Josh Day, Next Day

Beverage alert, of course!

Not A Good Thing.

Bad News

And That Stands For Trouble,

but not in this case.

Corruption, With A Capital T

Zohran Mamdani clips from The Majority Report

What To Look For This Week:

Sitck with it; some is technical, but one can get the info one needs from context, and it’s important.

The Week Ahead by Joyce Vance

October 19, 2025 Read on Substack

What comes after No Kings?

Apparently, Donald Trump felt threatened by a successful, peaceful protest and by seeing millions of us out in the streets protesting against him. Saturday night, he posted a childish, petulant video, portraying himself as the king of sh*t. Then, this morning, he resorted to a temper tantrum, insisting he would use his “absolute power” to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Of course, 50% of presidents have not invoked the Act. Wrong again.

Trump’s renewed focus on the Insurrection Act comes on the heels of a Seventh Circuit decision last week declining to permit Trump to deploy troops to Chicago. “Political opposition is not rebellion,” wrote a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming District Judge April Perry. You can read the court’s order here. The panel consisted of appointees from the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump.

That case is not about the Insurrection Act, however. Trump has, so far, stopped short of invoking it, instead using related authority that the administration maintains allows it to federalize National Guard troops, even over a governor’s objection.

The appellate judges in the Chicago case affirmed the portion of Judge Perry’s order that temporarily enjoined the administration from deploying the Guard within Illinois. They held that even affording Trump the substantial deference owed to a president’s decisions, Trump had failed to show he met the predicates for doing so. Under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, the administration had to establish that there was either (1) a rebellion or a danger of one or (2) that the situation on the ground made it impossible for the President to execute the laws of the United States with regular forces.

Among their justifications for that decision: “Despite President Trump’s federalization of Guard troops as necessary to enforce federal immigration law, DHS and ICE have touted the success of Operation Midway Blitz. In an October 3 press release, DHS stated that ICE and CBP have effected more than 1,000 immigration arrests since the start of the Operation. In a September 26 DHS press release, the Department declared that protests had not slowed ICE down, and, in fact, ICE has significantly increased its deportation and arrest numbers year over year.” The government contradicted its own case in its self-congratulatory press releases.

There is a technical legal point here. Because the plaintiffs had asked the court to prevent Trump both from federalizing the Guard and from deploying them, the panel looked at those two separately. To obtain an injunction, one of the elements plaintiffs have to establish is that they will be irreparably injured without it. The court held that “the administration’s likely violation of Illinois’s Tenth Amendment rights by deploying Guard troops in the state over the state’s objection ‘constitutes proof of an irreparable harm’” and enjoined their deployment. But it made a different finding when it came to Trump’s ability to federalize Guard troops, holding that it would not enjoin that action because the injury “appears to be relatively minimal.” This effectively gives the state the relief it sought, while interestingly, putting federalized state National Guard troops on the federal payroll during the shutdown, perhaps a topic for another day.

A key point we’ve been tracking in these cases reemerged in this one: Trump’s inexorable march towards obtaining more power for himself. The administration argued, as it has before, that a president’s decision to federalize National Guard troops under § 12406 cannot be reviewed by a judge. That really would make Trump a king. But the panel dismissed the argument, at least at this stage in the proceedings, rejecting the administration’s attempt to use an older case, Martin v. Mott, which we’ve discussed here and here, as going too far. That case involved an effort by militia men to override a presidential decision during a time of open war, and the panel said that did not suggest that the judicial branch of government could not review decisions by the executive branch. They concluded that nothing in the statute “makes the president the sole judge” of whether the reason for invoking it passes muster.

The Solicitor General filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which means we’ll spend at least part of the week ahead court watching.

All of that legal wrangling explains why Trump returns to threats to invoke the Insurrection Act whenever courts step in to check his authority. With the National Guard, there are clearly some limits on presidential power. Trump seems to believe none of them come into play when the Insurrection Act is involved. The first parts of the Act became law in 1792. It permits the president to deploy the military on domestic soil and use American soldiers against American citizens, making it the chief exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which would otherwise prohibit that. There are exceptional circumstances where that sort of extreme action is necessary—the opening moments of the Civil War involved President Lincoln using it for just that purpose. But the law has been described by experts as “dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse.”

Chief among its problems is language that could easily be interpreted as giving the president sole authority to determine when it should be invoked, without resort to the courts for constitutional review. This is why the Supreme Court’s decision about the reach of Martin v. Mott in Chicago and other cases will be so important. Whether the Court will finally take steps to curtail Trump’s attempt to consolidate all power in his own hands remains to be seen.

For the record, even Twitter AI Grok says that Trump got it wrong when it came to the number of presidents who’ve invoked the Insurrection Act: “15 U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act since its passage in 1807, including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George H.W. Bush. It has been used about 30 times total for events like the Civil War, civil rights enforcement, and riots. That’s roughly a third of presidents, not half as claimed.” And a far better question is, how many times has it been invoked over the objection of the governor, which is a much smaller number.

