Term limits for Supreme Court Justices have been proposed as a way to make the Court more representative of the partisan makeup of the country. In this episode of You Don’t Have To Yell, Suzanna Sherry, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University, explains how this would result in more partisan judges, more partisan rulings, and legal instability.
Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.
The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.
Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, the Fulcrum Roundtable strives to share many perspectives to widen our audience’s viewpoints.
The most recent U.S. government shutdown lasted from October 1 to November 12, making it the longest in American history at 43 days.
It began after Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution, leading to the furlough of about 900,000 federal employees and the closure of numerous agencies and institutions.
The shutdown ended when President Trump signed a funding bill on November 12, which temporarily extended government funding until January 30, 2026, and approved three full‑year appropriations bills.
Although the shutdown has concluded, its ripple effects remain: federal employees are facing steep increases in health insurance premiums, and delayed economic data releases have complicated assessments of U.S. growth.
Politically, the shutdown coincided with declining approval ratings for the administration, underscoring the broader impact of the prolonged stalemate.
Helping us make sense of it all are two Fulcrum collaborators.
Bobby J. Smith II, an Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign. He is also the author of the James Beard Award-nominated book, Food Power Politics: The Food Story of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement.
Joseph Crupi, a legal scholar who studies the legislative process. He previously served as a Scholar-in-Residence at the Law Library of Congress.
- YouTube youtu.be
In the column, Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity, Bobby wrote about SNAP benefits:
To be very clear, what the world is witnessing right now isn’t just another political game. It is the latest move in the administration’s War on Food Security, or the ability of many Americans to access safe and nutritious food.
This war began when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 on July 4 of this year, effectively transforming food into a political weapon. The law severely cut food stamps and terminated the SNAP-Ed program, which provided food and nutrition education to millions of low-income individuals.
In Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns, Joseph wrote that the way Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns:
Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.
Joseph argues that arbitration could offer a way out:
In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate.
I invite you to read their columns and those of all of The Fulcrum's contributors. It's time well spent.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
“We the People” know our government is not working. For decades, Americans have said they want leaders who work together, confront problems honestly, and make decisions that push the country forward. Yet the officials we send to Washington keep repeating the same self-defeating patterns—polarization, gridlock, shutdowns, and an almost complete inability to address the nation’s biggest challenges.
The result is a governing culture that cannot resolve problems, allowing them instead to grow, intensify, and metastasize. Issues don’t disappear when ignored—they become harder, more expensive, and more politically explosive to solve.
In October, over seven million people took to the streets in the No Kings protest—the largest public demonstration in modern memory—expressing outrage at Trump’s attempts to control the levers of government and his disregard for the separation of powers. Weeks later, record-breaking special-election turnout in states such as Virginia and New Jersey made clear that voters were desperate for a new direction. Long lines in California reflected the same frustration with political manipulation and gamesmanship.
Yet as those demonstrations unfolded, Washington was shut down for 43 days. Congress once again failed to pass the annual budget bills—something it hasn’t done on time since 1997. Instead, lawmakers rely on a chain of short-term continuing resolutions (CRs), each one a manufactured crisis that becomes a leverage point for partisan brinkmanship. The latest CR funds the government only through January 31, 2026—barely two months of stability.
During the standoff, federal employees were furloughed or forced to work without pay. Air traffic safety was strained. Public services were disrupted. And on issue after issue—immigration, the economy, Social Security, climate, AI, healthcare, civil rights, Ukraine, reproductive rights, guns, housing—the country made no progress. Not even a beginning.
Some analysts framed the huge November turnout and the No Kings protest as a decisive victory for Democrats. But that interpretation misses the point. With only two parties to choose from, a vote against Republican leadership is not automatically a vote for Democratic leadership. More likely, it is a rejection of the current political trajectory, which could easily flip in the next election.
Even if Democrats take the House and perhaps the Senate in 2026, we will still have two polarized parties, the same rigid decision-making structures, and the same inability to govern. A change in congressional control cannot fix a broken system.
If the 2026 midterms simply repeat the “we win, you lose” cycle, the public will be no closer to solutions. We cannot keep perpetuating this vicious cycle of non-governing. The core problem is not political preference. It is a governing framework that has failed—and has been failing for years.
After the recent election, Kamala Harris said, “We must harness the people’s power to come up with a blueprint for our government that truly works for the American people.” She is right. But listening to the public requires more than celebrating a partisan win. The “blueprint” cannot be a continuation of three decades of escalating hostility and governance by conflict.
The challenge starts with the psychology of partisanship. George Washington warned 229 years ago of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party,” rooted in “the strongest passions of the human mind.” That warning has never felt more relevant: political passion has overtaken national responsibility.
We must also avoid misreading the moment. Trump-era politics distorted the landscape so severely that many assume the public is shifting left. But recent polls show something different. Support for both major parties remains historically low. Nearly half of voters now identify as Independent–not wedded to either party. A few weeks ago, Republicans polled slightly ahead, but now it’s Democrats. Volatility and indecisiveness characterize the public mood on parties, while a poll of more than 20,000 people last summer found that 80% want leaders who compromise to get things done.
The public is not endorsing Democrats or Republicans. They are rejecting dysfunction. They are rejecting the chaos and extremism of recent decades—an era marked by wild swings of power, constitutional brinkmanship, weaponizing government authority, and rising threats to democracy itself.
For decades, Congress has misread the public, interpreting every narrow victory as a mandate. But a win by 1%, 2%, or 3% is not a mandate. It is a warning.
A few organizations have been listening to the public. Swing Left’s Ground Truth initiative emphasizes trust-building by “showing up early, listening closely, and treating every voter as worth the conversation.” Future Caucus, No Labels, the Independent Center, the Sunwater Institute, the Bipartisan Policy Center, ModSquad PAC, and Blue Dog PAC are all seeking new pathways for cooperation.
Future Caucus’s major post-2024 study, Together or Torn, found that 84% of voters prefer leaders who “work together respectfully and with integrity toward solutions.” That number is astounding—and it has remained consistent across multiple polls.
Evan Bayh, recently named one of six No Labels’ National Leaders, warned, “Bad things will happen to our beloved country unless millions of good people step up to counter the dangerous extremism and political violence consuming our politics.” No Labels has also helped build the Problem Solvers Caucus—a bipartisan group of roughly 70 House and Senate members working to build trust and find cross-party agreements.
But while these efforts matter, none provide what America truly needs: a well-known, membership-based, coherent, sustained, national mechanism to influence the decision-making structures of Congress and the broader government. Fragmented efforts, however sincere, with little public identity cannot overcome structural incentives that reinforce division—large-scale public involvement and support are necessary.
The greatest obstacle to reform is structural. The Constitution states simply that each chamber of Congress “may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Those rules, written and controlled by party leadership, define: what bills get voted on; which amendments are allowed; how committees operate; how debate is structured; who holds procedural power; and whether bipartisan cooperation is possible.
No independent analysis would conclude that today’s rules serve the public. They serve the parties.
Consider just a few examples of how Congress’s rules now obstruct real legislating: closed rules in the House routinely prevent members from offering amendments, shutting out genuine debate; the so-called Hastert Rule blocks votes on bipartisan bills unless they have the support of a majority of the majority party; Senate holds allow a single senator to freeze nominations or legislation indefinitely; the mere threat of filibuster—once a tool for extended deliberation—has become a routine weapon of paralysis; and leadership’s tight control over committees suppresses the bipartisan policymaking those committees were designed to produce.
These are not quirks. They have been woven into the decision-making system over the years and are now considered rigid constraints. They deliberately frustrate cooperation and compromise and are designed to give power to the party in control, rather than facilitating constructive problem-solving.
