In response to overwhelming reader feedback, we're going to post the questions for Saturday's blog tonight around 9:00 p.m. PT. Then, we will post the answers roughly 8 hours later, at 5:00 a.m. PT. So, early birds can preview the questions, if they would like to do so.

That Didn't Take Long, Part I: When the Party's Over

Thus far, Trump v2.0 is following a script very similar to Trump v1.0: Several days of executive actions, many of them overreaches, followed by a whole bunch of blowback. That's right, Trump's new term isn't even a week old, and yet he's already gotten voluminous reminders that it's much harder to be president than it is to brag about how good a president you will be. A rundown of the latest:

• Judgment Cometh: During Donald Trump's first term, it took 14 days before he got smacked down by a judge (he was inaugurated on January 20, 2017; issued his Muslim travel ban on January 27; and a judge blocked the order on February 3). This time around, Trump and his team know the ropes better, and are much more efficient. So, it only took 3 days for the President to get smacked down by a judge.
  
  As we have noted, the birthright citizenship XO triggered three near-instantaneous lawsuits. The one filed in Washington, by the state AGs of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, was the first to get in front of a judge. That judge is John C. Coughenour, who was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, and so is not exactly known as a bleeding-heart liberal. He listened to arguments for 25 whole minutes, then issued a temporary restraining order halting implementation of the directive for 14 days. That will allow enough time for the Judge to consider a permanent injunction.
  
  Given these details, and ONLY these details, you might be tempted to conclude that the administration still has hope of prevailing in Coughenour's court. That conclusion would almost certainly be unfounded, however. After he brought an end to oral arguments, the Judge said: "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In his order, he wrote: "There is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Immigration and Nationality Act."
  
  So, you have to assume that Trump has lost this battle. Of course, there will be appeals and, as we pointed out earlier this week, there is a tiny opening there if the Supreme Court really, really wants to give Trump a favorable ruling. That said, a conservative judge clapping down so hard, so fast, is not a good sign for the administration. Oh, and by the way, there are now FIVE lawsuits.
  
  
• Hegseth in Trouble?: In the last 65 years, only one Cabinet nominee has been rejected outright. That was John Tower, who was nominated by George H. W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense. The Senate decided, 53-47, that Tower's history of drunken behavior, sexual misconduct, anger mismanagement and ethical lapses were not acceptable for the person running the Pentagon. Perhaps these details feel vaguely familiar.
  
  Yesterday, current Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth got some good news, and some bad news. The good news is that the Senate advanced his nomination to a floor vote, 51-49. The upper chamber is expected to vote on his confirmation today.
  
  The bad news is that adverse news about Hegseth continues to drip, drip, drip out. Yesterday, it was revealed that he paid $50,000 to the woman who accused him of rape. This is not generally the behavior of a person who is blameless and has done no wrong. He is now damaged enough that two Republican senators turned against him, with Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joining with all 47 Democrats and independents in voting against bringing his nomination to the floor.
  
  For Hegseth's nomination to fail today, he'd need to lose two more senators. This is not impossible; it is true that 51 Republicans voted to bring his nomination to the floor, but it's not unheard of for a member to vote "yea" during the procedural vote, and then "no" during the actual vote. Further, another 24 hours to reflect on a week's worth of troubling revelations might be enough to push a Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or a John Curtis (R-UT) to the anti-Hegseth side of the fence, especially since they now know they won't be alone on an island.
  
  All of this said, it is not very likely that Hegseth's nomination will fail. Even if it succeeds, though, there are still two worrisome facts here from the vantage point of Donald Trump. The first is that, once again, Murkowski and Collins are not guaranteed to toe the Trumpy line. The second is that the longer his problematic nominees go unconfirmed, the more likely that adverse information will emerge to sink their nominations.
  
  
• And How About Gabbard?: Pete Hegseth is likely to get across the finish line in the nick of time, before any more skeletons can emerge from his closet. This being the case, the most endangered Trump nominee is now DNI-designate Tulsi Gabbard, who won't even get a Senate hearing until Thursday. Given the procedural matters involved in confirming a nominee, not to mention the weekend, that means there's at least 10 days for more skeletons to emerge from her closet.
  
  And that's not the biggest problem, not by a long shot. Gabbard has already done the rounds on Capitol Hill and, in contrast to what happened with Hegseth or with Kash Patel, her efforts did not put to rest the concerns of the Republican senators, nor the pressure they've been putting on the White House to withdraw the nomination. At the same time, while Trump is still backing Gabbard, he's being less vocal, and less aggressive, than he is with Hegseth, Patel, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  
  We also continue to believe—and again, this is just speculation from us—that Gabbard as DNI is a much tougher pill to swallow than Hegseth as SecDef. The Pentagon is a massive bureaucracy with a lot of inertia, and it's none too easy to effect a major change in course. There are also a lot of very skilled professionals there who know a thing or two about reining in the worst impulses of an irresponsible superior. On the other hand, a bad DNI could do a lot of harm to the United States, in ways that would be hard to prevent. That is doubly, or triply, true if that DNI turns out to actually be a Russian asset.
  
  There is, we should note, a specific issue that looks like it could be a dealbreaker for the senators (an issue that is at least tangentially connected to the "Russian asset" concerns). Gabbard's aggressive support of NSA leaker Edward Snowden does not sit well with hawkish Republicans, and may well prove to be a bridge too far for four or more of them (enough to defeat the nomination).
  
  
• Trouble in Paradise: Anyone who joins the Trump administration, whether in a formal capacity or in some less-defined role, should know that: (1) you don't spit into the wind, (2) you don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger, and (3) you don't mess with Don. It would seem that Elon Musk missed that briefing, however. As we noted yesterday, the Co-President had the temerity to critique Trump's big announcement about $500 billion being invested in AI.
  
  The result here is exactly what you think. Trump and his staff are furious with Musk. Note that publicly, Trump told reporters he doesn't mind his co-president going off script. But privately, he is very angry about being poked in the eye.
  
  The problem here, according to a Trump staffer who spoke to reporters off the record, is that "the President doesn't have any leverage over [Musk] and Elon gives zero fu**s." We don't think that is exactly correct. Musk has hundreds of billions of dollars and a giant social media platform that is increasingly an outlet for right-wingers. Trump would like both to remain inside the MAGA tent. However, Trump controls the regulatory machinery of the federal government. There are certainly ways for the White House to hit Musk where it hurts—in the wallet—should it come to that.
  
  We suppose it is possible that Musk will remain part of the team all the way through to January 20, 2029. But for that to happen—for two egos that large to co-exist for nearly 1,500 days—would be a miracle on the order of the parting of the Red Sea. Remember, they are less than half a Scaramucci into the second Trump presidency, and they are already butting heads.
  
  
• Obamacare: Foolishly, Trump campaigned on a promise to pare down, or kill, Obamacare. Part of the reason is that he wants to spend that money on tax cuts for rich people. And part of the reason is that he hates anything that was done by Barack Obama and/or Joe Biden and, of course, both men helped make that legislation happen.
  
  Yesterday, a group of roughly a dozen centrist House Republicans met with leadership and said, in no uncertain terms, that they have no interest in cutting Obamacare (or any other social safety net programs). It is all good and well to run against the commie liberal pinko social welfare programs when your district is R+20. It's another thing entirely when it's R+1, or maybe even D+3. The leader of the "keep your hands off Obamacare" contingent is, apparently, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE). His district is... EVEN.
  
  Readers presumably do not need us to tell them that, even once special elections have been held, there will be no time during the 119th Congress that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can afford to lose a dozen votes. He's not going to get Democratic votes in favor of taking a hatchet to Obamacare, not even those of Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) or Jared Golden (D-ME). And that's before we talk about the impossibility of getting such legislation past the Senate and the filibuster. So, just days into Trump v2.0, you can confidently cross any Obamacare-related promises off the President's to-do list. The Republicans stabbed the program with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast.

We, and in particular (Z), have taken the position that the second Trump administration is likely to be very much like the first Trump administration: a lot of big words, a lot of overreaches, and... not a lot of concrete accomplishments. In the end, Trump is not competent, and he does not surround himself with competent people. He could have favored competent people this time around, but clearly, he (mostly) preferred obedient lackeys. He also has zero interest in, and—oddly for a president in his second term—little experience with, sausage making. Obamacare, to take one example, took well over a year to put together and to steer through Congress. Biden's Inflation Reduction Act took more than 6 months. George W. Bush's PEPFAR, depending on how you count, took between 1 and 3 years. Trump simply does not have the patience for that kind of thing. (Z)

That Didn't Take Long, Part II: Under Pressure

Of all the adverse news that's already piled up, Donald Trump's biggest headache this week might be the 1/6 pardons—certainly enough of a headache that we're going to give the subject its own item. It is possible that if the President had limited himself to the less egregious offenders, the matter might have blown over. We will never know, however, because that is not what he did. Instead, he pardoned a bunch of violent nutters like Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, not to mention numerous folks who assaulted police officers. That certainly crossed a line, and bought Trump a bunch of trouble that he and the Republicans really don't want.

