Apparently, Sunday night is the new big news night. To keep us up to date on today’s developments, it’s a rare Monday morning update.
Late last night, Trump issued pardons. However, it’s an unusual list that leaves us reading tea leaves, because these aren’t individuals being prosecuted by the federal government or even people who are at risk of being prosecuted, given the current administration—those are the people who usually want and need a pardon. These pardons don’t apply to ongoing state prosecutions of fake slates of electors in places like Arizona and Nevada.
These names still don’t appear on the White House’s official pardon list. News of the pardons came from a tweet made by Trump’s man at DOJ, Ed Martin. And it wasn’t subtle: “No MAGA left behind.”
The list names a cast of familiar characters, including Rudy Giuliani, Boris Epshteyn, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, Ken Chesebro, Michael Roman, Christina Bobb, Kelli Ward, and Jenna Ellis. They are all people who advanced Trump’s effort to claim victory after losing the 2020 election. But that’s not the full extent of it. The document Martin posted purports to be a broad pardon, akin to those following the Civil War that pardons everyone involved (although here, there is no requirement to take a loyalty oath to the United States as there was following the war). It’s part of Trump’s ongoing effort to rewrite the history of January 6 and the insurrection and a signal that anyone who serves him will be protected and rewarded.
Late last night, the First Circuit rejected the administration’s request for a stay of a lower court order requiring it to make SNAP payments from emergency funds. That left the ball in the Supreme Court’s hands. Justice Jackson promptly issued a briefing schedule that requires both sides, as well as any amici, to file their briefs on the matter today. This proceeding is limited to the question of whether the district court’s order that the administration must proceed with November SNAP payments should be stayed (paused) while the lawsuit proceeds.
The First Circuit panel made the stakes plain in its opinion: 42 million people, or one in every eight Americans, rely on these benefits to keep hunger at bay.
From the First Circuit’s decision
First thing Monday morning, Justice Jackson issued a briefing order requiring the DOJ to file its response to the First Circuit’s decision by 4:00 p.m. and giving the plaintiffs until 8:00 a.m. Tuesday morning to respond. The government is “the applicant” at this stage of the case.
Federal Law enforcement abuses in Chicago. The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal over Chicago federal Judge Sara Ellis’ preliminary injunction restricting the use of force against protesters and journalists. If you stop for just a moment and zoom out, the utter lunacy here comes into focus. The government is fighting for the right to use excessive force against peaceful protesters. Why not take the obvious position that while it disagrees with the Judge’s assessment of the facts, it intends to fully comply with the law regarding treatment of people exercising their First Amendment rights? But that is not the government’s view of the matter.
Finally, marriage equality is safe, at least for now. The Supreme Court issued its list of grants and denials on cases from Friday’s conference this morning. The case I wrote to you about last night, involving Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis, who objected to issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, was on the denial list, so the Court will not hear Davis’ appeal. That means there were not four Justices who wanted to hear the case, which, as I mentioned, doesn’t have particularly attractive facts for undoing longstanding precedent. This denial doesn’t tell us anything about whether the Court might be interested in undoing gay Americans’ rights if the “right” case comes along.
Last night, I started the newsletter by writing, “It’s going to be another blockbuster, high-stakes legal week. If you feel a bit overwhelmed, like I did Friday night at dinner when legal opinions were breaking out everywhere while I tried to have a meal with friends, remember that I’ll be here for you all week to try and keep things organized and understandable.” I didn’t expect it to be this soon, but the courts, for a change, are moving at lightning speed. Thank you for being here with me and reading Civil Discourse.
Top Democratic officials put out a new guide, entitled “Deciding to Win,” that encourages Democrats to be a little more like Republicans on “identity and cultural issues.”
