citizens to vote through the mail is ridiculously untrue. Around the world, many countries, including longtime democracies with advanced economies, rely on postal balloting without incident.

30 countries use mail voting

— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) 2026-02-12T21:21:07.509Z

Third, Republican Party officials, at both the state level and national level, have practically begged Trump to stop lying about this because they want the GOP base to take advantage of mail-in voting. The more the president pushes these false claims, the more his followers believe him, which in turn creates problem for Republicans.

Finally, the American mainstream appears to have already made up its mind: A Pew Research Center poll last summer found that a 58% majority of Americans favor allowing any voter to cast their ballot by mail if they want to.

Take the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the Trump administration illegally sent from the U.S. to El Salvador and, only after months of resistance, complied with a Maryland judge’s order to facilitate his return.

In the latest example of a judge recognizing that rights are only as good as their remedies, Washington’s chief federal trial judge cited Abrego’s case to justify an order for the government to facilitate the return of Venezuelans who were illegally sent to El Salvador in March under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.

While it’s unclear what will come of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order in practical terms, it stands out for its plain reiteration of the government’s lawlessness and the understanding that that lawlessness can’t go unnoticed, or unacted upon.

Boasberg, who is D.C.’s chief district judge, began his seven-page opinion and order by noting that he had previously found that the government denied due process to those Venezuelans when it deported them “in defiance of this Court’s Order.” The Obama-appointed judge reminds the reader that we’re talking about official lawbreaking from the beginning......

That’s what led him to cite Abrego’s case in similarly taking the step of ordering the government “to facilitate the return from third countries of those Plaintiffs who so desire.” In this context, “third countries” are ones outside of Venezuela and the U.S., with Venezuela exempted due to foreign-affairs sensitivities that the U.S. has asserted after its abduction of leader Nicolás Maduro from that country.

But the judge noted that plaintiffs in third countries and in Venezuela can still file court papers seeking to show that Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful and that they don’t qualify under it in any event.

Boasberg wrote that he was “mindful of the flagrancy of the Government’s violations of the deportees’ due-process rights that landed Plaintiffs in this situation,” so he “refuses to let them languish in the solution-less mire Defendants propose.”

As for the potentially limited practical effects, the judge noted that anyone who gets back to the U.S. will be taken into custody pending further litigation and could be deported again. He wrote that the plaintiffs’ lawyers were unable to say how many of the 137 deported Venezuelans were still in that country and how many want to press their claims, but the lawyers said at least a handful do.

Whatever comes of the ruling — and there’s every reason to think that Boasberg will enforce it to the greatest extent he can — it stands for a crucial principle. If the government didn’t have to right its wrongs, the judge wrote, it “could simply remove people from the United States without providing any process and then, once they were in a foreign country, deny them any right to return for a hearing or opportunity to present their case from abroad.”.

President Trump’s Claim of an “Irrefutable” Argument Supporting His Right to Unilaterally Impose Voter ID and Election Rules May Be Based on Insane Claim that Marriott Hotel Manager Found Secret Text in the Shadows of a Microfilm Copy of the U.S. Constitution

Yesterday I noted the latest set of unhinged social media posts from President Trump in which he declared that voter id requirements and other election changes would be imposed in the midterms via executive order whether approved by Congress or not. I pointed out in response to that an executive order is not a royal edict; it is not law. It is a direction to the executive branch as to how to carry out the law. Also, key parts of Trump’s last EO on elections have been stopped by federal courts, ruling that the President has no role to play in federal elections.

One of the odd parts of Trump’s post was the statement that “I have searched the depths of legal arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the near future.” What could Trump have been referring to? I originally had no idea, but then a reader wrote to me for comment about an obscure post which seems insane but could explain the big Trump reveal to come:

It’s possible states innocently believe they have unrestrained Constitutional authority to create election rules within their borders.

But they’re about to learn that’s not so, reports John N. Goodman, a retired Hallandale Beach man who shared some research he conducted with a fellow “Election Integrity” advocate with links to the White House. That research found its way to Washington, D.C. recently when My Pillow founder Mike Lindell met with President Donald J. Trump. Lindell shared Goodman’s research after Steve Stern, the Vice Chairman of the Broward County Republican Executive Committee, contacted Lindell, Stern confirmed. Stern also was contacted afterwards by a White House source verifying the President learned about Goodman’s research….

A former manager for Marriott Hotels, Goodman spent six weeks at the main branch of the Broward County Library System in Ft. Lauderdale. He was reading a microfilm copy of the original U.S. Constitution, eventually spotting an apparent shadow that turned out to be a significant find.

According to Goodman, a Kentucky native, he stumbled upon wording that wasn’t commonly known, although he speculates Supreme Court justices were familiar with the words because a majority opinion in U.S. Term Limits v Thorton echoed that hallowed language.

