Democratic blueprint

‘Not backing down’: How the Minneapolis mayor’s response to ICE could become a Democratic blueprint

By Eric Bradner, Jeremy Herb

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey delivered a stern message one week ago to federal agents following the deadly shooting of a Minnesota woman who was protesting their efforts to round up immigrants in the state. “Get the f**k out of Minneapolis,” Frey said.

The remark immediately put Frey in the national spotlight and at the center of the fiercest battle yet over President Donald Trump’s federal crackdown in cities across the country.

Tensions between local protesters and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have only continued to boil over, after a federal agent shot and injured a man Wednesday night who had allegedly assaulted the agent. Seeking to deescalate the situation, Frey urged protesters to go home afterward.

“We cannot counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos,” he said Wednesday night, after local police said protesters were shooting fireworks at officers. “For those that have peacefully protested, I applaud you. For those that are taking the bait, you are not helping, and you are not helping the undocumented immigrants of our city. You are not helping the people who call this place home.”

The city’s efforts over the past week to respond to the ICE crackdown — and the Trump administration’s decision to double down on its Minneapolis surge — demonstrates the difficult situation Frey and other state and local Democrats face. Standing up to the Trump administration bought Frey respect in his overwhelmingly Democratic city — but it also made him a target of the White House and its Republican allies.

Polls show that public opinion has shifted rapidly against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement actions. A CNN poll conducted by SSRS found that 56% of Americans believe Renee Good’s killing was an inappropriate use of force, while just 26% of Americans say that they view the shooting as an appropriate use of force. Americans say, 51% to 31%, that ICE enforcement actions are making cities less safe rather than safer.

But Trump, who campaigned on pledges to lead a mass deportation effort, has dug in, placing a particular emphasis on Minnesota — a Democratic-led state that he wrongly said he believes he won in three consecutive presidential elections. His administration plans to send another 1,000 immigration agents to the state. And on Thursday he threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old law, to deploy American troops to Minnesota if local political leaders don’t “stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking” immigration agents.

Frey and other Minnesota leaders have responded with a lawsuit accusing federal agents of making warrantless arrests and using excessive force, while Frey has been a constant presence on national and state television.

“This is retribution-style politics,” Frey told CNN in an interview. “This is drama. This is performance politics at its worst, and it’s hurting people and it’s making us less safe.”

‘The more inflammatory action’

As the legal battle plays out behind the scenes, Frey has been at the forefront of the fight for public sentiment, appearing frequently on television.

He pushed back when facing an initial round of criticism from Republicans that his rhetoric was inflammatory.

“I’m so sorry if I offended their Disney princess ears,” Frey told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week. “If we’re talking about what’s inflammatory, on the one hand, you’ve got someone who dropped an f-bomb. On the other hand, you’ve got someone who killed somebody else. … I think the more inflammatory action is killing somebody.”

Frey has also gone onto conservative networks like Fox News to argue that the administration jumped to conclusions to immediately defend the agent and shouldn’t have blocked the state from investigating.

As Democrats look for potent ways to counter Trump’s federal crackdown on Democratic-leaning cities, Frey has emerged as a surprising antidote: a Midwestern mayor with an aggressive message of how to fight back against a president with three years left in his term.

“In a moment of crisis like this, in a moment where communities are being terrorized, you have to stand up with absolute clarity and a sense of moral rectitude and sense of purpose — not backing down,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin, a former Minnesota state party chair and long-time friend of Frey.

The conflict with ICE is the latest in a long string of crises to face Minnesota in recent months. Last June, state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated in their home. In August, two children were killed and 30 people injured in a mass shooting at a church in Minneapolis. In recent weeks, the state has faced an onslaught of criticism over allegations of widespread fraud in federally-funded social programs — leading to Democratic Gov. Tim Walz forgoing reelection.

Video of ICE agent Jonathan Ross shooting and killing Good has sparked a partisan division, with Republican lawmakers and commentators arguing Ross was acting in self-defense and lambasting Frey’s outspokenness.

Rep. Tom Emmer, a Minnesota Republican and House majority whip, told CNN Frey was “an embarrassment” after his statement last week.

“Jacob Frey is a disgrace,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “Immediately after an ICE officer was attacked, he rushed to publicly lie and incite more violence against law enforcement. He must stop smearing law enforcement and apologize for his lies.”

‘What Frey said’

When Frey told ICE agents to “get the f**k out” at a news conference last week, councilwoman Linea Palmisano initially cringed. “Ooh, did he have to do that?” she thought.

But she quickly realized Frey was speaking for much of the city.

That evening, Palmisano asked her 14-year-old son if he’d seen the mayor on television. “Mom, it was perfect,” he told her. Over the weekend, moms in the bleachers at her son’s basketball game were buzzing about Frey’s comment — one texted her a t-shirt she’d mocked up with the mayor’s words on it, asking if she could get it to Frey.

The same day, a friend attending an anti-ICE rally texted her a photo of a protester holding a sign that simply read: “What Frey said.”

“He didn’t really realize it in the moment, but he really grabbed the megaphone,” Palmisano said of Frey. “In that moment in time, Kristi Noem and Donald Trump had already started laying down the narrative. And I think what he said jumped right up onto that level of the stage as a rebuttal.”

In the days that followed, Frey emerged as the face of the opposition to Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota — repeatedly lambasting the actions of more than 2,000 ICE agents deployed to his city and the surrounding area.

For Frey, the 44-year-old mayor who was narrowly elected to his third term this past November, the protests across Minneapolis are reminiscent of the first time he was thrust into the national spotlight in 2020, when civil unrest over the police killing of George Floyd took over Minneapolis and spread across the United States.

Frey faced criticism from both the left and the right in the aftermath of the protests and violence that followed: Progressives in the city loudly booed the mayor when he refused to support defunding the police, while Trump and conservatives pointed to protestors burning a police precinct as evidence of failed governance.

“I think we found ourselves in 2020 in a situation in which there just were no good options,” said Melvin Carter, who was mayor of neighboring St. Paul in 2020. “And we had to try to figure out how to navigate the best of the worst options. I think Mayor Frey did that very well, quite frankly.”

Frey told CNN he’s learned lessons from handling the Floyd protests that have prepared him for this moment.

“I’m not the same mayor or leader that I was in 2019,” Frey said. “Over time, you learn that there’s a long arc. And if you do the right thing‚ while you certainly might not gain love in the moment — in fact you might gain a whole lot of wrath — over time people respect it.”

Tangling with ‘bullies’ — and progressives

Frey and Palmisano were first elected to the city council together in 2013. The two are political allies, representing the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party, while progressives hold a council majority. She said she and Frey share a penchant for cursing, recalling when his 4-year-old daughter picked up the phrase “f**k ‘em.” But those were private conversations; Frey’s comment Thursday was on national television.

Still, she said, Frey’s confrontational approach to the Trump administration is consistent with his character.

She described the mayor as someone who “literally runs at bullies.” She said Frey — a distance runner who grew up in Northern Virginia, attended law school at Villanova University and moved to Minneapolis after graduation when he fell in love with the city in a 2009 visit for the Twin Cities Marathon — once chased after a man who had run off after heckling him in a park because Frey wanted to strike up a conversation.

“When people want to be trolls from what they think is a safe distance, they get Jacob Frey in their face,” she said. “So it doesn’t surprise me at all that without regard for himself or his own safety, he would run after Donald Trump.”

In 2020, Frey’s refusal to support the “defund the police” movement angered progressives and led to a fierce challenge in his 2021 reelection bid. He narrowly fended off a challenge from the left again in November 2025, winning a third term, 53% to 47%.

In 2021, Frey opposed a ballot measure to overhaul policing in the city in the wake of Floyd’s killing, which Minneapolis voters rejected. Frey and the city worked with the Justice Department to agree to police reforms in the final weeks of the Biden administration. When the Trump administration cancelled the agreement in May, Frey swiftly said the city would stand by the changes to policing.

“He juggled the interests of his constituents and the police department he leans on to keep the city safe,” said Kristen Clarke, the former head of the Civil Division at the Justice Department, which reached the agreement with the city.

How to be ‘a constant presence’

Minnesota has also turned to the courts to try to stop the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

This week, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the Twin Cities sued Noem and the Trump administration to try to block the surge of ICE agents, alleging that the immigration operation amounted to “a federal invasion of the Twin Cities.”

