How Trump Uses His Office to Enrich Himself, Friends, and Family, While Endangering American Security and Pardoning Felons.

National Review, April 2026 Issue, March 10, 2026 - Trump has become one of the world’s richest crypto entrepreneurs, making the Biden family’s $27 million influence- peddling scandal look penny- ante. To pull it off, shortly before the 2024 election he started a crypto enterprise, World Liberty Financial, with Steve Witkoff, his New York real estate pal and current special envoy to the Middle East. 

It was secretly seeded with half a billion dollars from Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan, the deputy to and intelligence chief for his brother Sheikh Mohamed, the king of the United Arab Emirates. Concurrently, WLF— ostensibly 
run by sons Eric Trump and Zach Witkoff— got help building the blockchain infrastructure from Changpeng Zhao. 

Zhao had been convicted of felony money laundering for allowing his crypto 
exchange (Binance, now banned in the U.S.) to become a covert funding channel for “terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers,” in the words of the DOJ. When WLF rolled out USD1, its new 
stablecoin (a form of cryptocurrency pegged to the value of the dollar), Tahnoon— whose government was lobbying Trump to pardon Zhao— bought an astonishing $2 billion of the untested coin, 
Investing it in Zhao’s Binance. 

Stablecoin operates like a bank: issuers like WLF invest the purchase proceeds. Trump and Witkoff therefore stand to make $80 million per year from Tahnoon’s purchase. Subsequently, Zhao got his pardon, and the UAE got access to the advanced microchip technology from which Biden security officials and congressional Republicans had blocked it over concerns about Tahnoon’s ties to Beijing. If Democrats take control of the House this fall, expect to hear a lot more about this.

Top Stories

Are Our Politics, at the Local and State and National Levels Better or similar or Worse Today than 14 Years Ago?

Mark Rogers

by Mark Rogers, reposted from Facebook, March 10, 2026 -This post was written some 14 years ago in response to a series of resolutions from county Republican Party Executive Committees attacking Governor Bill Haslam. 

Are our politics, at the local and state and national levels, better or similar or worse today than 14 years ago? Thoughts? 

There was a time when the Williamson County Republican Party was a role model for Republicans across the state and the nation.  The party elected more and more highly qualified Republicans at every level of government, making the county the best run county in America.  The party did not stop at the county line but extended help to other county parties around the state and contributed thousands of dollars to Republican candidates in key races.  Many of my happiest political memories involve working with the Williamson County Republicans.

That is why it pains me so much to see that the Williamson County Republican Party Executive Committee has apparently taken leave of its senses and chosen to attack Governor Haslam for reasons that would be funny if it were not that so many activists seem to agree with them.  To read the resolution posted in the Tennessean passed by the Stewart County Republican Executive Committee {and similar to those passed in Williamson and other counties} is to grasp the idea of people who are so clueless that they think the Governor is an ally of Islamic radicals, an agent of International Communism, a Democrat and various other Satanic forces.  

The closing line calls for the State Executive Committee to:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Stewart      County GOP, that we hereby urge The Tennessee Republican Executive Committee to take meaningful action against the Governor Bill Haslam ‘s Administration.

My suggestion is that the State Executive Committee put these county party executive committees on double secret probation and have some sane people run the party organizations until new elections are held next year.  

Beyond that, the danger of such behavior is not to be underestimated.  Today too many good people in both parties sit back and leave the nuts and bolts of the party to other people who are often members of groups with very narrow agendas.  Such groups often put one issue above everything else.  That ends up allowing noisy minorities to impose their views on a party that represents a wide range of opinions on those issues.  

Today the Republican party is being threatened by a small group of self-styled conservatives who are more interested in their own power than in improving America.  They use the accusation that anyone who disagrees with them is a RINO or a liberal or some other groundless accusation.  

These resolutions are a perfect example of the witch hunting that is beloved of the faux conservatives who are more interested in power than principle.  More interested in shrinking the party to just their followers than in building a durable conservative and Republican majority.  

I encourage Republicans across Tennessee to reject such extremist behavior and rally behind candidates in the primary who embody the Values and Ideas of Ronald Reagan and Howard Baker and George H. W. Bush instead of the ideology of intolerance and division.  

As Thomas Brackett Reed, the last truly great Speaker of the House of Representatives, "A good party is better than the best man who ever lived."  We cannot rebuild the Republican Party to restore America if we allow different groups to impose ideological tests on members.  One cannot be 100% consistent on every Ideal or Right.  So those who want to say that only people who measure up to their definition on their issue are going to destroy the party by constantly dividing us over minor issues.  

Let's focus on where we agree rather than trying to divide the party with such harmful measures as these resolutions.

