On Wednesday evening, a nervous Trump stiffly read a speech to the nation that said . . . nothing new. Trump repeated empty phrases and lies that he has posted ad nauseam on Truth Social over the last four weeks. Even Trump was bored by his pointless speech.
To the extent that Trump said (er, repeated) anything substantive, the high points are as follows:
Reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Trump washed his hands of responsibility for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. He said that reopening the Strait would be “easy” for “the countries of the world” to accomplish—without explaining why the US Navy is incapable of doing so. Trump then contradicted himself by saying that the Strait of Hormuz would open “naturally” without intervention or effort by anyone.
Regime change. Trump said (a) regime change wasn’t a goal of Operation Epic Fury, (b) the US achieved regime change nonetheless by killing the leaders of the Iranian regime in place on February 28, and © the “new group is less radical and much more reasonable than the previous regime.” (By consensus among nearly all observers, the new leaders of the Iranian regime are more “hard line” than the leaders they replaced.)
Iran’s enriched uranium reserves and nuclear capability. Trump took every position imaginable on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and nuclear capability. He said, variously, “It was obliterated” by the US attack on Iran in June, 2025. But in February 2026, Iran was on the verge of a nuclear attack against the US, Europe, or US allies in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear capability was destroyed (again) by Operation Epic Fury. But, said Trump, if Iran tries to weaponize its enriched uranium still in its possession, “We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.” (Trump’s gratuitous slur against the Iranian people is reprehensible.)
End of the war. Trump said that his illegal war against Iran would end on the same timeframe as “infrastructure week”—i.e., sometime “in the next two or three weeks.”
Trump threatened to commit war crimes against the Iranian people. Trump said that if Iran did not agree to a deal immediately, the US would attack Iran’s electricity infrastructure and water/desalination plants—attacks that would constitute war crimes.
Even before Trump delivered his speech, Iranian leaders were posting rebuttals on social media. The head of Iran’s Parliament National Security Committee said on social media that the Strait would reopen “but not for you.” Indeed, Iran selectively allowed 3 ships to transit the Strait over the last 24 hours, but is blocking 280 others. Strait of Hormuz Live Tracker — Real-Time Shipping & Oil Crisis Monitor.
Trump’s speech was intended to explain the war’s purpose and reassure the American people. It failed. The S&P Futures Market dropped 1% ($550 billion in market cap) in the 25 minutes after Trump’s speech. In an efficient market, stock prices reflect the consensus about the expected future performance of the companies that trade on the market.
While futures markets are not perfect indicators of public reaction (they can be volatile), the rapid decline in S&P futures suggests investors were not reassured by Trump’s speech. I expect that we will see similar reactions in the mainstream media, social media, and public opinion polls over the coming weeks.
Trump’s war against Iran was an ill-conceived strategic blunder that has decreased economic stability and global security. As with the earlier ill-conceived wars, it is up to the American public to serve as the ultimate check on presidents and generals whose judgment is clouded by military superiority. Just because the US can do something doesn’t mean it should do it.
We must serve as the conscience and commander of last resort for leaders who have betrayed their prime objective: To keep Americans safe while honoring their oaths to the Constitution.
Supreme Court seems prepared to reject Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.
Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship received a hostile reception in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Based on questioning during oral argument, it appears that at least six justices are prepared to rule against Trump, although some Court observers see a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. See Ian Millhiser, Vox, Even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship (“At least seven justices appear to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says.”)
Trump’s executive order was baseless, and the arguments in support of the order were specious. Trump’s arguments contradicted the plain language of the Constitution and two centuries of precedent. The questioning by the justices ranged from hostile to skeptical to incredulous.
A central exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and US Solicitor General John Sauer highlighted the tension between the government’s position and the Constitution. Sauer asserted that the plain words of the Constitution could not be applied literally today, claiming that the world has changed since the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
Sauer said, “8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”
Robert responded, “It’s a new world; it’s the same Constitution.”
Truer words were never spoken, at least as they pertain to the Constitution. The Constitution means what it says. When the Framers have gone to the trouble of defining a right, that right cannot be eroded by the passage of time or changing circumstances.
The central legal arguments turned on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as it applied to children of non-citizens who give birth to children while in the US. The arguments of Trump’s lawyers on this point were demolished by the justices.
At one point, in response to a question by Justice Gorsuch, John Sauer equivocated on the question of whether Native Americans were birthright citizens under the test set forth in Trump’s executive order. Sauer said, “I think so . . . Not sure. I have to think that through.”
Sauer’s equivocation was so ludicrous that his outrageous answer will be the defining moment of his miserable career as a Trump lackey, er, lawyer.
For detailed discussions of the legal arguments, see the Vox article cited above, and SCOTUS Blog, Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship.
The ruling in the birthright citizenship case augers well for the coming fight over Trump’s executive order attempting to limit mail ballots. Read on!
Marc Elias and others file lawsuits against Trump’s executive order restricting mail ballots
Less than 24 hours after Trump issued an executive order that purports to restrict mail ballots, voting rights activists filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the order. See Democracy Docket, Democrats sue to block Trump’s ‘unlawful’ order targeting mail-in voting.
