Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
December 1, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-congressional-republicans-demand-answers-on-hegseth-new-boat-strikes-allegations
Maddow Blog-Key congressional Republicans demand answers on Hegseth, new boat strikes allegations
In response to shocking new reporting, Democrats and legal experts aren’t the only ones asking difficult questions.
The White House has grown accustomed to Republicans looking the other way on the administration’s scandals.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-12-01T13:05:36.101Z
When it comes to Pete Hegseth and alleged war crimes in international waters, this is no longer happening. www.ms.now/politics/key...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-congressional-republicans-demand-answers-on-hegseth-new-boat-strikes-allegations
After three months of deadly U.S. military strikes against civilian boats in international waters, the Trump administration has generated a great many questions, though a simple one has hovered near the top of the list: Are these operations legal?....
These questions grew considerably louder late last week, with striking reporting from The Washington Post. In an article published on the day after Thanksgiving, the Post reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive to military personnel to kill everybody on a vessel carrying 11 people. From the piece:
.....For his part, Hegseth, who downplayed the importance of war crimes before joining the White House Cabinet, posted a carefully worded statement to social media late Friday, which noted in part, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law.” (The word “current” appeared to be doing a lot of work in the sentence.)
As for the president, Trump spoke briefly with reporters on Sunday night while on Air Force One, and when asked about the allegations raised by the Post, he said, “I don’t know anything about it,” adding that Hegseth denied the accuracy of the reporting.
....Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, issued a challenge to Hegseth. “Release the full, unedited tapes of the strikes so the American people can see for themselves,” the New York Democrat wrote in an online statement. “Your recklessness demands full transparency and strict congressional oversight. We will hold you accountable.”
The Pentagon has not yet responded to the challenge. Watch this space.
These questions grew considerably louder late last week, with striking reporting from The Washington Post. In an article published on the day after Thanksgiving, the Post reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive to military personnel to kill everybody on a vessel carrying 11 people. From the piece:
A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack … ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.
.....For his part, Hegseth, who downplayed the importance of war crimes before joining the White House Cabinet, posted a carefully worded statement to social media late Friday, which noted in part, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law.” (The word “current” appeared to be doing a lot of work in the sentence.)
As for the president, Trump spoke briefly with reporters on Sunday night while on Air Force One, and when asked about the allegations raised by the Post, he said, “I don’t know anything about it,” adding that Hegseth denied the accuracy of the reporting.
Reporter: If there were a second strike that killed wounded people, would that be legal?
— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) 2025-11-30T23:17:13.683Z
Trump: I don’t know that happened and Pete said he did not even know what people were talking about. I wouldn’t have wanted a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.
....Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, issued a challenge to Hegseth. “Release the full, unedited tapes of the strikes so the American people can see for themselves,” the New York Democrat wrote in an online statement. “Your recklessness demands full transparency and strict congressional oversight. We will hold you accountable.”
The Pentagon has not yet responded to the challenge. Watch this space.
December 1, 2025
Republicans are trying to cheat in special election by telling Democrats the election is Wednesday
The GOP is worried about this election and is trying to steal it
https://x.com/DemsAbroad/status/1995489455486951698
Allegations of voter misinformation in Tennessee's 7th, ahead of a critical special election.
Dems received mailers with wrong election dates. Republicans mailers told them to vote or face public scrutiny. Watch👇
The Dem candidate @aftynfortn is trailing by just 2 points, and ‘someone’ is acting like Republicans can’t win if they don’t cheat!
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigating-flyers-wrong-tennessee-special-election-date-11115351
Dems received mailers with wrong election dates. Republicans mailers told them to vote or face public scrutiny. Watch👇
The Dem candidate @aftynfortn is trailing by just 2 points, and ‘someone’ is acting like Republicans can’t win if they don’t cheat!
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigating-flyers-wrong-tennessee-special-election-date-11115351
Tennessee Democrats are investigating postcards allegedly sent to voters with an incorrect date for the upcoming special election between Democrat Aftyn Behn and Republican Matt Van Epps.
A spokesperson for the Tennessee secretary of state's office told Newsweek on Wednesday that the office has seen the screenshots of the mailers allegedly sent to voters, but that voters have not contacted them about the matter.
The special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District has drawn significant investment from both major parties. It is viewed as being potentially competitive, despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than 20 points against former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The district comprises parts of Nashville and its suburbs, as well as Clarksville and more rural areas.
The outcome of the special election could have key implications for control of the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a 219-213 majority. The resignation of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, in January will bring that to 218-213, and it could get more narrow in the coming months following special elections in more Democratic-leaning districts. If Behn pulls off a victory, it would further shrink the GOP’s majority.
