Some metaphors write themselves. On Monday, Trump began his physical demolition of the White House by tearing down a portion of the East Wing to make room for a garish, 90,000 sq ft “ballroom” that will give the White House a “resort destination” feel. The photographs of the demolition are so upsetting that the White House is trying to prevent the public from seeing the desecration of a global icon of American democracy. See the photo in the WSJ, Treasury Tells Employees Not to Share Photos of White House Ballroom Construction. (Article accessible to all.)

Trump’s remodeling of the White House is unlawful and based on lies—like almost every other aspect of his administration. While every president is allowed to make modifications to the interior living space of the White House, structural changes to the White House must be cleared through the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC).

Trump has not obtained approval from the NCPC for the demolition of portions of the East Wing or construction of the ballroom—which will increase the size of the existing White House complex by 60%.

Trump claimed that construction of the ballroom would not “touch” the existing White House complex. Trump said,

“It’ll be near it but not touching it—and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite. It’s my favorite place. I love it.”

As the photo in the WSJ article above shows, a portion of the East Wing has been torn down. In other words, Trump lied about the unlawful remodeling “not touching” the existing White House.

The White House does not belong Trump, or to any president who resides in the White House during their presidency. And while modifications and modernization are necessary and appropriate from time to time, they are controlled by Congress and the NCPC (among other federal agencies).

Trump suggests that he is exempt from that oversight because he is (allegedly) using “private” money to fund the demolition and new construction. Even if true, there is nothing in the existing oversight scheme that creates an exception for “privately funded” modifications to federal buildings in D.C.

Trump is simply ignoring federal law and congressional oversight in desecrating “The People’s House.” In prior presidencies, Congress and the media would be in meltdown mode if a president violated federal law daily. The acquiescence and silence of corporate media in the face of Trump’s ongoing lawlessness is one of the great disappointments of this era.

But “we the people” are outraged and are not giving Trump a “free pass” to engage in unconstitutional behavior merely because he has done so in the past. We will add the desecration of the White House to our list of grievances for the next No Kings Day protest.

And when we learn which billionaire oligarch is funding the desecration of the White House, we should engage in a massive boycott of that billionaires source of wealth.

Ninth Circuit three-judge panel allows Trump to send National Guard troops to Portland, OR

In a 2-1 split decision a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay by US District Judge Karin Immergut that prohibited Trump from sending National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon to “defend” ICE facilities from alleged violence. See CNN, Appeals court allows Trump administration to deploy National Guard in Portland.

The opinion and dissent are here: Oregon v. Trump | 9th Cir | Oct 20, 2025.

The two Ninth Circuit judges who voted to lift the stay are Trump appointees (from Trump’s first term), while the dissenting judge was appointed by President Clinton.

The Ninth Circuit has 29 active judges. A ruling by a three-judge panel can be “re-heard” by a larges panel of 11 judges (called “en banc” review), and a ruling by the 11 judges can be re-heard by the 29 judges of the Ninth Circuit.

Immediately after the decision by the three-judge panel was issued, a judge of the Ninth Circuit filed an internal request asking for the opinion to be reviewed “en banc”—by 11 judges of the Ninth Circuit. En banc re-hearings are rare, but one ground for such hearings is “exceptional importance” of the case. That criterion seems to be met here.

The majority opinion relies on the assertions that (a) there has been scattered violence near or directed at the ICE facility, and (b) the president is entitled to deference based on a “range of honest assessment” regarding the need to deploy federal troops to enforce federal law.

As the world knows, Trump has lied shamelessly about violence in Portland. While there have been scattered instances of violence or threats, normal organs of law enforcement continue to operate as ususal.

Indeed, the majority opinion demonstrates that federal law is being enforced in Portland by civil and criminal authorities, including the DOJ. The majority opinion notes,

The U.S. Attorney’s Office charged 22 defendants between June 13 and July 8 with offenses committed at the ICE facility, including assaulting federal officers, arson, possession of a destructive device, and depredation of government property.

In the absence of insurrection, rebellion, or inability to enforce federal law, there is no statutory basis to federalize National Guard troops for deployment on US soil.

The dissent by Judge Graber begins on page 21 of the opinion and is worth your attention. But the most important part of Judge Graber’s opinion is in his conclusion, which invokes the foundational principles of the Constitution:

The Founders recognized the inherent dangers of allowing the federal executive to wrest command of the State militia from the States. Congress authorized the President to deploy the National Guard only in true emergencies— to repel an invasion, to suppress a rebellion, or to overcome an inability to execute the laws. [¶]

Judge Graber then called out the political theater involved in Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, often aided by Trump’s “bending and breaking the truth.”

We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending—sometimes breaking—the truth. By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda.

And, finally, Judge Graber called on the Ninth Circuit’s 29 judges to overrule the three-judge panel in an en banc hearing and urged us not to give up hope that the courts would prohibit the Portland deployment. Judge Graber wrote,

I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.

Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.

Judge Graber’s dissent is remarkable in its candor about the political motivations of Trump, the constitutional crisis created by the deployment, and the demoralizing effect of judicial wavering on American citizens hoping that the federal judiciary will stand up to Trump’s lawless reign.

