On Tuesday, in quick succession:
The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act 427 to 1; and
Hours later, the Senate passed the Act 100 to 0.
The White House said that Trump would sign the bill when “it reaches his desk,” which should be Wednesday. Signing the bill will trigger a 30-day period for the DOJ to produce the Epstein files in a downloadable, searchable format.
Each of those victories is contingent, but they are victories nonetheless. Progress is slow, until it isn’t. Tuesday was one of the days when years of effort came to fruition in hours. The victory is cause for a moment of reflection and celebration before we begin imagining the complications to come.
Pat yourself on the back. Take a bow. Take a deep breath and relax, if only for a few hours. You deserve it.
There is only one explanation for the rapid-fire developments on Tuesday relating to the Epstein files: Trump and his enablers can read polling data. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Americans support the release of all Epstein files. (An additional 13% support releasing some of the files.) It is rare for 88% of the American public to mostly agree on anything. And producing records that evidence the sex trafficking operation of a convicted felon is something that Americans can agree on.
Each day Republicans delayed the release made Trump and his minions appear to be more complicit in covering up rich and powerful men who raped, trafficked, and abused girls and young women.
That lesson will not be lost on the DOJ as it releases documents that redact the names of perpetrators in violation of the Act. That is a fight to come after we see the DOJ’s production. Let’s keep our powder dry.
News outlets are not reporting the language of the Act’s exemption that permits the DOJ to withhold documents. The text is helpful in understanding the scope of the DOJ’s authority to withhold or redact documents. See the text of the Act’s exemption, which is set forth in the footnote below.1
After years of struggle, we are closer than ever to the release of the files. But until Trump and Bondi comply with the Act’s provisions, we must not relent! Protesters should continue to highlight the need for full disclosure. The American people are on the side of full transparency—an advantage that we should exploit to the fullest extent possible!
Keep up the good work!
A three-judge panel invalidates racially gerrymandered districts in Texas
Tuesday also brought a stunning victory against the Texas legislature’s attempt to create racially gerrymandered districts that favor Trump.
Over the summer, Trump ordered the Texas legislature to engage in mid-census gerrymandering to create five “safe” Republican seats in Congress. Texas complied in an ugly process in which Texas legislators made no effort to conceal their racial animus in creating new districts.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel ruled that Texas illegally used race to create five new districts and ordered that Texas revert to the congressional district lines that existed prior to the illegal gerrymander.
In finding that the Texas legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering, the three-judge panel relied on a DOJ letter that was key to the redistricting process. In the letter, the DOJ did not express the need for partisan gerrymandering (which is legal), but instead raised concerns about the racial makeup of the targeted districts. See Chris Geinder, Law Dork (Substack), Court blocks Texas redistricting, finding it likely unconstitutional, with DOJ largely to blame.
The three-judge panel voted 2 to 1 to invalidate the racially gerrymandered districts, with a Trump appointee voting in the majority. The majority noted that Governor Greg Abbott disclaimed partisan motives, but instead highlighted the role of race in creating the districts:
When given an opportunity to publicly proclaim that his motivation for adding redistricting to the legislative agenda was solely to improve Republicans’ electoral prospects at President Trump’s request, the Governor denied any such motivation. Instead, the Governor expressly stated that his predominant motivation was racial: he “wanted to remove . . . coalition districts” and “provide more seats for Hispanics.” The fact that the racially reconfigured districts would happen to favor Republicans was, to paraphrase the Governor’s own words, just a fortuitous coincidence.
Texas has already appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court. Based on the Court’s current jurisprudence, it should uphold the ruling of the three-judge panel.
There many moving parts here. The Supreme Court could reverse the ruling of the three-judge panel, saying that it occurs “too close” to the 2026 midterms. If the Supreme Court so rules, that rationale should also protect California’s newly created districts.
There are other scenarios in which the Supreme Court could invalidate the Texas districts while leaving the California districts in place, which would mean that Trump’s “redistricting strategy” had backfired against him. That is a low probability outcome, but Trump is on a losing streak. Stay tuned!
“Things happen.”
Trump met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House on Tuesday. The post-meeting press conference in the Oval Office was a thing of ugliness.
ABC White House correspondent Mary Bruce asked the question that was on everyone’s mind:
“And your royal highness, the U.S. intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 9/11 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office. Why should Americans trust you, and the same to you, Mr. President?”
Trump jumped in to answer before MBS could respond.
Sounding like a mob boss commenting on someone who (allegedly) committed suicide by jumping through a sealed window on the 10th floor of an abandoned building, Trump commented on the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by saying, “Things happen.” To remove all doubt about his meaning, Trump said, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about.”
The “thing” that happened to Jamal Khashoggi was gruesome beyond telling. The details are summarized in this separate document, taken from the Wikipedia entry, Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi - Wikipedia.
After saying that “things happen” to people who aren’t “liked,” Trump said that MBS “knew nothing” about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Trump’s statement contradicts the findings of his own CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, both of which concluded that Khashoggi’s killers were directed by MBS. See Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Assessing the Saudi Government’s Role in the Killing of Jamal Khashoggi. (“We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.”)
