Trump’s Ceasefire Is Already Falling Apart
PDS Published 04/08/2026
-
A two-way ceasefire between the US, Israel, and Iran is now in effect, but it’s already barely holding on, as Israel has taken its chance to ramp up its assault on Lebanon.
And even if the ceasefire doesn’t fall apart it’s far from clear a long-lasting peace can be reached.
Which may or may not be all that surprising since yesterday started with Trump vowing that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
With his coming after his repeated threats to destroy Iran’s power plants and other civilian infrastructure if it didn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz by 8pm.
Which experts have said amounted to threats to perpetrate war crimes on a massive scale—while, according to some, the promise to wipe out an entire civilization?
That may have amounted to a call for genocide.
Which led to dozens of Democrats calling for Trump to be removed from office—either through impeachment or the 25th amendment.
This also led to Pakistan's prime minister pleading with Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks while asking Iran “to open [the] Strait of Hormuz for a corresponding period of two weeks as a goodwill gesture.”
And around an hour and a half before his deadline, you had Trump agreeing, writing on Truth Social:
“...subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks” —adding:
“This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!”—and saying:
“The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives.”
He also claimed the US had “received a 10 point proposal from Iran” that provided “a workable basis on which to negotiate” —adding:
“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized….”
But, of course, this isn’t the first time he claimed a deal was imminent.
He previously claimed that Iran had agreed to many of the provisions in a 15-point proposal developed by his administration.
And now we appear to be talking about some version of the 10-point proposal Trump previously rejected and said wasn’t good enough.
And which a “very angry” US envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly told mediators on Monday was "a disaster” and “a catastrophe.” []
Right, that’s because it reportedly includes a number of demands the US has flat-out rejected in the past—such as continued Iranian control over the strait of Hormuz and US military withdrawal from the Middle East.
It also calls for the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran;
an end to attacks on Iran and its allies;
the release of frozen Iranian assets;
and a UN security council resolution making any deal binding. []
And, very notably, in the version released in Farsi, Iran also included the phrase “acceptance of enrichment” for its nuclear program.
But——for reasons that remain unclear—that language was missing in English versions shared by Iranian diplomats.
You’ve also since had a White House official claiming that the 10-point peace plan Iran released differs from the plan that Trump said was a “workable basis on which to negotiate.”
And you also had Trump angrily posting on social media that:
“Numerous Agreements, Lists, and Letters are being sent out by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the…Negotiation, in many cases, they are total Fraudsters, Charlatans, and WORSE” —saying:
“They will be rapidly exposed after our Federal Investigation is completed” —and adding:
“There is only one group of meaningful ‘POINTS’ that are acceptable to the United States, and we will be discussing them behind closed doors during these Negotiations.”
And with that, he also mentioned reporting from CNN that he had already attacked—claiming the outlet published a fake statement from Iranian leadership celebrating “victory” over the US.
Although CNN defended itself—noting the statement came from Iranian spokespeople known to the outlet and was reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. []
But that didn’t stop FCC Chair Brendan Carr from also accusing CNN of “outrageous conduct” and saying:
“Time for change at CNN.”
But with all that, whatever the case may be regarding this 10-point plan, it seems that the gap between the two sides may still be pretty big.
And two weeks? That’s not a lot of time to close it.
For perspective, it took two-and-a-half years for the Obama administration to negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal—which led to Iran shipping 97 percent of its nuclear fuel out of the country.
But Trump withdrew the US from that agreement in 2018;
And if Trump fails to get the nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium it has enriched to 60 percent during that time, along with much greater quantities of less-enriched nuclear fuel?
He will have arguably accomplished less in this multibillion-dollar war than Obama got done 11 years ago—at least regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Now, with all that, in a another post today, you had Trump claiming:
“There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried Nuclear ‘Dust.’”
