Josh Johnson is set to host The Daily Show for the second time in a month, Tuesday through Thursday of this week—picking up where the show’s regular Monday night host, Jon Stewart, leaves off tonight.
Johnson, who joined The Daily Show writing staff in 2017 and became an on-air correspondent in 2024, has been steadily building momentum. In addition to his sold-out national stand-up tour, he’s cultivated a digital following of more than 4 million fans. His weekly Tuesday night YouTube sets—smart, winding comedic narratives stitched from news headlines—regularly rack up millions of views and have become required viewing for fans of sharp, story-driven satire.
Johnson’s guest lineup this week opens with a homecoming for another former Daily Show correspondent. On Tuesday, Johnson welcomes Rob Riggle, the actor and comedian who served as a correspondent on The Daily Show from 2006 to 2008 and is now promoting his new memoir Grit, Spit, and Never Quit. Wednesday’s show features Jay Jurden, the comedian and writer debuting his Hulu special Yes Ma’am. The week wraps Thursday with a visit from Miguel, the Grammy-winning artist behind the new album CAOS.
Meanwhile, Jon Stewart kicks off the week tonight—Monday, November 10—with Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) and Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), co-chairs of the Democratic Veterans Caucus. (snip)
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.
Supreme Court rejects long-shot effort to overturn same-sex marriage ruling
The court turned away an appeal filed by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who was sued after refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a long-shot attempt to overturn the landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Without comment, the justices rejected an appeal brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who was sued in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her opposition to same-sex marriage based on her religious beliefs.
Her latest appeal in the case, brought a decade later, had attracted considerable attention amid fears that the court could overturn the 2015 same-sex marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, in the aftermath of the 2022 ruling that overturned the landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. (snip-MORE, with video on the page)
(I don’t know what this formatting is about. This is the 3d try, so here it is as it is.)
November 10, 1924
The Society for Human Rights, the first gay rights organization in the U.S., was founded in Chicago by Henry Gerber, a German immigrant. He had been inspired by Germany’s Scientific Humanitarian Committee, formed to oppose the oppression of men and women considered “sexual intermediates.”
Henry Gerber–founder of the Society for Human Rights
The founder of Chicago’s Society for Human Rights in 1924, the first gay rights organization in the United States, Henry Gerber was born in Bavaria as Joseph Henry Dittmar on June 29, 1892, and arrived at Ellis Island in October, 1913. With members of his family, he moved to Chicago because of its large German population. After working briefly at Montgomery Ward, he was interned as an alien during World War I. He wrote that although this was not right, he did receive three meals a day. From 1920 to 1923 he served with the U.S. Army of Occupation of Germany and during this time, he came into contact with the German homosexual emancipation movement. He subscribed to German homophile magazines and was in contact with Magnus Hirschfeld’s Scientific-Humanitarian Community in Berlin. In 1924, Gerber returned to Chicago and was hired by the post office. Gerber’s return to Chicago was amidst a backdrop of urbanization and an emerging gay subculture.
Following what Gerber had seen in Germany, he felt the need to establish an organization to protect the rights of gays and lesbians. With several friends, Gerber formed an organization which was later incorporated as The Society for Human Rights, a nonprofit corporation in the State of Illinois. The organization published a newsletter, Friendship and Freedom, which was distributed to its small membership.
In July, 1925, the society came to an abrupt end. The wife of one of the co-founders reported her husband, a reputed bisexual, to her social worker who contacted the police. Following a police raid, Gerber and several others were arrested and prosecuted for their deviancy. After three costly trials the case against Gerber was dismissed. Gerber lost his entire life savings defending himself and was fired from his job at the post office for conduct unbecoming a postal worker.
After his ordeal, Gerber moved to New York City where he reenlisted in the U.S. Army and served for 17 years. During the 1930s he managed a personal correspondence club and wrote articles in gay publications under a pseudonym. The correspondence club became a national communications network for gay men. In the 1940s, Gerber exchanged a number of letters with Manuel Boyfrank of California. Boyfrank was enthusiastic about organizing to combat homosexual oppression. Gerber offered his assistance, but refused to risk his job again. He continued his assistance through personal correspondence and numerous articles.
On December 31, 1972, Gerber died at the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home in Washington, D.C., at the age of 80. He lived to see the Stonewall Rebellion and the start of a new era of activist gay and lesbian liberation organizations.
I first heard my selection during the occupation (post invasion) of Iraq, in 2004/05. Earlier Sunday, I was reading about Sec. Duffy’s appearances on TV regarding air travel, and the song popped into my head in regard to Sec. Duffy’s facial expression in a video I didn’t watch.
*** I think the soldiers did get paid, but maybe it means the upcoming pay. Remember they normally are paid twice a month ***
This son-of-a-bitch is going to be doing color commentary while we are publicly executed at Madison Square Garden if we don’t get our acts together and fight back hard. And by we I mean every marginalized person, democratic voter, educated person, and union member. Virtually everyone who doesn’t support MAGA will be a target of opportunity on the streets of America.
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.
America’s biggest export might soon be its own citizens. According to the American Psychological Association’s Stress in America 2025 survey, 63% of adults ages 18 to 34 have considered leaving the country this year because of “the state of the nation.” Among parents, more than half—53%—say the same.
These aren’t impulsive fantasies about Parisian cafés or permanent vacation visas. The study, conducted between August 4 and 24 among more than 3,000 adults, found that stress about the country’s future has hit a historic high. Seventy-five percent of Americans say they’re more worried about the direction of the nation than they used to be, and 76% call that fear a “significant source of stress.”
The anxiety isn’t limited to politics. Half of all adults reported feeling lonely, and 69% said they needed more emotional support this year than they received. “People are overwhelmed by societal division, technology, and uncertainty about what’s next,” said APA chief executive Arthur C. Evans Jr. “It’s affecting how they relate to each other and themselves.”
Almost Two-Thirds of Young Americans Are Thinking About Ditching the U.S. for Good
That division has started to show up physically. Among adults who named it a major stressor, 83% experienced physical symptoms in the past month, like headaches, fatigue, or anxiety, compared to 66% of those who didn’t. The same group was more likely to lose patience with family, cancel plans, or struggle to plan ahead.
AI is also creeping into the collective stress index. Fifty-seven percent of adults now say the rise of artificial intelligence adds to their anxiety, up from 49% last year. Among students, that number has nearly doubled to 78%. As automation expands and misinformation spreads, Americans are increasingly uneasy about how technology will reshape work, privacy, and even identity.
Still, the survey found that most people haven’t given up. Seventy-seven percent say they have some control over their personal futures, and 84% believe they can build good lives despite national instability. Family, friendships, and health remain top sources of meaning.
But optimism has its limits. Sixty-six percent of adults think they’ve sacrificed more than previous generations, and many feel the country isn’t keeping up its end of the bargain. For young Americans, especially, the American dream feels more like a relocation plan.
As stress levels rise and passports renew, the question hanging in the air isn’t whether they love their country, it’s whether they can still live in it.
Photo Illustration by Victoria Sunday/The Daily Beast/Getty Images
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her alleged lover Corey Lewandowski ordered 10 Spirit Airlines jets before realizing the planes had no engines.
Officials warned the pair that purchasing the jets—which they said would be used to increase deportations and for their own travel—was impractical, and that simply hiring additional flight contractors would be far less costly, The Wall Street Journal reported
Corey Lewandowski and Kristi Noem, who are both married, deny reports that they are having an affair.Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
But Noem and Lewandowski went ahead and blew through the funds allocated by Congress. Officials realized the pair’s blunder when they looked deeper into their spending spree and realized that Spirit—which has filed for bankruptcy twice—didn’t own the planes in the first place, and that the engines would have to be purchased separately, according to the Journal.
Noem and her shopping partner then purchased two Gulfstream jets for $200 million. However, shortly after, DHS notified the Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee that the project to increase deportation flights had been paused.
Noem looks pensive after a press conference held to discuss the “Midway Blitz” immigration enforcement operation in Chicago.Jamie Kelter Davis/Getty Images
Lewandowski—whose alleged relationship with Noem has been described as D.C.’s “worst-kept secret”—has been referred to as Noem’s “gatekeeper,” operating as a special government employee who travels with her, weighs in on personnel, and shapes enforcement.
He has also spearheaded efforts to replace ICE leaders across the country with Border Patrol veterans to impose a more heavy-handed, military-style approach to Trump’s immigration crackdown, such as the hostile situation dubbed “Midway Blitz,” unfolding in Chicago.
Gregory Bovino has a background in chasing migrants and drug smugglers through border terrain.Chicago Tribune/Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Led by Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino, the operation’s militarized enforcement tactics and aggressive approaches have sparked public outcry. Footage and testimony have shown federal officers firing pepper-ball rounds and tear gas—even near children—while clashing with protesters. ICE agents have also been spotted roaming quiet neighborhoods, questioning landscapers and decorators.
Still, the militant approach hasn’t appeased the White House or met its steep daily deportation quotas.
ICE and Border Protection agents had made 3,000 arrests in Chicago over two months as of late October—the same number the White House has demanded they make in a single day, the Journal reported.
Noem’s methods—and the mounting pressure from the White House—have sparked infighting among DHS officials as they grapple with Lewandowski’s informal authority.
Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino visit the ICE facility in Chicago in October.DHS photo by Tia Dufour
Border czar Tom Homan and ICE Director Todd Lyons favor an old-school, less hostile approach, including using police research to develop target lists and focusing on those with criminal histories, sources told the Journal. But while Homan is influential in the White House, Noem has the final say.
Trump, however, is on the side of aggression, saying in a 60 Minutes interview last week that ICE officials “haven’t gone far enough” in Chicago.
The Daily Beast has reached out to DHS and ICE for comment. A spokesperson for DHS denied there were divisions in the department in a statement to the Journal, adding that Trump’s administration is on pace to “shatter records and deport 600,000 people by the end of Trump’s first year.”
Noem’s shake-up comes even as a federal judge on Thursday accused Bovino, 55, of lying to her in court as she imposed sweeping limits on a hardline anti-migrant crackdown in Illinois.
Bovino previously claimed he was hit in the head with a rock before he lobbed gas at anti-ICE protesters in Chicago—a claim he later admitted was false after DHS could not produce evidence to support it.
In an oral ruling, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis said, “I find the government’s evidence to be simply not credible,” after weeks of tear-gassings, pepper-ball strikes, and hard takedowns against journalists, clergy, and residents during “Operation Midway Blitz,” with excessive violence that, she said, “shocks the conscience.”
Left: David Axelrod // Public domain, Middle: James Carville // JD Lasica // Wikimedia Commons, Right: David Plouffe // Noam Galai // Wikimedia Commons
Scottie's Playtime 