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Subscribe
This week, the self-styled centrist group WelcomePAC released a document entitled “Deciding to Win”—advised on by some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent strategists, including David Axelrod, James Carville, and David Plouffe—urging Democrats to act a little more like Republicans on so-called “identity and cultural issues.” The 58-page memo reads like a compendium of the consultant class’s worst instincts, encouraging candidates to become little more than poll-tested avatars and walking focus groups, trading conviction for triangulation. While the document rarely defines which “cultural issues” it means, the few times it does make it clear: queer and transgender people stand to lose the most if this vision of the Democratic Party takes hold.
The document begins with five key pillars for the party. Some of them make a lot of sense, such as “messaging on an economic program centered on lowering costs, growing the economy, creating jobs, and expanding the social safety net,” critiquing “the outsized political and economic influence of” the “ultra-wealthy,” and support for a $15/h minimum wage. Others, though, encourage the party to abandon platforms that have been central to its identity and mission to protect the most vulnerable in society, calling for the party to “Moderate our positions where our agenda is unpopular, including on issues like immigration, public safety, energy production, and some identity and cultural issues.”
While the document rarely defines what “identity and cultural issues” means, the examples make its targets clear. Support for the Equality Act—legislation that would codify gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal law—is cited as proof the party has “moved left.” Another section lists “protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans” as a priority voters supposedly don’t want Democrats to emphasize. Elsewhere, a discussion of how to mobilize voters “sitting on the couch” reveals that the most popular policy among them is “defining sex as binary and based on biology at birth across federal agencies.” Later in the document, it explicitly calls out transgender sports participation as an issue that the party should “moderate” on.
Screenshot of Deciding to Win Chart of “moderate” policies
Imagine a world where Democrats actually heeded this advice. The “define sex as binary” policy—already championed in Republican-led states and now embedded in everything the Trump administration does—has had devastating consequences for transgender Americans. It has stripped trans people of the ability to update their passports, creating serious barriers to travel; defunded organizations that affirm gender diversity; and fueled crackdowns on college campuses that allow trans students to use restrooms matching their gender identity. It’s a policy of bureaucratic erasure, one that threatens to undo decades of hard-won progress—yet it’s presented, almost casually, as a “moderate” position Democrats might adopt to win votes.
It’s a vision of politics that would turn Democrats into little more than Republican Lite—a “big tent” party spacious enough for those who despise us but not for those who most need protection. In that world, Democrats would lose not just the meaning of leadership but the very soul of why the party exists. And it’s a fantasy built on delusion: no amount of fine-tuned messaging or poll-tested calibration will ever transform the party into the perpetual winner these consultants imagine.
We don’t have to imagine what happens when Democrats follow this playbook — we’ve already seen it. In New Hampshire, Democrats capitulated on multiple anti-trans bills, including bans on youth sports participation and gender-affirming surgery, only to suffer one of the party’s worst defeats of the 2024 election cycle, losing 20 seats. By contrast, Democrats in Montana fought hard against similar measures and mounted some of the most visible resistance to anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the country, picking up ten seats in the state House—one of the party’s strongest showings nationwide, in a state Trump carried easily. In Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear vetoed anti-trans bills, including a sports ban, and still won reelection in a Trump +31 state. And in New York, a ballot measure enshrining gender identity protections outperformed Kamala Harris’s statewide margin by a wide margin.
Despite the evidence, a faction within the Democratic Party still treats queer and trans people as expendable—convinced that by trimming the edges of equality and tolerating “a little” discrimination, they can win back power. It’s a ruinous illusion. This kind of triangulation doesn’t blunt Republican attacks; it validates them. Every state that once embraced sports bans or “compromise” restrictions has since escalated to banning medical care, censoring books, and policing bathrooms. Capitulation has never advanced LGBTQ+ rights—not in policy, not in public opinion, not once. Democrats aren’t losing because they’ve been too loud or too firm in defending equality; they’re losing because the far right invests in its own moral narrative while Democrats second-guess theirs. The only way forward is to stand unapologetically on principle—as Andy Beshear did in Kentucky, citing it as the very reason for his success—not to chase the approval of consultants who mistake cowardice for strategy and appeasement for leadership.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
November 8, 1892 Thirty thousand black and white, factory and dock workers staged a general strike in New Orleans, demanding union recognition, closed shops (where all co-workers join the union), and hour and wage gains. They were joined by non-industrial laborers, such as musicians, clothing workers, clerks, utility workers, streetcar drivers, and printers.