A spokesperson for the Tennessee secretary of state's office told Newsweek on Wednesday that the office has seen the screenshots of the mailers allegedly sent to voters, but that voters have not contacted them about the matter.
The special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District has drawn significant investment from both major parties. It is viewed as being potentially competitive, despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than 20 points against former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The district comprises parts of Nashville and its suburbs, as well as Clarksville and more rural areas.
The outcome of the special election could have key implications for control of the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a 219-213 majority. The resignation of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, in January will bring that to 218-213, and it could get more narrow in the coming months following special elections in more Democratic-leaning districts. If Behn pulls off a victory, it would further shrink the GOP’s majority.
December 1, 2025
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigating-flyers-wrong-tennessee-special-election-date-11115351
Republicans are trying to cheat in special election by telling Democrats the election is Wednesday
The GOP is worried about this election and is trying to steal it
https://x.com/DemsAbroad/status/1995489455486951698
Allegations of voter misinformation in Tennessee's 7th, ahead of a critical special election.
Dems received mailers with wrong election dates. Republicans mailers told them to vote or face public scrutiny. Watch👇
The Dem candidate @aftynfortn is trailing by just 2 points, and ‘someone’ is acting like Republicans can’t win if they don’t cheat!
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigating-flyers-wrong-tennessee-special-election-date-11115351
Dems received mailers with wrong election dates. Republicans mailers told them to vote or face public scrutiny. Watch👇
The Dem candidate @aftynfortn is trailing by just 2 points, and ‘someone’ is acting like Republicans can’t win if they don’t cheat!
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigating-flyers-wrong-tennessee-special-election-date-11115351
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-investigating-flyers-wrong-tennessee-special-election-date-11115351
Tennessee Democrats are investigating postcards allegedly sent to voters with an incorrect date for the upcoming special election between Democrat Aftyn Behn and Republican Matt Van Epps.
A spokesperson for the Tennessee secretary of state's office told Newsweek on Wednesday that the office has seen the screenshots of the mailers allegedly sent to voters, but that voters have not contacted them about the matter.
The special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District has drawn significant investment from both major parties. It is viewed as being potentially competitive, despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than 20 points against former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The district comprises parts of Nashville and its suburbs, as well as Clarksville and more rural areas.
The outcome of the special election could have key implications for control of the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a 219-213 majority. The resignation of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, in January will bring that to 218-213, and it could get more narrow in the coming months following special elections in more Democratic-leaning districts. If Behn pulls off a victory, it would further shrink the GOP’s majority.
A spokesperson for the Tennessee secretary of state's office told Newsweek on Wednesday that the office has seen the screenshots of the mailers allegedly sent to voters, but that voters have not contacted them about the matter.
The special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District has drawn significant investment from both major parties. It is viewed as being potentially competitive, despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than 20 points against former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. The district comprises parts of Nashville and its suburbs, as well as Clarksville and more rural areas.
The outcome of the special election could have key implications for control of the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a 219-213 majority. The resignation of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, in January will bring that to 218-213, and it could get more narrow in the coming months following special elections in more Democratic-leaning districts. If Behn pulls off a victory, it would further shrink the GOP’s majority.
December 1, 2025
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/alina-habba-disqualification-us-attorney-appeal
This will be fun to watch
Deadline Legal Blog-Appeals court upholds Alina Habba's disqualification as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor
The Supreme Court could have the last word on the subject that affects Trump-installed federal prosecutors around the country.
Appeals court upholds Alina Habba’s disqualification as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor. The Supreme Court could have the last word on the subject that affects Trump-installed federal prosecutors around the country. www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
— (@jwwcan.bsky.social) 2025-12-01T15:05:52.126Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/alina-habba-disqualification-us-attorney-appeal
A federal district judge was correct to disqualify Alina Habba as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, an appellate panel ruled Monday, dealing the Trump administration its latest loss on an issue that’s pending in U.S. attorney’s offices around the country.
The Supreme Court could have the last word on the subject, which affects federal prosecutors installed by the administration who haven’t been confirmed by the Senate and whose tenures have been challenged as illegal by criminal defendants.
“It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” the panel observed in disapproving of the attempt to install Habba.
Another Trump-installed prosecutor whose tenure is in doubt is Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia. She lacked prosecutorial experience and was placed in that office to secure indictments of Donald Trump’s political opponents over the objections of career prosecutors. Halligan, who brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, was recently deemed by another federal district judge to have been unlawfully appointed. The Trump administration said it will appeal that ruling......
The administration’s promised appeal of Halligan’s disqualification in Virginia would fall under a different federal circuit (the Fourth). When different federal circuits rule differently on an issue, that makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will step in to resolve a conflict if asked to do so. The legal issues surrounding Habba’s and Halligan’s appointments aren’t exactly the same but there is overlap. The appointment issue has also been litigated on the other side of the country in federal districts in California and Nevada, where judges have likewise disapproved of the administration’s attempts to bypass Senate approval of top federal prosecutors. Those western states fall under the Ninth Circuit.
Though the appellate ruling in Habba’s case came first, the administration may be even more eager to revive Halligan as the top federal prosecutor in Virginia. Unlike in the appeal in Habba’s case, the judge in Comey and James’ challenge not only said that Halligan was unlawfully serving but that the indictments she brought against those Trump targets must be dismissed as a result.
The Supreme Court could have the last word on the subject, which affects federal prosecutors installed by the administration who haven’t been confirmed by the Senate and whose tenures have been challenged as illegal by criminal defendants.
“It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” the panel observed in disapproving of the attempt to install Habba.
Another Trump-installed prosecutor whose tenure is in doubt is Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia. She lacked prosecutorial experience and was placed in that office to secure indictments of Donald Trump’s political opponents over the objections of career prosecutors. Halligan, who brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, was recently deemed by another federal district judge to have been unlawfully appointed. The Trump administration said it will appeal that ruling......
The administration’s promised appeal of Halligan’s disqualification in Virginia would fall under a different federal circuit (the Fourth). When different federal circuits rule differently on an issue, that makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will step in to resolve a conflict if asked to do so. The legal issues surrounding Habba’s and Halligan’s appointments aren’t exactly the same but there is overlap. The appointment issue has also been litigated on the other side of the country in federal districts in California and Nevada, where judges have likewise disapproved of the administration’s attempts to bypass Senate approval of top federal prosecutors. Those western states fall under the Ninth Circuit.
Though the appellate ruling in Habba’s case came first, the administration may be even more eager to revive Halligan as the top federal prosecutor in Virginia. Unlike in the appeal in Habba’s case, the judge in Comey and James’ challenge not only said that Halligan was unlawfully serving but that the indictments she brought against those Trump targets must be dismissed as a result.
This will be fun to watch
December 1, 2025
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/01/alina-habba-appeals-court-ruling-00671224
Appeals court upholds disqualification of Alina Habba as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor
The ruling further stymies the Trump administration’s use of unusual tactics meant to quickly put or keep largely unqualified U.S. attorneys in place without Senate confirmation.
Read "Appeals court upholds disqualification of Alina Habba as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor" on SmartNews: l.smartnews.com/p-6GX6rWX6/8...
— (@chitraraj.bsky.social) 2025-12-01T14:30:51.530Z
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/01/alina-habba-appeals-court-ruling-00671224
A panel of appeals court judges on Monday upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba, the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, rejecting President Donald Trump’s use of unconventional methods to install loyalists atop U.S. attorney offices across the country.
“It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” Judge D. Michael Fisher, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in the 32-page opinion. “Its efforts to elevate its preferred candidate for U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Alina Habba, to the role of Acting U.S. Attorney demonstrate the difficulties it has faced — yet the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability.”
The ruling further stymies the Trump administration’s use of unusual tactics meant to quickly put or keep largely unqualified U.S. attorneys in place without Senate confirmation. Defendants are also challenging the authority of U.S. attorneys in California, Nevada, upstate New York and Virginia.
The Trump administration could appeal Monday’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Spokespeople for the Trump administration and Habba didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
In August, a lower-court judge ruled that Habba is serving unlawfully, and judges have subsequently made the same determination regarding the Trump-picked prosecutors in Nevada and the Los Angeles-area. Last week, a judge disqualified top federal prosecutor Lindsey Halligan in the eastern district of Virginia and tossed the politically charged cases she brought against Trump’s political enemies: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
“It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” Judge D. Michael Fisher, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in the 32-page opinion. “Its efforts to elevate its preferred candidate for U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Alina Habba, to the role of Acting U.S. Attorney demonstrate the difficulties it has faced — yet the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability.”
The ruling further stymies the Trump administration’s use of unusual tactics meant to quickly put or keep largely unqualified U.S. attorneys in place without Senate confirmation. Defendants are also challenging the authority of U.S. attorneys in California, Nevada, upstate New York and Virginia.