A federal judge on Wednesday declined to issue a temporary restraining order as Minnesota officials sought, asking for more responses before issuing a ruling and noting that the lawsuit presents “somewhat frontier issues in constitutional law.”

Frey told CNN that Minnesota leaders were looking to all possible avenues try to fight back against the federal government. “You use the tools that you have, and especially you lean on the law and the Constitution, which is firmly on our side, because what we are experiencing right now does truly feel like an invasion,” he said.

Carter, who left office as St. Paul mayor this year, said one of the lessons that the city leaders learned from the aftermath of Floyd’s killing was the need to get their message out and be a “constant presence.”

“How do we keep on communicating — even if I don’t have anything different to say — in a way that at least helps people to feel some sense of security, so they can brace themselves for what’s ahead?” Carter said. “That’s something I see Mayor Frey doing is communicating very intentionally, very consistently.”

Even as Frey’s national profile has been elevated and Walz has ended his reelection campaign, Frey told CNN he is not interested in running for higher office.

“I’ve got a job to do here,” he said.

NGC 7023

These cosmic clouds have blossomed 1,300 light-years away in the fertile starfields of the constellation Cepheus. Called the Iris Nebula, NGC 7023 is not the only nebula to evoke the imagery of flowers. Still, this deep telescopic image shows off the Iris Nebula's range of colors and symmetries embedded in surrounding fields of interstellar dust. Within the Iris itself, dusty nebular material surrounds a hot, young star. The dominant color of the brighter reflection nebula is blue, characteristic of dust grains reflecting starlight. Central filaments of the reflection nebula glow with a faint reddish photoluminescence as some dust grains effectively convert the star's invisible ultraviolet radiation to visible red light. Infrared observations indicate that this nebula contains complex carbon molecules known as PAHs. The dusty blue petals of the Iris Nebula span about six light-years.

Let’s re-regulate fucking air travel again...........

Ryanair chief unloads on ‘liar’ Trump in rare corporate blast at US president

Airline boss Michael O’Leary also tells POLITICO what the EU’s top three achievements have been … and why “Parliament is a talking shop of idiots.”

By Tommaso Lecca

U.S. President Donald Trump is a "liar" who is "historically wrong" on many of the major geopolitical issues facing the world in 2026, fumed Ryanair chief Michael O'Leary in an interview with POLITICO.

The outspoken airline CEO's comments mark a rare broadside against Trump from the corporate world, where business titans usually aim to avoid offending the mercurial American leader.

O'Leary laid into Trump — whom he last talked to in 2016 — for not supporting Ukraine against Russia and for imposing tariffs that have upended global trade.

“I think Trump is historically wrong on Ukraine and on Russia, he’s historically wrong on tariffs,” said O’Leary, who did grant that the president was right in complaining that European countries aren't pulling their weight on defense.

O'Leary added that if he were an American, he would be “a natural Republican.” However, he would not sign up to a party led by Trump. “I don’t have any faith or trust in Trump, who has proven himself to be again and again a liar,” he said.

It's not the first time that O'Leary has lambasted Trump, making him a curio in the corporate world, which has been largely deferential to the U.S. president since he returned to office. However, O'Leary has long said that Ryanair has no intention of flying across the Atlantic. The airline is also one of Boeing's largest customers, insulating it from political blowback.

Defend freedoms

Discount airline boss O'Leary, who has long railed at what he considers excessive red tape he says is choking EU companies, added that the twin threats of Trump and Russia mean Europe should slash “stupid travel taxes” and regulations to regain its competitive mojo.

“There’s a war in Ukraine. You’ve [got] Trump at the White House. No, let’s re-regulate fucking air travel again,” he said.

Political and economic shifts mean that the EU should defend the single market — one of its greatest accomplishments, said O'Leary, who has often bashed the bloc's political leadership using salty language.

“I am a huge supporter of the single market in Europe, it has been the greatest success of certainly my lifetime,” O’Leary said Wednesday on the sidelines of a press conference in Brussels.

The Ryanair CEO listed what he feels are the top three achievements of the EU: “Low fare air travel, roaming charges and Erasmus, which has been one of the great ways of knitting young people … bringing Europe much closer together. But we’re going to have to start defending these freedoms.”

'Talking shop of idiots'

But O’Leary lashed out at efforts to increase taxes and regulation — from Belgium’s proposed higher aviation tax aimed at boosting more sustainable transportation, like rail, to the European Parliament’s proposal to increase passenger rights, including allowing them to bring more luggage aboard for free.

He called Parliament’s draft “a mad, illegal proposal,” and added: “The Parliament is a talking shop of idiots where all they do is invent, impose more costs and more regulation on European consumers and citizens.”

He also slammed Belgium’s aviation tax hike — which the country’s transport minister defended in an interview with POLITICO. 

In response to the tax proposal, Ryanair said it would cut 1 million seats at Brussels South Charleroi Airport in 2026.

Since the tax raise wasn’t scrapped, O’Leary announced Wednesday that Ryanair will reduce travel capacity in the country by an additional million seats in 2027 and cut its presence at the Charleroi base from 19 to 15 planes.

Rather than taxing passengers, O’Leary called for the bloc’s Emissions Trading System carbon pricing scheme to also apply to long-haul flights to destinations outside the EU. Currently, the ETS only applies to intra-EU flights and does not affect more polluting intercontinental routes.

“If you're really serious about the environmental taxes here in Belgium, put ETS on American flights, put ETS on Asian flights and put ETS on Gulf flights,” he said.

But that could spark a clash with the U.S., which has warned against climate efforts that affect its businesses. This is “never going to happen while Trump is at the White House,” O'Leary said.

Fucking dumpster fire.......

Americans give Trump low marks on handling of economy as midterms likely to center on affordability

Sixty-one percent of voters told a CNN poll released Friday that they disapprove of the way Trump is handling the economy.

By Gregory Svirnovskiy

Americans are increasingly holding Donald Trump responsible for an economy they give low marks. And with the midterms now just under 10 months away, they have less faith than ever in the president’s ability to make things better.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in a CNN poll released Friday said they disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, tied for the worst mark of the president’s career in the White House as he approaches the one-year mark of his second term. And just 42 percent of respondents think the economy will be very good or somewhat good in a year’s time, down from 56 percent of adults expressing that optimism when Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Americans overwhelmingly cast the economy and stubbornly high cost of living as the most important issue facing the country, standing at 20 points higher than the second-ranked issue, the state of American democracy.

The numbers come as Republicans work to recalibrate their political messaging around affordability ahead of the upcoming midterms, in which Trump has conceded the party in power may be hard-pressed to retain their governing trifecta.

In the last few weeks, Trump has proposed temporarily capping credit card interest rates — a move unpopular among GOP leadership — scrapped Biden-era fuel economy requirements and released a new health care framework calling for, among other things, greater pricing transparency from insurance companies.

And the White House got good news in this week’s inflation report, which showed prices climbing at a lower rate than expected in December. “LOW and UNDER CONTROL,” the White House proclaimed on X.

“President Trump is making America affordable again through his proven economic formula of powerful tariffs, fair trade deals, massive middle-class tax cuts, energy dominance and aggressive deregulation,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a White House briefing Thursday. “The overwhelmingly positive economic data released this week underscores the significant progress the president has already delivered.”

But Trump has struggled to stay on message, and even Republicans say he hasn’t necessarily delivered on the economy. Just roughly 4 in 10 GOP respondents in a January AP-NORC poll said he had improved the cost of living since returning to the White House.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The CNN poll was conducted by web and telephone survey Jan. 9-12, with a random sample of 1,209 adults. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

‘Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard’: Republicans amp up their resistance to Trump’s Greenland push

GOP lawmakers are stepping up their warnings and engaging in diplomacy as the president's threats escalate.

By Jordain Carney

President Donald Trump is talking about taking over Greenland by any means necessary. Republicans in Congress are trying to scare him back to reality.

As Trump continually threatens to bring the Danish territory into the U.S. over the objections of key global allies and the island’s elected representatives, some GOP lawmakers are stepping up their warnings and engaging in diplomacy as Democrats prepare to put the other party on record opposing a military invasion.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) predicted members on both sides of the aisle would lock arms and require congressional signoff if it became clear Trump was preparing imminent military action.

