The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I reread it today; nothing in the law allows a president to defund PBS and NPR. In fact, Congress specifically sought to insulate public media from political pressure.

“Airplanes can’t fly without weather observations and forecasts; ships crossing the oceans rely on storm forecasts to avoid the high seas; farmers rely on seasonal forecasts to plant and harvest their crops which feed us.”

Call me old fashioned, but I think any president creating a meme coin hustle to recruit anonymous financial backers and rewarding the biggest spenders with “a night to remember” private dinner with the president kinda feels like an impeachable offense.

COMPARE: the results of fighting back to the results of not fighting back

Statement on the Academic Freedom and Independence of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education The American Political Science Association (APSA) is deeply concerned by recent attacks on the independence of colleges and universities in the United States. Over the past few weeks, there have been…

"Wine moms" or "resistance libs" or whatever they're called are basically the only faction that hasn't shamed or embarrassed themselves over the last decade, and probably our only hope, so put respect on their f'ing name.

If you want a sober, expert description of why we should now characterize the US as a competitive authoritarian regime —not a democracy— and what we can do about it— I highly recommend spending an hour listening to Erica Chenoweth and Steven Levitsky in this video: www.youtube.com/live/nS-nJQN...

We are speedrunning the Declaration of Independence, folks.

Those trying to understand the tariffs as economic policy are dangerously naive. No, the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief. 1/ A 🧵 to explain his plan and how we fight back.

I thought Congress was in charge of setting spending levels but what do I know

Is it really too much to ask media outlets reporting on invading Greenland & Canada to lead with "THIS IS WILDLY ILLEGALLY UNDER BOTH OUR NATO AND UN TREATY COMMITMENTS, WHICH ARE ALSO PART OF US LAW"? The normalization of this is wildly inappropriate & there is no excuse for it.

Elites who have failed the Lando test: -Columbia University -Harvard University (in process) -Paul Weiss -Wilkie Farr -Skadden Arps -Noah Feldman

As @ericjeisner.bsky.social and I explain here, the Constitution is only as strong as the people who breathe life into its words. That's why John Tyler could get away with an unconstitutional claim to be president—an error that has stuck. If we don't stand up for the Constitution, it quickly erodes.

The rule of law, being destroyed right in front of us. "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law"

Note to editors and producers: If an executive order demands action that is illegal or outside of the president’s authority, then you should not describe it as ordering something. You should say it seeks to achieve some outcome and then note it is illegal or beyond the power of the president.

Members should just be posting these every day

This is a very important point. Breathlessly vague headlines and summaries of these executive orders created for the executive powers it does not have. This kind of press contributed to authoritarian regime change.

Trump's Executive Order regarding election regulations are empty words 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼

Confederate monuments were *quite literally* an effort to “perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history” by promoting the Lost Cause work of white supremacists who wanted to rewrite the history of the Civil War and, yes, Reconstruction.

"Creating a ruckus" is his euphemism for wrote an op-ed in a newspaper. The Constitution protects all people under U.S. jurisdiction (not just citizens) from government actions penalizing them for speech, use of the free press, or peaceful assembly.

President Trump Issues Dangerous Executive Order That Would Shift to Presidency More Power Over the Conduct of Federal Elections and Potentially Disenfranchise Millions of Voters electionlawblog.org?p=149153

The President does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to dictate the content of voter registration forms. This EO is an incredibly dangerous power grab. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

This is, quite literally, how democracies die www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/u...

So WIRED talked to actual federal auditors about how government auditing works—and how DOGE is doing the opposite. “In no uncertain terms is this an audit,” claims the second auditor. “It’s a heist, stealing a vast amount of government data."

“There are 13 million legal foreign residents (green card holders) in the US. If the administration can deport Khalil, it means those 13 million people must live in fear if they dare speak up or publish something that runs afoul of government views.” journalism.columbia.edu/news/cjs-fac...

Chief Judge Boasberg rules in favor of @aclu.org and @democracyforward.org on #AlienEnemiesAct Temporary Restraining Order granted. Based on strength of argument that "the AEA does not provide a basis for the President's proclamation." Clearly the right legal outcome Read @ilyasomin.bsky.social

“coordinated personnel changes– are consistent with a strategy of “personalizing” the security forces. That personalization is a hallmark of strongman rule.” theconversation.com/what-happens...

1/ This is wildly illegal. That is not a question on which reasonable legally informed folks can disagree. It doesn't fucking matter that he ran on doing illegal things. They are still illegal. And striking at Congress's power of the purse is worse than illegal. It's anti-constitutional.

I'll just repeat what I said yesterday: This is wildly illegal and anti-constitutional.

Re-upping this again as more people read about the Khalil case. More information to come, but nothing in WP and NYT so far contradicts original reporting. Again, it DOES NOT MATTER what you think about him or his cause. Either government is bound by the law for all of us or we're all at their mercy.

The Trump 2 modus operandi is turning routine operations into tradable favors.

This is very obviously going to be a protection racket, where Trump can at the stroke of a pen destroy or save your business depending on how compliant you are.

good thread. the numbers are striking, but confirmation of the common sense notion that hyper concentrated wealth is a priori an existential threat to democracy

No one in DC can bargain in good faith with Trump because he will not follow laws passed by Congress. No one internationally can bargain in good faith with Trump because he will not respect agreements made by the United States. Being a counterparty just makes you a target for another shakedown.

Unconstitutional. Appropriations bills are laws. If the president is not bound by them, he can make laws by fiat and is acting like a dictator. No Democrat can vote for any appropriations or debt ceiling bill while this is happening.

Apparently many people aren’t aware that their state health plans ARE Medicaid funded. MoveOn published this list.

For no particular reason—not at all related to Trump's decision to roll back beneficial ownership reporting at the Treasury Dept—I want to remind people that, in many states, it is easier to set up an anonymous shell corporation than it is to get a library card www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...

The Soviet Union also used to falsify statistics

Trump Administration may be on track to put its thumb on critical GDP data: “Doing so could potentially complicate or distort a fundamental measure of the U.S. economy’s health.” Via AP.

Americans voted for Trump, but don't support his agenda Our look at 300 polls asking support for Trump's policies:

I am keeping a diary of daily events, as they unfold open.substack.com/pub/adamprze... It is available to everyone. I am new to Substack, so please let me know if something is wrong with the link or the file.

periodic reminder that 1. the formalist argument against Humphrey’s Executor proves more than even Scalia could swallow, and 2. tenure limitations on executive offices and enforcement of federal law by people the president cdnt control both go back to the founding of republic

Civic heroes, all of them

The American National Election Study has been fielded at every US presidential election since 1948 and has led the world in the study of elections. The political withdrawal of funding for it would be destructive and a dangerous signal regarding the future of survey research in America.

i am going to put a finer point on this: executive orders are not laws. and they certainly are not royal decrees. they are interpretations of existing law for the purposes of enforcement. the fact that so many people are treating them as laws is actually driving me a bit insane.

www.foreignaffairs.com/united-state... This is by far the best, clearest and most realistic analysis of what we're in for that I've seen.

The ABA supports the rule of law. Read full message: www.americanbar.org/news/abanews...