Mostly Monday Reads: WTF are we Becoming?

“The Art of the Deal in real life!” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

The Trump-infested news cycle never ends these days. Gone are the days when weekend news reporting meant a lot of soft topics, and breaking news usually came in the form of natural disasters. Now, everyone’s busy trying to cover Trump’s latest disaster. It wouldn’t be 2025 without Trump making everything worse. Anyone who saw even the slightest bit of the Trump/Zelenski presser got a feel for the deranged statements of Trump. Zelenski’s exhausted and exasperated looks were priceless.

This is from the New York Times. “For Zelensky, Just Keeping Trump Talking Counts as a Win. Though discussions produced little tangible progress, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at least avoided the type of setbacks that have blighted earlier meetings.” Constant Méheut has the analysis. I’ve shared the article so you may read it.

A new round of peace talks between President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump on Sunday seems to have produced little beyond a promise to meet again next month and a reminder of how distant a peace deal remains.

Yet for Mr. Zelensky, even a stalemate in the discussions counts as a measure of success.

Following setbacks in U.S. support for Ukraine this year, one of Mr. Zelensky’s main priorities when meeting Mr. Trump has been to prevent talks from derailing. After the meeting, Mr. Trump signaled that he would remain engaged in the negotiations — a win for Ukraine given his repeated threats to walk away. Mr. Trump also backed away from setting another deadline to reach a peace deal, after having previously floated Thanksgiving and Christmas as target dates.

“I don’t have deadlines,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he greeted Mr. Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago in Florida for the talks. “You know what my deadline is? Getting the war ended.”

Most important for Ukraine, Mr. Trump did not echo Russia’s maximalist demands to stop the fighting, a departure from earlier in his term when he often appeared to side with the Kremlin. The change was also notable because Mr. Trump had spoken with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia just before meeting Mr. Zelensky, the type of last-minute Russian intervention that has derailed Ukrainian hopes before.

That outcome may leave Mr. Zelensky hopeful that Kyiv and Washington have become more closely aligned in the peace negotiations. Several European leaders also joined the talks by phone, and Mr. Zelensky said that the United States might host a new round of negotiations next month that could include them.

“The fact that they’re talking is a victory in and of itself,” Harry Nedelcu, a senior director at Rasmussen Global, a research organization, said of the American and Ukrainian presidents.

Still, Mr. Zelensky acknowledged some division between them on Monday, noting that while Mr. Trump has agreed to help secure Ukraine, he offered such guarantees for only 15 years, short of the several decades that Mr. Zelensky and Ukrainians seek.

The situation between Israel and Gaza certainly shows the lack of any serious negotiations or peace plans in that region. This is from The Nation. This is written by Jeet Heer. “Netanyahu Is Destroying Trump’s Flimsy Peace Plans. The talk of a new Middle East is belied by Israel’s attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.”

No foreign leader has easier access to President Donald Trump than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose scheduled meeting today at Mar-a-Lago will be the fifth time he’s hobnobbed with the US president in the past 10 months. In February, Netanyahu was the first overseas dignitary to visit the White House in Trump’s second term, and now the year ends with another meeting. Few foreign leaders have buttered up Trump with the aplomb of Netanyahu, who describes Trump as Israel’s “greatest friend.”

In Trump’s first four years in office, these enthusiastic words were more than earned. As Al Jazeera noted, “During his first term, Trump pushed US policy further in favour of Israel’s right-wing government. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognised and claimed Israeli sovereignty over Syria’s occupied Golan Heights and cut off funding to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).”

Remarkable progress has, however, also been made in a year. Mr. al-Sharaa has garnered support from the United States, Russia and China. He has secured the lifting of economic sanctions. He has remained steady in the face of repeated military provocations from Israel, and has begun to lay the basis of state institutions. He has been embraced by Mr. Trump and was ushered to the White House last month.

“There has been growing frustration in Washington that Israeli actions were setting back something most of Washington and everyone in the Middle East would actually like to see succeed: a stabilized, unified Syria. The basic argument to Israel is, look, you actually have leaders in Damascus who are willing to say the word ‘Israel’ and talk about a potential future with normalized relations, yet you just keep bombing or looking for a surrogate to work through.”

And then, there’s the Venezuelan thing. This is from The Guardian. “US struck ‘big facility’ in Venezuela, Trump claimed without offering details. Trump alleged that US forces hit ‘very hard’ in what would mark his team’s first land strike on Venezuela if confirmed.”  Edward Helmore has the lede.