While rule changes are technically easy—a majority in the House, a supermajority or nuclear majority in the Senate—the political incentives overwhelmingly discourage reform. Leaders, lobbyists, funders, influencers, and interest groups have various reasons to preserve systems that benefit them, even those systems that harm the nation. A simple matter of party over country.
Some assume the solution is a third party. But third-party efforts routinely collapse under structural and financial pressures, ballot-access barriers, and the ever-present fear of becoming a spoiler.
The Forward Party has made a serious attempt to advance an alternative party based on bipartisanship and compromise. Their slogan, "Not Left, Not Right, but Forward," is inspiring and what many voters are asking for. Yet, after four years with prestigious backing and financial support, it has failed to gain even widespread name recognition.
The media landscape compounds the challenge. News outlets increasingly reflect partisan identities. Algorithms reinforce beliefs. Disinformation spreads. Even legitimate reporting is dismissed as biased when it challenges a party’s narrative.
Because neither party will voluntarily rethink the governing framework, because third parties remain structurally marginalized, and because information channels are fragmented and distrusted, we need a new force—external, respected, and powerful enough to pressure both sides and gain nationwide recognition.
A national forum… A civic mediator… A Third Point of View!
Not a third party… Not a loose protest movement… Not just another nonprofit…
Something fundamentally different!
Imagine an institution with millions of members, expert staff, public representation, credibility, and the ability to influence media narratives, congressional debate, and individual legislators. A forum grounded in constitutional principles, driven by evidence, and committed to bipartisan solutions rooted in documented public consensus.
A forum that does not dictate ideological positions but provides authoritative guidance—research, analysis, and public sentiment—to help both parties move toward balanced, practical solutions.
A place where moderates, independents, unaffiliated citizens, and exhausted majorities can unite around constructive governance.
A Third POV forum could fill systemic gaps by:
The goal is not to replace election campaigns or parties. It is to counterbalance them—providing a home for the widely documented and recognized public voice for cooperation and compromise. An ever-present influence on decisions beyond the campaign seasons and a respected counter to partisan extremes.
Groups like No Labels, the Independent Center, Future Caucus, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and others have demonstrated two important truths:
The Hoover Institution and Sunwater Institute’s 2024 report, Revitalizing the House, put it plainly: “This is not a Republican or Democratic problem, but a problem with how the institution currently operates.”
These organizations have laid a solid foundation of infrastructure and concept for a much broader movement to fit the critical needs of our time. What is missing is scale—a membership organization large and visible enough to influence and shape national political incentives.
That is what a Third POV forum could provide.
The largest gap in American politics today is between what the people want and what the political system delivers. The public wants respect, cooperation, responsibility, and results. They want decisions based on facts and the national interest, not party discipline or fear of primary challenges.
Millions support this vision. Thousands of groups, organizations, and staff resources are backing this idea. But they are scattered and uncoordinated—silos without a central structure capable of shaping congressional behavior.
To carry “the great experiment” beyond its 250-year epoch, we must reconnect public power to political decision-making in a durable, organized, and sustained way. That means more than voting every two years. It means building a civic architecture worthy of the country’s complexity and ambition.
The way forward requires a fundamental mindset shift—one that recognizes the political reality of a country divided nearly 50–50 and accepts that neither side can govern effectively without the other.
Bipartisanship is not a courtesy. It is a structural necessity.
A national Third POV forum could reinforce this reality by: Keeping public expectations visible and unavoidable; elevating compromise-oriented solutions; exposing manipulative partisanship; giving moderates and independents political cover and recognition; influencing committee agendas and legislative priorities; and demonstrating that the real mandate is for the government to function.
With enough members and credibility, such a forum would become impossible for Congress, the Executive Office, and the media to ignore.
We stand at a crossroads. The old model—win, lose, power, control—has given us paralysis, anger, instability, violence, and democratic decay. The public is demanding something better. The country is ready for a new mindset and a new civic infrastructure that gives voice to the exhausted majority.
The solution is not another party, another protest, or another think tank.
It is a Third Point of View—an organized, respected, nationwide forum with the legitimacy and scale to influence how decisions are made and how governing actually works.