With him going on to claim that they're now “talking Tariff and Sanctions relief with Iran” and adding that “Many of the 15 points have already been agreed to”—this time referring to the US proposal that is also apparently being used as a basis for talks.
You also had Hegseth saying at a press conference that the issue would be dealt with:
“But what's clear, what the new Iranian regime knows is they'll never have a nuclear weapon or the capability to get a path to one.” (3:01-3:09)
Many experts have speculated that this war may have just given Iran more reason to pursue a nuclear weapon.
And even if Iran does give up its uranium it could turn to allies like North Korea for help developing one—at least according to a former Israeli military official who told the New York Times:
“If the Iranians decide the only thing that will protect the regime is a nuclear weapon, especially after being incapable of defending themselves during the war, they have pathways to that beyond the 440 kilograms.” []
But, of course, despite all that, you also had Hegseth claiming:
“Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield.” (1:09-1:15)
With General Dan Caine then adding:
“Over the course of 38 days of major combat operation, the joint force achieved the military objectives as defined by the president.” (10:45-10:53)
And with that, Caine listed some stats.
He said that the military had destroyed 80 percent of Iran’s air defense systems, 800 one-day attack drone storage facilities, 450 ballistic missile storage facilities and more than 150 ships. []
He also said that the campaign destroyed Iran’s industrial base—meaning it would take years to rebuild.
But despite all that, it’s not clear the US has actually achieved any of its objectives—at least not decisively.
Right, besides pledging to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Trump promised—at one time or another—to destroy its missile capabilities, eliminate Iran’s regional proxies as a threat, obliterate its navy, and create the conditions for regime change.
And while Trump and other officials have now fully taken up the position that regime change has actually occurred, while backtracking on the claim that that was an objective, there’s just no evidence of that.
The Revolutionary Guards actually appear to have more influence.
And as far as missiles, at the end of the last month, the US could only confirm that about a third of Iran's missile arsenal was destroyed, and recent intelligence assessments reportedly suggest the regime retains significant capabilites.
Similarly, Iran’s proxy forces are weakened, but they’re not defeated.
And while Iran’s navy is arguably destroyed, that hasn’t kept the regime from controlling the Strait of Hormuz.
And that’s actually what we need to talk about next.
Right, because while arguably not meeting his military objectives, this is where Trump has created a whole new problem that didn’t exist before.
It’s the reason he resorted to these horrifying threats and it’s the one condition he laid out for not following through on them.
But now he’s trying to take another victory lap—in another post calling today “a big day for World Peace” and claiming the US “will be helping with the traffic buildup in the Strait of Hormuz”—and adding:
“There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just ‘hangin’ around’ in order to make sure that everything goes well.”
But there are at least a few of problems with what Trump is saying:
1) Like we just talked about, this is only a two-week ceasefire, and it’s not clear a deal can be reached in that time to make the Strait’s reopening permanent.
2) If a deal isn’t reached, two weeks is not enough time for the global economy to bounce back .
3) It’s not clear the US and Iran are actually on the same page about what reopening the Strait is gonna look like.
and finally 4) this ceasefire might not even last through the day anyway.
But let’s start with the best-case scenario.
Even if the strait is open, prices are unlikely to return to their prewar levels anytime soon.
And that’s partly because dozens of refineries, storage facilities, and oil and gas fields in at least nine countries have already been targeted in strikes—contriubting to at least ten percent of the world’s oil supply getting turned off.
And getting operations going again will require not only safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz but also inspecting and replacing equipment as well as bringing back employees and ships that have left the region. []
And with that, after the ceasefire announcement, oil prices did drop to about $95 per barrel but that’s still 30 percent higher than before the war.
And gas prices in the US have continued to rise—reaching $4.16 a gallon on average according to AAA—and they may keep going up for months according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
But, moving on, despite the strait allegedly being open, traffic has still not really picked up because of the continued uncertainty.
Right, in a statement from Iran’s foreign minister confirming the ceasefire on behalf of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, he said:
“For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s armed forces and with due consideration of technical limitations.”
And with that, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran was still requiring all ships to request permission from its military forces to transit the Strait of Hormuz. []
And you had the Associated Press reporting that Iran and Oman will be allowed to charge fees on ships passing through. []
And with that, while we have seen a couple of ships trying their luck, at least a few major shipping companies have said they aren’t gonna start sending boats through just yet.
Meanwhile, the leaders of seven European countries—along with Canada, the European Commission and the European Council—said their governments “will contribute to ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” []
But, again, as of now, details on what that might look like are extremely limited.
And it may become irrelevant as this ceasefire appears to be hanging on by a thread.
Iranian state media reported that an oil refinery in the country was struck at around 10 am local time by unspecified “enemies.”
And Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE all reported that missile and drone attacks have continued.
But the biggest issue right now may be Israel’s continued assault on Lebanon.
Right, when Pakistan’s Prime Minister made his announcement about the ceasefire, he said it applied to “everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere.”
But then Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, while saying he supported the ceasefire with Iran, claimed it didn’t include Lebanon.
And you had analysts arguing that Israel might intensify its operations since it would no longer be fighting a war on multiple fronts.
With them seemingly being proven right almost immediately as Israel announced that it had launched the largest wave of strikes across Lebanon since the current war began—hitting 100 targets across Lebanon in a span of just 10 minutes. []
And reportedly killing 254 people and wounding over 1,000 people across the country, according to Lebanon’s health ministry, bringing the death toll closer to 2,000. []
And after that we started seeing multiple reports saying that the White House agrees with Israel that Lebanon isn’t included in the deal—which was confirmed by Leavitt in that press conference.
And that came even after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps threatened a military response if attacks on Lebanon are not “immediately halted”—saying its retaliation would target “aggressors in the region. []
While Iranian officials also reportedly told mediators it will only join planned talks with the US in Islamabad if a cease-fire is reached in Lebanon.
With Iran’s foreign minister writing on X that the ceasefire terms “are explicit.”
“The U.S. must choose—ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both.”
But despite that, Leavitt said Trump is dispatching his negotiating team, led by Vice President JD Vance, along with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to Islamabad for talks, saying the first round will take place Saturday morning.
So what happens next is ultimately uncertain.
Words are words, actions are actions, and with this situation especially, the two don’t always line up.
Shop plans starting at 15 bucks a month at Mint Mobile. Thank you to Mint Mobile for partnering with us on this video!
-
Democrats are making a lot of progress in recent elections.
But as the president’s endorsement seems to be the golden ticket for Republicans, it’s unclear if the left can get things across the line.
However, as voters split over the war in Iran, Republicans may not be able to lean on Trump’s support, leaving the midterms in anyone’s hands.
Looking at Georgia, Republican Clay Fuller just won the special runoff election to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene’s seat red. []
But the Democratic candidate, Shawn Harris, made the type of ground Republicans in Georgia should be worried about.
“The Republican Party had to spend almost $2 million on a smear campaign to get this win. They should never have to spend money on a Ruby red district. That tells you that things are changing here in Northwest Georgia.” (:56-1:14)
In March, Fuller and Harris came out on top in a race between over a dozen candidates. So these are both standout competitors for sure. (B ROLL 21:29-21:33)
But Harris was able to push things further to the left than we’ve seen in a while, moving the needle 25 points. []
Floyd County, GA, saw the biggest shift with roughly 30 points.
Paulding and Whitfield counties also took a major step to the left.
And Harris outright won Cobb County, which Trump and Greene both won in 2024. []
Special elections generally have a smaller turnout than general elections, but some are saying this is a sign of what we could see from Democrats in November.
“Just like we had momentum three weeks ago when we beat all the Democrats, this win tonight will also give us momentum.” (1:17-1:26)
But Fuller now has the rest of the year to prove himself, which could fare well for him in the midterm race, and he seems pretty confident with Trump backing him.
As for other elections, Wisconsin saw a win for Democrats as well.
Waukesha, WI (WOCK-esh-AH pronunciation :41) is a historically red Milwaukee suburb.
But Democrat Alicia Halvensleben (HAL-ven-SLAY-ben pronunciation :10) just beat out Republican Scott Allen for mayor. []
WOCK-esh-AH city’s current mayor is an independent endorsed by Kamala Harris after leaving the Republican Party in 2021.
And Trump’s margin of victory is closing in WOCK-esh-AH county. []
So reports say HAL-ven-SLAY-ben’s win could be a turning point.
The left also had a big win in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court with Chris Taylor.
“Tonight the people of Wisconsin stood up for our rights and freedoms, our democracy, our elections, and a strong state Supreme Court that will protect the independence of our beloved state.” (:27-:44)
Taylor was backed by Barack Obama and Wisconsin Democrats. []
And she beat Maria Lazar (Luh-ZAR pronunciation :09), adding to the liberal majority on the court, which is currently sitting on questions of congressional redistricting and union rights. []
So this win could make a pretty big dent in some hot topic decisions and undo some of the right-leaning laws put in place during the court’s 15-year conservative majority.
And Taylor seemed to make things clear with her win last night.
“Once again, Wisconsin showed the entire nation that we believe that the people should be at the center of government and the priority of our judiciary, not the billionaires, not the most powerful and privileged. But the people.” (:54-1:19)
Wisconsin Democrats are eyeing two congressional seats as well. []
And there’s a race for governor in November to replace the Democratic incumbent, but Republicans are hopeful they can bring home a win.
However, across the country, Democrats have flipped other mayoral seats in Omaha, Miami and Boca Raton, along with some successful runs in special legislative elections.
So things look hopeful for Democrats recently, but will these results carry over to the midterms? []
It seems like Trump is the factor that could answer that question.
On the one hand, the president’s endorsement holds a lot of weight for Republicans.
“President Trump is the most critical factor in our election, and he has made sure that we are going to win. And he has made sure that he is the ultimate Trump card.” (:45-:55)
In fact, some voters don’t need anything other than Trump’s stamp of approval to decide their vote.
“I’m not that familiar with him and his politics. I’m just not. I know that Trump supports him and that he’s the Republican, so that’s the way we voted this time. Trump endorsed him. That’s good enough for me.”(1:11-1:25, 1:33-1:35)
And the president has all but handpicked Republican wins in the primaries across the country, but his influence is also starting to sour as the war goes on.
“It just seems so insane based on what he ran on. This is why a lot of people feel betrayed. He ran on no more wars. It feels like there’s this war machine, and then our soldiers are put into these spaces, and they’re just there to serve an America they believe in. It seems like it’s causing a lot of pain and fear. Americans can’t afford healthcare. They don’t care about what’s happening in Iran. Trump was dumb enough to do it.” (:56-1:22)
Iranians in Wisconsin have spoken out about how the war is affecting people here on US soil.
“Because of the blackout, there’s no way to call them. So they’re calling us directly on the phone lines, and the quality of the call is terrible.” (:41-:56)
And the issue showed up at Georgia polls as well.
“It’s very confusing. I don’t know why we’re there, honestly.” (:34-:39)
But there are still some voters who stand behind the president.
“I do wish we could get rid of the Iranians. We have a very good president that I think is going to end this war quickly, and we’re going to be better off for it.” (:15-:26)
So what we’re seeing here is some strong offense from Democrats, flipping seats, closing margins and holding the line in key courts.
But elections are all-or-nothing. So Democrats will have to do more than close margins and hold the line to make a difference in Congress.
For Republicans, Americans overall disapprove of the war. []
So as it continues, Trump’s endorsement could mean less and less at the polls.
So right now, we’re walking a tightrope to the midterms, and nothing really seems cut and dry for either side.