# 

Rod/s Comment: In answer to your question, our politics are much worse. The Republican Party has morphed from the smart party to the dumb party. We went from a party that believed in free trade, free enterprise, capitalism, belief in a democratic-republican form of government tethered to the Constitution, respect for norms and institutions, balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, America's leadership role in the world and collective security, an expectation that our leaders not use public office to enrich themselves, to what we have today; a nationalist-populist, blood and soil party that supports might-makes-right and threatens its neighbors, reckless spending, tariffs,  bigotry and celebration of cruelty, disregard for the Constitution and basic liberties enshrined in the Constitution, acceptance of unthought-of corruption, and a party with a Nazi problem.

Of course, the Democratic Party has changed too, embracing wokeness, identity politics, electing avowed socialists to office, and also willing to trample rights and punish incorrect thoughts, and going off on tangents like defund the police.

Fifteen years ago would be 2015. I think that is the year that the Republican Party and the Conservative movement lost its way. My friend Gene Wisdom recently posted a memory from that year in which he attended the CPAC convention. CPAC, as I am sure most people reading this know, is the annual convention of the conservative movement. While the conservative movement has diverse elements, CPAC kept out of the convention the kind of people who now hold center stage at the conference. In 2014 they did not invite Donald Trump to attend the convention. In 2015, they invited him.

In February 2016, National Review, which since its founding had been the most influential magazine of the conservative movement, devoted a whole issue to various luminaries of the conservative movement arguing why Trump was a bad choice for the Republican Party and arguing that Trump was not a conservative. They titled that issue "Against Trump." Some of those who contributed to that issue have since acquiesced to Trump; some are now irrelevant, and a few are still fighting the good fight opposing Trump and his authoritarian agenda. While National Review is still a relevant publication, they no longer have the influence they did in the past. Now the "luminaries" of what has become the conservative movement are podcasters like Megan Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Candice Owens. Now it would be difficult to find a dozen influential conservatives to oppose Trump. They have either acquiesced, been exiled, or become refugees from the movement. 

I remember well when the Party went off the rails, starting about 2009. I remember well when Governor Haslam was accused of plotting to impose Sharia Law on Tennessee. This would be funny if not for the fact that many in the Republican Party believed it. I recall when a group of Republican House members thought the Haslam administration was building a Muslim foot-washing facility in the Capitol building. It turned out to be a mob sink. You can't make this stuff up.

I wonder where we will go from here. On a good day, I think Trump will fade from the scene, and Republicans will rediscover the things they cast aside, and the Party will return to normal, and we will again have two parties fighting over policy but within the parameters of normal; on a bad day, I think we rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell. 

Mark Rogers was long been a Republican leader before the Trump era of the Party. He has worked as campaign manager for candidates, a consultant, a political researcher and analyst, and has served in positions of leadership on government commissions and has served on non-profit boards and commissions. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Judge orders ICE to explain detaining Nashville reporter

News Channel 5, March 10, 2026 -A federal judge has ordered the government to explain why Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Nashville Noticias reporter Estefany Rodriguez Florez and why she remains held at an Alabama facility. ...

... Attorneys for Rodriguez argue that her rights under the First and Fifth Amendments were violated when ICE agents abruptly detained her.

They’re seeking her immediate release and asking the court to prevent the government from taking any enforcement action against Rodriguez, either by retaliating against her past speech or chilling her future speech.

Her attorneys have said they worry Rodriguez was retaliated against for her reporting on ICE activity throughout Nashville for the Spanish-language outlet Nashville Noticias. They noted that ICE had never been in contact with her until January — roughly five years after she first entered the country legally on a visa in 2021.

.... ICE has accused Rodriguez of illegally overstaying her visa. ...  a pending asylum case, ...  Rodriguez had missed two scheduled meetings. ...

Medina told us that a massive winter storm shut down practically all of Nashville on the same day as the first scheduled meeting. A second meeting in February was also rescheduled when he said ICE officials could not find anything related to a scheduled meeting in their system. (read it all)

Top Stories

Trump Officials Attended a Summit of Election Deniers Who Want the President to Take Over the Midterms

by Doug Bock Clark, ProPublica, March 9, 2026- Several high-ranking federal election officials attended a summit last week at which prominent figures who worked to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election pressed the president to declare a national emergency to take over this year’s midterms.

According to videos, photos and social media posts reviewed by ProPublica, the meeting’s participants included Kurt Olsen, a White House lawyer charged with reinvestigating the 2020 election, and Heather Honey, the Department of Homeland Security official in charge of election integrity. The event was convened by Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, and attended by Cleta Mitchell, who directs the Election Integrity Network, a group that has spread false claims about election fraud and noncitizen voting. 

Election experts say that the meeting reflects an intensifying push to persuade Trump to take unprecedented actions to affect the vote in November. Courts have largely blocked his efforts to reshape elections through an executive order, and legislation has stalled in Congress that would mandate strict voter ID requirements across the country.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that activists associated with those at the summit have been circulating a draft of an executive order that would ban mail-in ballots and get rid of voting machines as part of a federal takeover. Peter Ticktin, a lawyer who worked on the executive order and had a client at the summit, told ProPublica these actions were “all part of the same effort.” 