“If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Tillis said.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) went further, predicting that it would lead to impeachment and calling Trump’s Greenland obsession “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The blunt public messaging comes as lawmakers try to reassure U.S. allies, including Denmark, in private. A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers are in Copenhagen Friday to try to drive home in person the message that military action does not have support on Capitol Hill.

“Greenland needs to be viewed as our ally, not as an asset, and I think that’s what you’re hearing with this delegation,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said after meeting with Danish and Greenlandic leaders there.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune did not join the delegation but he largely endorsed the message the contingent is sending in comments to reporters Thursday, saying “there’s certainly not an appetite here for some of the options that have been talked about or considered” — an apparent reference to military action.

The pushback amounts to one of the most profound breaches yet seen between GOP lawmakers and the president in Trump’s second term. So far the Republican uneasiness over Trump’s brash foreign policy moves have not resulted in any successful steps to restrain him.

Following the operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro earlier this month, five Republicans joined Democrats to advance a measure restraining Trump from future military incursions in the South American country. But on Wednesday, two of them reversed course and ended the threat after the administration made some commitments regarding future action.

Democrats believe Greenland — sovereign territory belonging to a NATO ally — could be different. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who co-authored the Venezuela measure and signaled a raft of new war-powers legislation, acknowledged to reporters Wednesday that prospects were dim that a veto-proof number of GOP senators would join Democrats’ efforts.

But “we might on Greenland,” Kaine added.

Thune’s predecessor as Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, spoke out in a floor speech where he said military action against Greenland would be “an unprecedented act of strategic self-harm” that risks “incinerating” NATO alliances.

Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), meanwhile, said he was “deeply concerned” about the administration’s Greenland message.

“I don’t think it is productive, and I don’t think this is the way to treat an ally,” he said, adding that he “would be opposed to military action in Greenland.”

But even as more Republicans speak out about Trump’s Greenland ambitions, it’s not clear they could put preemptive guardrails on his actions in this Congress even if they wanted to. Instead, they appear to be hoping that Trump will read the writing on the wall and realize he doesn’t have support on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Democrats are vowing to introduce a spate of war powers resolutions, including on Greenland, in the coming weeks and months. Yet even Tillis, who predicted overwhelming support for such a resolution in the case of “imminent” military action, said he would not currently support a measure to stop Trump from using force in the region because it would “legitimize” a threat he doesn’t think is now real.

Instead, Tillis is using his megaphone as a retiring senator to launch broadsides against Trump’s top aides, whom he blames for some excesses of the administration. While a Greenland takeover might be supported by hard-line deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Tillis said, “it’s not the position of the U.S. government.”That, he said, is “another reason I’m going to Copenhagen.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who initially supported the Venezuela war powers resolution before backtracking, also said in an interview that he was not on board with a similar effort for Greenland.

“Not prospectively,” Hawley said, adding that any such measure “needs to respond to really particular facts.”

Any formal GOP pushback is certain to include Murkowski, a co-founder of the Senate Arctic Caucus, who introduced a nonbinding resolution Thursday with Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Bacon that would affirm the U.S. partnership with Greenland and Denmark. The resolution stresses the “mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” and that any military action would need congressional authorization.

Murkowski, who also met with Danish diplomats in Washington this week before traveling to Copenhagen, said she would support a Greenland war powers resolution if it came to that. She also introduced a bill with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that would prohibit the administration from using funding to unilaterally blockade, occupy, annex or assert control over Greenland or any other territory belonging to a NATO country.

“We are operating in times where we’re having conversations about things that we never thought even possible,” Murkowski said. “To use the name Greenland in the context of a war powers resolution is absolutely stunning.”

While a war powers resolution can be fast-tracked to the floor, Greenland’s allies in the Senate can’t easily force a vote on the NATO measure or even the nonbinding resolution. And some Senate Republicans expressed skepticism that party leaders would let those latter measures go anywhere.

“I’m sure Thune will jump on it like a bad rash,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said.

Gutting GOP seats

Virginia inches closer to gutting GOP seats through redistricting

Democrats argue it’s crucial for lawmakers in Virginia to alter maps.

By Brakkton Booker

Virginia Democrats on Friday paved the way to aggressively gerrymander in the state — the latest step in a process they hope will hand them as many as four more congressional seats in this fall’s midterm elections.

The Democrat-dominated Virginia Senate passed a constitutional amendment along party lines that allows state lawmakers to begin redrawing congressional maps. The final decision will eventually go before voters in a spring special election. Earlier this week, the House of Delegates approved the measure by 62-33.

Virginia is the last opportunity for national Democrats in the pre-midterm redistricting wars. The party is seeking to keep pace with Republican-led states including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina, which have all gerrymandered at the urging of President Donald Trump, to give Republicans an advantage this fall and help maintain GOP control of the House. California Democrats previously pushed through a major redistricting effort.

Democrats argue it’s crucial for lawmakers in Virginia to alter maps, arguing it helps the party keep pace with GOP-led states that have already enacted mid-decade changes to their congressional lines. Democrats won unified control of the state in last November’s elections; Democratic-Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger will be sworn in on Saturday.

Ahead of the amendment’s passage, Republican state Sen. Mark Peake accused Democratic of initiating a push to redraw maps to punish Trump.

“Because you hate the man that’s in the White House, and that’s really the only thing that’s behind this … you want to blunt his power, then [Democrats are] going to politically gerrymander and take away the rights of the people,” he said.

Virginia Republicans contend that state Democrats are conducting a blatant power grab — the same argument Democrats use in criticizing Trump’s redistricting push — and reneging on a voter-passed amendment approved a few years ago giving authority to draw congressional lines to a bipartisan commission of slate lawmakers and citizens.

“They didn’t imagine that we’re going to have a hyper-partisan, fascist ideologue telling state legislatures around the country to basically … redesign their districts to maximize his own personal political power,” Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, a Democrat, said of the president’s push to prolong control of the House.

Democrats currently hold six congressional seats in Virginia, while Republicans hold five. State lawmakers, including House Speaker Don Scott and state Senate President pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas, have said they support a new map that would give Democrats a 10-1 advantage.

Democratic party leaders this week suggested they would release a mock-up of their preferred map by the end of this month to give voters a sense of what they’d be voting for.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the Democrat’s group running point on the party’s national redistricting push, presented two maps to Virginia lawmakers: One would render a 9-2 party advantage and shield Republican incumbents Reps. Ben Cline and Morgan Griffith. The second 10-1 map would leave Griffth’s seat as the lone Republican-held district.

Virginians for Fair Elections, a Democrat-affiliated group running the statewide campaign to urge voters in the Commonwealth to vote “yes” on the pending ballot measure, released a video ad Thursday laying out its case for redistricting. “Virginia, here we believe in fairness especially when it comes to our elections but right now fair elections are under unprecedented threat,” a narrator says over a still black and white image of Trump.

The campaign is being headed by Kéren Charles Dongo, a longtime political operative in the state who served as both campaign manager and state director for Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Virginia-based GOP strategist Michael Young has been tapped to lead the upcoming Republican campaign to urge voters to scuttle the ballot initiative, according to four GOP strategists who were granted anonymity to discuss the matter. While he would not confirm his role in leading the Republican’s “no” campaign, he blasted Democrats for usurping political norms.

“Virginia Democrats broke the law and violated the Virginia Constitution to get this far,” Young said via text. “We will fight them in any available venue if they continue to pursue this lawless power grab.”

Threatens to use congressional ‘tools’

US senator threatens to use congressional ‘tools’ to block Trump’s Greenland grab

Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski warns Trump U.S. Congress wields “power of the purse.”

By Seb Starcevic

U.S. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski threatened Friday to invoke congressional powers to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from following through on his threats to seize Greenland.

Speaking to reporters in Copenhagen after taking part in a bipartisan delegation of U.S. lawmakers meeting with Danish and Greenlandic officials, Murkowski — an Alaskan who is a regular critic of the president — said it was “an important message for the people of the Kingdom of Denmark to understand” that the U.S. has three branches of government.

“In Congress, we have tools at our disposal under our constitutional authority that speaks specifically to the power of the purse through appropriations,” she said, referring to congressional control of federal spending. She added that Greenland, a self-ruling Danish territory, should be seen as an “ally” rather than an “asset.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, who also took part in the visit by House and Senate lawmakers, said he would push ahead with legislation to curb Trump’s power to act unilaterally.

