The news gods didn’t give us Thanksgiving week off, and there’s no reason to believe this week will be any different (and apologies for the length of tonight’s post. There was more to write about, but this got too long as is). But there is room for cautious optimism about some trends we’re seeing. Donald Trump is losing ground. It started with the Epstein files. It continued with the elections that saw Democrats make unexpected, and in some cases historic, gains. Friday’s revelation that the administration deliberately killed two people who survived the initial attack on an alleged Tren de Aragua drug smuggling boat in September, people who were clinging to the remains of the boat for survival, will only fuel the fire. Change happens because we make it happen. Because we understand and use our power as citizens. We’ve protested. We’ve contacted our elected officials, even when it didn’t seem like they were listening. We’ve educated our friends, neighbors, and families. It’s cumulative, and progress, even when it’s slow, can happen when Americans understand the importance of fighting for democracy, which is what we’re doing right now. As I wrote in my book, we are not fighting on battlefields in Europe. Instead, our fight will most likely be at ballot boxes and polling places across the country. I also wrote that our institutions are nimble, and that even ones that seem to have sidelined themselves can return to the fray, like Congress did on Friday, when bipartisan membership in both bodies called for investigation into the boat attack. Just over a month ago, when my book came out and I was first traveling around the country to speak about it, there was so much hopelessness about where we were. In the past month, there is renewed understanding and belief that we can move past Trump and MAGA. It may not be easy, and our progress most likely won’t be linear. There will be moments where it will be frustrating. But we can do this. I wasn’t joking when I wrote Giving Up Is Unforgivable. We have a lot of work to do. Here is what you need to know to be ready for the week ahead: Contempt Proceedings Against the Government Before Judge Boasberg: Last Tuesday, in a late-night pleading, DOJ advised the court that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was responsible for the decision to disobey Judge Boasberg’s order requiring planes carrying hundreds of Venezuelan men to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison to return to the U.S. DOJ characterized the Secretary’s decision as “lawful and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (now, Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge) Emil Bove worked with DHS Acting General Counsel Joseph Mazzara to provide advice that was conveyed to the Secretary before Judge Boasberg issued his order.
The unspoken component of this revelation—it’s the first time Noem has been identified as the decision-maker—is that she determined “the AEA detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador.” That argument relies on the contention that one of the D.C. Circuit judges wrote that Judge Boasberg’s order was “inapplicable to those who had already been removed” from the country, and the government maintains they were out of U.S. airspace before the order was entered. The government continues with an outright insult to the Judge, couched in a quotation, “As Judge Katsas further explained, this Court’s oral directives at the TRO hearing were inconsistent, ‘garbl[ed],’ and, if read in isolation, ‘indefensible,’ to the point that this Court ‘itself disclaimed’ at least two of its own oral commands in later opinions,” perhaps an acknowledgment that the government expects to lose before the district court and is hoping to set up a reversal when the case reaches higher courts. This week, we may learn more about whether Judge Boasberg agrees with the government. The disclosure was made because the Judge had ordered both sides in the case to “propose next steps for its inquiry into potential referral for criminal contempt.” The government told the court nothing further was required, which is unlikely to be a compelling stance with the court. Finally, the government makes this interesting suggestion, “Defendants do not believe any further facts are relevant to the Court’s potential referral, but if the Court determines otherwise, Defendants request an opportunity to provide any such information by way of declarations in the first instance—as even Plaintiffs appear to agree would be a necessary first step … No live testimony is warranted at this time.” Might the Secretary have had conversations with others, perhaps even those in the White House, along the way? If the government has its way, we won’t find out. The Secretary of Defense’s Attack on “Narcoterrorists”: The Department of Defense Law of War Manual provides that members of the armed forces “must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations.” It offers an example of a clearly illegal order that hits home: “For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.” All that’s left for the government to try and do this week is to claim that The Washington Post’s report that says it did just that in the Caribbean in September is factually erroneous.
The Manual, at 18.3.2.1, goes on to clarify that “Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.” Given that this situation presents the example the manual uses to teach members of the military about when it’s clear an order should be questioned, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for anyone, especially at the command level, to claim ignorance and say they were not obligated to inquire into the legality of an order to do what the manual prohibits.
Congressional investigation will be essential to pin down the details. Most importantly, we don’t know for certain whether any part of the decision to strike people who survived the initial attack was predicated on direction from people outside of DoD. We don’t know if any of it went upstream of Secretary of Defense Hegseth. But there is some interesting backstory for Congress to flesh out.
Rubio discussed the strike while in foreign countries, suggesting that Trump was, as one would expect, involved, but never saying he gave an order to kill survivors. Of course, the government has never acknowledged that it happened and continues to deny it after the Washington Post’s Friday report. Rubio said at the time that: “Instead of interdicting [the ship], on the president’s orders, we blew it up. And it’ll happen again. Maybe it’s happening right now.” Rubio said. In Mexico City he told reporters: “U.S. forces could have stopped the boat that officials say was carrying illegal drugs from Venezuela to the United States on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, but President Donald Trump chose instead to destroy it, killing 11 people on board, to send a deterrent message to traffickers.” … “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders, we blew it up — and it’ll happen again.” Asked about whether the boat was a threat to the U.S., Rubio responded, “The president has a right to eliminate immediate threats to the United States … This president is not a talker; he’s a doer — he’s going to do it.”
Again, He’s not explicitly linked to the decision to kill survivors. But he does say, “On my order,” instead of distancing himself from the strikes—surely Trump would have known what happened and seen unedited video. If not, heads would have rolled on Friday at the revelation in The Post. It’s not clear whether Trump knew of, approved of, or consulted on Hegseth’s order. That’s what Congress needs to sort out as quickly as possible—as well as who else in the White House and other agencies might have been involved. Sunday night, Trump said Hegseth told him he didn’t give a kill order and Trump believed him “100 percent.” Asked about the second strike, Trump told reporters, “I wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.” Trump claimed that the amount of drugs entering the U.S. is “infinitesimal” compared to a few months ago. Hegseth tweeted this Sunday evening:
The National Guard Shooting in Washington, D.C. Before the West Virginia Mountaineers played Texas Tech in Morgantown on Saturday, there was a moment of silence for the two West Virginia National Guard soldiers shot in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Instead of focusing on them, Donald Trump’s reaction to the horrific shooting that left one dead and another in serious condition has been to discontinue immigration proceedings for Afghans and others. ABC’s Selina Wang reported on Saturday that in the wake of the shooting, the administration was pausing all asylum decisions, ending visa issuance to people from Afghanistan, and ordering immigration authorities to review green cards from people from 19 countries of concern, including Afghanistan, Somalia, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Iran. Donald Trump threatened to end migration from “third world countries” and to revoke citizenship from some naturalized citizens. He said he would “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries.” Armed with a new excuse, it’s the Muslim ban from Trump’s first administration on steroids. But it’s ludicrous to use a crime committed by one individual, a heinous crime, as grounds to exclude an entire nationality or region from entry into the U.S., especially when many of those from Afghanistan either served alongside U.S. troops or would face retaliation if forced to return to their country of origin. On Sunday, DHS Secretary Noem said that the motive behind the shooting was still unknown. She said that the shooter was “radicalized” after he came to the U.S., but declined to shoulder any of the blame, even though the decision to grant him asylum came in April of this year after Trump was back in office. “The vetting process all happened under Joe Biden’s administration,” Noem said. The shooter worked with the CIA alongside American forces fighting the Taliban for more than a decade. He had to undergo repeated background checks in that capacity. NBC reported Sunday that the shooter was part of “a secret unit of Afghans who operated under CIA direction and hunted down Taliban commanders in highly dangerous missions,” called “Zero Units.” NBC characterized the people in the units as among those who were most carefully vetted and who were prioritized for resettlement in the U.S. when Kabul fell because they would have been targeted by the new regime had they remained. The story of their resettlement appears to be one of broken promises. The NBC report reflected that “Two years ago, a former Afghan commander with the Zero Units, Mohammad Shah, wrote a letter warning lawmakers that his former troops are in ‘urgent crisis’ and that Congress needed to act to resolve their legal status. That was the case because the Afghan fighters have been without legal status and work permits, and have struggled to care for their families. CIA and military colleagues of the soldiers “appealed to both the Biden and Trump administrations and to Congress to take action to resolve their legal status,” and warned that some of the men were falling into despair. Congress failed to pass a bipartisan measure that would have provided a measure of protection. The report concluded that “As of July, about 3,000 members of the Zero Units still had no work permits and no certainty about their legal status, according to advocates who work with the veterans. Returning to Afghanistan is not an option for them, advocates say, because of the threat of being hunted down by the Taliban for working with Americans.” It’s a moment that calls for compassion for victims, accountability in the criminal justice system for the shooter, and a real solution for people who gave our country a helping hand when we needed it. If for no reason other than America’s inevitable need for future help from foreign allies, the moment requires more than political rhetoric and condemning a broad swath of immigrants because of one man’s crimes. Tuesday’s Election in Tennessee On Tuesday, there is a special Congressional election for Tennessee’s 7th District. It’s the last of five special elections for House seats this year. In the four previous elections, in Virginia, Arizona, and Florida (where two seats were up for grabs), Democrats improved their margins—even where they lost the race—by an average of 16 points. This Tuesday’s election is in Tennessee, where Republican Mark Green, who resigned, won in 2024 by just over 20 points. Democratic candidate Aftyn Behn is running against Republican Matt Van Epps. Tennessee is not friendly territory for Democrats. Tennessee has no statewide elected Democrats. Recent polls show Van Epps up by anywhere from 2 to 8 points, a remarkable run for Behn. Off-year election turnout can be wonky. Anything can happen. In the meantime, remind your friends in Tennessee to vote if they haven’t already! Democrats continue to run on affordability, which is a solid message. But they still haven’t learned that we live in times that call for them to evolve beyond the exclusive “it’s the economy” style messaging that pervades American politics. Yes, of course, it’s the economy. It’s also the democracy. And due process. And the rule of law. Democrats need to stop thinking Americans can’t grasp these concepts after millions of them marched and protested for them. Tennessee is about as deep red as they get. But with Trump conducting a revenge presidency focused on accumulating power in his hands, Democrats are fighting for every last vote in the House, as they should be. Democracy deserves center stage as a significant part of what they stand for.  So I’ve made it official folks: I’ve filed the paperwork to run for Governor of Alabama. It’s time to remind this state of who we are and what we can accomplish together. #DougForAlabama  Mon, 24 Nov 2025 20:54:45 GMT View on BlueskyAlabama gubernatorial candidate Doug Jones told me, “I know that pundits are saying the Aftyn Behn can’t win a district that Trump carried by 22 points just a year ago. But guess what? Those pundits said that two Republican incumbents on the Georgia Public Service Commission wouldn’t get trounced in their re-election bids or that three legislative seats in the Mississippi House wouldn’t flip to break the Republican supermajority and look what happened. The mere fact that we are having these discussions means it can happen again in the 7th Congressional District of Tennessee. And it can happen because Aftyn has been laser focused on making a positive impact on the lives of the folks in that District and laser focused on making their lives more affordable rather than trying to rile them up with pretend outrage that does nothing.” What might Tuesday hold in store for us? And maybe, Virginia, if there really is a Santa Claus, it can happen in Alabama, too, next year? You’ve just read today’s breakdown without a paywall because paid subscribers make that possible. If you want to help me keep this work available to everyone—and get extra benefits along the way—please join us. Your paid subscriptions make sure I can devote the time and resources necessary to write Civil Discourse. We’re in this together, Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Sunday, November 30, 2025
The Week Ahead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
☕ $140,000 poverty line?
Businesspeople are having emotions over a Substack essay... December 01, 2025 View Online | Sign Up | Shop Presented By Welc...
-
17 Personal Finance Concepts – #5 Home Ownershippwsadmin, 31 Oct 02:36 AM If you find value in these articles, please share them with your ...
No comments:
Post a Comment