The most recent use of the Act happened at the request of California’s governor, when sustained riots broke out following the April 29, 1992, acquittal of four Los Angeles police officers who were captured on videotape brutally beating Rodney King, a Black motorist. President George H.W. Bush deployed the National Guard and U.S. troops to restore order after both the governor and the mayor requested federal assistance to help stop the shootings, arson, looting, and other violence in the city that resulted in the deaths of more than 50 people, thousands of injuries and arrests, and property damage of more than $1 billion. That’s the sort of situation the Act is meant for. Not ones where a president trumps up baseless claims of out-of-control crime and violence to serve his own political purposes.

There is no good faith basis underlying Trump’s asserted justification for bringing in the Guard or potentially invoking the Insurrection Act. But that doesn’t matter if you’ve decided you’re a king.

So, when has the Insurrection Act been used absent a request for the governor and local officials? That happened during the Civil Rights Movement in a few extreme situations where the state was interfering with the enforcement of Supreme Court decisions. And in Alabama, George Wallace’s threatened stand in the schoolhouse door to prevent school integration faded away when President Kennedy sent in federal troops using a measure related to the Insurrection Act.

It’s important to understand that Trump is using a fictitious basis for invoking a statute designed for use in only the most serious of situations. There is no rampant crime that local law enforcement can’t handle as well without federal troops as they could with them, and certainly no rebellion. Trump has no plans to use federal forces to enforce Americans’ civil rights. Instead, it’s the same theme we’ve seen since he took office: An effort to seize more and more power and create a lopside executive branch that can rule over the rest of government—and the American people. (snip)

There is more going on this week, although that feels like enough.

The Courts. As the shutdown continues, the federal courts are preparing to run out of funding on Monday. They will maintain “limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions” for as long as the shutdown continues. Constitutional litigation and criminal cases will continue to move forward, but staff will be furloughed and much of the courts’ civil work will slow down to a snail’s pace.

Abrego Garcia. A hearing on Abrego Garcia’s motions for selective and vindictive prosecution in the Tennessee-based criminal case the Justice Department charged him in after his return from deportation has been scheduled for November 4 and 5. In advance, we are learning some information about the evidence he plans to put on.

Abrego Garcia wants to call at least seven witnesses to testify. The government is apparently preparing to attempt to quash subpoenas for high-level officials at DHS and DOJ, and possibly someone from the White House. Abrego Garcia has also identified a series of emails between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and main Justice that he requests access to, to see if they shed any light on the decision to indict him for old crimes, which required obtaining the cooperation of a more culpable individual by promising to terminate his deportation proceedings. Abrego Garcia complains that he’s received very little information from the government in discovery because the local U.S. Attorney believes what he has requested is protected by a number of government privileges including deliberative process and attorney work product. This case, which has dropped off the radar screen in recent weeks, is about to return in a big way, setting the stage for similar motions in the Trump revenge cases as well.

Comey Motions. This case is still scheduled for trial on January 5, 2026, because the Eastern District of Virginia is the rocket docket. Comey’s first round of motions are due on Monday. The government will have two weeks to respond. It’s unclear which motions we will see, but there will likely be several to dismiss the case entirely, including ones arguing the U.S. Attorney was appointed improperly, rendering the indictment invalid, along with selective and vindictive prosecution motions.

Book tour. Also, this week I’m off on my book tour. Giving Up Is Unforgivable will officially be on sale on Tuesday. If you haven’t already, grab your copy here. If you’re in New York City, Preet Bharara and I will be at the 92nd Street Y, and they’ve moved us to a larger space, so there are more tickets available, if you weren’t able to get them earlier. I’d love to get to see you!

There may be lighter posting than usual this week and next while I’m traveling, but I’ll be here for all the important developments, and I’ll try to share pictures from the road with you too! Please make sure you say hi if you’re able to join me at one of our other tour locations.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

(snip)

“Are You Now, Or Have You Ever…”, The Saturday Night Massacre, & More In Peace & Justice History for 10/20

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryoctober.htm#october20

Bernie And AOC Expose Trump’s MAGA Betrayal

Zohran Dominates Cuomo During NYC Mayor Debate

Five clips from The Majority Report

Fox host tries to force him into a hole so she can bash him with bigotry. He doesn’t fall for it. Hugs.

tRump / Rubio are desperately trying to drum up a war with Venezuela over their oil. The US handpicked successor to Maduro admitted she would give up the rights to the oil reserves to the western oil companies first thing. Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia. That is why the US crippled the Venezuela economy in an attempt to get hat oil for our own. Maduro wants to use the money for the people, he wants to help the indigenous people, he wants to destroy the class structure that existed when he was growing up. The white people were treated better than the native brown people, he wanted to change that to where everyone is equal. People who are used to privilege react badly when everyone gets the same privilege. Hugs

This next video talks about the “young republicans” who are anywhere from 18 to 40 and these racist bigoted republicans have important positions in state and federal government. These republicans threatened to rape their enemies, and praised Hitler. Hugs

The clip below talks about Chuck Schumer and his actions before the shutdown and after. The democrats have a history of not standing up and taking action. The base of the party is glad the leaders are now taking concrete actions. Hugs

This last one is just for fun. It is a comedian who acts / talks like Cuomo to his face. Hugs

SSDI Cuts Upcoming-

October 16, 2025, 1:02 pm

Trump Administration Plans Deep Cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance, Particularly for Older Workers

Despite repeatedly promising not to cut Social Security, the Trump Administration is reportedly preparing a proposed rule that could reduce the share of applicants who qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by up to 20 percent, according to an Urban Institute report that cites writing by a former Trump Administration official and interviews with former staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA). This would be the largest cut in SSDI history.

SSDI is an integral part of Social Security. It provides essential benefits to workers who cannot support themselves through earnings due to severe and long-lasting disabilities that significantly impede their ability to work, and it helps to prevent beneficiaries and their families from experiencing poverty.

The rule would make it much more difficult to qualify for both SSDI and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Because it would dramatically change the eligibility criteria for older applicants, the losses among people over age 50 would be much deeper.

The rule is likely to be the largest-ever cut to Social Security Disability Insurance. A 20 percent cut in the share of applicants who qualify for SSDI would be larger than any previous change to the program. It would be even larger than the Reagan-era disability cuts, which the Reagan Administration was forced to reverse amid fierce opposition from governors, courts, beneficiaries, and advocates. According to an Urban Institute analysis, even a cut half the size of what the Trump Administration is considering would mean 750,000 fewer people would receive SSDI benefits within ten years. In addition to reducing the share of applicants who receive benefits, some current beneficiaries could see their benefits taken away when their eligibility is reviewed.

The rule would particularly hurt older workers. Like the rest of Social Security, SSDI serves largely older people; nearly 80 percent of disabled workers are aged 50 or older. SSDI benefits provide vital support to people whose careers are cut short by severe medical impairments. The rule is expected to target older applicants already determined to have significant medical impairments by discounting the barriers they face due to their age in continuing to do substantial work — despite the law’s requirement that the Social Security Administration (SSA) consider how age, education, and skills might make working harder, in addition to considering health conditions.

It’s already difficult at any age to qualify for disability benefits, given their stringent rules. Research shows applicants whose impairments are not severe enough to qualify for SSDI fare poorly in their attempts to return to work — especially if they’re older. Rejecting more older applicants will cause more hardship for people who would be eligible for benefits under the existing rules.

The rule will likely cause disproportionate harm to people living in the South and Appalachia. Some states have a higher share of people receiving disability benefits, particularly those with more older workers with fewer years of formal education, and who are more likely to have worked in physical jobs like manufacturing or mining. That is true of many Southern and Appalachian states, as well as Maine and the Rust Belt states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The proposed rule drafted during the first Trump Administration would reportedly change the way SSA considers education as well as age, and because residents of these states are on average older and less educated, these changes will hit them doubly hard.

In addition to cutting Social Security and SSI, the rule would threaten retirement security, access to health care, and other supports. Workers who become disabled and qualify for SSDI are significantly worse off in retirement: they are poorer, experience more hardship, and have lower savings. Disabled workers will fare even worse in retirement if their eligibility for disability benefits is stripped. They would be forced to spend any retirement savings faster and claim their Social Security retirement benefits at a younger age, permanently reducing their — and possibly their family’s — monthly Social Security retirement benefits by up to 30 percent. For hundreds of thousands of older people, this rule would create long-term financial insecurity as they age.

In addition, applicants who do not qualify for disability benefits may face significant challenges accessing health care. SSDI recipients typically receive Medicare 24 months after they begin to receive benefits; if someone no longer qualifies for these benefits, they won’t be able to get Medicare until they turn 65. And, SSI recipients receive Medicaid, so those who lose SSI benefits may also lose Medicaid (particularly in states that have not adopted the Medicaid expansion). Most rejected applicants under the new standard will have very significant medical impairments, and many will struggle to access health care without those benefits — particularly after the steep Medicaid cuts in the Republican megabill.

Finally, restricting eligibility for disability benefits will make it more difficult for rejected applicants to access other key supports, such as food assistance, which has increasingly strict time limits for most non-elderly individuals without younger children who are not receiving disability benefits. New Medicaid work requirements could also pose significant impediments to people who lose disability benefits.

This rule is the latest in a series of harmful actions by the Trump Administration that threaten access to Social Security. This year, the Administration has forced SSA through a radical downsizing that has disrupted services for the largely older and severely disabled people who rely most on the agency, indiscriminately pushing out 7,000 workers in the largest staff cut in SSA’s history. This realignment has resulted in fewer staff serving Social Security applicants and beneficiaries, and huge cuts to staff supporting the agency’s customer service mission. These cuts have been coupled with inexplicable new restrictions — some of which have already been partially rolled back — for how the public can engage with SSA for assistance, creating additional access barriers.

At the same time, the Administration is working to advance changes that would make it harder for hundreds of thousands of eligible people to receive or continue receiving SSI, creating additional red tape for beneficiaries and more work for depleted and overburdened SSA staff.