Donald Trump has claimed that US forces struck a “big facility” in Venezuela last week – but the president did not specify what it was, or where, and the White House has not commented further.

“We just knocked out – I don’t know if you read or you saw – they have a big plant, or a big facility, where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard,” Trump told Republican donor and New York supermarket owner John Catsimatidis on Friday.

If a US strike is confirmed, it will mark the first land strike on Venezuela since the Pentagon began a buildup of US strike forces in region to interdict drug traffickers operating – the Trump administration claims – under the direction of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.

The initial, stated purpose of the military buildup has since morphed into a blockade to disrupt the country’s oil exports that uses a global shadow fleet of oil tankers outside of Chevron, the single licensed exporter of Venezuelan oil.

Trump has for weeks warned that US forces are ready to expand the military campaign by striking targets inside Venezuela, a tactic that would in theory require congressional authorization.

The domestic situation of our country is not much better. Most of it is due to the deranged and unfit Trump appointments across the federal government. Nancy Gertner, writing for The Atlantic, has this headline. “Why the Supreme Court Is Giving ICE So Much Power. The Constitution inarguably applies to federal immigration agents—but the Supreme Court has taken away the hope of ever holding them to that standard.

Untold numbers of ICE agents have appeared on America’s streets in recent months, and many of them have committed acts of aggression with seeming impunity. ICE agents have detained suspected illegal immigrants without cause—including U.S. citizens and lawful residents. They have, in effect, kidnapped people, breaking into cars to make arrests. They have used tear gas and pepper spray on nonviolent protesters. They have refused to identify themselves, wearing masks, using unmarked cars, and switching license plates, presumably to avoid detection. They have kept people in detention without access to lawyers. They have questioned people simply for appearing Latino, speaking Spanish, and being in areas believed to be frequented by illegal immigrants.

Many of these tactics are plainly illegal. The Constitution incontestably applies to federal immigration officers: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive force and requires a warrant to search a private home. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process and bans self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment establishes a person’s right to counsel. Why, then, are they getting away with not following the Constitution?

Their impunity traces back to two Supreme Court decisions that put far too much faith in ICE’s commitment to respecting people’s constitutional rights. As a result of these cases, people whose rights are violated by ICE agents have little to no recourse. Contrast that with the rules for police officers. If a police officer kicks down your door and searches your home without a warrant, questions you without a Miranda warning, or illegally arrests you, a provision known as the exclusionary rule may prevent the evidence gathered through those tactics from being admitted in your prosecution. And if you happen to be acquitted, you can sue for damages. None of that is true when it comes to ICE.

The first of these two cases is a 1984 decision, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, that untethered ICE from the exclusionary rule. In a 5–4 opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected the exclusionary rule for immigration courts, favoring, instead, “a deliberately simple deportation hearing system.” In a typical criminal case, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct—the idea being that the police will avoid such conduct if it risks undermining a conviction. But for ICE, the Court decided, such deterrence is not necessary. Unless ICE conduct amounts to an “egregious” violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence that agents gather even through illegal means can be used in immigration courts. Key to the Court’s decision was a presumption that Fourth Amendment violations by ICE officers were not “widespread” and that the Immigration and Naturalization Service “has already taken sensible and reasonable steps to deter Fourth Amendment violations by its officers.” Such assumptions may not have been reasonable then; they are certainly not reasonable now.

A second Court decision appears to have eliminated, or at least seriously limited, the possibility of lawsuits for damages after individuals are unlawfully detained, searched, or experience excessive force at the hands of ICE. When the police engage in misconduct, the victimcan sue the responsible officers for damages. Again, not so for ICE. In the 2022 decision Egbert v. Boule, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, denied the rights of plaintiffs to sue Border Patrol agents for excessive use of force in the name of “national security.” There is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would extend the rationale in Boule to shield ICE from liability as well. The Court would effectively be greenlighting ICE’s abusive tactics and insulating agents from damages when they are, in fact, no different from any state or city police officer who violates a person’s constitutional rights. As in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,the rationale in Boule relies on the agency’s purported ability to self-regulate; after all, Thomas suggested, Border Patrol “must investigate ‘alleged violations’ and accept grievances.” Can anyone count on such care to come from Border Patrol under this administration? Again, the faith in these institutions to self-regulate seems tragically misplaced.

We’ve definitely seen some terrible things that go against our Constitution and the rule of law. It’s even more sad to see a rogue Supreme Court team up with the Rotter in the White House to initiate authoritarian measures. This final suggested read comes from ProPublica. It shows more evidence of the suppression of our Free Press. “Our Reporters Reached Out for Comment. They Were Accused of Stalking and Intimidation. Our journalists reach out to people they’re writing about to ensure fairness. But in this environment, they’ve found their efforts to do so are more likely to be vilified than appreciated.” Charles Ornstein has the story.

This summer, my colleagues were reporting out a story about the Department of Education’s “final mission,” its effort to undermine public education even as the Trump administration worked feverishly to close the agency.

As we do with all stories, the reporters reached out to those who would be featured in the article for comment. And so began a journey that showed both the emphasis we place on giving the subjects of our stories an opportunity to comment, as well as the aggressively unhelpful pushback we’ve faced this year as we’ve sought information and responses to questions.

Megan O’Matz, a reporter based in Wisconsin on ProPublica’s Midwest team, first asked the department’s press office for an interview in mid-August. At the same time, we emailed top administration officials who were making crucial decisions within the agency, including Lindsey Burke, deputy chief of staff for policy and programs, and Meg Kilgannon, director of strategic partnerships.

In response to the outreach to Kilgannon, department spokesperson Madison Biedermann told O’Matz to “Please direct all media inquiries to press@ed.gov.” Reached on her cellphone that day, Biedermann said she was happy to look into the request. We asked for a response within a week.

At that time, the published press phone number for the department appeared, at all hours, to be a black hole, with a recorded message saying it was “temporarily closed.” (It still indicates that.)

Hearing nothing more, O’Matz emailed the press office again Aug. 18. And again Aug. 28 with detailed questions. She left follow-up messages on Biedermann’s cell. And on Burke’s cell, including once on her husband’s cell as ProPublica tried to find a direct way to contact Burke. To ensure fairness and accuracy, it is our long-standing practice to try to reach those who are part of our stories so that they have an opportunity to respond to them. We’d rather get responses before we publish an article than after.

Reached on her cell Aug. 29, Kilgannon said she had no comment and hung up before O’Matz could explain what we planned to publish about her and her work. She did not respond to a subsequent email with those details.

On Sept. 8, still hearing nothing from Burke, O’Matz reached out to the department’s chief of staff, writing: “We have been seeking to talk to the secretary and to Dr. Burke. … Can you help us arrange that?” A week later, ProPublica arranged for a letter to be delivered via FedEx to Burke’s home outlining what our reporting had found so far and to let us know if anything was inaccurate or required additional context. We invited her again to talk with us, to comment or provide any additional information.

Finally, on Sept. 17, Biedermann wrote: “Just heard from an ED (Education Department) colleague that you sent these inquiries in writing to their home address. This is highly inappropriate and unprofessional. You have also reached out to employees on their personal cell phones, emails, and even reached out to employee’s family members. This is disturbing. Do not use an employee’s home addresses or relatives to contact them.” (The emphasis was hers.)

ProPublica replied the following day that it’s common practice for journalists to reach out to people we are writing about. “In fact, it’s our professional obligation,” O’Matz wrote.

Biedermann responded: “Reaching out to individuals about a work matter at their private address is not journalism — it is borderline intimidation. In today’s political climate it is particularly unacceptable. We received your inquiries (via email, phone calls, text messages, both on work and personal email address) and made a conscious decision not to respond, as we have every right to do.”

“You are not entitled to a response from us, or anyone, ever,” Biedermann wrote.

To be clear, at no time prior to this email did the department tell O’Matz that it had received her inquiries and would not comment. The article ran on Oct. 8, about two months after we first contacted the department. (I would highly encourage you to read it.)

The world has come a long way since the days of “All the President’s Men” and “Spotlight,” movies that favorably portrayed journalists knocking on doors and trying to reach sources to tell important stories — in those cases, about the Watergate break-in that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation and the abuse scandal that enveloped the Roman Catholic Church in Boston and beyond.

I know these reads are long and perhaps a bit tedious and difficult to read. However tough it may be, it is essential that we pay attention to every single civil right, law, and constitutional value of this country that is under attack. I hope that next year will bring better responses as we strive to hold these officials accountable. We owe it to ourselves, our future citizens, and to every one of those who worked hard to make this country “a more perfect union.”  We cannot go down this way.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?