You can tell, very easily, that Trump and his fellow Republicans know that they have really poked a hornet's nest. Yesterday, for the third time in as many days, Trump appeared on Fox to explain why the pardons were the right thing to do. Meanwhile, Trump loyalists in the House of Representatives are setting up a subcommittee that will be the anti-1/6 Committee. Its purpose will be to produce, for lack of a better term, propaganda meant to persuade voters that 1/6 was no big deal, and that everything the original 1/6 Committee revealed was lies, lies and more lies.

There are just a few problems here. The first is that people tend to believe what they see with their own eyes, and everyone watched the events of 1/6 on TV. Many people also watched the 1/6 Committee hearings, which were carefully staged for maximal effect. Meanwhile, the counter-programming effort is going to be managed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), in his capacity as chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan has spent years on efforts of this sort, and he's never had any success at securing coverage from anyone but the Foxes and Newsmaxes of the world.

The second problem is that the people who comprise the American legal system are very unhappy about Trump's pardons, and they are not keeping quiet about it. For example, Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger sat for an interview with CBS News, and said he was deeply concerned by the pardons, noting that "I think it sends the message that politics is more important than policing." Similarly, the various judges who were overseeing ongoing 1/6 cases were compelled to dismiss, since there are no longer valid criminal charges to be adjudicated. Nearly all of them, in their dismissal orders, expressed their unhappiness with the pardons. For example, here's a passage from the dismissal order issued by Tanya Chutkan:

The Government's only stated reason for pursuing dismissal with prejudice is that the President, in addition to pardoning the Defendant, has ordered the Attorney General to do so. The Court does not discern—and neither party has identified—any defect in either the legal merits of, or the factual basis for, the Government's case...

More broadly, no pardon can change the tragic truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. On that day, "a mob professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol" to stop the electoral college certification. The dismissal of this case cannot undo the "rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage." It cannot diminish the heroism of law enforcement officers who "struggled, facing serious injury and even death, to control the mob that overwhelmed them." It cannot whitewash the blood, feces, and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America's sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.

In hundreds of cases like this one over the past four years, judges in this district have administered justice without fear or favor. The historical record established by those proceedings must stand, unmoved by political winds, as a testament and as a warning.

For those keeping score at home, that's law... and order. These folks can't exactly hit the campaign trail in 2 years, but their words and their interviews will be available for use in commercials, and the like.

And that brings us to the third problem. It is true that the furor over the 1/6 pardons will eventually die down... for now. But the subject is going to rear its ugly head again, once the 2026 campaign heats up. In particular, Republicans in tough races are absolutely going to be asked about whether or not they supported the pardons. They can say "no," and risk the fury of Trump, not to mention Republican voters who like what the President did. Or, they can say "yes," and take the side of lawlessness, which is not exactly a popular position. Oh, and many of them are already on the record having said things similar to what J.D. Vance said: "If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned." So, if these folks come out as pro-pardon in 2026, they will also have to explain why they changed their mind.

There is also one last problem. Some of the really awful people Trump pardoned are not going to go gentle into that good night. They are still hell-raisers who yearn for some form of violent revolution. And whenever they commit their next illegal or morally dubious acts, it will bring the pardon story back to life for a few news cycles. On the day Rhodes got out of prison, he visited the Capitol complex, said many incendiary things, and met with some far-right members of Congress. Tarrio, for his part, has already decreed that he wants "retribution" against those who put him in prison. These two men have every intention of "finishing" what they started.

In short, Trump may well have shot himself in the foot. And what he definitely did was shoot his fellow Republicans in their collective feet. (Z)

That Didn't Take Long, Part III: There's Nothing Holdin' Me Back

A couple of weeks ago, we asked readers exactly how much they want to hear about it when Donald Trump says crazypants things. We hope to share some of those responses, once an opportunity presents itself. For now, we'll say that the solid consensus was "he's the president, and if he says crazy stuff, you kinda have to write about it." Some folks suggested we should only write about things where he's "serious." The problem there is that, with only a few exceptions, it's nearly impossible to separate "serious" from "hot air." The truth is, even Trump himself probably doesn't know, most of the time. He just throws a bunch of stuff out there, and sees what sticks.