The summit followed other meetings and discussions between administration officials and activists — many not previously reported — stretching back to at least last fall, according to emails and recordings obtained by ProPublica. The coordination between those inside and outside the government represents a breakdown of crucial guardrails, experts on U.S. elections said.

“The meeting shows that the same people who tried to overturn the 2020 election have only grown better organized and are now embedded in the machinery of government,” said Brendan Fischer, a director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization. “This creates substantial risk that the administration is laying the groundwork to improperly reshape elections ahead of the midterms or even go against the will of the voters.”

Five of six federal officials who attended the summit didn’t answer questions about the event from ProPublica. 

A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said federal officials’ attendance at the gathering shouldn’t be construed as support for a national emergency declaration and that it was “common practice” for staffers to communicate with outside advocates who want to share policy ideas. The official pointed to comments Trump made to PBS News denying he was considering a national emergency or had read the draft executive order. “Any speculation about policies the administration may or may not undertake is just that — speculation,” the official said.

In the past, Trump has expressed an openness to a federal takeover as a way to stem projected Republican losses in November. This month, he said in an interview with conservative podcaster Dan Bongino that Republicans need “to take over” elections and “to nationalize the voting.”

Mitchell did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the summit. A spokesperson for Flynn responded to detailed questions from ProPublica by disparaging experts who expressed concerns, texting, “LOL ‘EXPERTS.’” 

The 30-person roundtable discussion on Feb. 19, at an office building in downtown Washington, D.C., was sponsored by the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a conservative think tank. Afterward, activists and government officials dined together, photos reviewed by ProPublica showed.

Flynn, the institute’s chair, told a social media personality why he’d arranged the event. 

“I wanted to bring this group together physically, because most of us have met online” while “fighting battles” in swing states from Arizona to Georgia, Flynn said to Tommy Robinson on the gathering’s sidelines. Robinson posted videos of these interactions online. “The overall theme of this event was to make sure that all of us aren’t operating in our own little bubbles.”

Flynn has repeatedly advocated for Trump to declare a national emergency and posted on social media after the event addressing Trump, “We The People want fair elections and we know there is only one office in the land that can make that happen given the current political environment in the United States.”

In addition to Olsen and Honey, four other federal officials from agencies that will shape the upcoming elections attended the event. At least four of the six attended the dinner.

One is Clay Parikh, a special government employee at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who’s helping Olsen with the 2020 inquiry. A spokesperson at ODNI said Parikh had attended the summit “in his personal capacity.” 

Another, Mac Warner, handled election litigation at the Justice Department. A department spokesperson said that Warner had resigned the day after the event and had not received the required approval from agency ethics officials to participate.  

The department “remains committed to upholding the integrity of our electoral system and will continue to prioritize efforts to ensure all elections remain free, fair, and transparent,” the spokesperson said in an email.

A third administration official who attended the summit, Marci McCarthy, directs communications for the nation’s cyber defense agency, which oversees the security of elections infrastructure like voting machines. 

Kari Lake, whom Trump appointed as senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, was a featured speaker. Lake worked with Olsen and Parikh in her unsuccessful bid to overturn her loss in the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election.

Lake said in an email that she “showed up to the event, spoke for about 20 minutes about the overall importance of election integrity, a non-partisan issue that matters to all citizens — both in the United States and abroad. I left without listening to any other speeches.” 

“Elections should be free from fraud or any other malfeasance that subverts the will of the people,” she added. 

At the meeting, activists presented on ways to transform American elections that would help conservatives, according to social media posts and interviews they gave on conservative media, such as LindellTV, a streaming platform created by the pillow mogul Mike Lindell. They said the group broke down into two camps: those who wanted to pursue a more incremental legal and legislative strategy and those who wanted Trump to declare a national emergency.

Multiple activists left the meeting convinced Trump should do the latter, a step they believe would allow the president to get around the Constitution’s directive that elections should be run by states. 

Former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, a prominent funder of efforts to overturn the 2020 election, told LindellTV that Trump has “played nice” so far in not seizing control of American elections. “But at some point,” Byrne said, “he’s got to do something, the muscular thing: declare a national emergency.”

Byrne responded to questions from ProPublica by sending a screenshot of a poll that he said suggested “2/3 of Americans correctly do not trust” voting machines, which the proposed national emergency declaration aims to do away with.

Will Huff, who has advocated for doing away with voting machines, told a conservative vlogger that Olsen, the White House lawyer, and other administration representatives would take the “consensus” from the gathering back to Trump. “It’s got to be a national emergency,” said Huff, the campaign manager for a Republican candidate for Arkansas secretary of state.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Huff said in an email that Olsen and Trump would use their judgment to decide whether to declare a national emergency. 

“The President has been briefed on findings of shortcomings in election infrastructure,” Huff wrote. “I believe there are steady hands around the President wanting to ensure that any action taken is, first, constitutional and legal, but also backed by evidence.”

