Diplomacy, MAGA Style: Frustrated with His Friend Vladimir, Trump Goes Off Script

Earlier this week, Donald Trump announced his "plan" to end the conflict in Ukraine. Truth be told, it's the sort of plan we might have come up with... if you gave us 2 minutes to work, and advised that an unsatisfactory proposal would result in an unhappy encounter with a sixth-story window, or a cup of polonium tea.

Here, in brief, are the elements of the proposal. Russia gets:

• Formal U.S. recognition that they now own Crimea
• Formal U.S. recognition that they now own vast lands in east Ukraine
• A ban on NATO membership for Ukraine
• No more sanctions
• Increased (and presumably tariff-free) trade with the U.S. in energy and industrial materials

Meanwhile, Ukraine gets:

• A "security guarantee" (like the "guarantee" they had prior to this war)
• A small, Russian-occupied piece of Kharkiv back
• Access to the Dnieper River
• "Funding" for rebuilding, though details are not spelled out

This deal is a clear nonstarter for Ukraine. Speaking generally, they give up much and get little. Speaking specifically, the Ukrainian constitution forbids the cession of Crimea. And so, shortly after the plan was unveiled, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said "no." Well, OK, he actually said "nyee," but you get the idea.

This, in turn, caused Trump, J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to all pitch fits, and to threaten to walk away from the negotiating table. Here is the rant that Trump posted to his for-men-who-are-compensating-for-something social media platform:

Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is boasting on the front page of The Wall Street Journal that, "Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea. There's nothing to talk about here." This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion. Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn't they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired? The area also houses, for many years before "the Obama handover," major Russian submarine bases. It's inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy's that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire—He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever. The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the "killing field," and nobody wants that! We are very close to a Deal, but the man with "no cards to play" should now, finally, GET IT DONE. I look forward to being able to help Ukraine, and Russia, get out of this Complete and Total MESS, that would have never started if I were President!

It is worth noting that even if you buy Trump's argument, Zelenskyy was not president of Ukraine 11 years ago, and so has nothing to do with the decisions made then. Is it lies, or is it ignorance? You can never be sure with #47.

In any case, Trump put forward an ultra-Russia-friendly proposal, and then lambasted and threatened Zelenskyy when he did not immediately fall on his knees so that he might kiss Trump's feet (or whatever else Trump wants to have kissed). You don't have to be Henry Kissinger to foresee what would happen next. Russia, led by a fellow who knows when to press the advantage, launched a massive strike on Kyiv, the largest since July of last year.

Again, you don't have to be Kissinger to have guessed this would happen. Heck, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) might have been able to predict it, and he may well be the dumbest senator of the last half century. Nonetheless, Trump apparently can't clear the Tuberville bar, intellectually, and he was apparently shocked and outraged over the Russian attack. So, the President got back on his social media platform to register his views:

I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!

Maybe Trump really is unhappy, or maybe this was just a little political theater for all of our benefits. At this point, we just don't know. We will point out that Trump is addressing Putin by first name, however, which is rather familiar, and friendly.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, according to reporting from CNN, Trump is frustrated, and is admitting to insiders that ending the war in Ukraine is much harder than he thought it would be. Who knew? In any event, we now have an answer to the question of "What do ending the war in Ukraine and bringing down the price of eggs have in common?"

We do not know what these recent developments (and note, Trump described the peace deal as his team's "final offer") mean, and what the effect of the White House's change in posture might be. However, he tends to get bored and frustrated with anything that takes more than a few days and, in this case, that becomes extra true if he thinks there's no Nobel Peace Price there for the winning. So, perhaps he'll drop the whole Ukraine War like a bad habit, and let, well, ANYONE else deal with it. (Z)

Fascism Watch, Part I: Trump Targets Act Blue

The first page of the required text for Fascism 101 points out that the would-be fascist must silence their enemies. And so, it is hardly unexpected that Donald Trump is going after the Democrats' campaign apparatus. The only surprise is that it took him so long.

What we are referring to here is an executive order Trump issued yesterday in which he instructs his caporegime AG Pam Bondi to conduct an investigation into ActBlue, the Democrats' online fundraising platform. Here's the reasoning, in Trump's own words (well, in the words of whatever person or ChatBot writes his XOs for him):

Notwithstanding these laws designed to protect American democracy, press reports and investigations by congressional committees have generated extremely troubling evidence that online fundraising platforms have been willing participants in schemes to launder excessive and prohibited contributions to political candidates and committees.

Specifically, these reports raise concerns that malign actors are seeking to evade Federal source and amount limitations on political contributions by breaking down large contributions from one source into many smaller contributions, nominally attributed to numerous other individuals, potentially without the consent or even knowledge of the putative contributors. The reports also raise concerns that such "straw donations" are being made through "dummy" accounts, potentially using gift cards or prepaid credit cards to evade detection.

Further, there is evidence to suggest that foreign nationals are seeking to misuse online fundraising platforms to improperly influence American elections. A recent House of Representatives investigation revealed that a platform named ActBlue had in recent years detected at least 22 "significant fraud campaigns", nearly half of which had a foreign nexus. During a 30-day window during the 2024 campaign, the platform detected 237 donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards, indicating that this activity remains a pressing concern.

One cannot help but think of the old line: "In every accusation, there is a confession." In any event, let us pause for a moment to note that the primary basis for these claims—that ActBlue is facilitating widespread campaign finance fraud—is "A recent House of Representatives investigation." Do we really need to tell ANYONE reading this site that the paper that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) used to report the results of that "investigation" is useful for one thing, and it involves parrots and their cages?

There's no way around it; this is a direct assault on the opposition political party. And it's a key cog in the whole operation. Political parties need money, and ActBlue is the most important way in which the Democrats raise that money. Incidentally, ActBlue is far more successful than the Republicans' equivalent, which is WinRed. Last year, ActBlue brought in $3,821,173,165, while WinRed brought in $1,686,456,166. That's over $2 billion more for ActBlue. Surely that fact has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Trump's decision to target ActBlue. No, sir!

That said, we think it's also a pretty stupid decision by him. There is just no chance that Trump somehow achieves some sort of legal victory here. Again, there's no evidence for any of the claims being made. And beyond that, as Trump himself has demonstrated, it's really hard to punish campaign finance irregularities. Even if Pam Bondi comes up with something, and persuades a court or persuades 4 of 6 FEC commissioners, all that happens is that ActBlue has to give the dirty money back.

What that means is that the only real benefit here is to produce some "Democrats are crooks" headlines and propaganda for the MAGA base. OK, fine, but there is such a thing as the Streisand effect. The DNC is pitching a very loud fit about all of this and, as readers can certainly guess, is already fundraising off of it. The first solicitation went out about 20 minutes after the XO was announced. We would bet large sums of money that ActBlue had a great day yesterday, and will have a great week. And we would also guess, with some confidence, that "Donald Trump is literally trying to shut us down" will resonate more with voters and donors on the blue side of the aisle than Manufactured Story #13,378 about alleged Democratic malfeasance will resonate with voters and donors on the red side of the aisle. (Z)

Fascism Watch, Part II: Plaintiffs, Get in Line

There are a lot of lawsuits against the Trump administration. Every week, we get questions from readers asking if there's a good website tracking them all. We've shared this before, but Just Security has a good tracker. By their count, there have already been 209 cases filed against the Trump administration (roughly 2½ a day), of which 205 are still pending. So, things are pretty backed up.

We do our best to follow the biggies, and there were a couple of stories this week worth noting. To start, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a challenge to the Montgomery County Public Schools (in Maryland) that updated their approved book selections for language arts to include stories with gay characters. Let the pearl clutching begin. Plaintiffs include a diverse group of religious adherents to show, presumably, that anti-gay sentiment brings many denominations together. These plaintiffs seek what they call "modest relief;" they just don't want their children to learn of a gay person's existence or listen to a story that includes a wedding between two men, which they characterize as "instruction on gender and sexuality."

If you thought these folks would get a particularly warm welcome at the Supreme Court, you'd be absolutely right. Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the Bostock decision, which held that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, seemed appalled that a first grader would be listening to a story where a prince falls in love with the knight who saved him from the dragon. (Knights can be women too, mind you, but in this case, it's a man.) Justice Alito did his usual bloviating about how awful public schools are generally and that the county's position amounts to advocating for teachers to do whatever they want in the classroom, including going outside the curriculum to coerce students to adopt a particular gender identity. Needless to say, that is not what this case is about.

While the media consensus is that a majority appears ready to side with the plaintiffs, what is less clear is what legal basis the justices will rely on to reach that outcome. Listening to oral arguments felt like being at a school board meeting, with the justices playing the role of the angry parents conjuring up all manner of horribles if children remained in the classroom when (or if) these books were read. The justices acknowledged that these books are not part of a sex education or gender identity curriculum. Instead, they are part of an array of storybooks designed to provide language skills. Nonetheless, at least four of the justices seemed troubled by a portrayal of same-sex relationships in a positive or "normalizing" light in a classroom book, and that a teacher, in simply reading the book aloud, might reinforce the notion that a same-sex relationship is OK. Justice Kavanaugh wondered what the big deal is in letting students "opt out" and said, without a trace of irony, that the Court is always looking for a "win win." (His tone deafness continues to astound.)

What was missing was any real discussion of the substantive law. One has to read the briefs to understand the legal claims being made here. The plaintiffs claim that denying the children the right to be warned and to be given an opportunity to opt out of class if these books are read in class (though it's unclear if they claim that even having the books on the shelves is also a violation) violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

In that context, the law is well-settled: Exposure to ideas or material that is offensive to some religious groups is not enough; there must be an element of coercion that compels the person to change their beliefs or act in a way contrary to those beliefs. The district court and the Fourth Circuit both found that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show any violation. And that makes sense, as anyone can find offense in anything in a school's curriculum and claim that nearly any material is contrary to their religious beliefs. Jews could object to Charlotte's Web because pigs aren't kosher. Muslims might insist that atlases with maps of the Philippines be removed. After all, that nation is home to Allah Valley—blasphemy! Christians could demand a ban on Long Train Runnin': Our Story of The Doobie Brothers, since Jesus is just alright with them. Allowing students to "opt out" without any standards or criteria for doing so would paralyze public schools. And in this case, it would amount to a ban on these books, as the only viable solution for these schools would be to simply remove them from the shelves.

The plaintiffs' failure to meet their burden of proof is particularly important here given the posture of the case, which is an appeal from the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, and what the court of appeals called the "scant" record before it. In other words, at this early stage in the litigation, there is no evidence in the record that any child was forced to read any of these books. It's also unclear whether any of these books were EVER read aloud during class. The alleged injury is so tenuous, in fact, that the school district has filed a motion to dismiss on standing grounds.

The fact that this case is coming to SCOTUS in this posture is especially ironic given how amenable the Roberts Court is to the Trump administration's claims of a federal judiciary run amok with nationwide injunctions. Their willingness to overlook the constraints around injunctions, which the Fourth Circuit was careful to note, isn't going to dispel the public's belief that this Court reaches the result it wants and finds a way to justify it later. What remains to be seen is how gaping the hole will be in free-exercise jurisprudence so the Court can give these parents the outcome they want.

Moving on, yesterday it was another day, another illegal deportation and another court order to bring the deportee back. Well, OK, thanks to the Supremes, it's an order for the government to "facilitate" his return. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the Federal District Court in Maryland found ICE to be in breach of contract when it deported a man referred to in court papers as "Cristian."

He was part of a group who came to the U.S. as unaccompanied minors in December 2022. This class of people reached a settlement with the government in 2024 that they would not be deported or detained while their asylum cases played out in court. Cristian was one of these people and ICE picked him up and sent him to CECOT anyway.

Gallagher held that, like Abrego Garcia, the government must get him back... er, "facilitate" his return, which means not just asking El Salvador nicely if the U.S. can have him back but making active efforts to secure his return. Gallagher noted that simply "standing by and taking no action is not facilitation." The judge also pointed out that courts have required the government to return migrants who were unlawfully removed in other cases. There was no issue of interfering with diplomatic relations.

Under normal circumstances, when a person is removed from the U.S., they are simply released in their country of origin. But if Trump is outsourcing their detention to a foreign country, they are arguably more within the government's control than if they had just been released into that country. So, it's ironic that Trump claims their detention somehow makes them LESS able to be returned. We'll see if the White House does anything to comply with this order.

We'll have more on the legal front next week. After all, the Trump legal beat is a near-endless source of (depressing) material. (L & Z)

Fascism Watch, Part III: 2028 Merch Setting the Stage for a Third Term?

The Trump family, of course, has absolutely no shame. Oh, and no particular interest in such trifling things as the Constitution. And so, the President's two eldest sons, who run a "Trump Store" website full of tacky stuff, unveiled yesterday the official Trump 2028 hat. Here's Eric Trump wearing it, while wondering—as he always does—"Will this make daddy finally love me?":

As far as baseball caps go, it's a monstrosity, and one that sells for the low, low price of $50.

We can only think of three things that might be motivating the Trumps here: (1) fleecing the rubes by getting them to pay fifty bucks for a cap that cannot cost more than two bucks to manufacture, even if the tariffs on imports from China are included; (2) antagonizing "the libs;" (3) normalizing the idea that Trump can run for a third term, if he so chooses. Obviously, these things are not exclusive, and it could well be that the cap is being sold for all three reasons.

In response to possibility number 3, we have one observation to share:

Donald Trump is not eligible to run for president in 2028.
Donald Trump no es elegible para postularse a la presidencia en 2028.
Дональд Трамп не имеет права баллотироваться на пост президента в 2028 году.
Donald Trump n’est pas éligible pour se présenter à la présidence en 2028.
Donald Trump ist nicht berechtigt, im Jahr 2028 für das Präsidentenamt zu kandidieren.
Donald Trump mag zich in 2028 niet kandidaat stellen voor het presidentschap.
Donald Trump non eligibile currere ad Praesidem in MMXXVIII.
Donald Trump non è idoneo a candidarsi alla presidenza nel 2028.
Donarudo toranpu wa 2028-nen no daitōryō senkyo ni rikkōho suru shikaku ga nai.
唐納德·特朗普沒有資格參加 2028 年總統競選。
Donald Trump 2028'de başkanlık seçimlerine aday olmayacak.
Si Donald Trump ay hindi karapat-dapat na tumakbo bilang pangulo sa 2028.
لا يحق لدونالد ترامب الترشح للرئاسة في عام 2028.
Donald Trump är inte berättigad att kandidera till presidentvalet 2028.
'eyqu' yIH net Sov.
Onaldday Umptray isyay otnay eligibleyay otay unray orfay esidentpray inyay 2028.

We figure that the more websites that have that statement, and the more languages in which it is rendered, the better chance that anyone who Googles "Can Trump run for a third term in 2028?" gets a correct answer, as opposed to the answer that those wannabe Mussolinis in Trump Tower are peddling. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Berth Marks

We gave two hints as to last week's headline theme. The first was pretty long:

[Here are] the planned headlines of the three items we had to hold to next week because of time constraints: (1) Hands Off, Part VI: Signs of the Times; (2) What's Really Going On?, Part I: Border Policy... It's a Trap!; (3) What's Really Going On?, Part II: Luigi Mangione, Terrorist Kingpin.

The second was: "If you're still pondering the headline theme of the week, the key is, well, the Keystone."

And now, the solution, courtesy of reader S.K. in Ardmore, PA:

My sixth sense and the looking glass tell me that today's unbreakable headlines all reference movies that were filmed/set at least partially in Pennsylvania.

• The First 100 Days: Trump Off to a Rocky Start
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: On the Whole, I'd Rather Be in Philadelphia
• This Week in Schadenfreude: What a Jackass
• This Week in Freudenfreude: The Baseball Creed

And from your non-used headlines: Signs, Trap, and Kingpin.

Of course, before I split, I should note that one could lean heavily on old movies by M. Night Shyamalan, but really it takes a village to fill these headlines.

Berth Marks, which is the second-ever Laurel and Hardy film, is also set primarily in Pennsylvania. Although curiously, they board a train in what is clearly San Diego and then arrive in Pennsylvania... 19 minutes later. Another nice mess.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

K.F. in Berea, KY R.D. in Cheshire, CT J.T. in Philadelphia, PA J.N. in Zionsville, IN M.M. in Dunellen, NJ J.S. in Germantown OH C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL B.J. in Arlington, MA D.K. in Bethesda, MD S.K. in Ardmore M.J. in Oakdale, MN N.H. in London, England, UK K.S. in Chicago, IL K.R. in Austin, TX R.P.E.H. in London, England, United Kingdom W.L. in Springfield, MO J.B. in Hershey, PA S.T. in Federal Way, WA M.B. in Albany, NY S.C. in Philadelphia, PA D.M. in Grand Rapids, MI R.W. in Aurora, CO M.L. in Simpsonville, SC J.D. in Greensboro, NC B.E. in Brooklyn, NY

D.D. in Highland Park, IL M.T. in Simpsonville, SC D.L. in Uslar, Germany T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts S.G. in Durham, NC J.J. in Johnstown, PA T.T. in Conway, AR S.W. in Winter Garden, FL S.L. in St. Louis, MO J.C. in Trenton, NJ G.W. in Avon, CT R.H. in West Grove, PA T.B. in Detroit, MI S.J.V. in New York City, NY L.R.H. in Oakland, CA B.K. in Mystic, CT T.D. in Chicago, IL M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada T.K. in Kirkwood, MO R.R. in Wiesbaden, Germany R.A.G. in Seattle, WA B.V. in Deerfield, IL J.M. in St Lawrence County, NY J.G.B. in Natick, MA B.R. in Berywn, PA

The 50th correct response was received at 9:18 a.m. PT on Friday.

As to this week's theme, it's in every headline and relies on one word in each case. It's in the Trivial Pursuit category Arts & Entertainment. And for a hint, we'll say that if you get the theme, you might also catch the conscience of the king.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject "April 25 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: The Economist Sets the Scene

This is going to be a very short item. The folks at The Economist know something about the economy—heck, it's in their name. And the publication, while it does not beat the drum on a daily basis, is known for its center-right politics (think: The Wall Street Journal). Both of these things make the cover of this week's issue notable:

That is all. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Heading in the Right Direction

(Z)'s graduating class in high school had 420 members (easy number to recall, for obvious reasons). And in the graduation program, there was a list showing each person's future plans. (Z) went through and counted; there were only four people whose plans did NOT involve college of some sort.

(Z) knew at least 40 of those "going to college" people who had absolutely no business going to college. And note, this is not a judgment of intelligence or anything like that—many of those 40 were very impressive folks, just in a non-academic way (some very talented artists, actors, and musicians, for example). There are two types of people who should go to college: (1) those who want to be there, for personal/intellectual development, and (2) those who plan to pursue a career where a college education is a necessity.

There are a number of factors that contribute to the trend, in the last half-century or so, of pushing students toward college, even if they do not really want or need to go to college. First up is society, which has (somewhat) collectively adopted the wisdom that "a college diploma is the new high school diploma," and thus that anyone who lacks a bachelor's degree is somehow wanting. The second is colleges, particularly those that are for-profit, or are otherwise concerned about the financial bottom line, and so need to enroll as many students (who bring a lot of those sweet, sweet federal dollars) as is possible. And the third is employers, who have made a degree a requirement for far, far too many jobs where it's really not needed.

The overcollegeing of America's citizenry, if we may invent a word, has some obvious deleterious effects. To start, for some of those who do not pursue college (or, more importantly, for those who pursue it and bomb out), it can and does create feelings of inadequacy. Further, it can create real problems with upward mobility. If the 56% of Americans who do not have a degree are competing for the 30% of middle-class jobs where a degree is not needed, then it leaves a lot of people on the outside looking in. And finally, these two dynamics have helped foment a sizable, reactionary base of voters who are available to be taken advantage of by... certain politicians, let's say.

We write all of this as prelude to talking about a new study from the nonprofit Opportunity@Work. That organization has coined the term "paper ceiling" to refer to the lack of opportunities available to people who do not have college degrees but are "skilled through alternative routes" (STARs). They are working on both ends of that problem, by trying to convince employers to eliminate needless degree requirements, but also by trying to encourage non-college employees to pursue jobs where they have the requisite skills.

According to the new report, Opportunity@Work's efforts are paying dividends. Specifically, 38% of employers are now aware of the "paper ceiling," and 83% of those say they are now more likely to hire non-degree-holders than they were 2-3 years ago. Between this specific success, and other societal trends, the number of middle-class jobs unavailable to non-degree holders has declined from 70% to 60% in the past 5 years. Put another way, the 56% of Americans who do not have college degrees are now competing for 40% of the jobs, as opposed to 30%. That's a big difference. Further, Opportunity@Work reports that they've reached 15% of workers with their "paper ceiling" campaign, and that 72% of those are more likely to apply for jobs they have relevant skills for, but that they would not have applied to previously.

This is valuable and important change. All the time, we get the question "What will it take to end Trumpism?" And fixing this particular problem might be the single best way to hammer at the foundations of MAGA.

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