A bipartisan group of American lawmakers introduced a bill this week to prevent Washington from invading a fellow NATO member. (Greenland, as a Danish territory, is part of the Atlantic alliance.) Congress can force votes on constraining presidential war powers, but recent efforts to rein in Trump have not succeeded. Even if it did pass, the White House has asserted any such measure would be unconstitutional.

Coons also undercut Trump’s arguments about Greenland from a national security perspective.

“Are there real, pressing threats to the security of Greenland from China and Russia?” Coons said. “No, not today.”

Trump has invoked the specter of Russian and Chinese warships in the Arctic as an argument for seizing control of Greenland. Conns said such claims were “rhetoric” rather than “reality.”

The president’s threats have sparked a full-blown diplomatic transatlantic crisis. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt met with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier this week at the White House to discuss the matter as European nations rushed to deploy troops to the Arctic territory.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said after the Vance-Rubio summit that the president was still focused on acquiring Greenland.

Trump warned in remarks Friday he “may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland.”

The Kremlin’s chief spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Friday the situation in Greenland was highly unusual “from the point of view of international law,” adding Moscow would “watch together with the whole world” as events unfold.

Upholds California Congressional Map

Federal Court Upholds California Congressional Map, Bolstering Dems’ Chances of Retaking the House

Voters adopted Prop. 50 to counter gerrymandering in Texas, the court ruled.

Ari Berman

In a big win for Democrats, a federal court panel on Wednesday upheld a new voter-approved congressional map in California that was designed to give Democrats five new seats in the U.S. House, offsetting the mid-decade gerrymander passed by Texas Republicans over the summer.

Republicans challenged the map after voters overwhelmingly approved it last November, arguing that it was a racial gerrymander intended to benefit Hispanic voters. But Judge Josephine Staton, an appointee of President Barack Obama, and District Judge Wesley Hsu, an appointee of President Joe Biden, disagreed, finding that “the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming.” They cited a 2019 opinion from the US Supreme Court ruling that partisan gerrymandering claims could not be challenged in federal court and concluded in this case that California “voters intended to adopt the Proposition 50 Map as a partisan counterweight to Texas’s redistricting.”

Judge Kenneth Lee, an appointee of President Donald Trump on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a dissenting opinion, saying he would block the map because Democrats allegedly bolstered Hispanic voting strength in one district in the Central Valley, “as part of a racial spoils system to award a key constituency that may be drifting away from the Democratic party.”

Republicans will surely appeal to the Supreme Court, but may not have better luck there. When the Court upheld Texas’s congressional map in November after a lower court found that is discriminated against minority voters, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion maintaining that it was “indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

Though the Roberts Court has frequently sided with Republicans in election cases, it would be the height of hypocrisy for the Court to uphold Texas’s map, then strike down California’s.

The California map is a major reason why Democrats have unexpectedly pulled close to even with Republicans in the gerrymandering arms race started by Trump. But the Supreme Court could still give Republicans another way to massively rig the midterms if it invalidates the key remaining section of the Voting Rights Act in a redistricting case pending from Louisiana, which could shift up to 19 House seats in the GOP’s favor, making it very difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to retake the House in 2026.

Human Health Is Now Literally Worthless

In the Eyes of Trump’s EPA, Human Health Is Now Literally Worthless

How the agency’s new math favors polluters over people.

Umair Irfan

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a major step toward changing its math to favor polluters over people: It’s going to stop tallying up the dollar value of lives saved and hospital visits avoided by air pollution regulations.

Instead, the agency will consider the effects of regulations without attaching a price tag to human life.

In particular, the EPA is changing how it conducts the cost-benefit analysis of regulations for two major pollutants, fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns—usually referred to as PM2.5—and ozone. The change was buried in a document published this month analyzing the economic impacts of final pollution regulations for power plants, arguing that the way the EPA historically calculated the economic benefits of regulations had too much uncertainty and gave people “a false sense of precision.”

So to fix this, the EPA will stop tabulating the benefits altogether “until the Agency is confident enough in the modeling to properly monetize those impacts.”

The news was first reported by the New York Times. On X, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin pushed back on the reporting, calling it “another dishonest, fake news claim” and that the agency is still considering lives saved when setting pollution limits.

“You’re not able to compare the cost to the benefits unless you’re talking apples-to-apples, or in this case dollars-to-dollars.”

I spoke with several experts, including former EPA officials, and in fact, the change could lead to worsening air quality and harm public health.

The EPA exists to regulate pollution that harms people, and when it comes to things like ozone and tiny particles, there is robust evidence of the damage they can do, contributing to heart attacks and asthma attacks. Measured over populations, air pollution takes years off of people’s lives. Every year in the United States alone, air pollution pushes 135,000 people into early graves.

“There is a lot of science that shows very clearly that being exposed to increasing levels of PM2.5 has significant health impacts,” said Janet McCabe, who served as the EPA’s deputy administrator under President Joe Biden.

Anytime the EPA wants to issue a new regulation—say, revising how much mercury a power plant is allowed to emit—it looks at both the costs and the benefits before finalizing the rule. The EPA adds up how much companies would likely have to spend on things like installing upgraded scrubbers in smokestacks. Then the agency estimates the economic benefit of imposing the regulation, such as more days with cleaner air or fewer workers calling out sick. The biggest benefits usually come from improving health through things like avoiding hospital visits and reducing early deaths.

There is some fuzziness in the numbers on both sides of the ledger though. If a bunch of companies turn to a handful of suppliers for pollution control equipment, that could drive up compliance costs. And how exactly do you price a hypothetical emergency room trip that didn’t happen?

“In my experience at EPA, there’s never a perfect estimate of costs or benefits,” McCabe said. Yet even with imperfect calculations, regulators could get a decent sense of whether the juice was worth the squeeze when it comes to a new pollution standard, and the public would get a window into how the decision was made.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA found that enforcing the more stringent PM2.5 regulations it issued in 2024 would add up to $46 billion in health benefits by 2032, vastly more than the cost of complying with the rule.

The EPA now effectively wants to put receipts from the benefits side of the ledger through the shredder.

In theory, the EPA could still include the number of lives saved in how it considers the upside of a regulation without attaching a dollar value to it. But experts say that in practice, leaving the dollar costs of compliance in the equation and ignoring the economic value of the health benefits will likely skew the balance toward less regulation.

“You’re not able to compare the cost to the benefits unless you’re talking apples-to-apples, or in this case dollars-to-dollars,” said Christa Hasenkopf, director of the Clean Air Program at the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute.

This change in math is part of a broader pattern at the EPA—and across the federal government—of just measuring and counting fewer things under the second Trump Administration. The EPA has already closed its Office of Research and Development, which was meant to provide the scientific basis for environmental regulations, like tracking the effects of toxic chemicals on the human body.

With less data on science and economics, agencies like the EPA have less accountability for their actions as they face more pressure from the White House to cut regulations and craft policies benefiting politically favored industries. It also sets the stage for taking the teeth out of other regulations, like the Clean Air Act. The EPA has already dismantled its legal foundation for addressing climate change.

Joseph Goffman, who served as assistant administrator of the EPA’s air and radiation office under Biden, said this change in how the EPA calculates health benefits is part of a broader campaign against air pollution regulations.

“It really illustrates what the ulterior motive is and that is to mute or mask the true impact of [particulate matter] exposure and the huge benefits that flow from reducing it,” Goffman said. “Suddenly deciding that you can’t ascribe a dollar value to reducing PM really is convenient to the point of being instrumental to Zeldin’s efforts to weaken PM standards.”

If the EPA never comes up with a new way to monetize the health benefits of regulations, it’s likely that improvements in air quality will stall, and air pollution could get worse. “One would anticipate that we could see PM 2.5 levels rising across the country,” Hasenkopf said.

Crew returned to Earth earlier

Why NASA astronauts just splashed down off San Diego

The crew returned to Earth earlier than expected.

By Anna FitzGerald Guth

Four astronauts in a SpaceX spacecraft streaked across California’s clear skies last night, returning to Earth after 167 days in space.

The mission Crew-11 returned from the International Space Station about a month earlier than planned due to an undisclosed medical concern for a crew member. In the 25-year history of the station, this marks the first time anyone has left for a medical reason.