Post jobs for free at ZipRecruiter
-
And the same goes for the California governor’s race.
That is a mess of its own, with some even concerned a Republican could win it.
But the main reason the race is in the news today is because a top Democratic candidate just denied sexual misconduct allegations before they were actually formally made.
For a while now, left-leaning influencers have been suggesting that a group of women are going to accuse Rep. Eric Swalwell of a pattern of inappropriate behavior.
This week, you had Cheyenne Hunt, the director of Gen Z for change, writing:
“I have been working with a number of women who are in the process of coming forward and sharing their stories of sexual harassment and even alleged abuse at the hands of Eric Swalwell.”[]
“We have secured pro bono legal representation for them and they are in the process of sharing information with reporters and ensuring that they are physically and legally safe.”[]
And other accounts have levied similar claims, providing no further details on the allegations themselves, but still accusing Swalwell of wrongdoing. [][]
And now, conservatives have really latched onto this narrative, too.
With the Daily Caller running an article claiming that a “shocking” number of women are prepared to accuse Swalwell of harassment.
The likes of Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna writing:
“If this is true, it is horrifying. He should also be added to the freaks and wierdos currently in Congress. Can you all stop molesting your staff? It’s unacceptable, illegal, gross, etc.”[]
“Will Congress use their slush fund of tax payer dollars to pay off Eric Swalwell’s accusers to keep them silent? Like they have been doing since the 70s?”[]
But some have noted the allegations themselves are still kind of up in the air since right now, they mainly just come from online influencers who claim to know alleged victims.
With Politico calling them:[]
“vague allegations that have not been vetted and published in the media or leveled by anyone claiming firsthand knowledge of the purported behavior.”
And you have had some people coming to Swalwell’s defense, with Senator Ruben Gallego noting some of the accounts levying these claims are very new and only started posting a few days ago.[]
With him also writing, “When you are in first place, is when they target you.”[]
And at first, Swalwell was not really addressing anything head-on, simply making posts broadly addressing controversy, but nothing necessarily specific to this.[]
But then last night, he changed his tune.
At a town hall, he called these sexual harassment claims “false” and argued it is not a coincidence that they have sprouted up just 27 days before early voting in the primary starts.
A rep from his campaign also told Politico that this “outrageous rumor” is being spread:
“by flailing opponents who have sadly teamed up with MAGA conspiracy theorists because they know Eric Swalwell is the frontrunner in this race.”[]
Adding:
“In 13 years, not a single ethics complaint by any staff in his office or any other office has ever been lodged. Ever.”
But the creators behind these claims pushed back, arguing it is “gross” to suggest these women, who have built careers in Democratic politics, teamed up with MAGA, adding:[]
“Attempts to paint survivors and those coming forward as political operatives is an intimidation tactic.”
And as for why his campaign opted to respond to claims that have really only circulated in online political spheres, an advisor to Swelwell’s campaign told to LA Times:
“We’re speaking out now because we have nothing to hide from. We know how the new media ecosystem works. We know how misinformation spreads. The facts of what they have put out don’t line up.”[]
“People are coming at him from both sides of the aisle ... because he’s the front-runner.”
With Swalwell himself seemingly tying it to other attacks he is facing from the Trump administration, claiming he expects “there will be something new from this president or wherever it comes from in the next couple weeks.”[]
And this is notably coming at a crucial time in the California governor’s race.
Over the last week or so, tons of reports have noted that the state could be at risk of electing a Republican to lead it.
Right, California uses a jungle primary, meaning all candidates from both parties compete, and the top two vote getters, whoever they may be, advance to the general.
So it could be a person from each major party or two people from the same party.
But right now, the Democratic field is pretty crowded, and there are fears that this could lead to a vote split that hands things over to Republicans.
One expert in California politics created a tool to figure out how likely it is for the general to have two Republicans going head to head, and this morning, that sat at around 15%.[]
Which is a little down from just a week when the odds were as high as 20%.[]
So it is far from a guarantee, or even likely to happen, but it’s a high enough number to make Democrats sweat.