Trump now describes the man deemed to be responsible for Khashoggi’s killing as a “great guy.” See The New Republic, Trump Freaks Out That MBS Might Be Embarrassed by Khashoggi Question.
Kudos to Mary Bruce for asking a tough question that needed to be asked. Trump’s attack on Bruce and ABC was reprehensible. Trump said:
It’s not the question that I mind. It’s your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter. It’s the way you ask these questions. You start off with a man who’s highly respected, asking him an insubordinate question.
Trump returned to ABC later in the press availability, saying
I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong. And we have a great (FCC) commissioner, the chairman, who should look at that because I think when you come in and you’re 97% negative to Trump. And then Trump wins the election in a landslide. That means, obviously, your news is not credible. And you’re not credible as a reporter.
Trump’s attack on Mary Bruce comes five days after Trump verbally attacked a female reporter during a press availability on Air Force One. The reporter, Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg News, asks Trump about the release of the Epstein files.
In response, Trump thrusts his finger toward her face and says, “Quiet. Quiet Piggy.” See video embedded here: President Donald Trump Tells Female Reporter ‘Quiet, Piggy’
Trump’s attack on reporters, especially female reporters, is consistent with everything we know about his propensity for degrading and assaulting women. Coming on a day when Trump suggested that “things happen” to reporters who are “not liked,” the verbal attacks on reporters are threats that should be rebuked by every member of Congress, including Republicans.
Trump’s lavish reception for Mohammed bin Salman and his eagerness to protect MBS from questions about his complicity in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi shamed America, once again. I look forward to the day when honorable men and women reestablish America as a force for good on the global stage. It cannot come soon enough!
Concluding Thoughts
The newsletter is a bit shorter this evening because I began to write it before attending the fundraiser for Latino Victory and Onward Together, featuring Heather Cox Richardson, Hillary Clinton, and Lin-Manuel Miranda. While I was at the event, the news cycle upended itself, so I rewrote most of the newsletter upon returning to our hotel room after the event. Ah, well! Such is the fate of news commentary in the Age of the Fifteen-Minute News Cycle.
The event was fabulous for many reasons, but especially so because I was able to greet hundreds of readers! It is always uplifting and confidence-inspiring to meet readers who are committed to our common cause. Bless you all for the work you do, and for supporting the event! (A recording of the event will be available; details tomorrow.)
It was a treat to see Heather Cox Richardson skillfully moderate a discussion between Hillary Clinton and Lin-Manuel Miranda. There were many memorable exchanges, but I was struck by the emphasis that HCR, HRC, and Lin-Manuel placed on viewing this moment through the lens of history.
We are living through a difficult moment in our history. As a people, we have lived through moments more perilous for democracy and dangerous for Americans. That doesn’t lessen the seriousness of the challenges we face. But it should fill us with confidence that we can endure this moment of crisis, as our predecessors endured prior crises.
Our task is to continue the fight long enough for the next generation to relieve us in the defense of democracy. If we can do that, we will honorably discharge our debt to those who delivered us safely to this moment with democracy intact.
We can do that. We are doing that. The victories of the last two weeks should give us confidence that we can continue to do so. We won’t win every battle. We don’t need to. We need only win most of them, over time. That is the lesson that history teaches us: Abide. Endure. Do not quit.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Pro-democracy protest photos:
Northridge, CA:
On 11/16/25, Northridge Indivisible and the Northridge Patriots held a Raising Canes rally to raise awareness about cuts to Medicare, Medi-Cal, and Social Security. The Northridge Patriots are a group of senior citizens at The Village at Northridge, an assisted living facility. Participants’ ages ranged from 67 to nearly 100 years old, and then some younger people joined.
Indivisible, San Jose, CA
Charlotte, NC
Many of us in Charlotte have been inspired by you all for months as we have grown our protest movement of weekly protests. We now protest at ~25 locations including three highway overpasses. With ICE/CBP newly arrived in Charlotte our protest crowds have grown, so that today we had 60 on the bridge. On Sunday we had 100+ where we normally have a couple dozen. Our Saturday “Signs of Fascism” walk was well received.
National Cemetery, Cape Cod, MA
Saturday, Nov 15. Cold. A battalion of volunteers bundled up while collecting grave flags. 77,000+ flags removed over the 5-acre hallowed grounds site. A solemn day.
Daily Dose of Perspective
The Pelican Nebula, undated from my files, taken from my backyard in Los Angeles, CA. Located 1,800 light-years from Earth in the Cygnus Constellation.
PROHIBITED GROUNDS FOR WITHHOLDING—
(1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.
© PERMITTED WITHHOLDINGS.—
(1) The Attorney General may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that—
(A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252– 2252A;
© would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is NARROWLY TAILORED AND TEMPORARY;
(D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person; or
(E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.
(3) To the extent that any covered information would otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that classified information to the maximum extent possible.
[NOTE: The bolding and capitalization are mine, for emphasis.]
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed