129 Comments

Nice write up - if I had something like this once a week for the next four years, I'd make a point to look out for it vs trying to keep up with the deluge of "breaking" news likely to flow minute by minute, hour by hour.

Expand full comment

yes, the breaking news is already exhausting, on Day 2

Expand full comment

I've been ignoring it for 36 hours. Now I'm starting to come back, but not as much as before. I hate seeing their smug faces.

Expand full comment

Still avoiding and will continue to avoid FFOTUS (First Felon of the United States, h/t Jen Rubin and Norm Eisen!)

Loving all the news abt the wannabes who are NOT tcf, Rudy colludy et al who f’d around in 2020 and are finding out

Expand full comment

I love FFOTUS! I'll steel that from ya:-)

Expand full comment

Thank The Contrarians, I stole it from them!

Expand full comment

A couple of really good articles. I sent the links to both my senators and my congresswoman:

It’s time for Democrats to go low by Peter Rothpletz

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/17/fighting-back-newsletter-democrats

Shove the Presidency Down Trump’s Throat by Jason Linkins

https://newrepublic.com/post/190337/trump-second-term-democrats-respond

Expand full comment

This provides much needed information in a logical layout that makes it easier to understand. It brings some order to the chaos, which is oddly calming. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Wonderfully done. This truly helped me to make sense of the deluge of information thrown out yesterday and today. And the way you broke it down definitely helped my anxiety level. Thanks for doing what you do, Jay.

Expand full comment

Ads need to be run on FNC every day with the name of someone pardoned and video footage from Jan 6. Over and over and over

Expand full comment

Maybe Michael Moore’s next documentary.

Expand full comment

You should run for DNC Chair!

Expand full comment

Thank you, Jay. I am eschewing all media right now for my mental health. Earlier this morning, I told a friend that I wanted to know the important stuff but not in a way that would leave me in distress (I don’t hide it well and I gotta work). When I got the notification and saw the title to this article, it felt like it said, ‘safe to open’. And it was. It was exactly what I needed.

Truly, thank you.

I will sleep better tonight *because I read it.

Expand full comment

Same with me Jennie, thankful to TBP, Jay and all those I trust on Substack and I “feel safe.” I feel an overwhelming need to know, at least scanning the headlines, and stop reading when it gets too dark.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the effort, as always, Jay. And I do think your three-bucket idea is a good place to start.

Expand full comment

This was very helpful,Jay. The flooding the zone with shit approach that ConvictedFelon47 is using can be overwhelming but to see it broken down in segments like this shows not only how vile this man is but that he is stupid. We have to pick our battles, but battle we must. 2026 can’t come soon enough!

Expand full comment

The whole “shock and awe” thing” makes it clear that they know much of their agenda is not on solid ground, so they’re looking for low-hanging fruit. I suspect the real battles over the next few months will center on tax cuts and slashing Medicaid, and those will be fought out in Congress.

Expand full comment
Jan 22Edited

Fight? Or will democrats roll over? They never reinstituted death taxes or more sensible income and capital gains taxes when they had the chance

Expand full comment

There is only so much they can do. The voters let them down and gave the Republicans full control.

Expand full comment

Pretty sure there was a democratic majority to overturn bush era tax and inheritance cuts. Just no will to do it.

Expand full comment

It was a different time. And D's getting rid of tax breaks even if they were bad tax breaks would tank them at the voting booth.

The scary thing is how low information that the US voter is. If the D's take away a tax break, the R's target ads telling the middle class that the D's are taking away "their" tax breaks. It's a lie but people are stew pid and they believe it.

If only we had a super popular news station that everyone listened to that could get the truth out there and was echoed by AM radio stations that people listen to religiously.... It's like we have a handicap that we can't get around.

Expand full comment

The "birthright citizenship" EO is primarily hot air. I don't want to say it's harmless, but it does a lot less than it claims. It doesn't actually remove the citizenship, just bans the federal government from issuing documents that could prove such. That means that the next President can on day 1 issue a new EO that such documents should be issued again, including retroactively.

Trump's argument about the "not under the jurisdiction of" could also backfire. If undocumented people are not under the jurisdiction of the USA, they cannot be arrested, tried or deported, just as diplomats can't.

Expand full comment

Not to nit pick, but birthright citizenship is documented by birth certificates issued by states, not the federal government, yes?

Expand full comment

You are right. But the EO bans the fed government from accepting such as evidence of citizenship, such as issuing passports. The full text of the EO is here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

Expand full comment

I suspect this EO could be challenged on federalism grounds.

Expand full comment

I don't see why. Citizenship is inherently a federal matter, and the states aren't banned from issuing the documents themselves.

Of course the EO can, and likely will, be challenged on 14th Amendment grounds.

Expand full comment

It is as far as determining naturalization, etc., but people are also citizens of the states in which they reside. States issue birth certificates to people born within their jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment clarified that citizens are subject to dual jurisdiction.