In an email this morning, he wrote, it’s “important to point out to your readers that the Constitution on the surface says that the states do have 100% power over elections, but (there was an) obstructed console that was not noticed for many many years because it looks exactly like a faded shadow from the line above it, (so) I decided to go back the next day with a high-powered magnifier to add to the microfilm magnifier in order to still barely make out what it said… it said dictate electoral outcomes unfairly and the states cannot do that and then the actual words dictate electoral outcomes is also in that 1995 Supreme Court case and they elaborate in great detail such as the states powers designed by the framers were meant to be procedural, and their actions cannot compromise integrity of the election (to) favor or disfavor a certain class of candidate, or evade constitutional restraints.”

This treasure chest Constitutional finding, backed up by a Supreme Court decision, undermines the efforts of states that sought to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024, when he won a second term, Goodman argues. He also contends the huge expansion of vote by mail is a state action that tips the scale in favor of a certain candidate or party.

Clearly, though, Goodman isn’t a Constitutional scholar, let alone an attorney. However, his research eventually put him in touch with two attorneys who are working with President Trump to clean up our voting system, he says. This connection provided him with some insight into what is about to unfold when the President announces action that includes a second Executive Order on Election Integrity.

Key underpinnings of upcoming action, Goodman says, revolve around the 1995 Supreme Court decision. Another force driving President Trump is his belief that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen” from him. In a phone conversation lasting more than an hour last night, Goodman, fascinated with politics since high school, spelled out his role as a private citizen and what he believes will happen soon. He agreed to speak with me as long as I withheld details of that conversation until after White House decisions become finalized and public.

As I wrote to the person who asked me about this, The idea that there is hidden language in the Constitution that vests electoral power in the federal government, in contradiction to the actual vesting in the states subject to congressional override in t elections, is laughable. If this is what the President was referring to as “irrefutable” proof to support an executive order on elections, he’s more gullible and ignorant than I thought.

If this is what President Trump’s lawyers are going to hang their hats on, they are going to be the laughing stock among lawyers.

It was not the first time Trump gave an overtly political speech in a military setting, breaking the tradition of keeping the armed forces separate from partisan politics. He told assembled generals and admirals in September the country was “under invasion from within,” and his visit here in June to mark the Army’s 250th birthday featured a booth selling partisan paraphernalia....

“You have to vote for us,” Trump told the troops, citing his restoration of the Fort Bragg name after Congress directed the Pentagon to rename military installations honoring Confederate officers. (The Trump administration avoided the law by renaming the base after Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, rather than the original Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg.)

“If we don’t win the midterms, they’ll take it off again,” Trump said. “They’ll take it off again. You can’t let that happen.”

Most of the uniformed service members refrained from reacting during Trump’s speech other than raising phones to take photos or videos. They mostly left the applause and cheers to his staff and the assembled Republican politicians, including the home state’s Sen. Ted Budd and Reps. Richard Hudson, Brad Knott and David Rouzer. A few service members responded enthusiastically when Trump asked who had received the $1,776 bonus checks he approved in December.

Defense Department policy prohibits partisan political activity by active-duty service members. “The Army as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so too,” the Army field manual reads. “Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.”

A federal law known as the Hatch Act restricts government employees from campaigning in their official capacity. The law does not apply to the president....

Democrats have criticized Trump for past military speeches and parades, as well as for deploying the National Guard for political objectives such as patrolling the southern border or policing the nation’s capital. Amid questions about the legality of the military’s strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, six Democratic lawmakers who served in the armed forces released a video reminding service members that their oath is to the Constitution, and they should not follow illegal orders; Trump called the video seditious, punishable by execution.

The Trump administration rolled out its new prescription drug platform — TrumpRx — with the promise of saving Americans money.

But congressional Democrats have a new warning: The website directs Americans to brand-name drugs rather than generics, meaning consumers are frequently at risk of paying more than they should — in some cases, thousands of dollars annually.

In a new report shared first with MS NOW, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee analyzed the prices of 15 common medications, comparing the discounted prices on the TrumpRx website to the cost of generics purchased using a GoodRx coupon.

The report shows, for instance, that a year’s supply of the atrial fibrillation medication Tikosyn, purchased at the TrumpRx discounted rate, would cost about $4,000. By contrast, according to the report, a generic version of the drug bought with a GoodRx coupon would cost just shy of $200 annually — a savings of roughly $3,800. (The report uses Manchester, N.H., as the location for the GoodRx search.),,,,,

Health care and consumer prices are primed to be a point of contention heading into the fall midterm elections.

Trump has touted the website and his negotiations with drug companies as part of his work to lower costs. Democrats, meanwhile, have accused Republicans of only making matters worse, pointing to the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies at the start of 2026 as a prime example.

The Internal Revenue Service has long guarded sensitive taxpayer information with great care, even shielding the information from other agencies. But the more the Trump administration took steps to intensify its deportation agenda, the more the IRS came under pressure to go along with the broader partisan crusade.

The consequences are starting to come into focus in striking ways. The Washington Post reported on a newly disclosed problem:

The Internal Revenue Service improperly shared confidential tax information of thousands of individuals with immigration enforcement officials, according to three people familiar with the situation, appearing to breach a legal fire wall intended to protect taxpayer data

.

....The ensuing controversy was so significant that it led to the resignation of an acting IRS commissioner, who opposed the disclosures.