“This is a first,” Abhishek Tripathi, the director of mission operations at the UC Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory and a former Dragon mission director at SpaceX, told SFGATE. “To my knowledge, no NASA mission has ever been cut short because of a medical evacuation.”

On social media, users posted pictures and video of the capsule jetting above the San Francisco sky in the early morning hours.

Four minutes before reaching the Pacific Ocean, the astronauts began to deploy sets of parachutes to slow their speed of about 350 mph. At 12:41 a.m. Pacific time, the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule splashed down off the coast of San Diego.

A SpaceX ship recovered the spacecraft from the ocean and at around 1:30 a.m. and welcomed aboard NASA astronauts Zena Cardman and Mike Fincke, plus Kimiya Yui of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Oleg Platonov of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency.

NASA did not disclose which astronaut is ill.

“This mission brought Crew 11 safely home, [and the astronauts] are all safe and in good spirits,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said during a news conference early Thursday morning. “All crew members are currently undergoing the routine post splashdown medical evaluation. The crew member of concern is doing fine. We will share updates on their health as soon as it’s appropriate to do so.”

If the medical situation had been less stable, it would have been possible to bring the astronauts back from the space station sooner. Yet, Isaacman acknowledged, “Obviously, we took this action because it was a serious medical condition.”

The four astronauts stayed in a San Diego-area hospital overnight and are expected to leave together for Houston on Friday, according to NASA officials. 

Dragon spacecraft, both with and without crewmembers, have been recovered off the coast of California about a dozen times before, according to Tripathi. He said the original design allowed for landing in multiple locations close to the U.S. to avoid bad weather. But SpaceX has focused more on the West Coast recently, in order to decrease the risk of spacecraft debris crashing down onto land.

“[The idea was that] there’s nothing to fly over when we’re flying over the Pacific and landing off the coast of California,” Tripathi said. “[SpaceX] is giving up a little bit of flexibility, given the weather constraint, but they think that they feel more comfortable, all things considered, landing off of the coast of California.”

Yep........

JD Vance is a piece of shit

After Renee Nicole Good's killing, SFGATE columnist Drew Magary speaks his mind

By Drew Magary

No, I’m not done talking about Renee Nicole Good. I know that the Donald Trump era has infected every living American with a goldfish brain, but not this time. No, this time I’m keen to linger on President Deathbed’s latest, nastiest atrocity. And I’m not alone. That’s because all of us saw the video, which I’ll link to right now for your reference. Please be warned that this video contains footage of an innocent woman being killed and will make you accordingly disgusted.

Now, I could show you other videos of this killing, including the one where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross says “f—king bitch” at Good after shooting her in the face. But that’s an exercise in redundancy, and it’s one that gives viewers tacit permission to overthink this, to open up avenues of thought that dismiss what is plain to every naked eye. In the middle of a Minnesota neighborhood where local residents were peacefully protesting ICE’s unwelcome presence in their state, an armed ICE officer speed-walked toward Good’s car. Good, an American citizen, attempted to drive away, only for Ross to stick his gun in the driver’s side window and start firing. Ross is a killer, and part of a federal government apparatus that is now waging open war on all Americans, with ICE as its invading force.

One of the biggest cheerleaders for that war is sitting Vice President JD Vance. After Department of Homeland Security stooge Tricia McLaughlin called Good a domestic terrorist (lie), claimed that Good was in cahoots with other “rioters” (lie), and that Good attempted to run Ross over with her car (she was driving away from the officers), Vance wasted no time in attempting to bend reality even further. This ugly, pathetic, awful man had the gall to ask Americans to say a prayer for Ross, and not the woman Ross gunned down. That counts as the nicest thing Vance said in his press briefing right after the killing. Here’s a more extensive text excerpt from his remarks, because I can’t stand to hear the man speak:

“This is a guy (Ross) who’s actually done a very, very important job for the United States of America. He’s been assaulted, he’s been attacked, he’s been injured because of it. He deserves a debt of gratitude.”

No, he doesn’t. Jonathan Ross deserves nothing but scorn, and so do you. You liar. You scum. You waste of oxygen. Waiting for the moment when all of America finally turns against Vance — and the clumsy Nazism that he embodies — is like watching a pot boil when you forgot to turn the burner on. But if I, a lone voter, have any chance to help manifest that tipping point into being, I will.

Because what is the point of JD Vance? What does he actually stand for, besides anything that Trump or his sugar daddies in the tech sector tell him to say? And how exactly did Americans benefit from the unprovoked killing of a woman literally named Good? Do you feel any safer thanks to Ross’ open cowardice? Do you feel grateful that he left Good’s children devastated, forever? Are your groceries suddenly cheaper now thanks to Ross’ heroic act of randomly shooting a woman? Did you study all of the camera angles like an NFL ref and decide that actually, Good completed the process of attempted murder? No, no, no, no, no, and no. Vance can lie, slander and spin this killing all he likes, but, thanks to the raw footage, none of it will mask the giant, neon sign blinking over his head that says THIS MAN IS AN AMORAL SACK OF S—T. A fascist. A liar. A champion of genocide.

That truth now has more virality than the lies Vance is perpetuating in the hopes of justifying Good’s killing. Exactly zero Americans benefited from this killing, and Ross had no legal case for shooting Good three times in the face. That’s why Minnesota officials are already suing the Trump administration to get ICE out of their state entirely. It’s why Minnesota civilians are viciously heckling any ICE agents they encounter out in public. It’s why public servants in that state are resigning en masse rather than comply with orders from Trump’s thoroughly corrupted Department of Justice to investigate Good’s widow for … well look, this grieving woman has clearly done SOME crimes somewhere. Why else would ICE have killed her wife in broad daylight otherwise?

You and I now understand that this is how the second Trump administration operates: shoot first, smear later. Our loaded barf bag of a president has any number of subordinates ready to carry out this doctrine, but Vance is especially deserving of your ire, and mine, right now. Because what the f—k are we doing here? Seriously, WHAT THE F—K IS THIS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE? It’s not just that Vance is championing policies that are plainly evil, but he’s championing ones that are also deeply, enragingly pointless. It’s amorality without even the pretense of functional purpose. Even if you’re a racist, you ain’t coming out ahead. Because Vance, this administration and its media subordinates want all of us dead. Look at the contempt they’re demonstrating for you, and for everyone in America, right now:

There is no middle ground to be had here. We understand who the forces of evil are in this story. Even Joe Rogan, who is paid hundreds of millions of dollars to be stupid for a living, is beginning to grasp that. Because no proud American wants to lose their country to these people. Maybe they saw something in it for them before all of this, but the water-carriers for Trump 2.0 have annihilated that idiot daydream. JD Vance, YOU are the enemy. And Renee Nicole Good deserves justice for what you, Ross and your fellow terror merchants have done.

Maybe it doesn't have to be a "Democracy". but something not insane...

You Might Not Like What Comes Next in Iran

Chances of a democratic transition are slim.

By Daniel Block

Iran’s repressive, clerical regime is fighting for its life. There are lots of reasons to hope that it collapses. The Islamic Republic is violent, corrupt and theocratic. It systematically discriminates against women and minorities, and its policies have led to economic disaster. When Iranians take to the streets to protest, the regime murders them. Little wonder, then, that everyone from Rep. President Donald Trump to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has indicated that they’d like to see the regime lose power. Trump is even considering military actions designed to make that happen. Surely, whatever comes next would be better.

Or would it?

For the last few days, I’ve been talking to people who know Iran well. They all support the protesters and oppose the current government. But they warn that anyone who expects Iran’s next regime to be democratic or peaceful may be very disappointed.

There are a few main scenarios for how the government could lose power. First, it could be deposed in a coup d’état carried out by existing officials who want to put a stop to the country’s political and economic crisis. Whatever system they set up next is unlikely to be free — coups rarely lead to democratic transitions.

Another way it might lose power would be if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his deputies are toppled by the United States. But Iran has no single, unified opposition movement that can slide in and take charge if the regime’s leaders are suddenly assassinated. Instead, Iran’s opposition is divided, and its leadership is largely in jail. What’s more, Iran would lack a clear head of state if the entire regime were to suddenly disintegrate from just domestic pressure.

“The Islamic Republic does not have an alternative to it,” Vali Nasr, a professor of Middle East studies and international affairs at Johns Hopkins and a former senior adviser to the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told me. “There is no force out there that can actually take over in a day-after scenario.”

That does not mean Iran is incapable of creating one. The country’s people, Nasr said, are adept at forming civil society groups, even in the face of repression. The state has a long constitutional tradition and a history of competitive elections. It has, in other words, the ingredients needed to build democratic institutions, at least in theory.

But the regime has ruthlessly snuffed out its competition, making it impossible to cleanly replace. What comes next may therefore not be better. In fact, it could be worse.

Revolutions — the forceable, often violent toppling of a political system — have a decidedly mixed record. The American Revolution produced a democracy. But it was something of an exception. The French Revolution was followed by an era of violent turmoil and mass executions now known as the Reign of Terror. The Russian Revolution followed a similar path: The Bolsheviks ended the Romanov dynasty, only to replace it with the even-more repressive Soviet Union. None of the Arab Spring revolutions have produced a lasting democracy (although Syria’s fate is still uncertain). Iran’s 1979 revolution downed the Shah, but it created the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian revolution is a particularly sobering modern tale. When it began, there were many potential outcomes other than “theocratic dictatorship.” The Iran of then had a variety of strong social movements with long organizational traditions, each representing different social sectors. As the uprising unfurled, they largely worked together to topple the royal government. But after they succeeded, the cooperation stopped. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the country’s leading religious figure, seized power for himself. He and his followers then proceeded to ruthlessly purge their competitors.

The result is the Iran of today. It is, admittedly, a complex authoritarian system. Unlike the People’s Republic of China or the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, the Islamic Republic does have actual republican elements: namely, elections to determine its president and parliament members. Those elections are not shams, in that candidates with different political beliefs compete and win. But the contests are ultimately controlled by the country’s supreme leader — first Khomeini, now Khamenei — who is an unelected cleric. The supreme leader, for example, effectively determines who is allowed to run in national elections, setting the bounds of competition. He (and it is always a he) also has direct control over a variety of institutions that shape Iran’s domestic and international path. That includes the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps: the preeminent branch of Iran’s armed forces.

Iranians who are opposed to the supreme leader — which, today, is most of them — still make their voices heard. That includes through mass street protests, like the ones happening now. Some particularly dedicated and courageous foes have even built followings and platforms. But the regime cracks down on protests once they reach a critical mass, and it jails opponents that get too much attention. It has thus made it hard for Iranians to build organized opposition movements that can grow and endure.

Mass protests, of course, can generate pressure whether they are organized or not. Such pressure can be particularly powerful if the protests occur with increasing frequency, as might be happening now. (It has been just under three years since the “Women, Life, Freedom” uprisings swept across the country in late 2022 and early 2023.) The Iranian regime has displayed remarkable unity in response to all these demonstrations, which is one reason why it has endured previous predictions of its demise. But when annual inflation exceeds 50 percent, as it is now, it is reasonable to wonder how many times the government can call upon security forces to fire into crowds. That is especially true for the people pulling the triggers, who are often ordinary citizens.

The most obvious coup candidates might be Iran’s mid-level military and security commanders, who have not fully benefitted from regime membership. “They are younger, and they haven’t made money yet,” said Afshon Ostovar, an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. “They’re not corrupt insiders who have made huge amounts of wealth off the system and have an incentive to sustain it.” It is thus easy to imagine these officials breaking ranks with their older superiors, or perhaps partnering with a few of them, to push Khamenei and his loyalists out.

It is much harder, however, to imagine them handing power over to a democratic government afterward. Coup leaders almost always establish dictatorships. In Iran’s case, that dictatorship could be superior to what exists now. If the military commanders are pragmatic, for example, they might try to follow the rough path charted by Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has pursued economic integration with the rest of the world and social liberalization. Such a path might not even prove terribly difficult for Iran. The country is starting from a low base and could ease much of its isolation by bargaining away its nuclear and missile programs. But MBS is, if anything, less tolerant of political dissent than is Khamenei, and an Iranian military dictatorship might be as well. It could, for instance, dissolve the country’s elected branches. Alternatively, it could keep them but repeatedly meddle and intervene, similar to what Khamenei does now. Either way, the result might be something of a draw.

Ostovar and Nasr both warn that a coup could also just produce a new clerical supreme leader who is similar to Khamenei. (The Iranian security brass and religious elite are deeply enmeshed.) Or they could name someone worse. Khamenei is, rightly, seen as an uncompromising and unyielding idealogue. But he is not actually the most extreme figure in Iran’s political apparatus. “Khamenei is an obstacle to reformists, but in a weird way he is also an obstacle to the most hardline voices,” Nasr told me. There are officials in the country’s national security and domestic branches, Nasr said, who want the country to more aggressively enforce its female dress code or be even more belligerent toward America and Israel. Iran’s 2024 presidential elections serve as evidence. The runoffs pitted the ultraconservative former secretary of the country’s supreme national security council, Saeed Jalili, against the moderate former health minister, Masoud Pezeshkian. It was an election that many outside analysts figured Pezeshkian wouldn’t win. But during the campaign, Jalili took such an aggressive line on domestic and international issues — among other things, he described mandatory veiling of women as a matter of national security — that he appeared to alienate the supreme leader. Many Khamenei confidants and advisers ultimately backed Pezeshkian, who prevailed.

Without Khamenei, Jalili might be president. And if a coup occurs, he or someone like him could lead it. Experts said that many hardliners were frustrated with Khamenei’s relatively mild response to Israel’s attacks on Iran. If the cycle of protests continues, they might look to install someone stronger.

A coup is not the only way Iran’s regime might fall. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack the Islamic Republic if it harms demonstrators, and in a Tuesday social media post, he told Iranians that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” and encouraged them to keep protesting. He has been briefed by advisers about potential military targets. His range of options is broad, and taking out Khamenei is probably not the default. But Trump has already decapitated one government this year, and Washington and Tehran started trading threats before most Americans were born. It is entirely conceivable that either Trump or one of his successors might order big attacks on the Islamic Republic.

In fact, what might be called the “Venezuela option” appears to be on the table. If Trump does decide to go after Iran’s leadership, he might succeed in killing or kidnapping Khamenei and certain other top figures, and then elevate someone more America-friendly. But that still doesn’t mean Iran’s new boss would be better for its people. In Venezuela, the president extracted Nicolás Maduro but left Maduro’s repressive vice president in place, on the condition, among other things, that she give U.S. companies access to Venezuelan oil. The White House could attempt something similar in Iran, replacing Khamenei with a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander, a regular military commander, or even a senior religious cleric who keeps the authoritarian system while agreeing to jettison parts of Iran’s nuclear program.

Another option would be for Washington to install a leader from outside the system. Many Iranians living abroad have exactly such a leader in mind: Reza Pahlavi. Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, is a fixture in the diaspora community. Over his more than 47 years of living in exile, he has built up an extensive network of monarchists across both North America and Europe. Increasingly, he seems to have built a following within Iran, as well; in videos from recent demonstrations, many protesters have chanted his name. Pahlavi, meanwhile, has promoted himself as a leader-in-waiting. He has met with Western journalists and government officials, including, recently, Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. He has delivered video addresses calling on Iranians to rise up and promising that he will return and lead a democratic transformation. He has worked with Iranians in the diaspora with scientific, economic and other kinds of expertise to create a transition plan.

But many experts are skeptical of Pahlavi. They doubted, among other things, his commitment to democratic principles. Pahlavi’s father and grandfather were authoritarians, and when asked in a recent Wall Street Journal interview about his dad’s dictatorship, Pahlavi said that “mistakes were made” before largely defending his father’s record. Pahlavi also dodged questions about whether he would serve as something more than a transitory figure. Some of the people around him, meanwhile, have proved highly divisive. In 2022, his wife insinuated on Instagram that Narges Mohammadi, an imprisoned Iranian human rights activist (and now a Nobel laureate), had ties to the Islamic Republic. And Pahlavi’s online backers are notorious for harassing his critics. As a result, only a few of the people I interviewed were willing to criticize him on the record.

Others spoke of Pahlavi himself as a nice person. But the former crown prince could struggle to manage a democratic transition even if he has the right intentions. Pahlavi has little government experience beyond what he learned watching his father. When he tried to help create a diasporic opposition coalition in 2023, during Iran’s previous wave of anti-regime protests, it collapsed. And it is unclear from the protest chants just how much support he has, and how much of that support is simply nostalgia for his non-theocratic dad. Pahlavi could still play a positive role in a transition, particularly given his name recognition. But overseeing Iran’s shift from Islamic rule would be a monumental administrative task. The country is home to over 90 million people with different beliefs and ethnic backgrounds on a land mass the size of Alaska. It will be difficult for anyone, with any level of experience, to guide the state through a fragile and transformational process.

“You might have a situation of massive chaos,” Nasr told me, citing the violence that came after America toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In the worst-case scenario, the country could face internal or external warfare. After all, Iran has been invaded multiple times before, including by Saddam, who moved on the country not long after the Shah’s government fell.

None of this means the Islamic Republic can’t under any circumstances give way to a stable, democratic system. It is a nation with a long, shared history, and its people could put together a broad opposition coalition even while facing repression. History is full of big-tent groups that formed under autocracies and then proceeded to destroy them. In the 1980s, for example, Polish people with all kinds of beliefs joined Solidarity — a trade union and anti-authoritarian social movement — to resist their country’s communist government. Despite its best efforts, Warsaw was unable to shut the group down. Eventually, facing unrelenting popular pressure, it had to negotiate with Solidarity, share authority and hold elections where the communists went down. Many Latin American societies have defeated their dictatorships in roughly the same manner. Such a “pacted” transition — where struggling authoritarians negotiate with the opposition and then transfer power — could work well in Iran. The country already has strong labor groups, and repeat protests might help opposition movements institutionalize and come together.

Iran has other potential paths to a happy ending. Pahlavi claims to have contact with many defectors within the regime. If the government falls, his team could try using those connections to build a functional leadership coalition that eventually hands off power. Iran’s existing, electoral institutions could also facilitate a democratic transformation. If Iran experienced a coup, and if its new leaders face continued protests, they might conclude they are unequipped to lead the state and give more responsibility to the elected president and parliament. The next supreme leader (if Iran keeps a supreme leader) might opt to pass over control as well. Iran could soon have such a leader even without a coup or revolution. Khamenei is an 86-year-old cancer survivor.

But right now, these are longshots. There is so far little sign that the divided opposition is coalescing, or that Pahlavi is getting traction inside the regime. So it is a mistake to think that the fall of this regime will automatically produce something better. In politics, as in most of life, almost anything can get worse. It is a fact that Iranians, having lived through years of war, turmoil, and economic decay, know all too well.

“Those on the streets have thrown caution to the wind and think very much that this is a ‘now or never’ moment,” said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. But other Iranians, she said, are more fretful. “The silent majority might be a bit worried about where things go, the chaos and uncertainty of the present moment, and what the future might bring.”

Couch fucker.......

‘Vance hates us’: Europe’s Greenland fears grow as US vice president dives into talks 

Diplomats worry there can be no compromise with the U.S. if President Donald Trump wants to “conquer” the self-ruling Danish island.

By Tim Ross, Zoya Sheftalovich and Nicholas Vinocur

Faced with a barrage of American threats to grab Greenland, Denmark’s foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart flew to Washington for — they hoped — sympathetic talks with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state.

But their plan for a soothing diplomatic chat escalated into a tense White House head-to-head with the EU’s nemesis, JD Vance.

Over the past year the U.S. vice president has earned a reputation for animosity toward the old continent, and many governments in Europe fear his hard-line influence over President Donald Trump when it comes to seizing territory from a long-standing ally.

Among the 10 ministers and officials who spoke anonymously to POLITICO for this article, none regarded Vance as an ally — either in the Greenland talks or for the transatlantic relationship in general. 

“Vance hates us,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid view, like others quoted in this article. The announcement that the vice president would be helming the Washington talks on Greenland alarmed the European side. “He’s the tough guy,” the same diplomat said. “The fact that he’s there says a lot and I think it’s negative for the outcome.” 

Trump says he wants “ownership” of Greenland for reasons of U.S. national security and will get it either by negotiation or, if necessary, perhaps through military means.

At stake is much more than simply the fate of an island of 57,000 inhabitants, or even the future of the Arctic.  The bellicose rhetoric from the White House has dismayed America’s NATO allies and provoked warnings from Denmark that such a move would destroy the postwar Western alliance. Others say it is already terminal for the international order on which transatlantic relations rely. 

In the event, the talks in Washington on Wednesday went as well as could be expected, officials said after: The Americans were blunt, but there was no declaration of war. Nor did the occasion descend into a public humiliation of the sort Vance unleashed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a White House visit last year.

The two sides clearly argued their cases with some force but resolved to keep talking. A high-level working group will explore whether any compromise can be reached between the Danes and Greenlanders, and Trump. 

‘Fundamental disagreement’

The discussion “wasn’t so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, ‘Sorry, it was totally a misunderstanding, we gave up on our ambitions,’” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped to reporters after what he described as a “frank” exchange with Vance and Rubio. “There’s clearly a disagreement.” 

“The president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Rasmussen added. “For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, or the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, are of course totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. And we agree to disagree.”

Talks in future must, he said, respect the “red lines” set by Greenland and Denmark. It is hoped that the working group will help lower “the temperature” on the issue when it begins its work in the coming weeks, Rasmussen added. 

The small win, for the Danes, is that the question of Greenland has — for now — moved from wild social media images of the island dressed in the American flag to a proper diplomatic channel, giving everyone time to calm down. 

If it holds, that would be something.

A stream of X posts from Trump’s allies — alongside uncompromising statements from the president himself — have left European officials aghast. In one that the White House posted this week, Trump can be seen peering out of his Oval Office window at a scene depicting the icy map of Greenland. 

Behind him, looking on, is Vance. “It was terrible,” the first diplomat cited above told POLITICO. 

No friend

Few Europeans will forget Vance’s attacks on Zelenskyy in last February’s Oval Office showdown. Vance also left Europeans shocked and horrified when he savaged them for refusing to work with the far right, and complained bitterly how much he resented America paying for European security. 

By contrast, Rubio is often described as “solid” by European officials, and is generally seen as someone who is more aligned with the priorities of the European mainstream especially on security and the war in Ukraine. 

At the time of writing, Vance had not given his account in public of Wednesday’s talks on Greenland. In response to a request for comment, Vance’s deputy press secretary pointed to previous remarks in which the vice president had said “I love Europe” and European people — but also said European leaders had been “asleep at the wheel” and that the Trump administration was frustrated that they had failed to address issues including migration and investment in defense.

One EU official, speaking after the meeting, suggested it was actually a good thing Vance was involved because he “calls the shots” and holds sway with Trump. 

Elsewhere, however, the skepticism remains deep — and turns to alarm at the prospect that when Trump’s second term ends, it could be Vance who takes over in the White House. 

While Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. That would be a risk not just for Greenland but also for NATO and Ukraine. Some EU diplomats see Trump’s territorial ambitions as part of a pattern that includes Vance’s attacks and the new White House national security strategy, which sets out to redirect European democracy toward the ends of Trump’s MAGA movement.

When it comes to the dispute over Greenland, many in Brussels and European capitals are pessimistic. Even Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, didn’t pretend a deal was in sight and confessed one may never come. “Trump doesn’t want to invest in something he doesn’t own,” one EU diplomat said.

The U.S. has wide access to Greenland for military deployments under existing agreements, and could easily invest in further economic development, according to the Danes and their allies. 

“It’s not clear what there is to negotiate because the Americans can already have whatever they want,” another diplomat said. “The only thing that Denmark cannot give is to say Greenland can become American.” 

It may not be a question of what Greenland can give, if in the end the president and his eager deputy decide simply to take it. 

Cracks 52nd state joke... WTF?

Iceland demands answers from US after Trump ally cracks 52nd state joke

Billy Long’s gag about the North Atlantic island landed with a jolt amid sky-high tensions over ownership of Greenland.

By Ketrin Jochecová

First Greenland, next Iceland?

Reykjavík is concerned about America’s growing territorial ambitions, after POLITICO reported that President Donald Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland Billy Long joked in Washington that Iceland will be the 52nd U.S. state and he’ll be governor.

“The Ministry for Foreign Affairs has contacted the U.S. Embassy in Iceland to verify the veracity of the alleged comments,” Iceland’s foreign ministry told POLITICO in a statement.

Long is a former Republican congressman from Missouri whom Trump nominated to become the new U.S. envoy to Iceland, replacing Carrin Patman. In the wake of Long’s reported comments, Icelanders launched a petition urging Foreign Minister Katrín Gunnarsdóttir to reject him as ambassador. It currently has 2,000 signatures.