Expand full comment

Interesting point. I doubt it would make a difference, because citizenship of a state is defined in a circular fashion: you are citizen of a state if you are a federal citizen who resides in that state.

Notably, the 14th Amendment doesn't limit citizenship to people "born or naturalized". Which means that a state is allowed to consider somebody a, say, California citizen even if they aren't a federal citizen.

Another point: birth certificates *aren't* automatically documents of citizenship. For instance, children of diplomats would get a US birth certificate, but aren't citizens (because their parents really aren't under the jurisdiction of the United States).

Expand full comment

that inability for our courts to prosecute, much less sentence, the killer of Laken Riley or others was the first thing I thought of when looking at the jurisdiction argument. One thought I have had is that the Extremes will figure out a way to say that children of undocumented immigrants are not born, but hatched.

Expand full comment

Wut? Jose Ibarra was tried and convicted in the Laken Riley case on a total of 10 felony charges, including murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Expand full comment

She was saying that if he was arrested today, he could possibly use the citizenship EO to try to get out of prison: "The US admits that they do not have jurisdiction over Jose Ibarra, therefore the US cannot try or even arrest Jose Ibarra".

Expand full comment

yes. But if the US had no jurisdiction over him, because by being undocumented he wasn’t “under the jurisdiction of the United States”, then there could have been no prosecution.

Expand full comment

Possibly. But anyone who commits a crime while on US soil is subject to US law. That applies to people who come here as tourists or who come here to perpetrate acts of terrorism. It's possible he could argue that under the premise of this EO, the US has no jurisdiction because he's undocumented, but the feds would likely point to other cases of non-US citizens being successfully prosecuted and now serving time in federal prisons as a rebuttal. It should also be noted that Ibarra wasn't asking for citizenship, which is what the EO covers.

Expand full comment

I agree. But if you DEFINE visitors, legal or otherwise, as NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which you have to do to deny birthright citizenship to their children, then jurisdiction goes out the window. This is an discussion of the irony of the DEFINITION trump or trumpian legal scholars are trying to claim allows denial. In THAT world, Ibarra would have gone free. He clearly didn’t—because no one but a trump could claim that “and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” could exclude foreigners (other than those with diplomatic immunity) from the word “born.”

It is that pesky word AND that is the problem. If you are born in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction, you are a citizen. If you are born in the US and NOT subject to the jurisdiction, you can grow up to be an Ibarra-like non citizen, free to crime away with no ability of the law to stop you.

Prior cases wouldn’t matter because the EO applies only to folks born 30 days after Jan 20. It is the CHILD who wouldn’t be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Future terrorists of the world, unite! Or at least of the country.

What the EO DOES do is (if upheld, which I doubt it will be) is mean that those born in the US before Feb 19 are still citizens, and can’t be deported with their parents. If he’s trying to set up a situation where families with kids born here can be deported en masse, he’s not succeeded.

Expand full comment

It may not be a gigantic thing, but I’ve decided to email my Representative and my two Senators — all GOP — and ask why they think X that Trump did was a good idea. “Why do you think it’s good to release convicted criminals from J6 back into society?” Why do you think . . . Pick your own issue. They will probably ignore you, and send you a fundraising email at some point, but you can get things off your chest.

Expand full comment

Great idea!!!

Expand full comment

Love this!

Expand full comment

Thank you for such detailed work Jay. This is so helpful.

I am keeping a binder of your work for future reference. I imagine the fascists now in charge will try to limit work such as yours - that which tells the truth about their corrupt actions. If it’s only online it can be disappeared.

Take care of yourself. It can’t be easy diving into all this ugliness.

Expand full comment

https://newrepublic.com/post/190476/donald-trump-basic-geography-spain-brics

Where to start.

NATO is in Europe. Spain is in Europe. Spain is part of NATO.

BRICS is an intergovernmental organization of ten countries that aims to increase economic and geopolitical coordination among member states. The acronym stands for the original members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. In 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates joined. BRICS is seen as a counterpart to the G7 and an attempt to counterbalance the influence of Western-dominated institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

Trump does not know which country is in what continent and part of what types of organization, military, economic or otherwise.

So Trump is ignorant, stupid, insane and senile. Any questions?

Expand full comment

Thank you Jay.

Expand full comment

I certainly hope that the Democrats are learning something here, and that the next D President will have a similar flurry of Day-1 EOs ready to fix *all* the Trump damage. And while he or she is at it, also undo all the damage George Bush did 20 years ago that haven't been fixed to this day.

Expand full comment

THANK YOU!!!

Expand full comment

Thank you for this extremely detailed and well reasoned breakdown of the days events.

I have a question about Trump‘s pardons for the January 6 people. Trump himself was no longer criminally liable for the rape of E. Jean Carroll because of the statute of limitations, but could still be sued in civil court for damages. Might any of that apply to pardoned January 6 criminals? In accepting the pardons after conviction, they are still officially convicts.

Expand full comment

They could be sued. Especially leaders like Tarrio and Rhodes

Expand full comment

👍🏻❤️

Expand full comment