McCarthy, the cybersecurity official, expressed more general solidarity with fellow attendees in a post on social media about the summit. “Grateful for friendships forged through years of standing shoulder-to-shoulder, united by purpose and conviction,” she wrote. “The mission continues… and so does the fellowship.”

A LinkedIn post with a photo showing seven people at an upscale restaurant. The post says: “Some nights remind you exactly why you stay in the fight. 🇺🇸

Honored to spend time in the 202 🇺🇸 with General Michael Flynn alongside fellow Patriots — Cleta Mitchell, Holly Kesler, Brad Carver, Heather Honey, Clay Parikh and Mac Warner — who continue to stand for FITness — Faith, Integrity & Trust in our Elections. 🔐

Grateful for friendships forged through years of standing shoulder-to-shoulder, united by purpose and conviction. The mission continues… and so does the fellowship. ❤️🤝🇺🇸.”

Marci McCarthy, second from left, Heather Honey, fourth from right, and Cleta Mitchell, third from right, were among the conservative activists and officials who attended the summit. McCarthy posted about the event on LinkedIn. Screenshot by ProPublica. Redactions by ProPublica.

Last week’s gathering was the latest in a string of private interactions between conservative election activists and administration officials, according to emails, documents and recordings obtained by ProPublica. Many have involved Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network. Before taking her government post, Honey was a leader in the Election Integrity Network, ProPublica has reported, as was McCarthy.

Previously unreported emails obtained by ProPublica show that just weeks after Honey started at the Department of Homeland Security, she briefed election activists, a Republican secretary of state and another federal official on a conference call arranged by her former boss, Mitchell.

“We are excited to welcome her on our call this morning to hear about her work for election integrity inside DHS,” Mitchell wrote in an email introducing presenters on the call.

Honey didn’t respond to questions from ProPublica about the call. Experts said Honey’s briefing gave her former employer access that likely would have violated ethics rules in place under previous administrations, including the first Trump administration — though not this one.

The prior “ethics guardrails would have prevented some of the revolving door issues we’re seeing between the election denial movement and the government officials,” said Fischer, the Campaign Legal Center director. Those prior rules “were supposed to prevent former employers and clients from receiving privileged access.”

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

Top Stories

What is the Truth About Nashville Property Tax Hikes?

 

by Rod Williams, March 8, 2026- The mayor is flat-out saying something that is not true. He is smart enough to know it is not true. He knows how property taxes are calculated.  

An increase in property value does not increase the amount of property tax you pay. Let us look at an example:

Assume you have a house valued at $300,000. Residential property is assessed at 25%, so the Assessed value is $300 000 x 25%= $7500.  Then for each hundred dollars of assessment (750) you apply the tax rate, which is $2.814 per $100 of assessed value for the Urban Services District of Nashville. So, your tax bill would be 750 x $2.814 = $2,110.5.

Now, let us assume your property increases in value to $600,000, but also assume all other properties increase in value and this is reflected in the reappraisal. State law requires that, following a reappraisal, the tax rate must be lowered so that there is no increase in tax revenue for the city. A reappraisal is not for the purpose of increasing tax revenue but to ensure fairness and equity in the property tax system by updating property values to reflect their current fair market value. Because real estate market values change over time, with some areas growing faster than others, the periodic reappraisals ensure that property owners pay taxes based on accurate, current data rather than outdated, inequitable values. 

After the appraisal is complete, the city must then pass a "Certified Tax Rate."  This is designed to ensure “truth-in-taxation” following a county-wide reappraisal. The process ensures the amount of total taxes collected for a county remains the same after a reappraisal, even if the combined value of all property in the county rose or fell following the reappraisal.

So let us assume that due to increases in property values, the amount of taxes the city would collect if not for the certified tax rate would double, so the certified tax rate must be cut in half. So, $2.814 x 50%= $1.407. That would be the new tax rate.

Let us assume your home increased in value from $300, 0000 to $600,000. Let us calculate your taxes: ($600,000 x 25%) ÷100 x $1.407= $2110.5

Your tax bill does not change. In reality, what happens is that following the appraisal, the mayor will propose and the Council will pass a new tax rate to bring in more revenue. Most often, the Council will pass the Certified Tax Rate, and then the very next vote will pass a new tax rate higher than the certified tax rate. 

So let us assume the Council passes the Certified Tax Rate and then immediately passes another bill setting the tax rate at $2.00. Your tax bill would be thus: ($600,000 x 25%) ÷100 x $2.00= $3,000. Your taxes went up from the $2110 you were paying to $3,000.  Most will blame it on the increase in property values as reflected in the apprasial and the mayor and the Council may even brag about cutting the tax rate. The truth is, it was not the increase in property values that caused your property bill to increase but the actions of your elected officials.

The mayor knows this. It can be a little more complex than this because different types or properties are assessed at different rates and perhaps, to be generous, the mayor was simply inarticulate, or the quote above was taken out of context. However, I have seen him say something similar elsewhere.  I think he is intentionally trying to mislead. 