What we didn’t know until now is what happened after that decision 10 months ago. From the Post’s report:

Federal courts have since blocked the data-sharing arrangement, holding that it violates taxpayers’ rights, though the government appealed those rulings.

Before the agreement was struck down, DHS requested the addresses of 1.2 million individuals from the IRS. The tax agency responded with data on 47,000 individuals, according to court records. When the IRS shared the addresses with DHS, it also inadvertently disclosed private information for thousands of taxpayers erroneously, a mistake only recently discovered, said the people familiar, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

So, to recap, DHS wanted sensitive tax information. The IRS reluctantly agreed in April, and the data sharing began in August. In November, a court ruled that this was illegal, and it now appears that the data sharing that had already happened led to DHS gaining improper access to information about thousands of people.

The next steps, including possible notifications to victims, are not yet clear, though one question is hanging overhead: Donald Trump recently filed a federal lawsuit, insisting that he’s entitled to $10 billion in taxpayer money because someone at the IRS improperly disclosed information about him.

The question for the White House seems rather straightforward: Does the president think the victims of this apparent disclosure are also entitled to $10 billion?

While we wait for that answer, the departments of the Treasury and Justice declined to comment about the underlying controversy. In a statement, a DHS spokesperson said that under the data-sharing agreement, “the government is finally doing what it should have all along.”

Hours after refusing to apologize for a racist video posted to his Truth Social account, President Donald Trump hadn’t let go.

He spent last weekend complaining to allies about Republicans who had condemned the video depicting the Obamas as apes, questioning the lawmakers’ loyalty and vowing consequences, sources familiar with his comments told CNN.

The president railed against South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott — the sole Black Republican senator and chair of the Senate GOP’s campaign arm — throughout the weekend at Mar-a-Lago, arguing one of his top congressional allies was out of line to call his White House racist, the sources said.

“The president felt he could’ve handled that matter privately,” a senior Trump administration official told CNN of Scott. “He was like, ‘We work together all the time. He didn’t need to comment publicly.’”

Trump had even stronger words for Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, one of the sources recalled, using expletives to denounce her and declaring that she was dead to him.

Britt’s office slammed that account as “fake news” and touted her strong working relationship with the president, while the White House praised her as “an incredible ally” whom the president has “great respect” for. Scott’s office declined to comment.

Republican Party orthodoxy on government subsidies for private industry tends to be straightforward: Industries should rise and fall based on market forces, not politicians picking winners and losers. It’s the same GOP philosophy that says that if a private industry, especially one that’s been around for a while, needs the government to give it taxpayer money, that looks less like capitalism and more like socialism.

Donald Trump, however, makes occasional exception to these rules. The New York Times reported:

President Trump on Wednesday directed the Pentagon to start buying more electricity from coal-burning power plants as part of his efforts to revive the declining coal industry.

Mr. Trump signed an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to enter into long-term contracts with coal plants across the country to power military installations. The move could provide financial support to dozens of coal plants that might have otherwise been set to retire in the coming years.

“We’re going to be buying a lot of coal through the military now,” the Republican said at a White House event. “We’re lifting up our hardworking American miners like nobody has ever done before.”....

There was one element of the White House event, however, that stood out.

"Sir, to show our appreciation, the trophy says 'the undisputed champion of beautiful, clean coal'"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-11T21:56:52.736Z

.....This has been going on for a while now. Shortly after Trump left office in 2021, following his defeat in the 2020 election, the National Republican Senatorial Committee made up an honor for him called the Champion for Freedom Award.

More recently, after the president’s begging didn’t lead to a Nobel Peace Prize, FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, concocted its own peace prize in the hopes of making Trump feel better.

Let this be a lesson to those hoping to curry favor with the White House: If you haven’t already visited a store that makes trophies, you’re making a mistake.

Federal funding for the $16 billion Gateway rail tunnel between New York City and New Jersey, which had been suspended for more than four months, began to flow again on Friday after lawyers for the Trump administration told a federal judge on Friday that it would comply with her orders.

The suspension had left the government owing about $205 million to the tunnel’s planners, the Gateway Development Commission, and forced a halt to work on the project last week, as well as the layoff of about 1,000 union workers, the commission said.

The federal government had pledged more than $11 billion toward the tunnel project, which has been billed as the most urgent major infrastructure project in the United States. But at the end of September, administration officials said they would stop the flow of that funding while they reviewed the project’s contracts for compliance with revised federal regulations.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration shifted its explanation for the prolonged suspension of funds. In discussions with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, President Trump suggested that he would release the funds in exchange for support of the renaming of two transportation hubs — Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia and Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan — after him, people familiar with those talks said.....

In a hearing before Judge Vargas on Friday afternoon, lawyers for the government said that about $30 million of the overdue payments was on its way to the commission and the rest should be paid by early next week. Delivery would be delayed by the need to relay the funds through the Treasury Department and the fact that Monday is a federal holiday, the lawyers said.

Just before 5 p.m., Mr. Schumer said that the commission had received the first chunk of the money.

“The first $30 million of federal funding for Gateway has arrived and we eagerly await the remaining money to be sent as quickly as possible so construction can resume,” Mr. Schumer said.