We cannot continue the vicious cycle of non-governing. The survival of American democracy depends on rethinking how we solve problems, how we allocate power, and how we listen to the public.
It is time for the new mindset.
It is time for the next evolution of American self-government.
It is time to build the Third Point of View.
It is time for the groups, organizations, foundations, and powers already dedicated to the bipartisan government model to organize, coordinate, and expand this tenet of governance to give it the scale and influence the public is demanding.
Jeff Dauphin, aka J.P. McJefferson, is retired. Blogging on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Founded and ran two environmental information & newsletter businesses for 36 years. Facilitated enactment of major environmental legislation in Michigan in the 70s. Community planning and engineering. BSCE, Michigan Technological University.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks to members of the US military on November 26, 2025 in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The Vice President visited Fort Campbell to serve a Thanksgiving meal to service members ahead of the holiday.
On issues including tariffs, taxes, public media like PBS and NPR, and Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense, Vice President J.D. Vance broke seven tied Senate votes this year.
Here’s a breakdown of Vance’s seven tiebreaking votes.
But first, a quick comparison
How do Vance’s seven tiebreaking votes in a year stack up to his recent predecessors?
Vance’s immediate predecessor, Kamala Harris, broke seven tied votes in 2023, 11 in 2022, and 15 in 2021 – the most ever in a single year. (However, she broke none in 2024.)
Vance’s precursor as Donald Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, broke six tied votes in 2017 and seven in 2018. (Though none in 2019 or 2020.)
The vote
Military veteran and Fox News television host Pete Hegseth was a controversial nominee due to allegations of spousal abuse, sexual assault, and alcohol abuse. (Hegesth admitted to infidelity but denies the claims of abuse and assault.)
Three Republican senators voted against him: Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). No Senate Democrat voted in favor.
On January 24, Vance cast the tiebreaking vote.
Interestingly, this marked only the second time that a Cabinet nominee was confirmed by a tiebreaking Senate vote – with the other time also under Trump. In 2017, Pence cast the tiebreaking vote for Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.
What Vance said
Vance argued Hegseth would shake up a military system that had produced failed wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. For the former, the Taliban reclaimed control in 2021. For the latter, no promised weapons of mass destruction were found.
"I think Pete is a disrupter, and a lot of people don't like that disruption," Vance said in his first interview as vice president, with Margaret Brennan on CBS News’s Face the Nation. "If you think about all of those bipartisan, massive votes, we have to ask ourselves, what did they get us? They got us a country where we fought many wars over the last 40 years, but haven't won a war about as long as I've been alive."
What Republican opponents said
Murkowski cited Hegseth’s limited and troubling leadership experience.
“His leadership of two veteran organizations was marked with accusations of financial mismanagement and problems with the workplace culture he fostered,” Murkowski said in a January statement.
She also voiced concerns about his views on women in the military, particularly his hesitancy towards women serving in combat roles.
“Women have served our nation with distinction, overcoming immense obstacles to excel in combat and leadership roles,” Murkowski added. “They deserve to know that their leader honors and values their commitment to our nation.”
McConnell, meanwhile, was unimpressed by Hegseth’s answers during his confirmation hearings.
“Mr. Hegseth provided no substantial observations on how to defend Taiwan or the Philippines against a Chinese attack, or even whether he believes the United States should do so,” McConnell said in a January statement. “Absent, too, was any substantive discussion of countering our adversaries’ alignment with deeper alliance relationships.”
The vote
On April 2, President Trump issued an executive order declaring the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency, implementing tariffs on a host of nations, including many international allies.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation to overturn this national emergency. Three Senate Republicans crossed party lines: Sens. Collins, Murkowski, and Rand Paul (R-KY). No Senate Democrat crossed party lines.
On April 30, Vance cast the tiebreaking vote to table the bill.
What Vance said
Vance argued that tariffs level the playing field against nations that have been undercutting American employees with low wages and working conditions.