November 8, 1935 United Mine Workers president John L. Lewis and other labor leaders formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). They had split with the existing labor union umbrella organization, the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which was not interested in organizing unskilled workers, such as those in the steel, rubber, textile and auto industries. John L. Lewis CIO history
WNV linked each of these. Here are the original pages with snippets.
After No Kings, It’s Time to Escalate by Eric Blanc
We need bigger—and more disruptive—nonviolent campaigns that can go viral and peel away Trump’s pillars of support Read on Substack
American democracy is on the ropes. Trump and his billionaire backers are doing everything possible to transform our country into an authoritarian state like Hungary or Russia, where the trappings of institutional democracy mask brazen autocratic rule.
Our president’s sinking popularity numbers might not matter so much if his administration is either able to ignore electoral results or to distort the electoral map so badly that there’s almost no way to vote Republicans out.
Far too many Democrats and union leaders naively hoped that the courts would save us. But the Supreme Court has given a green light to Trump’s power grab, and it appears poised to overturn Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last major legal roadblock to prevent Republicans from disenfranchising millions of Democrats and Black voters across the South.
Are we cooked? Trump would certainly like us to believe he’s unstoppable. Faced with the administration’s relentless offensive against immigrants, free speech, public services, and majoritarian rule, it’s normal to sometimes succumb to despair. But there’s no need to throw in the towel — and there are concrete next steps we can all take to win back the country through nonviolent resistance. As Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) president Stacy Davis Gates reminds us, Trumpism “won’t be stopped just in the courts or at the ballot box.” (snip-there is MORE on the page linked at “Read on Substack” above)
=====
The introvert’s guide to fighting for democracy by Protect Democracy
Six ways to protect democracy — without attending a protest Read on Substack
If you’re reading this, you’re concerned about our democracy’s slide into authoritarianism — and you want to do something about it. Wahoo! You’ve taken the first and most difficult step: committing to action.
Now come the fun parts.
I want to be really clear on a couple things to start out. First, there is no one-size-fits-all best way to exercise your First Amendment rights of speech and association. Every successful social movement has employed a wide variety of tactics and repeatedly adjusted to respond to facts on the ground. Opt for action over agonizing about optimal tactics.
Second, be realistic. We are all busy. Reflect on the commitments you can actually sustain with room to grow. It is far better to regularly move the ball forward on a smaller effort than to dive into and never complete an ambitious one.
Third, be unique! You have unique talents, skills, and passions. Let those guide your advocacy. Focus on projects that bring you joy, things you actually look forward to engaging with week after week. Lean into the comparative skills and expertise you bring to the movement.
With all that in mind, here’s a short list of six ways everyone can protect democracy — even (especially) if going to a protest or some other more public form of engagement isn’t for you.
1. Check in with your local library
Local libraries are the backbone of an informed democratic citizenry, and they provide crucial resources for underserved communities. But their funding is under attack by the administration, which has cut critical funds nationwide.
So, give the library in your neighborhood a call. See how they are doing in relation to funding cuts and if there are ways you can support them. Do they take book donations? Need volunteers? See if there are teach-in or reading groups you can join — or even lead. Offer to help curate pro-democracy reading lists for various ages. Many libraries are open to suggestions for books to add to the collection — here are some recommendations from our team.
2. Fill the gaps left by government programs
Taking care of one another is essential movement building. Check in on your food pantry and community kitchen — many of which have faced funding cuts — to see how you can help. (snip-MORE at the page linked above: “Read on Substack”)
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Scottie's Playtime 