It is time to cap property taxes. It is also time to elect a mayor and a Metro Council that will stop imposing higher taxes and be honest and not try to blame increased property taxes on increased property values. 

Top Stories

Why Trump Changed His Mind on Kristi Noem

 by Nick Miroff, Michael Scherer, and Russell Berman, The Atlantic, March 7, 2026- Kristi Noem played “Hot Mama” as the walk-up song for her formal introduction at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in January 2025. President Trump had put her in charge of his signature campaign promise—the largest mass-deportation campaign in U.S. history—and Noem took a fast, flashy approach to the job. She dressed as a Border Patrol agent and an ICE officer, and rode horseback at Mount Rushmore in ads. She flew to El Salvador and posed in front of a prison cell crammed with tattooed inmates. She made no apologies for aggressive enforcement tactics on American streets, even those that likely broke the law, or for the deaths of two U.S. citizens who opposed her approach.

But it wasn’t the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis earlier this year that finally cost Noem her job today, making her the first ousted Cabinet secretary of Trump’s second term. Instead, it was her self-promotion.

Noem’s standing was already shaky when she went to Capitol Hill to testify this week. On Tuesday, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a Republican, asked whether Trump himself had approved Noem’s $220 million ad campaign that featured her urging migrants to self-deport. Noem said yes, and defended the ads as “effective.”

The ads “were effective in your name recognition,” Kennedy told Noem, saying that she put Trump “in a terribly awkward spot.” He was implying the commission of a cardinal sin for a Trump Cabinet member: seeking to outshine the president. (read more)

Rod's Comment
This is one of the points I made in my essay, "Why I am Cautiously Giddy About the Firing of Kristi Nome."  I wrote, "I suspect Trump is jealous of Noem. Trump wants it all to be about him. He wants to be the center of attention. He resents someone else building a support base and getting attention at his expense.  Calling the two Americans murdered at the hands of ICE, "domestic terrorists" will not get you fired. Being the center of attention will.

Top Stories

Bill Requiring Public Schools to Track Undocumented Students Has Been Watered Down But Needs to be Defeated.

by Rod Williams, March 7, 2026 - There are a lot of really bad or dumb bills that get introduced in the State legislature, but thankfully, most of them get rewritten to be less bad, are defeated, or are sent to a summer study committee, which allows them to die quietly. 

HB793 is a bill that would have allowed public schools to ban or charge tuition to undocumented students. The bill's sponsor, Representative William Lamberth, is moving to amend it. The revised proposal focuses on verifying immigration status and reporting data rather than excluding students or charging tuition. 

As originally written, the bill, if passed into law would likely have been found unconstitutional. A previous Supreme Court decision had found that all children have a right to a public education. 

As rewritten, if the bill passes, the State will avoid an expensive fight to defend the law in the courts. Nevertheless, it is a bad bill. Teachers are not qualified to determine if a student is "undocumented." There are various levels of immigration status between U.S Citizen and undocumented and statuses may change.

Some people may be Lawful Permanent Residents or Green Card Holders. Some may have Conditional Permanent Resident status, which is a 2-year, non-renewable green card granted to immigrants whose marriage to a U.S. citizen is less than two years old at the time of approval.

And then there are people with a Temporary Visas which is for individuals in the U.S. for a specific purpose and time. These include people with a Student Visas, F-1 or M-1 visas for academic or vocational studies, Tourist Visas, B-2 visas for pleasure or medical treatment, and Employment Visas such as H-1B, L-1, or O-1 visas for specialized workers.

And then we have refugees and asylees status, which is for persons fleeing persecution who are granted legal status to remain in the U.S. These people may be legal at one time and then become illegal because they were deemed not to be entitled to that status or because the status for all people from that country was terminated. Also, how do you list someone who overstayed a visa? Documented or undocumented.

Teachers already have a difficult job. This bill would complicate it. How is a teacher to determine one's status? They are not investigators or immigration attorneys. If the bill passes, it will result in a lot of incorrect information. Also, the bill will provide useless information. It does not require the teacher to list the name and address of the student who may be undocumented, so what is the point?  It needs to die. The legislature needs to refer it to a Summer Study Committee. 

For more on this issue see this link, this one and this one. 

Top Stories

Why I am Cautiously Giddy About the Firing of Kristi Nome.

by Rod Williams, March 5, 2026- I am trying not to get too giddy about Trump firing Kristy Nome. This could be a neutral event with little impact and soon forgotten, it could actually help Trump, or we could be witnessing the Trump house of cards beginning to topple. I am thinking this is major and Trump is starting to falter. I think this is the beginning of the end of the Trump nightmare. 

You had to watch closely to see it, but several of Trump's cabinet members have come under fire from Republicans recently when they appeared before members of Congress. Of course, the Democrats can be counted on to go after them and to criticize Trump, but as long as Republicans remain in control of Congress, there will be very little oversight and Democrat ranting in committee meetings may make some Democrat voters feel like their congressman is fighting the good fight, but it will have little impact. Until Democrats retake Congress, for Congress to have any impact on the operation of government or to moderate Trump's behavior will require some Republican defections from Trump. I think we are starting to see it. 

I have predicted that Congressional Republicans would start abandoning Trump at a rate parallel with the trend of his popularity. The trend is heading in the right direction for Republicans to feel emboldened to oppose Trump. The lowest approval rating for Trump ever was 29% in Jan 2021, following the January 6th attempted coup. Trump's poll approval numbers since returning to office have been around 47%–52%. As of today, RealClearPolling Average has Trump's approval rating at 43.3% approval and 54.8% disapproval. That is still not bad, but there is a lot of discontent about Trump. The ICE murders in Minneapolis, his losing the tariff fight at the Supreme Court, his continuing cover-up of the Epstein child molestation ring and his associations with Epstein, and now the war with Iran are all taking their toll. They are weakening Trump, and as he weakens, Republican members of Congress will more likely defy him. With every drop in a poll number, Republicans will be more vocal in criticizing Trump. I don't know how low he would have to go for it to really matter, but Republicans will react much differently if Trump's popularity stands at 37% than if it stands at 47%.

Perhaps as damaging to Trump's overall popularity rating decline is that elements of MAGA are turning on Trump. There is war going on in MAGA world between those for whom the Epstein files were a major concern and they are not going to just accept defeat. They want the truth to be revealed, and they feel that Trump, who ran on a campaign of releasing the files and punishing the guilty, has betrayed them. Some feel he is covering up his own complicity. On the other hand, there are those members of MAGA world who have almost a religious faith in Trump and can switch positions on any issue if Trump tells them to. To them, MAGA and America First are whatever Trump says they are. If Trump says we need to turn the page on Epstein, they are ready to do it.

The war against Iran is also contentious within  MAGA world. Some believed America First was an isolationist agenda and then there are those who can switch on a dime and will follow Trump anywhere.

This war within MAGA has more import than just the size of the voting bloc that identifies as MAGA. Those who care most about the Epstein files or the war against Iran and other foreign adventures are the kind of people who attend town hall, will call their congressman, who engage on social media, who work the polls, and are the small donors. Congress members want to keep these people placated and they get annoyed when Trump does things that cause these activists to call their office or shout at them at a town hall. And these MAGA congressmen don't know how to respond. Do they continue to side with Trump no matter his flipflop or do they side with the MAGA element that wants the Epstein files released and opposes foreign entanglements?

So, I see a couple of things happening at the same time. Trump's poll numbers are slipping, which makes Congress members feel emboldened to be more critical of the administration. Also, their most activist supporters are unhappy and Congressmen feel a need to placate them but don't really know how. Republican Congressmen, at this point, cannot directly attack or criticize Trump because even those MAGA activists who disagree with some of Trump's positions still like Trump. So, they can argue that what is wrong with the Trump administration is not Trump but that he is not being well-served by the people around him. Thus, they can grill Trump cabinet members in congressional hearings and claim to be supporting Trump, not attempting to harm him. 

I contend that Kristy Nome was a sacrificial lamb. She did nothing that was not either modeling Trump's behavior or carrying out his wishes. To recap the case against her and why Trump cut her loose, here are some particulars:

1) A firm tied to Kristi Noem secretly got money from a $220 Million DHS ad contract. The company is run by the husband of Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson and has personal and business ties to Noem and her aides. DHS invoked the “emergency” at the border to skirt competitive bidding rules for the taxpayer-funded campaign.

We know that this type of corruption is normal in the Trump administration, but Trump doesn't want anyone else ripping off the taxpayers but himself. He wants all of the control in his corrupt regime. He sees someone else's corruption as an infringement on what is rightfully his and making money at his expense.

2)  Kristi Noem was the star of the ad. One of the ads was shot at Mount Rushmore, featuring Noem sitting on horseback in chaps and a cowboy hat. Noem addresses the camera with a stern message for immigrants: “Break our laws, we’ll punish you.” 

I suspect Trump is jealous of Noem. Trump wants it all to be about him. He wants to be the center of attention. He resents someone else building a support base and getting attention at his expense. 

3) The public affair with Corey Lewandowski is an embarrassment. Both Lewandowski and Noem are married, and the affair is quite public and Lewandowski works for Noem. That doesn't look good and looks an awful lot like sexual harassment.  In addition, Lewandowski has a history of embarrassing behavior, including improper lobbying, hitting on women in public and improperly touching them, and rudeness toward underlings. You may recall the incident in which Lewandowski tried to order an airplane pilot to turn a plane around to retrieve a blanket Noem had left on another plane.

Trump, being the womonizer and crude and rude person that he is, probably does not really care about any of this but it was proving an embarrassment.

4) Her pronouncements that the two people killed by ICE in Minneapolis were "domestic terrorists" immediately after the shootings. was defended by many in MAGA world, but normal Americans were appalled and this is one of the drivers in Trump's poll numbers decline. Trump doesn't really care that ICE murdered two Americans, but if it is driving his poll numbers down and endangering his agenda he cares and someone needs to be the scapegoat. 

So given all of this, what happens next?

This could all blow over; it could be that her replacement does not cause embarrassment, and not much changes. Congressmen who criticized her in committee are seen as doing their job and actually helping Trump get rid of someone who was serving him poorly and this incident is neutral or actually helps Trump. Congress members who were critical of Noem are seen as serving Trump rather than opposing him and Trump accepts that he had to give his critics one scalp of a person who was proving an embarrassment and will not have to give any more or change any policies. 

On the other hand, this could severely weaken Trump. If you look at other cabinet members such as Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Robert Kennedy, Jr., or Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, they have all done things to cause embarrassment, or displease the pubic, or the MAGA base. I don't think the throwing of Kristy Noem under the bus will satisfy them. 

Each of the above cabinet members is, deserving of attention but take the case of Pam Bondi. The handling of the Epstein files has been a disaster from the start.  From the event where she handed out big notebook binders to a bunch of Trumpinista influencers, which was supposed to settle the issue, to the release of heavily redacted files that exposed the names of victims and protected the names of the powerful, to the continuing failure to release all of the files has been a disaster for the Trump administration. Remember "drain the swamp?"

And then there is her failure to indict the eight Congressmen who put out a video reminding service members that they should follow the law and not carry out unlawful orders. It is said that you can indict a ham sandwich, but she could not get an indictment. Also, there have been other failed attempts to prosecute Trump critics. 

Pam Bondi looks like a liability. Trump can sacrifice one of his team to save the mission, but giving up another cabinet member makes Trump look weak. Republican congressmen, meanwhile, still have a restless MAGA base they need to placate and a public that is turning against Trump by the day. 

Also, the Supreme Court striking down tariffs means that Republicans will have to cast a vote in favor of tariffs in order to keep Trump's tariff policy on track. It is one thing to abdicate one's responsibility and allow Trump to impose tariffs, and it is something else to have to cast a vote to impose tariffs. I suspect some Republicans who found it easy to do nothing and allow the tariffs will find it harder to actually vote for tariffs.

And, there is the war. A lot of the general public and the MAGA base will oppose the war, especially if it is not over soon and if there is more loss of American lives. According to the War Powers Act the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, which he did. The act then mandates ending hostilities within 60-90 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes the action. That is going to be a hard vote to cast. To vote to continue the war, Republicans will pay the price at the ballot box; to not do so makes Trump look really weak.

In addition, already being involved in the war in Iran and having just recently attacked Venezuela, Trump would be hard-pressed to attack another nation. The option of engaging in military action to distract from other problems is pretty much eliminated. He can't keep going back to that well. Even if neither of those military engagements was launched to distract from other issues, many assume they were, and he has already played that card. 

So, I see the firing of Nome as a desperate act born of weakness and think it will embolden Republicans to oppose Trump's policies and challenge his authoritarian agenda. Trump has shown not to be invincible. As his poll numbers drop, critics will be bolder. My only reason for not being more thrilled than I am by this development is that a wounded lion can be more dangerous than one that is unharmed. Who knows how Trump will react once he starts losing power? 

Top Stories

My! How Things Have Changed.

by Rod Williams, March 3, 2026- Pictured here is my friend Gene Wisdom at the 2016 CPAC convention with Gene standing in front of a cardboard Trump cutout display, holding a t-shirt he purchased at the convention featuring the front cover of the National Review issue called "Against Trump."

I did not attend that year. I had attended with Gene in 2012 and 2015, but by 2016, CPAC had warmed to Trump and Trump was scheduled to speak and I had had it with CPAC and chose not to go. 

Things had changed in one year. When I attended in 2015, Trump was not even invited to speak. CPAC always had prominent Republican candidates, and almost anyone of any significance to conservatives speak at the convention. This was an obvious shunning of Trump. CPAC, put on by the American Conservative Union, is the largest gathering of conservative activists in the nation. In one year, CPAC went from noticeably shunning Trump to embracing him. 

It is now easy to forget how united the conservative movement was against Trump the year prior to him winning the 2016 nomination. In February of 2016, National Review published an issue of the magazine that featured articles by some of the most popular and influential voices on the right. I have included the cover of that issue below. You will recognize many of the names of those who contributed essays to that issue, explaining why they could not support Trump.

 National Review had, since its founding, been the most influential publication of the conservative movement. Founded by William F. Buckley in 1955, National Review had defined the post Woarld War II conservative movement. The most influencial thinker and pundits of the movement had written for National Review. Its influence was enormous. While NR's influence since then has waned as the media landscape has changed, it is still influential, but in 2016, it was still seen as the premier voice of the conservative movement in America. 

If you look at the February 2016 cover of National Review, you will recognize some of the names who contributed to that issue. Some of those people who contributed to that issue have since embraced the Trump movement, some have become prominent voices in the pro-democracy movement against Trump, and others have tried to walk a fine line of one foot in and one foot out, and others have become  irrelevant. 

I still subscribe to National Review and think it has some of the best writing published today. National Review, while being faithful to conservative principles, has, in my opinion, been too solicitous and forgiving of Trump. They criticize many of his policies and his corruption, but are not nearly as alarmed as I think the moment requires. Also, it kind of depends on who the writer is; some seem much more critical of Trump than others. While I still appreciate National Review, I wish they still had the anti-Trump fervor now, as they did before Trump came to power. 

This picture of Gene in front of the Trump cutout is the year the Conservative movement abandoned conservatism and became a Blood and Soil, nationalist -populist movement.  How rapidly things changed.

Top Stories

Wilson County Mayor Says Public Opposition Drove ICE to Abandon Massive Detention Center Plans

 

by Rod Williams, March 3, 2026- Ruby red Wilson County will not be getting the massive ICE detention center as was rumored. The people don't want it. ICE backed off. This should not be interpreted as a rejection of ICE's secret police and paramilitary thugish-like behavior, but a case of Not-In-My-Back- Yardism.

Top Stories

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is Fighting the Good Fight

by Rod Williams, March 3, 2026- I have been a supporter of FIRE for a long time. For years, they fought for the free speech of conservative and religious students on college campuses. At some point, they broadened their scope to advocate for free speech everywhere.  Now, since the biggest threat to free speech is coming from the Trumpinista right, they are often defending critics of the Trump regime against government efforts to silence them. 

In this era of a president advancing an authoritarian agenda, many feel helpless to make an impact. We are not powerless. One thing we can do is support those in the trenches who are resisting the Trump authoritarian agenda. As a conservative, I support those who are remaining true their conservative values, such as respect for norms, fealty to the Constitution, limited government, respect for free speech and rule of law, free trade, and free enterprise.  While many Trumpian Republicans apparently never really believed the things they professed to have believed, there are many pundits, publications and thinktanks and activist organizations that have remained true to their beliefs. FIRE has not changed. It continues as a defender of free speech. Please consider sending them a donation. 

Top Stories

A Vote is Not a Felony: Tennessee Back Down After Constitutional Challenge to Criminalizing Votes.

by Cassandra Stephenson, Tennessee Outlook, March 1, 2026 - The state of Tennessee will not enforce a 2025 law that made it a felony for public officials to vote in favor of sanctuary policies for immigrants, according to a pending settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union-Tennessee. 

The ACLU-TN filed a lawsuit in June on behalf of seven Metro Nashville Council members, stating the law violates the First Amendment rights of locally elected officials to engage in legislative speech and debate.

The provision — part of Gov. Bill Lee’s 2025 immigration enforcement legislation — created a Class E felony for officials who vote in favor of policies or non-binding resolutions that can limit cooperation with  immigration authorities. The charge is punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine.

“The state acknowledged that the law unconstitutionally violates legislative immunity, the foundational principle that protects elected officials from prosecution for their voting record,” ACLU-TN stated in a Wednesday news release.

The settlement must be approved by the court to go into effect.

“It is antithetical to a free society for legislators to be charged with a crime for representing their constituents,” ACLU-TN Interim Legal Director Lucas Cameron-Vaughn stated in the release. “This law criminalized key aspects of a working democracy. It made dissent a felony. This agreement marks a major recognition that laws that target officials for voting violate the very foundation of the Constitution.”

The provision drew scrutiny from lawmakers — including Sen. Todd Gardenhire, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — prior to its passage during the 2025 legislative session. Gardenhire attempted to remove the criminal penalties from the bill but was blocked by other Republicans, who make up the majority of the committee. 

Tennessee enacted a law allowing citizens to file civil lawsuits against local governments that adopt sanctuary policies in 2019.

After the ACLU-TN filed the lawsuit, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti informed the Tennessee General Assembly that he could “advance no argument in support of the constitutionality of the challenged statutes,” according to the proposed settlement.

The Tennessee General Assembly told Skrmetti that it would not hire outside counsel to defend the law.

The state will pay just over $61,200 in attorneys’ fees and court costs, the proposed settlement states.

“Every legislator, whether at the federal, state, or local level, has a constitutional guarantee against prosecution for how they vote,” Skrmetti’s office stated in an email.  “Sanctuary policies remain illegal in Tennessee, but city and county officials cannot be imprisoned for voting for such policies.  As a result, we agreed that dismissal of this case was the appropriate outcome.”

Rod's Comment: I knew this was a dumb action when the State legislature passed this bill. It is also a trampling of free speech. I am pleased Skemetti refused to defend it, and pleased this issue is resolved.

Top Stories