Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Fallows - PM Mark Carney's Speech for the History Books at DAVOS

 

Mark Carney - Canadian PM at Davos

(Photo via Getty Images)

 A SPEECH FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS - CANADIAN PM MARK CARNEY AT DAVOS 

By James Fallows  [a former Presidential speechwriter for Jimmy Carter]

Mark Carney, prime minister of Canada, acknowledging a rare-for-Davos sustained standing ovation, at the end of his brief (17 minutes) but exquisitely composed address to the 1,800-person crowd of world financial and political leaders yesterday. He explained American values, and lamented the effects of their permanent loss, far more eloquently than the person who ranted, complained, bragged, and lied on that same stage this morning. And who left the stage to no applause except from his own staffers. 

It’s impossible to judge the long-term effect of oratory, in the short term. Many presentations that loom large in history were almost ignored at the time. Here’s just one example of many:

At Harvard’s commencement ceremony in 1947, then-Secretary of State George Marshall spent 12 minutes outlining why it was in America’s interest to help Europe recover from the devastation of World War II. Even though this would mean Americans pouring more tax money into the continent where so many of them had already sacrificed. Even though it would include helping Germany, so recently the Allies’ bitter foe.

At the time, the speech barely drew any coverage. But eventually it was recognized as the debut of what became the Marshall Plan, which in turn was the basis for Marshall himself receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.1

None of us can know for sure whether yesterday’s brief address at Davos, by Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney, will similarly be remembered as marking a turning point in understanding world power, and of America’s role. But there’s a chance it will be. And in any case, to keep it above the slurry of the latest outrage news, it’s worth noticing the craft, the composition, and the content of these 17 minutes on stage.

I’ll call this out with line-by-line annotations on the text, below. But the main accomplishments of the speech were these:

KEEP READING Text embedded





The new colossus: DO NOT SEND ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE

 

The new colossus: DO NOT SEND ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE

Perdomo v. Noem, 790 F. Supp. 3d 850 (C.D. Cal. 2025)

Image of the words of the New Colossus inscribed on a bronze plaque.

 "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

Emma Lazarus

So engrained in our national ethic were those words at the base of the Statue of Liberty that Ronald Reagan – whose conservative bona fides were beyond question – stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier near the Statue to mark our nation’s bicentennial.

Liberty Weekend - Wikipedia

But half a century later the Department of Homeland Security searches for unauthorized immigrants in Maine under the rubric of “Catch of the Day”.  Like Lewiston and Portland, Maine, Minnesota is home to many Somali emigrees embraced by Lazarus’s famous words.

But today’s President – Donald J. Trump strikes a gravely different tone. Speaking of Minnesota he has said

“It's a rigged state. And the Somalians vote as one group even if they're not citizens. They all ought to get the hell out of here. They're bad for our country.”

After swarming Minneapolis with thousands of masked  ICE troops attention turned to Los Angeles where United States District Judge Maame Frimpong found that agents have seized people based on language and appearance but the agents’ “knowledge that undocumented individuals use and seek work at car washes falls woefully short of the reasonable suspicion needed to target any particular individual at any particular car wash.”


The Judge asked:

Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is.

• Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court? Yes, it is.


And, further,

are the individuals and organizations who brought this  lawsuit likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers? This Court decides—based on all the evidence presented—that they are.

And second, what should be done about it?

 

The District Judge found that [DHS] failed to provide any concrete details as to what factors led Defendants to stop and question Gomez specifically nor indicate the nature of surveillance and intelligence data gathered that would give rise to reasonable suspicion.


The District Judge explained  that “the field agents' testimony (that it was "INS policy to conduct complete sweeps of all community residences, with or without information as to specific residences") … contradicted the official policy of the defendant agency (that such sweeps should be done only upon "individualized suspicion"),

  • The Judge therefor ordered DHS to cease stop, explaining that “[r]eliance solely on factors such as race/ethnicity, speaking Spanish/English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or type of work does not constitute reasonable suspicion for immigration stops.


Perdomo v. Noem, 790 F. Supp. 3d 850, 894 n.29, 33 (C.D. Cal. 2025)

Today we are again faced with the challenge Emma Lazarus posed.  Unfortunately the majority of the United States Supreme Court in a summary order lifted the injunction granted by a United States District Judge in California.  Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh found that ICE agents “may briefly detain” an individual “for questioning” if they have a “reasonable suspicion…that the person is an alien illegally in the United States.”

But Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s description of ICE conduct departs markedly from Justice Kavanaugh’s sanitized version.  She concluded that the four factors cited by the government do not “taken together ..satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion.”  The District Court, she concluded, properly temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests.”

The four factors are generalized, not specific: 1) apparent race or ethnicity, 2) whether they spoke Spanish or English “with an accent”, 3) their location such as at a car wash or bus stop, and 4) the type of job they appeared to work.  Individualized suspicion is not satisfied, Sotomayor wrote...but Justice Kavanaugh was satisfied, asserting that 2 million of the 20 million residents of  Los Angeles area are present “illegally”.

 Even if Kavanaugh’s estimate is correct the Department of Homeland Security has embarked on a campaign of mass deportation of unprecedented scope which would drastically affect life in LA and elsewhere, disrupting schools, the labor force, and much more.

ICE has announced it is now deploying its forces to Maine which, like Minneapolis, has a substantial population of Somali refugees from war and tyranny.

We recognize that significant effort is required to accommodate emigrees.  But our country has been built on such a foundation.  Emigrees come here fleeing poverty tyranny, climate sister and in hope of liberty and prosperity.  Generosity, not hostility, should guide our policies.

-        George Conk

-        1/21/2026

Thursday, January 15, 2026

All candidates can challenge election laws - Scotus Blog

 ALL CANDIDATES CAN CHALLENGE ELECTION LAWS 

Supreme Court Bost v. Illinois Bd of Elections


C.J. Roberts:
***While voters also have a general interest in an accurate vote tally, a candidate’s interest differs in kind.  Those who spend time and resources seeking to claim the right to voice the will of the people have “an undeniably different—and more particularized—interest” in knowing what that will is.   
***
 JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, dissenting. 
Under our standing precedents, this is an easy case.  Article III requires plaintiffs to assert and establish an “injury in fact”—i.e., the “invasion of a legally protected interest” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Congressman Bost has failed to allege that the election-related law he seeks to challenge has caused him to suffer any injury that satisfies those requirements. A majority of the Court nevertheless concludes that Bost has standing to sue based solely on his status as a candidate for office. The Court thereby subtly shifts from our longstanding actual-injury rule to a presumption that certain kinds of plaintiffs are sufficiently aggrieved to satisfy Article III standing, regardless of whether they will experience any particularized harm.  In my view, this dubious departure from settled law disregards both the equal treatment of litigants and judicial restraint.

It is happening here....ICE in Minneapolis - podcast - The Atlantic

Podcast: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/01/ice-shooting-Minneapolis-federal-prosecution/685618/


 

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Saturday, January 10, 2026

Trump setbacks on Childcare funding, Minnesota refugees, Kennedy Center, election funds

 Trump faces a series of setbacks - NY Times - January 10, 2026

  • Childcare funding: A federal judge in New York temporarily blocked the Trump administration from freezing roughly $10 billion in federal funding for child care and social services destined for five Democratic-led states, keeping funds flowing until a lawsuit against the government can progress. After the ruling, the administration announced it was freezing food assistance funding in Minnesota.

  • Minnesota refugee review: The Trump administration said that it was reviewing the applications of thousands of refugee cases in Minnesota amid an immigration crackdown in the state. Immigrants who previously received approval may face new interviews and background checks. Read more ›

  • Kennedy Center: The Washington National Opera decided to move its performances out of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, abandoning the hall where it has played since 1971 in perhaps the largest artistic rebuke yet to President Trump’s campaign to remake the Kennedy Center in his image. Read more ›

Zach Montague

Reporting from Washington

Judge bars Trump from withholding election funds to states.

Image
Voters last year in Dearborn, Mich. “The Constitution assigns no authority to the president over federal election administration,” the judge wrote in his ruling.Credit...Nick Hagen for The New York Times

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Friday from enforcing part of an executive order directing the government to withhold federal election funds to states that do not alter their voting procedures in line with the president’s demands.

Judge John H. Chun, of the U.S. District Court in Seattle, wrote in a 75-page opinion that threats aimed at states that declined to make several changes President Trump outlined violated the separation of powers and impeded states’ ability to administer their own elections. “The Constitution assigns no authority to the president over federal election administration,” he wrote.

keep reading

The ruling landed as yet another blow to the White House’s attempts to impose its will on state election practices, after several other judges previously found other parts of the executive order unlawful since it was issued in March.

In his ruling, Judge Chun, a Biden appointee, took aim at the executive order’s provisions tying its objectives to federal funding. Those included conditioning federal funds on changes to state voter registration forms that would require voters signing up to offer “documentary proof” of their citizenship.

Among other things, the executive order also sought to require that states finish tallying votes on Election Day and disallow any ballots that trickle in after. It further directed the Election Assistance Commission to enact new standards, such as requiring a “paper record” of all ballots counted.

Image
Election workers process ballots.
An earlier ruling had already blocked President Trump’s attempt to prohibit counting ballots beyond Election Day.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times

Judges in Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts had previously found other elements of the order illegal, blocking the proof of citizenship requirement as well as the prohibition on counting ballots beyond Election Day. In each case so far, judges have shown deep skepticism of federal attempts to compel changes in election procedures at the state level, finding that much of the executive order appeared to exceed the president’s authority.

While no judge has struck down the executive order in its entirety, the addition of Judge Chun’s decision on Friday left much of it blocked.

The Trump administration has appealed both of the previous rulings.

Since returning to office, Mr. Trump has revived a familiar list of grievances about election administration in the United States, proposing changes in the name of combating voter fraud despite scant evidence of election fraud at any meaningful level.

Voting and civil rights groups have warned in several recent elections that attempts to unconditionally enforce voter identification requirements, for example, can disenfranchise eligible voters who lack a valid passport or driver’s license.

The president, who has a long history of making unfounded claims about election fraud, despite repeated dismissals of election fraud cases in federal court, has seized on other tactics to influence the electoral landscape before the midterm elections this year. At Mr. Trump’s behest, several red states took steps last year to redraw their congressional districts to advantage Republican candidates, setting off a nationwide arms race over election maps.

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Trump's High Fear World - Josh Marshall - Talking Points Memo



Trump's High Fear World

By Josh Marshall//Talking Points Memo

Not long after Trump got into the presidential race in 2015, I heard from a New York City real estate lawyer/executive. This wasn’t a member of one of the big city real estate families but someone who had worked for more than one of them at a very high level and had observed Trump for years up close. He described Trump’s practice of catching people off guard with behavior that was so unpredictable, wild and above all aggressive that he was often able to get his way. Knocked back on their heels by his outrageous and sharkish behavior, they wouldn’t know how to respond. They would be so stunned and flummoxed they’d just let him get away with things.

We see something very similar unfolding in Trump’s foreign policy, if you can call it that. He engages in a pretty basic process of taking things, daring the nominal referees to do something about it and then handing off assets to cronies and and oligarchs. 

Sunday, January 4, 2026

Venezuela: Josh Marshall on the Trump Excellent adventure

 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/first-thoughts-on-trumps-excellent-venezuela-adventure


By Josh Marshall, EIC-  - Talking Points Memo 

I’ve heard a lot of people talking about not consulting with Congress or not receiving an authorization to U.S. force from Congress. I think this is far, far beyond what are essentially sub-constitutional technicalities. The U.S. president just went to war with another country and now will apparently occupy it for essentially no reason, with no warning and with public opinion overwhelming against all of it. 

Someone quipped on BlueSky last night that Trump hadn’t even taken the proper constitutional steps to lie the country into this war. This was more than just a funny line. Even lying the country into a war gives some due to the idea that the country is supposed to have some idea what the president is doing, why and some opportunity at least to register an opinion about it. 

Nor can any of this be separated from the broader domestic and global fabric of Trumpism, the casual illegality, the impetuousness and more than anything else the simple but always visible premise that Trump owns the United States, its military, its people, its wealth, everything. Someone told me earlier that this was like Trump taking his ICE raids global. And yeah, it pretty much is. Trump does what he wants, like one does with things one owns. You don’t ask your table what room it wants to be in and most employers don’t ask employees what tasks they want to do. In Trump’s mind he owns the country and its power. He won it fair and square in the 2024 election. Everything that stands in the way of that basic premise is an obstacle to be overturned.


 

The Maduro Indictment

 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/03/nyregion/venezuela-maduro-indictment.html?smtyp=cur&smid=bsky-nytimes

Thursday, January 1, 2026

The Jack Smith Deposition before Congress

 conclusion: Donald J. Trump should be in jail.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR-bhPzQYUE

<iframe width="1335" height="751" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lR-bhPzQYUE" title="Jack Smith Deposition" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Transcript of deposition