“You hear people saying, ‘Well, how dare Donald Trump impose tariffs on foreign countries,’” Vance said at a March speech in Michigan. “And the answer is that unless you're willing to use American power to fight back against what those countries have been doing for a generation, you are never going to rebuild American manufacturing and you're never going to support the American worker.”
“When foreign countries make it impossible to ship American cars into their countries, why have we had leadership that refuses to fight back?” Vance continued. “When we have foreign countries that use slave labor that undercuts the wages of American workers, why have we had American leadership that has refused to fight back?”
What Republican opponents said
Sen. Paul countered that such important policies should be determined by an institution like Congress, rather than an individual.
Especially if that individual is someone like Trump, who’s frequently changed tariff rates on other countries for such minor reasons as he didn’t like how Brazil was treating his friend or he didn’t like a commercial Ontario (Canada) aired during the World Series.
“No country, no business, no family can plan a budget when the import tax rates and the cost of every commodity are determined by the whims of one man,” Paul said in a Senate floor speech. “There are now tariffs on steel, tariffs on aluminum, tariffs on lumber – and they change from day to day. But not one of these tariffs was voted on by the people’s elected representatives in Congress. These tariffs are simply announced by presidential proclamation.”
What happens now
Interestingly, the Senate would have voted to overturn Trump’s national emergency back in April, but two senators who likely would have voted that way were absent. Sen. McConnell was sick, while Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was traveling from South Korea.
More than six months later, on Nov. 3, with Sens. McConnell and Whitehouse now present and voting in favor, the Senate actually did vote to overturn the national emergency. However, House odds of passage are low – in April, Speaker Mike Johnson didn’t even allow a vote on the measure at all.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the biggest legislation Republicans have enacted this Congress: a combination of tax breaks, new spending on immigration and border enforcement, and deregulations, particularly in the energy sector.
Three Senate Republicans voted against: Collins, Rand Paul, and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC). No Senate Democrats voted in favor.
On July 1, Vance cast the tiebreaking vote for it.
Earlier that day, Vance also cast two tiebreaking votes in favor of two amendments to the bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The Senate votes were the exact same as for the “main” bill, with those same three Senate Republicans voting against.
What Vance said
Vance argued the legislation would supercharge the American economy and put more money in the pockets of working people.
“Here's what the One Big Beautiful Bill means for you in very concrete terms. Number one, we're going to see take-home pay go up in the United States of America. In this district, probably 7,000, $8,000 per family over the next three to four years,” Vance said at a July speech in Ohio.
“If you build or expand a great American factory, the federal government is going to reward you instead of penalize you, for a change. I think that's the biggest provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill,” Vance continued. “Invest in American workers, invest in American companies.”
What Republican opponents said
After Sen. Tillis announced he would oppose the bill, the internal Republican backlash was so severe that he announced mere days later that he wouldn’t seek reelection in 2026.
Medicaid cuts were his litmus test.
“I told the president, I really do believe it could be his Obamacare,” Tillis said in his first interview after the vote, with Jake Tapper on CNN’s The Lead.
“Because of the promise that [Obama] made, which was not true: ‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,’” Tapper clarified.
“And now it’s like: ‘If you like Medicaid and you’re eligible, you can keep it,’ Tillis answered. “That’s fundamentally untrue, because the funding mechanisms are probably going to take people who are eligible for it off of it over time. Or it’s going to create an enormous unfunded mandate on the states, in a timeframe that they can’t absorb.”
What happened next
Two days later, on July 3, the House passed the larger overall legislation by 218-214. Two House Republicans voted against: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA1) and Thomas Massie (R-KY4). No House Democrat voted in favor.
President Trump signed it into law on July 4, timed to Independence Day.
In March, Trump requested Congress rescind money for 22 government programs equaling $9.4 billion. These proposed cuts would primarily target international assistance like USAID and public media like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds local NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (the Public Broadcasting Service) stations.