The Trump administration could appeal Monday’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Spokespeople for the Trump administration and Habba didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
In August, a lower-court judge ruled that Habba is serving unlawfully, and judges have subsequently made the same determination regarding the Trump-picked prosecutors in Nevada and the Los Angeles-area. Last week, a judge disqualified top federal prosecutor Lindsey Halligan in the eastern district of Virginia and tossed the politically charged cases she brought against Trump’s political enemies: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
December 1, 2025
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-claims-mri-on-his-brain-found
The Borowitz Report-Trump Claims MRI on His Brain Found Nothing
Trump Claims MRI on His Brain Found Nothing
— Teawhalem (@teawhalem.bsky.social) 2025-12-01T13:22:43.311Z
www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-clai...
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-claims-mri-on-his-brain-found
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Boasting about his cognitive health, on Monday Donald J. Trump asserted than an MRI performed on his brain found nothing.
“I had a perfect MRI,” he told reporters. “The greatest doctors in the country looked at my brain and came up empty.”
Trump said there was no point in releasing his MRI because “there’s nothing to see,” adding, “It’s like the East Wing.”
“I had a perfect MRI,” he told reporters. “The greatest doctors in the country looked at my brain and came up empty.”
Trump said there was no point in releasing his MRI because “there’s nothing to see,” adding, “It’s like the East Wing.”
December 1, 2025
How the Supreme Court Rejected Denaturalization as a Political Weapon Long Ago
Tonight, trump announced that he wants to revoke the citizenship of naturalized US citizens.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1995255692140445824
We are fortunate that the SCOTUS has addressed this issue
https://x.com/BrennanCenter/status/1995242740179693745
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-supreme-court-rejected-denaturalization-political-weapon-long-ago
The Trump administration and its supporters have made numerous threats to revoke the citizenship of political foes who are naturalized citizens. But if the government tries to follow through, it will have an uphill legal battle.....
Under the law today, the government may seek denaturalization proceedings either when naturalization is obtained illegally or disqualifying facts on citizenship applications are concealed. But throughout much of the 20th century, it was much easier to achieve.....
A few years later, the Supreme Court warned against using denaturalization proceedings as a political weapon. “Ill-tempered expressions, extreme views, even the promotion of ideas which run counter to our American ideals, are not to be given disloyal connotations in absence of solid, convincing evidence that that is their significance,” the Court’s majority wrote. “Any other course would run counter to our traditions, and make denaturalization proceedings the ready instrument for political persecutions.”
In 1967, the Court found that under the 14th Amendment, the government cannot forcibly deprive a naturalized American of citizenship without the citizen’s consent, except when citizenship is “unlawfully procured.”
In the succeeding decades, denaturalizations declined significantly. Between 1990 and 2017, the Justice Department filed an average of just 11 cases per year. Only during the Obama administration did they climb, when new technology allowed the government to search decades of data for indicators of possible fraud. In 2016, the yearly average rose to 15. During the first Trump administration, the program expanded, increasing the average to 25 per year.....
The second Trump administration is picking up where the last one left off, filing at least 25 cases in the first 10 months of 2025. Based on publicly available information, these cases are not obviously aimed at political viewpoints. But any attempt to use denaturalization as a political weapon will run into significant legal hurdles. The Supreme Court’s firmly established limits on the process are not only robust, but also deeply rooted in protections guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Under the law today, the government may seek denaturalization proceedings either when naturalization is obtained illegally or disqualifying facts on citizenship applications are concealed. But throughout much of the 20th century, it was much easier to achieve.....
A few years later, the Supreme Court warned against using denaturalization proceedings as a political weapon. “Ill-tempered expressions, extreme views, even the promotion of ideas which run counter to our American ideals, are not to be given disloyal connotations in absence of solid, convincing evidence that that is their significance,” the Court’s majority wrote. “Any other course would run counter to our traditions, and make denaturalization proceedings the ready instrument for political persecutions.”
In 1967, the Court found that under the 14th Amendment, the government cannot forcibly deprive a naturalized American of citizenship without the citizen’s consent, except when citizenship is “unlawfully procured.”
In the succeeding decades, denaturalizations declined significantly. Between 1990 and 2017, the Justice Department filed an average of just 11 cases per year. Only during the Obama administration did they climb, when new technology allowed the government to search decades of data for indicators of possible fraud. In 2016, the yearly average rose to 15. During the first Trump administration, the program expanded, increasing the average to 25 per year.....
The second Trump administration is picking up where the last one left off, filing at least 25 cases in the first 10 months of 2025. Based on publicly available information, these cases are not obviously aimed at political viewpoints. But any attempt to use denaturalization as a political weapon will run into significant legal hurdles. The Supreme Court’s firmly established limits on the process are not only robust, but also deeply rooted in protections guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments.