We say this as prelude to a rundown of the crazypants speech he delivered yesterday, via video link, to the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. You can read the text here, if you wish, or you can watch the speech here. If you do not wish to do either of those things (and who can blame you?), then here's a rundown of the "highlights":

• Victory: We do not know how long Trump will brag about having won the 2024 presidential election; it's entirely possible he will keep it up for his entire term. He continues to believe—or, at least, continues to claim—that he won a crushing victory, on par with Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. To yesterday's audience, he described it as "a massive mandate from the American people." The attendees sat stone-faced while he bragged. It would seem they were there to hear about economic policy, not Trump's political résumé.
  
  
• Biden Bashing: Trump also indulged in some score-settling with Joe Biden, badmouthing his predecessor, in much the same terms as he used in his inaugural address. In fact, his speechwriters might well have copied and pasted from one speech to the other. Again, the audience was nonplussed, as they don't especially care about these sorts of petty personal squabbles.
  
  
• Oh, Canada: Trump joked (is it a joke?), yet again, about making Canada the 51st state. The folks in attendance, nearly all of them European, thought that was quite amusing. Then, he started bashing Canada, declaring:

  Canada has been very tough to deal with over the years, and it's not fair that we should have a $200 billion or $250 billion deficit. We don't need them to make our cars, and they make a lot of them. We don't need their lumber because we have our own forests, et cetera, et cetera. We don't need their oil and gas.

  The audience was less enamored of that part. Then, the President moved on to slamming the EU, denouncing European trade policies, and threatening to slap tariffs on everything. The crowd found that decidedly un-amusing.
  
  
• Interest Rates: Trump also advised that he would "demand" that the Federal Reserve reduce interest rates. He continues to illustrate that he doesn't really understand how this works, and that any change to interest rates creates some winners and some losers. Further, the Europeans know the U.S. economic system well enough to know that the Fed does not actually answer to the president, and has no obligation to bow to his demands.
  
  
• Trans Bashing: We have always had the impression that Trump doesn't much care about LGBTQ stuff, and that all of his anti-LGBTQ rhetoric was just pandering to the base. However, he's returned to the anti-trans verbiage so many times recently, and with such vehemence, that we're thinking that maybe we were wrong. Again veering off topic for what was supposed to be a speech about economic policy, Trump told the crowd: "I've made it official—an official policy of the United States that there are only two genders, male and female, and we will have no men participating in women's sports, and transgender operations, which became the rage, will occur very rarely."
  
  This is yet another area where he was apparently expecting that the Europeans don't really know how the U.S. government works. They do, and they know that he cannot make these things happen by fiat. But beyond that, this portion of his speech was not just off-topic or boring to many of the attendees, it was offensive. And so, a fair number of audience members walked out as Trump ranted and raved.
  
  
• Ukraine: Near the end of the speech, Trump advised that he wants to end the war in Ukraine. That, of course, is not crazypants. However, the way he said it is kind of crazypants. Here's the quote:

  Our efforts to secure a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine are now hopefully underway. It's so important to get that done. That is an absolute killing field. Millions of soldiers are being killed. Nobody's seen anything like it since World War II. They're laying dead all over the flat fields. It's a flat field, farmland, and there's millions of Russians and millions of Ukrainians. And nobody's seen anything like it since World War II. It's time to end it.

  It's hard to know where this way of characterizing things came from. Is he thinking of the movie The Killing Fields, which is about the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia? It's possible; that movie was made in 1984, and Trump's cultural references tend to be 40+ years out of date. Or is he maybe thinking of the poem "In Flanders Fields," which is about the dead of World War I? Could be.

To continue the theme of these first three items, we're less than a week into the second Trump presidency, and this is already where we are at. And while this is undoubtedly a very subjective judgment, it seems to us that he's noticeably more unhinged than he was in January 2017. If we are right about that, then we can think of several possible explanations. Maybe it's a byproduct of mental decline. Or maybe it's that he's spent 4 more years absorbing the flattering right-wing propaganda. Or maybe it's that he no longer has to worry about elections, and he's letting it all hang out. In any event, that's today's crazypants report. (Z)

Today in Abortion Messaging Bills

There were a couple of pieces of legislation yesterday that came from places more than 1,000 miles apart, but that had two things in common: (1) they are about abortion, and (2) they will never, ever become law.

First up is a bill that was actually passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. It is called the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and it says that healthcare providers must provide the "same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence" to an infant born alive after an attempted termination as they would to any other infant. The vote on the bill broke along party lines, excepting one Democrat who crossed the aisle (Henry Cuellar of Texas), and one who voted "present" (Vicente Gonzalez of Texas).

This bill is absolutely meaningless, for two reasons. First, it solves a "problem" that does not exist. The phenomenon in question is vanishingly rare, and when it does happen, healthcare providers already provide the "same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence" as any other infant receives. Put another way, despite GOP talking points to the contrary, there is no situation in which doctors execute newborns, either through direct action or through neglect.

The other reason the bill is meaningless is that it has absolutely no chance of getting past the Senate. The legislation managed to get one Democratic vote in the House. There's no way it gets the 7 Democratic votes (minimum) that would be needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. And even if the filibuster goes the way of the dodo, the bill would still be in trouble, thanks to Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and a couple of other GOP members who lean pro-choice.

We will also add that, although we follow American politics closely, we have no idea what House Republicans are trying to accomplish here. Again, the point is to make a statement to anti-choice voters. Very well, but what is the point of making such a statement in January of 2025? Is there anyone, other than hard-core folks who are already 100% in the bag for the Republicans, who is going to remember this in November 2026? Seems to us like the time for stunts like this is spring or summer of next year, not winter of THIS year.

With the other bill, meanwhile, we understand the timing a little better. This one is out of Mississippi, and is courtesy of state Sen. Bradford Blackmon (D). The title is "Contraception Begins at Erection Act," and the bill makes it a criminal act for "a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo." Put another way, it would criminalize masturbation and any sexual act undertaken for any purpose other than procreation.

Perhaps the minds of the media have been pickled by the extremism that is characteristic of the MAGA movement. Whatever the case may be, many outlets played this news straight, reporting on it as if the bill is a serious attempt to legislate, and discussing why it's unlikely to be adopted. It is NOT a serious attempt to legislate; it's a satirical take on bills like... the one the House of Representatives passed yesterday. As we note, we understand the timing here, because the Mississippi legislature has short, and often irregular, sessions. So, a legislator has to strike when they can.

The lesson here seems pretty evident to us. Abortion did not play quite as big a role in 2024 as expected. Nonetheless, it looks like it's going to be a core issue in 2026. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Here Comes the Sun

After a bit more than a month, the headline theme is back! It's been a while, but the clues we gave for the last headline theme were: (1) "this week's puzzle is rather more similar to last week's than we would like," and (2) "every reader who solved the puzzle needed a day to do so." That first hint was not so useful, in our view, but the second one definitely was.

And now, courtesy of reader D.S. in Layton, UT, who disagrees with us about the utility of the first hint, here is the solution:

Your hint about the similarity to last week's puzzle helped tremendously. Each clue contains a word that can precede "Day."

• Appointments News: You Win Some, You Lose Some—Someday
• Kissing the Ring, Part I: Who Needs Red or Blue When You've Got the Green?—Green Day
• Kissing the Ring, Part II: So Much for Editorial Independence—Independence Day
• Deportation Watch: Trump to Change Rules of the Game—Game day (My bride's favorite)
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Dancing in the Dark—Dark day
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Lindell Can't Pay His Bills—Payday (My favorite)
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Not Everybody Has Presidential Fathers—Fathers Day
• It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 8: Merry Christmas America, Part III—Christmas Day

The headline of this item, of course, has the word "Sun," which adds "Sunday" to the list.

Here are the first 50 readers to solve the puzzle:

K.R. in Austin, TX N.H. in London, England, UK T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland D.S. in Layton B.K. in Mystic, CT R.M. in Concord, NH M.J. in Oakdale, MN M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada R.S. in Milan, OH R.S. in Landing, NJ D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI J.T. in Philadelphia, PA B.M. in Chico, CA E.S. in Cincinnati, OH W.M. in Livonia, MI M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.N. in Zionsville, IN M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO D.L. in Springfield, IL A.D. in Vass, NC M.W. in Altea, Spain B.R. in Arlington, MA S.R.G. in Grecia, Costa Rica

S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI T.T. in Conway, AR M.T. in Simpsonville, SC D.D. in Carversville, PA W.V. in San Jacinto, CA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL S.K. in Ardmore, PA B.U. in St. Louis, MO S.G. in Durham, NC S.F. in Hutto, TX M.S. in Canton, NY J.F. in Fayetteville, NC G.W. in Avon, CT E.W. in Skaneateles, NY M.L. in Iowa City, IA P.A. in Redwood City, CA S.S. in Santa Monica, CA S.B. in Los Altos Hills, CA D.B. in Pittsboro, NC E.P. in Plainville, CT M.W. in Frederick, MD B.F. in Nashville, TN J.M. in Los Angeles, CA K.H. in Albuquerque, NM

We were surprised at the number of people who did not need the second hint.

As to this week's theme, we're doing what used to be regular, and what is now occasional: They're all song titles. That means that the theme is in the Trivial Pursuit category "music." The theme is a little tricky, but we think we've got a really good clue. Here it is:

Once you know the theme, we think you will agree this is a really good clue. Whether it's a really good clue BEFORE you know the theme is the $64 billion question. Note also that the abortion item is not part of the theme.

Send your guesses to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "January 24 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Leave The Door Open

Today, for this item, we have a very good example of malicious compliance. Actually, you might call it mass malicious compliance.

Surely every reader of this site knows, by now, that Donald Trump and his underlings are doing everything they can to take a sledgehammer to anything DEI, or DEI-adjacent, particularly in the federal government. If you would like to read the executive order that ostensibly brings an end to all federal DEI programs, it's here.

There is a slight problem, however. It is entirely possible to pursue DEI-related goals even without using the name "DEI." So, as long as a DEI-inclined employee is clever enough not to wear a giant sign saying "DEI," they might be able to subvert the White House. To that end, the administration created an e-mail address by which federal staffers can rat our their colleagues for DEI-related offenses.

Surely you see where this is headed. The e-mail address was quickly made public, and is now being flooded with "reports" from helpful citizens. For example:

Subject: Suspicious hire

Hello, I would like to report multiple executive branch employees who were put in their positions solely because of their race and/or gender despite the fact that they are wholly unqualified for their jobs and, in some cases, have criminal records. Their names:

Donald Trump
J.D. Vance
Pete Hegseth
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Elon Musk
Stephen Miller

There are many more, but I figure that's enough for now. Once you start pulling that string you will find all manner of unqualified persons given government jobs solely because of their race and gender. Please drain the swamp!

We would guess that there aren't too many federal employees interested in throwing their colleagues under the bus. And now, tips from those folks who ARE interested in ratting out their colleagues are going to get lost in the sea of smart-alecky reports.

Oh, and in case you're wondering about the e-mail address—say, you have a friend who'd like to know—it is DEIAtruth@opm.gov. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Rewrite The Stars

There are undoubtedly many people out there who are interested in being public-spirited citizens, and in being a part of Team USA in some way, but who are disheartened by the current presidential administration, and who don't particularly want to be a part of anything directly related to Trump 47.

If you, or someone you know, fits that description, the clever folks at the National Archives have an opportunity that might be of interest (and we thank reader A.S. in Renton, WA for bringing it to our attention). In short, there are lots of documents on file, mostly rendered in cursive handwriting, that need to be transcribed. And there are also lots of documents that need to be tagged (that is to say, given labels that describe their content, like "Civil War," "Battles," "Antietam" and "Casualties"). So, the Archives are now aggressively promoting their "Citizen Archivist" program.

For those who might like an interesting project to work on, this seems to offer a number of advantages:

1. Contributing meaningfully to the body of knowledge used by scholars and other researchers.
   
   
2. Interacting directly with historical documents, and learning about some of the nuances and subtleties that you don't really get exposed to unless you roll up your sleeves and jump in. To take an example, do you know what it meant when a denizen of the 18th/19th centuries wrote "Monday prox.," "Monday inst.," or "Monday ult."? We'll tell you at the end of this item.
   
   
3. Doing both of these things while staying far removed from the Trump administration and, indeed, from modern political issues and discourse. The country had its issues 50, or 100, or 150 years ago, of course. But they definitely weren't carping about DEI, CRT, who can or cannot play women's sports, or the deep state.

So, we commend the Archives on their initiative, and we pass it along in case it's of interest to some readers.

Oh, and "Monday prox.," "Monday inst.," or "Monday ult." meant "next Monday," "this Monday" and "last Monday." That usage was common in the 1700s and early 1800s, was "old-fashioned" by the time of the Civil War, and fell into near-total disuse by the end of the 19th century.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger