How Some Very Bad Luck Has Made It Even Harder To Rein In Trump
A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM's Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.
In a deeply unfortunate roll of the dice, the only three Trump appointees on the 16-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ended up being randomly selected for June's three-judge motion panel. That means they get the first bite at the apple on various emergency motions that come to the court and a chance to shape dramatically the procedural posture of some of the most important cases against the lawlessness of the Trump administration.
Yesterday, the three judges – Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Justin Walker – issued an administrative stay blocking a major order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in the original Alien Enemies Case. The stay came as the Trump administration faced a deadline of today to propose to Boasberg how it would provide the due process that the Alien Enemies Act detainees at CECOT had been denied when they were removed in March.
If you want to get a little deeper into the history and procedure of the appeals court move, Chris Geidner has you covered. But one point he makes that I want to highlight is the administration's foot-dragging for almost a week since Boasberg's ruling, and then rushing to the appeals court at the last-minute while concurrently asking Boasberg to stay his own order. It looks like a tactic designed to add as much delay as possible into the calendar.
The temporary administrative stay won't be the last word from the three-judge panel. They still must decide whether to freeze the order while the entire appeal proceeds, but the odds aren't good. For what it's worth, there's no reason to believe the selection of the three Trump appointees for this month's motion panel was anything more than random chance.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is still blocking Judge Boasberg's contempt of court proceedings in the original Alien Enemies Act case. Because the appeals court entered what was supposed to be a temporary administrative stay, Boasberg has been unable to move forward since April 18, a 'temporary' delay of almost two months now.
The Trump administration is trying to bring a swift end to the contempt of court proceeding in the Maryland case of the wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, arguing that the case is moot now that he has been returned to the United States.
In a new filing yesterday, the Trump DOJ didn't just ignore the history of administration's repeated brazen defiance of court orders in the case. It pretended none of that never happened: 'In the face of Abrego Garcia's return to the United States, [plaintiffs] baselessly accuse Defendants of 'foot-dragging and 'intentionally disregard[ing] this Court's and the Supreme Court's orders,' when just the opposite is true.'
Abrego Garcia's lawyers are fiercely resisting the case being dismissed, urging Judge Paula Xinis to continue her inquiry into whether the administration was in contempt of court. Given her prior dismayed reactions in-court to the government's misconduct, I would expect her to continue her inquiry if she finds a legal basis for doing so.
Still no word on the court-ordered return of Cristian from El Salvador in the other Maryland 'facilitate' case. The Trump administration filed an update Friday that for the first time confirmed that Cristian remains at CECOT. But the administration has erected a fictional wall between DHS and State, with DHS (a party to the case) responding to the court that it's up to the State Department (which is not a party) to negotiate Cristian's return. I would anticipate the court or plaintiff counsel making moves at some point to get answers directly from State.
TPM continues to run a liveblog with the major developments on President Trump's military escalation in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration could resume sending undocumented immigrants to Guantanamo Bay as soon as today. The planned operation, reported by Politico and the WaPo, would be dramatically larger than the short-lived effort a few months ago to use Gitmo as a detention facility for migrants.
The migrants targeted for transfer to the base in Cuba come from a range of countries that includes U.S. allies in Europe. The home countries of the foreign nationals are reportedly not being notified of the transfers to Gitmo.
I keep going back to the Trump memo calling up the National Guard equating protests – even absent violence – with rebellion. It wasn't an accident or one-off, as this threat towards any protestors of his military parade this coming weekend in DC shows:
ABC News, which kicked off the spate of dubious post-election settlement agreements with Donald Trump, has sent 28-year network veteran Terry Moran packing over his social media post critical of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Moran's contract was reportedly set to expire Friday and will not be renewed.
Here's the key thing to note about President Trump's decision to revert to the Confederate names of U.S. military installations: He's re-naming the bases ostensibly in honor of people with the same names and initials as the original Confederate honorees in order to get around the law mandating the removal of Confederate symbols from the military. So it's a squirrelly way to have all the racism without having to repeal the law.
In an Orwellian irony, the board of the Smithsonian Institute has bowed to political influence from President Trump and ordered a full review of its public-facing content to make sure it contains no … political influence.
The Trump EPA is poised to announce the easing of a Biden-era regulation limiting mercury emissions from power plants and the elimination entirely of the limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants
In 2022-23, DOJ and DHS were sufficiently concerned that Elon Musk was a vector for malign foreign influence that they were actively tracking the foreign nationals coming and going to his properties, the WSJ reports.
'A federal appeals court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration's request to keep the president's far-reaching tariffs in effect for now but agreed to fast track its consideration of the case this summer,' the WSJ reports.