December 1, 2025
Former US military lawyers speak out
https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/1994859617688719833Former US military lawyers speak out
"The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both"
"The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both"
December 1, 2025
MaddowBog-Speaker Johnson wants to make it harder for members to govern by going around him
There was a good segment on MS NOW tonight on discharged petitions. There are a couple of petitions that may get the required signatures including one on ACA tax credits.
https://x.com/hateGOP/status/1993116510051573768
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/speaker-johnson-wants-to-make-it-harder-for-members-to-govern-by-going-around-him
Complicating matters for the House speaker, the maneuver that was once considered obscure is suddenly becoming rather popular on Capitol Hill. Politico reported:
The use of this procedure is likely to keep growing: Late last week, a bipartisan coalition of pro-Ukraine lawmakers, including Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, announced that he and his allies have “officially notified both the Clerk of the House and House leadership of our discharge petition to force a vote on crushing Russian sanctions immediately upon our return” from the Thanksgiving holiday recess.
Given the trend, GOP leaders have a solution in mind. Does it involve a more productive legislative process? Perhaps more opportunities for members to work their will?
No, the new plan is to curtail the use of discharge petitions.
Axios reported last week that Johnson is “weighing a crackdown” on the procedure, with the speaker telling the outlet that, as far as he’s concerned, it’s become “too common.” The same report quoted House Majority Leader Steve Scalise endorsing “a higher threshold” for the maneuver. (The current threshold is a simple majority of House members.)
Over the course of decades, House lawmakers had succeeded only a few times in triggering votes on bills the chamber’s leaders refused to call up. Then Mike Johnson became speaker. On the Louisiana Republican’s watch, the ‘discharge petition’ has caught fire. Rank-and-file lawmakers have managed five times since he won his gavel two years ago to circumvent Johnson’s wishes by getting the 218 signatures needed to force votes on legislation he had blocked — more than in the prior 30 years combined.
The use of this procedure is likely to keep growing: Late last week, a bipartisan coalition of pro-Ukraine lawmakers, including Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, announced that he and his allies have “officially notified both the Clerk of the House and House leadership of our discharge petition to force a vote on crushing Russian sanctions immediately upon our return” from the Thanksgiving holiday recess.
Given the trend, GOP leaders have a solution in mind. Does it involve a more productive legislative process? Perhaps more opportunities for members to work their will?
No, the new plan is to curtail the use of discharge petitions.
Axios reported last week that Johnson is “weighing a crackdown” on the procedure, with the speaker telling the outlet that, as far as he’s concerned, it’s become “too common.” The same report quoted House Majority Leader Steve Scalise endorsing “a higher threshold” for the maneuver. (The current threshold is a simple majority of House members.)
December 1, 2025
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/the-white-houses-failed-doge-experiment-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang
MaddowBlog-The White House's failed DOGE experiment ends with a whimper, not a bang
The Department of Government Efficiency was hyped as a governmental game changer. Its doors are now closing as a pitiful failure.
The White House’s failed DOGE experiment ends with a whimper, not a bang
— Rose Spitznogle (@rosespitznogle.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T21:11:29.808Z
The Department of Government Efficiency was hyped as a governmental game changer. Its doors are now closing as a pitiful failure.
Steve Benen
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/the-white-houses-failed-doge-experiment-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang
The quasi-governmental DOGE operation, however, didn’t quite reach its first birthday. Reuters reported:
According to the Reuters report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, Kupor went on to say that the department is no longer a “centralized entity.”
To be sure, the office had an impact. As The New Republic summarized, “DOGE’s legacy is both very stupid and very sad: It decimated the federal workforce, including Social Security personnel at local offices, and made it easier for hackers to access your data. The agency tore apart USAID, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost globally.”....
Even the “savings” the office touted proved illusory, misleading or both.
DOGE’s goals went unmet. Its promises went unfulfilled. It envisioned one set of results but delivered the opposite.
Good riddance.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency has disbanded with eight months left to its mandate, ending an initiative launched with fanfare as a symbol of Trump’s pledge to slash the government’s size but which critics say delivered few measurable savings. ‘That doesn’t exist,’ Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor told Reuters earlier this month when asked about DOGE’s status
According to the Reuters report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, Kupor went on to say that the department is no longer a “centralized entity.”
To be sure, the office had an impact. As The New Republic summarized, “DOGE’s legacy is both very stupid and very sad: It decimated the federal workforce, including Social Security personnel at local offices, and made it easier for hackers to access your data. The agency tore apart USAID, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost globally.”....
Even the “savings” the office touted proved illusory, misleading or both.
DOGE’s goals went unmet. Its promises went unfulfilled. It envisioned one set of results but delivered the opposite.
Good riddance.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 173,364