On July 15, two procedural votes were held on whether to advance to a roll call on the actual bill itself – essentially a “vote on whether to hold a vote.”
For both procedural votes, three Senate Republicans voted against: Sens. Collins, McConnell, and Murkowski. No Senate Democrats voted in favor.
Vance cast the tiebreaker for both.
What Trump said
The Trump-Vance administration argued that the conditions prompting the initial creation of public media 58 years ago no longer hold, in an era of mass websites, podcasts, apps, and cable television.
“Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options,” Trump said in a May executive order banning executive departments and agencies from funding CPB. “Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary, but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.”
What Republican opponents said
Collins countered that PBS and NPR stations are a vital lifeline for local communities.
“In Maine, this funding supports everything from emergency communications in rural areas, to coverage of high school basketball championships, and a locally-produced high school quiz show,” Collins said in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. “Nationally-produced television programs such as Antiques Roadshow and Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood are also enjoyed by many throughout our country.”
“I understand, however, the concern about subsidizing the national radio news programming that for years has had a discernibly partisan bent,” Collins acknowledged. “There are, however, more targeted approaches to addressing that bias at NPR than rescinding all of the funding.”
Later votes
The actual Rescissions Act itself was ultimately enacted later that week.
On July 17, the Senate passed the “actual” bill by 51-48. Two Senate Republicans voted against: Collins and Murkowski. No Democrats voted in favor. (Interestingly, McConnell voted in favor of the actual recissions, despite earlier voting against the bill’s procedural votes.)
The next day, on July 18, the House passed it by 216-213. Two House Republicans voted against: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA1) and Mike Turner (R-OH10). No House Democrat voted in favor.
President Trump signed it into law on July 24.
In August, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) – which has funded U.S. public media, including PBS and NPR since 1967 – announced it would shut down in January 2026. However, PBS or NPR themselves will almost certainly continue to exist, due to a combination of listener or viewer donations, corporate or nonprofit contributions, and U.S. states' funding.Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
Congress Bill Spotlight: $2.50 for America’s 250th Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: The Charlie Kirk Act
U.S. President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House on December 08, 2025 in Washington, DC.
On June 14, I wrote Raining on Trump’s Military Parade, an article about the Washington, D.C. military parade that marked both the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary and President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday. The event revived debates about the politicization of military spectacle, fiscal priorities, and democratic norms. Six months later, those same themes are resurfacing in new forms — not on the National Mall, but in Congress, the courts, and foreign policy.
The House of Representatives passed the roughly $900 billion military policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026, in a bipartisan vote of 312-112 on Wednesday. The bill now heads to the Senate for approval. Key provisions of the legislation include:
The final vote passed 312-112. It is expected to garner bipartisan support in the Senate.
Trump’s reliance on military spectacle has extended beyond parades. This week, U.S. forces seized an oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast and conducted fighter jet flyovers in the Gulf of Venezuela. These actions project strength internationally, but they also raise questions about whether military force is being used as political messaging — a continuation of the parade’s blending of commemoration and presidential authority.
“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela — a large tanker, very large, the largest one ever seized actually,” Trump said during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, reported CNBC
The president declined to provide information on who owned the tanker or its destination, but said it was “seized for a very good reason.”
Meanwhile, a federal judge has ordered Trump to end California National Guard deployments in Los Angeles, ruling he exceeded his authority. This legal battle underscores the same tension highlighted in June: the balance between presidential power and democratic checks when the military is deployed domestically.
NPR reported that the Trump administration has argued that after initially federalizing a state's National Guard, any extension should be allowed, without review.
"That is shocking," Judge Breyer wrote in his ruling on Wednesday, saying that adopting that interpretation of the law would "permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully."From the June parade to today’s defense bill, Venezuela operations, and court rulings, the through‑line is clear:
Trump’s presidency continues to use military spectacle and force as both a symbolic celebration and a political instrument. The debates sparked in June — about cost, authority, and democratic norms — remain unresolved, now playing out in policy and law rather than parade grounds.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