'It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way. While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.'–Cara Petersen, the acting head of enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in a fiery farewell email after she resigned her position
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
NY reps warn Senate version of ‘big, beautiful' bill will be ‘dead on arrival' if SALT cap lowered to $10K
They're getting SALT-y. Blue state Republican reps railed against rumored Senate plans to lower the state and local tax deduction (SALT) cap back down from the House-negotiated level of $40,000 to its current $10,000 threshold — vowing that it will be 'dead on arrival.' Ahead of the Senate Finance Committee's release of its text for its modifications to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, reporting from Punchbowl News indicated that the panel planned to chop down the SALT increase as a placeholder while negotiations play out. The official text is slated to drop Monday evening, but multiple New York reps preemptively dubbed SALT pareback a dealbreaker. 'I have been clear since Day One: sufficiently lifting the SALT Cap to deliver tax fairness to New Yorkers has been my top priority in Congress,' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in a statement. 4 Rep. Mike Lawler had emerged as one of the top hardliners in the SALT negotiations. Getty Images 'After engaging in good faith negotiations, we were able to increase the cap on SALT from $10,000 to $40,000. That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less. If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Lawler doubled down on X, writing, 'Consider this the response to the Senate's 'negotiating mark': DEAD ON ARRIVAL' with a meme of Steve Carell as Michael Scott from 'The Office' shaking his head. The House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month, but the megabill next needs to clear the Senate and then survive the House again before it can get to President Trump's desk. Unlike the House, the Senate does not have any Republicans elected from high-taxed blue states where SALT is a pressing issue. Many Senate Republicans have openly grumbled over the inclusion of a SALT hike. 4 President Trump has been prodding congressional Republicans to send him the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to sign. Getty Images 'I think at the end of the day, we'll find a landing spot. Hopefully that will get the votes we need in the House, a compromise position on the SALT issue,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told 'Fox News Sunday,' indicating that there isn't an appetite in the upper chamber for a large SALT cap hike. The House is home to the SALT Caucus, which includes blue state Republicans who have conditioned their support of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on a SALT cap hike. 'The $40,000 SALT deduction was carefully negotiated,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) said in a statement. 'For the Senate to leave the SALT deduction capped at $10,000 is not only insulting but a slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta,' she added. 'We have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country.' 4 Rep. Nicole Malliotakis is the sole Republican congresswoman who represents part of New York City. Getty Images Republican SALT Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Young Kim (Calif.) and Andrew Garbarino (NY) also warned that the leaked draft is 'putting the entire bill at risk.' 'We have been crystal clear that the SALT deal we negotiated in good faith with the Speaker and the White House must remain in the final bill,' they said in a joint statement. 'The Senate should work with us.' Given the narrow 220 to 212 House GOP majority, leadership in the lower chamber cannot afford SALT-related defections. At most, House leadership can only afford three defections if there's full attendance. Meanwhile, passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate has been complicated by fiscal hawks who have demanded that the megabill have less of an impact on the deficit. 4 Senate committees are starting to roll out their revisions to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. AP The megabill is projected to increase the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Senate Republicans are also keen on exploring ways of making certain temporary business tax cuts in the package permanent. SALT emerged as a problem for blue state lawmakers after Republicans imposed a $10,000 cap on it in 2017 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The cap was intended to help pay for other provisions of the bill. A spokesperson for the Senate Finance Committee declined to confirm whether or not the lowered SALT cap is in the panel's draft of the megabill. 'Everyone will get accurate info when bill text is released,' the spokesperson said.
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Axios
37 minutes ago
- Axios
Most Americans view Supreme Court as partisan: Poll
While Americans have conflicting opinions on the Supreme Court, a majority agree that the Trump administration must comply with federal court orders, two recent polls found. The big picture: The high court is slated to make a slew of rulings in coming weeks on issues Americans remained deeply divided on, including on judicial power, birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Zoom in: Americans are divided on their views of the Supreme Court: 55% have a strongly or somewhat favorable view of the high court, while 45% have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable view, an NBC News Decision Desk Poll poll found. There's a partisan divide in how Americans view the judicial body, per a separate Reuters-Ipsos poll: 67% of Republicans viewing the high court favorably, compared to only 26% of Democrats. Something that both sides agree on: Neither Republicans nor Democrats see the court as politically neutral, according to the Reuters poll. Between the lines: The Supreme Court in recent months has been clearing away many of the hurdles lower courts have put in President Trump's path. The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has three justices appointed by Trump during his first term. Still, legal battles over many aspects of his second-term agenda remain. Zoom out: The Trump administration has defied a number of court orders, particularly related to immigration policies. Americans are not on board, a NBC News Decision Desk Poll found. 81% of respondents believe the administration must follow federal court rulings and stop actions deemed illegal. Meanwhile, 19% believe the administration can ignore court rulings. Details: The Reuters-Ipsos poll, conducted June 11-12, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll was conducted from May 30-June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults aged 18 and over. The error estimate is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