“These words of Billy Long, who Donald Trump has nominated as ambassador to Iceland, may have been said in half-hearted terms, but they are insulting to Iceland and Icelanders, who have had to fight for their freedom and have always been a friend of the United States,” the petition says.

“We want Þorgerður Katrín [Gunnarsdóttir] to reject Billy Long as ambassador to Iceland and call for the United States to nominate another man, who will show Iceland and Icelanders more respect,” it adds.

Long’s quip landed awkwardly amid diplomatic tensions over Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory that Trump is threatening to seize — potentially using military force — claiming that the U.S. “has to have Greenland for national security.”

Long did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday after he was heard making the remark.

European leaders are backing Greenlanders — who have repeatedly said they don’t want to be Americans — and are seeking a deal to head off a potential clash that Denmark has send would end the transatlantic NATO alliance.

Secret meeting

Senators hold bipartisan secret meeting to reshape FEMA

The move by about a dozen senators came as President Donald Trump threatens to reduce the agency’s role in disaster recovery.

By Thomas Frank and Andres Picon

A bipartisan group of senators met privately Tuesday to start building support for overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in a move meant to exert congressional influence over the office as it’s being targeted by the Trump administration.

The meeting, organized by Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), indicates heightened Senate concern about FEMA as it experiences deep cuts to its disaster workforce and faces structural changes under President Donald Trump, who has lashed out at the agency for delivering aid too slowly.

The legislative push comes as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are steering efforts to reduce the amount of federal aid for states in the wake of disasters.

It also comes after Trump has sought to politicize FEMA aid by requiring states to assist federal immigration agents as a condition of receiving the money. That policy was derided by a federal judge who called it a “ham-handed attempt to bully” the states.

Roughly a dozen senators met in Welch’s Capitol Hill office with former FEMA chiefs Craig Fugate and Peter Gaynor, in what two participants described as an unusually constructive meeting in interviews. Patrick Sheehan, who runs the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, was also in attendance.

“There is strong, bipartisan interest in improving FEMA,” Welch said in a statement. The meeting was closed to the public and not announced.

Fugate, who ran FEMA under former President Barack Obama, said the meeting was “an impressive bipartisan discussion about how to work for solutions.”

“At most hearings, people talk past each other. This event, people were talking to each other and engaging in conversations in a very collegial approach,” Fugate added. “I was just very impressed by the caliber of the conversation.”

An unusually large number of bills to revise FEMA are pending in Congress, including a sweeping agency overhaul, that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved in September on a 57-3 vote.

The Senate has no companion bill or comparable legislation. Welch, whose state sustained major flood damage in 2023 and 2024, introduced a measure in July that would create new programs for hazard mitigation and simplify some post-disaster procedures.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who led the meeting Tuesday with Welch, said he left the session confident that Congress could revise FEMA “in a bipartisan way.”

“This was just an opportunity for us to have a conversation, to hear from some experts and really try to discuss it without the cameras, without the posturing. And I was really encouraged by it,” Kim said in an interview Wednesday. “A lot of my colleagues showed up, and a lot really talked about their interest in continuing to work on this.”

Welch’s office declined to name the senators who attended. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), whose state was devastated by Hurricane Helene in 2024, confirmed that he was at the meeting. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) also confirmed her attendance.

Welch invited senators who he knew were interested in FEMA-related legislation. He expects to have ongoing bipartisan talks similar to the House transportation committee process last year.

“There’s a lot of concern about the potential for [Homeland Security Secretary Kristi] Noem and Trump to disband FEMA or dismantle it slowly,” said a Senate aide who was not authorized to talk publicly. Senators want to “better shape the agency and support reforms before it is destroyed completely by the administration.”

Greenland talk

Bipartisan bill targets Trump’s Greenland talk

The resolution warns the White House that any military action would require Congress’ approval.

Joe Gould

A bipartisan group of lawmakers will introduce a resolution Thursday that repudiates President Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland and warns that any U.S. military action involving the Danish territory would require Congress’s approval.

State of play: The nonbinding measure is led by Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.). It affirms U.S. respect for the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland and contradicts recent statements by senior administration officials suggesting the United States could seek control of Greenland, including by force.

What they’re saying: “This is actually making us less secure,” Gallego said Wednesday of the administration’s stance. “By us attacking or claiming to attack a NATO ally, we are essentially destroying one of the most secure partnerships and alliances that we need to counteract Russia and to counteract China.”

War powers: The move comes as Democrats separately press a privileged war powers resolution from Gallego that would require congressional authorization before any U.S. military action tied to Greenland. That measure, still under review by Democratic leaders, would force lawmakers to go on the record as Trump expands his use of military power and unnerves U.S. allies.

Diplomatic blitz: Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said a “fundamental disagreement” over Greenland remains after meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The two sides, however, agreed to create a working group to discuss ways to work through differences as Trump continues to call for a U.S. takeover of Denmark’s Arctic territory of Greenland.

Rasmussen and Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, met Wednesday with Gallego, Murkowski and other lawmakers who rebuked Trump’s pressure campaign.

“I hope it’s ultimately not necessary,” Murkowski said of a potential war powers resolution. “But we are operating in times where we’re having conversations about things that we never thought even possible. To use the name Greenland in the context of a war powers resolution, to me, is absolutely stunning.”

Messaging bill: While the sense of Congress resolution is nonbinding, its sponsors hope it will keep the spotlight on the split between Congress and the White House. The effort follows the administration’s recent military operation in Venezuela, which intensified concerns among allies about the Trump administration’s willingness to act unilaterally.

The resolution states that any change to Greenland’s status or any use of U.S. military force there must comply with U.S. treaty obligations and be approved by Congress.

It also invokes the North Atlantic Treaty, noting that NATO members are required to resolve disputes peacefully and refrain from threats or the use of force against one another. It highlights America’s long defense presence in Greenland as part of security cooperation with Denmark and Greenland, particularly in the Arctic and North Atlantic.

“It’s time for Congress to wake up and do its job,” Khanna said in a statement. “This is a moral test for America and we have a responsibility to keep Americans out of dumb foreign wars and honor our relationships with our NATO allies.”

Terminates, then reinstates

HHS terminates, then reinstates, thousands of grants for substance use, mental health

The Department of Health and Human Services told grantees their projects were no longer aligned with agency priorities, then backtracked under pressure.

By Carmen Paun and Amanda Friedman

The Trump administration reversed course late Wednesday after notifying thousands of organizations across the country that their substance use recovery and mental health grants were being terminated, according to a top Democrat, a congressional aide and an administration official.

The cuts targeted discretionary grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and included youth overdose prevention and medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorder, among other things.

Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement late Wednesday that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had reinstated the grants.

“Congress holds the power of the purse, and the Secretary must follow the law,” she said, adding that the cuts would have eliminated programs that save lives.

The administration official and congressional aide, both granted anonymity to discuss internal matters, confirmed the reinstatement of the grants.

The cuts were expected to reduce access to services for mental health and substance use disorder nationwide and threatened to make it harder for Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement on legislation funding HHS in 2026, which includes money for SAMHSA. Funding runs out on Jan. 30 unless Congress acts.

In termination notices sent to grantees, signed by Christopher D. Carroll, principal deputy assistant secretary at SAMHSA, the agency wrote that it’s “adjusting its discretionary award portfolio, which includes terminating some of its awards, in order to better prioritize agency resources.”

Democratic lawmakers criticized Trump and Kennedy over the terminations after they came to light Wednesday.

“Kneecapping and defunding the fight against the opioid and mental health epidemics will not ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ it will put American lives on the line,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees HHS funding, in a statement.

Kennedy, who has talked about his own addiction to heroin and recovery, told Senate appropriators last May that HHS would continue to support “the most effective ways” of ending the opioid epidemic.

But he defended his efforts to fold SAMHSA into a new entity at his Department of Health and Human Services called the Administration for a Healthy America. That entity has yet to be formally created amid court challenges against it.

Some drug policy advocates said they saw the cuts as a signal that the administration is still eager to pursue that restructuring.

SAMHSA has already lost roughly half of its staff over the last year to layoffs and resignations tied to Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal workforce. Recent data from the White House Office of Personnel Management showed that the agency now employs 547 people, down from 916 in 2024.