Because polling is pretty tight.
Last month, one poll showed the two Republicans, Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, as the top two preferences, with 17 and 16%, followed by Swalwell at 13%.[]
But another showed Swalwell in the lead, with the two Republicans right behind him and the Democrats a bit more scattered. []
Though, most polls seem to show Hilton, a Republican, in the top position.[]
This week, Trump actually endorsed Hitlon, and that move could actually help Democrats. []
Because Trump’s endorsement could consolidate support around Hilton, meaning Bianco would fall behind, leaving more room for a Democrat to advance to the general.
And once you’re at the general, California is near certain to pick the Democrat.
So this is good news for the party, which was reportedly considering spending big bucks boosting one of the Republican candidates themselves. []
And so now, that frees up some cash for Democrats to spend on their own party and candidates as the primary draws nearer.
But of course, nothing is locked in yet, we will have a primary in June and a general in November.
So we will have to see if anything else comes of these allegations against Swalwell, if they hurt his campaign, and how in turn that might influence the race overall.
-
But in our final story of the day, Trump’s new attorney general literally just confessed his love for the president on live television.
[Clip, 11:20 - 11:26] Caption: “If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say thank you very much, I love you sir.”
Right, that’s acting attorney general Todd Blanche, formerly just the deputy AG, who replaced Pam Bondi after Trump gave her a kick in the rear end last week. [Continue B roll, then lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:55 - 00:59] Caption: “The DOW is over 50,000 dollars. I don’t know why you’re laughing.”
Now given that she was reportedly fired, yes, for bungling the Epstein files but primarily for failing to prosecute Trump’s political enemies aggressively enough, the very first question Blanche got during his very first press conference as acting AG was about whether he’d do that. [Continue B roll, then switch to B roll]
And if you’re concerned that America’s rapidly sliding into autocracy, his answer will not assuage your fears.
[Clip, 07:07 - 07:27; Clip, 09:05 - 09:11] Caption: “We have thousands of ongoing investigations and prosecutions ongoing in this country right now, and it is true that some of them involve men, women, and entities that the president in the past has had issues with and believes should be investigated. That is his right, and indeed it is his duty, to do that. … People say the president wants to go after his political enemies. No, the president has said time and time again that he wants justice.”
Now to be clear, the idea that it’s the president’s “right” and even “duty” to give the Justice Department names of specific people or entities he wants investigated is definitely not normal.
In fact, the prevailing norm since Nixon has been that the DOJ and attorney general should operate more or less independently from the president, something which one reporter pointed out later.
[Clip, 25:31 - 26:17] Caption: [Reporter:] “Since Watergate, there’s been a kind of firewall, if you will, on criminal investigations between the White House and the Justice Department.” [Todd Blanche:] “That is the most false statement I’ve ever heard in my life. There is always communication between a president and his priorities and what the Department of Justice should be focused on and not focused on. That is not a new thing in this administration, although I know it sounds fun to say that it is. As far as whether we would take a referral from the White House or take a referral from you even, yes. If somebody knows about fraud, please tell us. So if the president of the United States says, ‘I have heard that there is ongoing fraud in Minneapolis, Minnesota,’ like any president before him I hope that the attorney general would absolutely say, ‘Yes, we’ll investigate that.’”
So yeah, Trump’s former private defense attorney who just told the president “I love you” is gonna be taking direct orders from him on who to investigate.
And although some reports suggest Trump’s considering his EPA head Lee Zeldin for his official nominee for AG, in the meantime it looks like Blanche is here to stay.
So we’ll have to see whether he does better than Bondi, because most of the cases her DOJ brought against Trump’s enemies — James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell, several Democratic lawmakers — have stalled or fallen apart.
