The Trump Team Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plan Situation is Crazy, AOC Will Win Dem Civil War
PDS Published 03/24/2025
-
This story is absolutely insane.
The Trump administration - and to be clear, we’re not talking staffers - we’re talking JD Vance, Hegseth, Waltz, Rubio, and Ratcliffe.
They accidentally added the editor of the Atlantic to a signal group and then actively debated striking the Houthis and then put America’s war plans in the chat.
On this text chain, they even revealed the identity of CIA agents and shared classified information on the US military.
JD Vance criticized Trump’s foreign policy in the group chat - not on the grounds that isolationism is a mistake but that we’re not isolationist enough.
Then Hegseth posted operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.
To which Vance replied “I will say a prayer for victory” and then two other officials added prayer emojis.
After the strikes ended, they all hit up the group chat congratulating Pete on a job well done, including Marco Rubio who is apparently a double exclamation point guy.
The editor then left the chat, and the White House has confirmed that the text chain is real and that the editor was not added on purpose.
Now the Atlantic says that Waltz, the national security advisor, may have violated the Esponiage act by doing this.
And lawyers for the publication say that officials are not authorized to discuss classified information on Signal and are only supposed to use SCIFs for this.
The main reason being - what if their phones were stolen or if they had lost it? What if their phones were hacked?
The other crime Waltz may have violated is the federal records act. He set their messages in Signal to disappear after a week.
The law calls for text messages about official acts to be considered records that should be preserved.
And on top of all that - He added a journalist to a chat with classified information.
-
There is a war going on inside the Democratic Party right now, and both sides think the fate of our country is at stake.
With Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer coming under attack from both progressives and moderates over the weekend for what they say was his surrender to the GOP. [Image]
Right, this after he cleared the way for a short-term spending measure known as a continuing resolution to pass last week, keeping the government funded through the end of September.
A move which provoked uproar from some within his own party who thought he should’ve used the filibuster to demand concessions from the other side.
With even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still backing Schumer as Senate leader but also criticizing his decision.
[Clip, 00:21 - 00:41] Caption: “I myself don’t give away anything for nothing. And I think that’s what happened the other day. We could have, in my view, perhaps gotten them to agree to a third way. They may not have agreed to it, but at least the public would have seen their not agreeing to it.”
And although Schumer still enjoys public backing in the Senate, some House Democrats as well as outside groups have reportedly been pushing for a new leader. [Headline]
Arguing that eight years is enough; Schumer needs to step down, just like Biden did when voters lost confidence in him, and pass the torch to someone more aggressive.
But Schumer defended himself over the weekend, claiming the Democrats had no leverage to negotiate any concessions, and telling NBC’s “Meet the Press:” [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:32 - 00:34; Clip, 00:52 - 01:00, 01:09 - 01:18, 01:22 - 01:46; Clip, 02:10 - 02:28] Caption: “Look, I’m not stepping down. … The CR was certainly bad (you know, the continuing resolution), but a shutdown would be 15 or 20 times worse. … The courts have ruled it’s solely up to the executive what to shut down. With Musk and DOGE and Trump and this guy Voght, … they would eviscerate the federal government. On day two they could say, oh SNAP? Feeding hungry children? Not essential. On day four, mass transit? All transit? Aid to the states? Not essential. We’re cutting it. On day six, Medicaid. We’ll cut that by 20, 30, 50, 80 percent. We’ll go after Social Security. We’ll go after the veterans. … And one Senator, Republican, told a Democratic Senator, colleague of mine, and this guy is close — this Republican Senator is close to the DOGE-Musk people — they would keep the government shutdown for six months, nine months, a year, till everyone was furloughed and gone and quit. And there’d be no way to stop it.”
With him going on to say that he and the party are working to expose how bad Trump’s policies are through oversight hearings, the courts, legislation and organizing across the country so that by 2026, Congressional Republicans will realize they’re rats on a sinking ship.
But critics argue that the actual merits of Schumer’s vote are irrelevant, because he’s not just the leader of his Senate colleagues; he’s also a leader for Democrats across the country.
And that if he can’t stir up the kind of feeling people need to mobilize against the Republicans, then the party needs someone else who can rise to the needs of this moment.
Maybe someone younger, more progressive, more inspiring, basically someone like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
With her name reportedly getting tossed around behind closed doors, as well as in public.
With progressive Representative Ro Khanna being asked during CNN's “State of the Union” Sunday whether AOC should primary Schumer when his seat is up for reelection in 2028. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:58 - 01:19] Caption: “I haven’t talked to her directly, but I think it’s for her. But here’s what I will say. The American people are fed up with the old guard. There needs to be a renewal. In Silicon Valley, when a company isn’t doing well, you don’t keep the same team, and I think there’s going to be a new generation in this country. They want to see a more compelling economic message.”