The Democracy Docket article discusses the legal arguments surrounding the order in detail. But, like the birthright citizenship and tariff cases, Trump’s executive order contradicts the plain language of the Constitution. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court has repudiated Trump once (tariffs) and appears to be prepared to do so again (birthright citizenship). Those cases strongly suggest that the Supreme Court will rebuff Trump again in his attempt to regulate elections by executive order.
Although we can take nothing for granted, we have reason for cautious optimism about the Supreme Court’s treatment of Trump’s latest executive order regarding elections.
But the Constitution does grant Congress joint authority with the states to regulate elections. Congress could attempt to pass legislation enacting provisions of the executive order and the SAVE Act.
In fact, Republicans have not given up their effort to pass some provisions of the SAVE Act in the bills to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. Read on!
House and Senate Republicans accept the Democratic proposal to reopen DHS
A week ago, Senate Democrats proposed a plan to fund those parts of DHS not involved in immigration enforcement and deportation. That plan passed in the Senate by unanimous consent, but the House immediately rejected the bill.
On Wednesday, Republicans in the House and Senate agreed to the plan, under which ICE and CBP would not receive additional funding (beyond their current funding through 2029). Republicans plan to fund ICE and CBP for another three years through a reconciliation bill—which is not subject to the filibuster.
But there is a significant catch. Reconciliation bills do not actually appropriate discretionary funds to agencies. For that, Republicans must pass an appropriations bill, which IS subject to the filibuster.
Republicans apparently plan to include a supplemental defense appropriation to fund the Iran war and will seek to insert some provisions from the SAVE Act. See NBC, Republicans launch reconciliation for SAVE America Act, Iran war and ICE.
Most of the reporting on the Wednesday deal to fund DHS omits any discussion of the need for a follow-on appropriations bill—a bill that would allow Democrats to exercise the filibuster.
It is possible that Republicans will attempt to avoid a follow-on appropriations bill for ICE and CBP by claiming (falsely) that funding for ICE and CBP is not discretionary. Whether Republicans will attempt to do so is not clear—at least not from the reporting to date on the deal reached Wednesday.
My point is this: Democrats stood firm on not approving funds for ICE and CBP without reforms. Good for them! And if Republicans follow regular order, Democrats will have the chance to filibuster appropriations for ICE and CBP.
But if Republicans change the rules in the middle of the game by claiming that ICE and CBP funding is non-discretionary (like Medicare), then all bets are off. Democrats should use the same strategy to avoid the filibuster when they retake control of the Senate.
Stay tuned!
Concluding Thoughts
The Artemis II mission launched the Orion Spacecraft on Wednesday. The four-person crew will “fly by” the moon and return to Earth during a 10-day mission. The crew includes three Americans and one Canadian.
Watching the launch brought back memories of the Mercury, Apollo, and Space Shuttle programs, which showcased America’s technological talent and pioneering spirit. (Of course, NASA benefits from thousands of immigrant residents and citizens.) For the launch to succeed, millions of parts, hundreds of millions of lines of computer code, and tens of thousands of operations needed to work flawlessly—a feat of unimaginable complexity. And yet, somehow it all worked.
The launch was a reminder of who are at our best. We should strive for that level of cooperation, dedication, excellence, and bravery every day. Imagine what America would be like if we treated every day like it was the launch of a new mission to the moon in which each of us played a mission-critical role.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Daily Dose of Perspective
No Kings / Pro-democracy protests
Great rally at SCOTUS today. We made a lot of noise and I hope the judges heard us. Many great speakers, including Rev Bishop Barber and the one and only Chef Jose Andres, who delivered a truly impassioned speech. We The People…
No Kings Day in Nuremberg, Germany
We had a great turnout for our NKD3 near the Lakewood City Hall. Probably 20% bigger than NKD2. At least 1000 joyous residents exercising their free speech rights!
Over 150 people in Tokyo! Sign says “worldwide Monster”
Charlottesville, Virginia
MORRISTOWN TENNESSEE. A good crowd (500) for conservative East Tennessee .
Hoping for Peace as we celebrate Passover and Easter. Newton, MA
To support neighborliness we held a joint Eugene-Springfield NK3 march, this time in the much smaller and more blue-collar Springfield, and raised awareness and funds for local groups!
Photos One Year on the Bridge; We’ve been on this bridge for one year. Today we reminded drivers why we’re here. American Tobacco Trail Pedestrian Bridge over I-40
15 Indivisible San Jose (CA) members and friends braved an overcast, windy day on the Overpass under the threat of rain. Honks and waves won the day.
No Kings Photo, Woodland Hills, CA
PIPE UP FOR DEMOCRACY 🇺🇲 🇺🇲 NO KINGS Day ‼️‼️ Monroe Park, Richmond
Mountain View, CA
Knossos on Crete
Reno, NV
A huge crowd marched down (closed) Colorado Blvd. from PCC to City Hall
No Kings sign in Gainesville FL
Hastings, MI
No Kings, Elizabeth City in rural northeastern North Carolina yesterday. Our diverse crowd included men and women, young and old, veterans, children, students, and a few dogs. We had lots of enthusiastic support from passersby, too.
A 90-year-old patriot in Denver.
Madison WI
Stamford, Ct and Seattle, Wa
Hollywood Florida
Bath, Maine
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed
You must log in or # to comment.