Even the probe into whether Biden and his aids broke the law by using the autopen reportedly ended up going nowhere, with prosecutors quietly shelving the case. [Headline]
So apparently Trump wants a more effective AG, but a New York Times analysis put the issue with that pretty well, writing:
“The fault lies not in the shirking weakness of those he has called upon to execute his will, but rather in the impossibility of his request — to bring criminal charges against political targets with little to no evidence or legal justification.” [Quote]
In fact, when it came to Bondi, you can’t say she didn’t try.
Right, reportedly in the weeks before her firing she desperately tried to satisfy Trump by moving against his opponents. [Quote, find “placate”]
With those including Obama’s CIA director John Brennan, as well as another figure we’ve gotta talk about: Cassidy Hutchinson. [Headline]
Right, she was a top aid to Trump’s first-term chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and she gave one of the most explosive testimonies to the January 6th Committee.
[Clip, 00:44 - 00:58]
There was also what I’ll just call “the ketchup incident.”
[Clip, 01:48 - 02:10]
And perhaps most infamously, though this is one story that’s disputed by other testimony, there was this story she said she heard second-hand from the Secret Service agents driving Trump’s limo.
[Clip, 01:01 - 01:31]
So now reportedly Trump’s DOJ is investigating Hutchinson for lying to Congress, though strangely the case is being handled by its Civil Rights Division.
Right, as the name suggests, it normally focuses on systemic civil rights abuses like police misconduct and racial discrimination.
Whereas a case like Hutchinson’s — right, alleged purgery in front of Congress — would normally go to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which is run by Trump loyalist Jeanine Pirro.
But Pirro, like Bondi, has struggled to move cases forward recently, so instead it’s going to Civil Rights, which is led by another Trump loyalist, Harmeet Dhillon. [Image and Quote, find “Harmeet Dhillon”]
This even though reports say that some DOJ officials have been skeptical from the outset about whether there is a viable criminal case to be made at all. [Quote same link, find “viable”]
But that’s not where it ends, because this week Trump announced that they’re also looking for whoever leaked the story about a U.S. airman missing in Iran. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:57 - 02:00] Caption: “But we have to find that leaker because that’s a sick person.”
Which is, you know, normal enough; right, the government often goes after leakers.
But then Trump explained how they’re gonna do it, and that’s when all the First Amendment lawyers’ ears perked up.
[Clip, 00:34 - 00:47, 02:09 - 02:14] Caption: “So whoever it was, we think we’ll be able to find it out because we’re gonna go to the media company that released it and we’re gonna say ‘national security. Give it up or go to jail.’ … The person that did the story will go to jail if he doesn’t say.”
With the White House later confirming that an “investigation is underway,” and Todd Blanche explaining that this is gonna be standard policy for the Trump administration. [Quote]
[Clip, 23:44 - 24:06] Caption: “To the extent that we have seen a series of leaks that necessarily involve classified information and putting the lives of our soldiers at risk or the lives of agents at risk, that is something that we will always investigate. If it means sending a subpoena to the reporter, that’s exactly what we should do and that’s exactly what we will be doing.”
Now this isn’t totally out of the blue; right, last year Trump’s DOJ rescinded a Biden-era policy that safeguarded journalists from subpoenas during leak investigations. [Headline]
And then in January, the FBI raided a Washington Post Reporter’s home and seized her devices. [Headline]
Though a federal judge in February blocked the government from actually searching them. [Headline]
But reporters and free press advocates warn that this kind of thing, if not outright illegal, is at the very least deeply illiberal.
Because if the government can compel journalists to give up their sources, then sources will stop going to journalists with information.
With Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, telling NPR:
“Some of the most consequential reporting in U.S. history — from Watergate to warrantless wiretapping after 9/11 — was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources and uncover and report stories that matter to people across the political spectrum.” [Quote]
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(2026x798:2028x800)/Paulina-Luna-072423-01-0b4fe862428843078bf083f999367bcd.jpg){kind=link}