And although AOC herself hasn’t revealed her own feelings about a Senate run, she just concluded a “fighting oligarchy” tour across Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.
Delivering electric speeches alongside Bernie Sanders, who’s now 83 years old and still breathing fire at these rallies.
[Clip, 00:32 - 00:37; Clip, 03:13 - 03:36; Clip, 01:08 - 01:17] Caption: [Bernie Sanders:] “We don’t want a king in the United States. We overthrew a king. … No, you’re not gonna destroy Social Security. You’re not gonna destroy Medicaid. You’re not gonna destroy the veterans administration. And I’ll tell you what else you’re not gonna do. We’re not gonna let you undermine the democracy that men and women in this country have fought and died for.” … [Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:] “This isn’t just about Republicans either. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us too.”
With Sanders saying their stop in Denver drew a crowd of 32,000 people, bigger than he’s ever seen before, and it’s not even an election year.
Those including people like this one rally goer in tucson who told KGUN9:
[Clip, 01:14 - 01:27] Caption: “Since the last election, I actually felt very discouraged. I didn’t have the energy to go out, to even be on social media, to be honest. So I wanted that energy to come back, and this rally for sure is what gave it to me. I needed it.”
But Sanders told ABC News the tour wasn’t just about whipping up excitement; it also had a strategic objective.
With him explaining that they deliberately targeted states where Republican lawmakers won by thin margins in an attempt to put pressure on those Congressional districts.
And adding that if just two or three Republicans feel the heat and revoke their support for the GOP budget plan, that could sink the whole thing.
With Bernie also sharply criticizing the Democrats, Chuck Schumer and his decision to support the spending measure last week, but stopping short of endorsing a primary challenge against him.
In fact, when he was asked about it, first he cut off the interviewer right in the middle of his question … [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 08:27 - 08:32] Caption: [Interviewer:] “Do you see her as a future of the progressive-” [Bernie Sanders:] “We have one of the untold stories …”
… And then after getting pressed a second time, he stormed out of the interview. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 09:08 - 09:26] Caption: [Interviewer:] “Would you like to see her joining the Senate?” [Bernie Sanders:] “Right now we have, as I said, just a whole lot of people in the Congress. Okay gotta, thanks.” [Interviewer:] “Wait, I got one more. I got one more. It’s an important-” [Bernie Sanders:] “No, I ask you. You wanna do nonsense? Do nonsense. I don’t want to talk about inside-the-beltway stuff. I got 32,000 people.” [Interviewer:] “I was just asking you about AOC.”
But of course with all of this, the Democrats still have a few years before the next presidential election to figure out how or whether they want to shake up the party leadership.
And already we’re seeing the waters getting tested, with a new Morning Consult poll of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents eligible to vote in the 2028 primaries.
And the number one pick by far was Kamala Harris, with support from 36% of respondents. [Image]
With Pete Buttigieg coming in second at just 10%, followed by AOC, Tim Walz and Gavin Newsom, all of whom got 5%. [Same image]
And then 13% of respondents saying they’re undecided.
But again, we’ve got a lot of time before the midterms and the presidential race, so new leaders could rise, old ones could fall; everything’s up in the air right now.
-
Can you get away with not paying your taxes this season?
To be clear, I am not suggesting you break the law, but that question’s a relevant one because many people apparently think they can.
With The Washington Post reporting that the IRS has noticed an uptick in online chatter from individuals declaring their intent not to pay taxes this year. [Quote, find “chatter”]
As well as to skip paying outstanding balances and to aggressively claim credits and deductions they’re not eligible for. [Same quote and find “skip”]
This according to three people with knowledge of tax projections, who say taxpayers are gambling that they won’t get caught by auditors.
And the most obvious reason they’d think that is DOGE.
Right, because Trump’s IRS has already dismissed more than 11,000 workers, and has moved to fire nearly 20,000 in total. [Quote same link, find “11,000”]
With two agency commissioners quitting so far under his leadership, as well as the head of compliance.
And then in Congress, Republicans also repealed over 20 billion dollars in resources for the agency recently.
So according to several of the Post’s sources, the IRS has dropped investigations of high-value corporations and taxpayers because it’s had to triage resources to keep internal systems operating. [Quote same link, find “triage”]
And of course, if they can’t enforce it, then the law becomes more of a suggestion than an obligation.
So reportedly, Treasury Department and IRS officials project tax revenue to plummet more than 10% by the April 15 deadline, leaving a more than 500 billion dollar hole in the balance sheet. [Quote same link, find “10 percent”]
Which is shocking on its own, but even more so considering that officials reportedly entered the filing season expecting to collect more revenue than last year. [Quote same link, find “growth”]
It’s also ironic because if the government collects less tax revenue, then it has to make up the difference by borrowing more money, which increases the deficit, something Republicans claim to oppose.
But ultimately we’ll have to wait for the receipts to finish coming in this year before there’s a verdict on tax compliance under the second Trump term.
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
-
And then, there is so much to talk about in the realm of immigration we could easily spend the entire show on it and more.
But some of you probably have lives so I’m just gonna try and hit on a few big topics, including, one, the Trump administration's latest efforts to undermine legal and rights-based challenges to his agenda:
Two, some of the latest ways in which it’s aiming to get rid of both undocumented and documented immigrants in the country.
And three, some of the side effects we may end up seeing as a result of the administration’s actions on immigration.
But starting with number one, Trump has signed a memo threatening new actions against lawyers and law firms that in his view, unfairly challenge his administration’s immigration and other policies.
Right, with that, I will say, he has already targeted individual law firms by suspending security clearances and ending federal contracts (1, 2, 3).
But notably, this new memo seemingly threatens similar punishment for any lawyer or firm who gets on his bad side.
With him seeking to justify the directive by claiming “misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens [the country’s] national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.” []
And notably, above all else, emphasizing the issue of immigration, claiming the immigration system is, quote, “replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms.”
And baselessly arguing that "rampant fraud and meritless claims" have kept him from exercising his lawful presidential power in this domain. []
And with that, the memo directs the heads of DOJ and DHS to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in, quote, “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States.”[]
With possible punitive measures including but not limited to “reassessing” security clearances and terminating “any contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services.” []
And so in response you have the likes of one senior ACLU lawyer claiming the new directive aims to "chill and intimidate" lawyers who challenge the president's agenda, and going on to say:
"Courts have been the only institution so far that have stood up to Trump’s onslaught.”
“Courts can’t play that role without lawyers bringing cases in front of them."
And then, adding to that, you have another civil rights lawyer and former DOJ official arguing Trump’s memo “attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.” []
And notably, with that, it’s not the only action the Trump administration has taken to remove obstacles to the implementation of its immigration agenda.
Right, and there, I’m talking about it recently gutting three watchdog agencies within the Department of Homeland Security –
Including the civil rights branch, an office overseeing immigration detention, and an office investigating the administration’s legal immigration policies,
With a DHS spokesperson claiming:
“These offices have obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining D.H.S.’s mission.”
“Rather than supporting law enforcement efforts, they often function as internal adversaries that slow down operations.” []
But then, a former civil rights office worker and ICE Chief of Staff under Biden claiming the move is actually a “demonstration of [the administration’s] total contempt for any checks on their power,”
Adding that “This is a clear message that [civil rights, civil liberties and privacy] do not matter to this administration.” []
But with that, moving on to part two, to start, the Trump administration may soon have a whole new way to find and deport undocumented immigrants.
And that’s because the IRS is reportedly nearing a deal with DHS to help locate migrants suspected of being in the US illegally.
Right, more than half of the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. file tax returns.[]
But normally, all that information — including even names and addresses — is considered highly confidential. []
And it can only be shared with other federal law enforcement outside the agency under certain, limited conditions — and typically with approval from a court.
With the idea that this sensitive information would be shared for the purpose of immigration enforcement being described as unusual, if not unprecedented. []
And in fact, with that, the proposed deal has reportedly alarmed career officials at the IRS –
With one former official telling the Washington Post:
“It is a complete betrayal of 30 years of the government telling immigrants to file their taxes.” []
Now, that said, I will say, it’s reportedly not the case that ICE would have free rein with this data.
Right, its access would reportedly be limited to confirming information about immigrants with final removal orders.
Right, basically, ICE could hand over names and addresses of suspected undocumented immigrants to the IRS –
Which would then cross-reference the info with its confidential taxpayer databases to let them know if it was right.[]
But even with that, if this deal does go through? It’s a massive shift from even just a few weeks ago –
Right, that’s when the agency’s then leadership first rejected a DHS request for the names and contact information of 700,000 people suspected of being in the country illegally.
But of course, since then, the agency’s leadership has changed.
Right, the acting commissioner resigned, and his successor quickly showed an interest in working with DHS. []
And then, you had the administration kicking out the agency’s top lawyer – who had voiced opposition to attempts to share taxpayer data across agencies.
And of course, the new guy? He’s now on board.
But with all that, that’s a move aimed at finding people in the country who aren’t technically “allowed” to be here.
But as we’re increasingly seeing, even those who are may become a target of the Trump administration.
-
All this talk about making Canada the 51st state has the people there all fired up and now they’ll be heading to the polls soon.
The elections were originally scheduled for October, but new Prime Minister Mark Carney has called for snap elections to be held on April 28th.
In a speech yesterday, he justified an election by telling Canadians:
“We are facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes because of President Trump’s unjustified trade actions and his threats to our sovereignty.” @:12
He went on to say:
“He wants to break us so America can own us. We will not let that happen. We’re over the shock of the betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons.” @:35-:52
Essentially Carney wants snap elections soon in order to get a mandate in opposing Trump.
It also helps that his party had a resurgence in the polls and voters are attracted to his experience… and most importantly he’s not Justin Trudeau. [][]
As we’ve talked about before, the Liberal party was looking doomed in this year’s elections until Trump started talking.
They get the benefit of not only being openly anti-Trump in general, but also currently being in charge of the government and thus “officially” opposed on behalf of all Canadians.
Technically, the opposition Conservatives are also opposed to annexation, but the Liberals seem to have some success portraying the Conservative leader as Trump-lite.
Something he’s been trying to shake off recently by saying this yesterday:
“What we need to do is put Canada first for a change.”
“When I say I want to cut taxes, unleash our resources, bring back jobs, that’s bad news for President Trump.”
All that being said, very few are actually shocked that Carney called an election as there are practical reasons outside of Liberals’ current popularity.
The reality is that he doesn’t actually have a seat in parliament currently
On top of that, the Liberals don’t have a majority and haven't been able to maintain a coalition government.
At this moment it’s unclear how the elections will actually go.
Currently, the Conservatives and Liberals are neck-and-neck in the polls, and that’s not even considering a third major bloc that’s dedicated to Quebec nationalism.
But since Canada uses first-past-the-post, it means that a candidate just needs to win the most votes, not an outright majority.
So it’s possible that a majority government could be formed after the April elections… we’ll just have to wait and see.
-
This may come as a surprise but a new report makes the argument that people are generally good and kind.
Right, the International Day of Happiness just passed and with it came this year’s World Happiness Report.
Which is a global analysis on happiness and well-being done by Gallup, the University of Oxford Wellbeing Research Center, and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. []
And this year, while the US has dropped to a new low on the list of happiest countries for obvious reasons, the report showed there is a lot of kindness in the world as a whole.
With researchers this year focusing on acts of benevolence and their impact on both parties involved - the ones actually doing the act of kindness and the ones receiving it. []
As well as people’s perception of kindness within their own communities.
And the report found that people are generally pretty pessimistic about how kind and benevolent those around them are.
For example, when researchers dropped wallets in the street, the rate at which those wallets were returned was much higher than people expected. []
In the US, roughly one-third of people reportedly expected that a lost wallet would be returned when in reality about two-thirds of such wallets actually were. []
And this negative perception of others can, in turn, have a negative impact on our own happiness.
With Dr. Lara Aknin, professor of social psychology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and the editor of the report, saying,
“If we assume the worst of others, it shapes how we interact with the world. If we expect the worst of others, we walk around the world fearful, and that matters for our own well-being.” []
And as it turns out, the majority of people do good things - based on the data they collected, researchers found that around 70% of the world’s population has done at least one kind thing in the last month. []
With the report’s coauthor and assistant professor of psychology at the University of Toronto saying,
“That’s a really, really high number. We should just look at that number and feel really good.” []
And Dr. Aknin added,
“Even though the world feels like it’s a pretty difficult place right now, it is nice to know that people are engaging in kind and generous acts.” []
Now, the number of those kind acts has dropped a little bit since the spike during Covid but it is still higher than pre-pandemic numbers.
With the report saying that benevolent acts are 10% more frequent than in the years 2017 to 2019 in all generations and almost all global regions. []
Which ties into the report’s other findings - that being kind feels good.
With a managing director at Gallup saying that while things like making a donation or volunteering may seem very small, they have a substantial impact. []
Adding,
“Acts of generosity predict happiness even more than earning a higher salary.” []
In one experiment researchers conducted, they gave a sample of participants on university campuses a small amount of money - between $2 and $5 - and told them to spend it on themselves or someone else. []
With Ankin saying,
“By and large, we find in almost all of our studies that people randomly assigned to spend generously report feeling higher levels of happiness than people who spend on themselves.” []
Adding,
“We’re a super social species and we argue that acts of generosity help build and sustain those connections.” []
So while the world may feel dark and hopeless, remember to both look for the kindness around you and to be that spot of kindness for someone else.
And there’s a whole lot of very interesting findings in the World Happiness Report if you want to check that out for yourselves.
In the meantime, I’d love to know your thoughts here - whether about this year’s report or just kindness in general.
Let me know in those comments down below.
){kind=link}