I see it as a good sign that federal judges are dropping the conventions and artifices of judicial decisions to speak plainly about the crisis we face. Recognizing that we have a problem is the first step to overcoming it.

Trump berates President Zelensky, says Russia will “destroy” Ukraine

Late last week, Trump did a complete reversal on his support for Ukraine. In a meeting with President Zeleynsky, Turmp seemingly adopted Putin’s talking points, telling Zelensky that if he did not accede to Putin’s demand to give up Ukrainian territory, Russia would “destroy” Ukraine. See Financial Times, Trump urged Zelenskyy to accept Putin’s terms, saying Russia could “destroy” Ukraine

Per FT,

The meeting between the US and Ukrainian presidents descended many times into a ‘shouting match’, with Trump ‘cursing all the time’, people familiar with the matter said.

European officials briefed on the meeting said Trump appeared to echo many of Putin’s talking points almost verbatim, even when they contradicted his own recent remarks about Russia’s weakness.

According to one European official, Trump told Zelenskyy he should make a deal or face destruction, warning him: “If [Putin] wants it, he will destroy you.”

Suffice to say, Trump’s volatility regarding US support for Ukraine makes it exceedingly difficult for Ukraine to plan its defense strategy. And Trump’s adoption of Putin’s talking points undoubtedly affects the morale of the courageous Ukrainian citizens resisting Russia’s war of aggression. It was a shameful display by Trump that disrespected our allies in Europe, the Ukrainian people, and every American who has fought to defend democracy.

Listen to my interview on New Faces of Democracy

New Faces of Democracy is a series of conversations with ordinary citizens who are standing up for democracy. I was honored to be included as the guest on the most recent edition of the podcast, here: A Pep Talk from Robert Hubbell of Today’s Edition - New Faces of Democracy.

Concluding Thoughts

I received an email from a reader who was distressed to see that the New York Times Editorial Board chose the Monday after No Kings Day to run an editorial criticizing Democrats for being “too progressive” in their political strategy, recommending instead that Democrats run “more moderate” campaigns to win over American voters.

The reader wrote,

When I woke up this morning to this article, it upset me deeply. I felt like I couldn’t even savor what happened on Saturday before the attack on Democrats resumed.

I told the reader that it was unfortunate that the Editorial Board roused itself to tell Democrats that their political messaging needed to be fine-tuned while ignoring Republicans who are remaining silent about Trump’s grotesque posts over the weekend depicting himself as a fighter pilot dropping feces on patriotic Americans defending democracy.

Seems like a double standard, right?

Yes, it is a double standard.

In my remarks over the weekend at the No Kings Day rally in Concord, Massachusetts, I cited this double standard as one reason why this moment feels so difficult:

Corporate media engages in false equivalency that punishes Democrats for being responsible participants in democracy while Republicans lie with impunity and are rewarded for trying to “burn it all down.”

Democrats are held to an exacting standard of veracity and accuracy whenever they speak, but the president and his enablers spin grotesque lies that go unchallenged.

The Times Editorial Board apparently believes that the cure for democracy’s existential crisis is to blame Democrats for their policy choices among competing legitimate alternatives rather than shouting from the rooftops that Trump and Republicans are literally dismantling the Constitution every day. See, e.g., Trump’s decision to illegally tear down part of the White House, to kill alleged drug smugglers without trial, to withhold hundreds of billions in funds appropriated by Congress or to use the DOJ to target the president’s political enemies . . . .

Any one of those topics would have been a better choice than criticizing Democrats for being “too progressive.” Or, here’s a radical thought (for the Times’ Editorial Board), how about thanking the millions of Democrats (and other concerned Americans) who showed up on No Kings Day to defend the Times’ right to publish editorials free from control by a wannabe dictator?

The collapse of corporate media during Trump’s tenure will be one of the enduring mysteries of this era. But we must accept that corporate media isn’t coming to save democracy. So be it. We have real work to do, with or without the full-throated support of mainstream media.

No Kings Day 2.0 was a tremendous success because American citizens took control of the political narrative, bypassing the double-standard of corporate media. If there were 7 million protesters in the streets, then they reached tens of millions of Americans with their pro-democracy messaging—a number that exceeds the reach of the NYTimes many times over.

Our voices are powerful and are being heard. We are on the right path and should not allow ourselves to be distracted by the naysayers, nitpickers, and second guessers.

Stay strong, stay focused, and keep up the good work!

Protest Photos

Platteville, WI: Jill and I visited Platteville on our road trip down the Mississippi last year. We were inspired by the small but dedicated group of Democrats holding onto hope in a very red county. We met with the Platteville and Mineral Point postcard writing groups and other grassroots activists. It is good to see that the citizens of Platteville are standing strong!

[Note I used Photoshop AI to remove a van that was smack-dab in the middle of the photo.]

Roanoke, VA

From reader Marilyn J:

Silver Spring, MD

Inwood, Indivisible, midotown Manhattan, NY.

Columbus, MO:

Seattle, WA:

South Bend, Indiana:

Clackamas, OR:

Redwood City, CA:

Washington, DC:

Daily Dose of Pespective

The Dumbbell Nebula, is located about 1,200 light-years from Earth. It was formed by the outter shell of a dying star and is one of the brightest nebulae visible from Earth.

---

From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed