In keeping with the "world turned upside-down" nature of this week, we are going to start with a few things that haven't been front-and-center, then we'll circle in to a bigger-picture take, and finally we'll fit in the big story of the week at the end.

First, the stuff that may have been lost in the flood. This comes from a journalist's list of "this week's parade of horribles," but this is only the end of this list (the entire list was too long to include here):

The administration's slash-first-ask-questions-later approach to the federal government hit the Department of Health and Human Services, which is reportedly cutting 20,000 jobs and dramatically scaling back the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at a time when measles is spreading and avian flu is threatening. The White House has canceled funding for studies of antiviral drugs and vaccines to fight future pandemics, as well as grants to track infectious diseases. It has hired a man who promotes the false claim that immunization causes autism to do a study on the topic. This comes as the administration is cutting off payments by paper checks to Social Security recipients, even as it backs away from its plans to cut phone services because of a fierce backlash. Its cuts to the IRS have been so severe that Treasury Department and IRS officials predict a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax revenue -- or more than $500 billion -- the [Washington] Post's Jacob Bogage reports.

In the rule-of-law category, Trump attacked the "Rigged System" of the federal judiciary, alleging "Corruption and Radicalism" in federal courts in New York and D.C. He linked to an article from a conspiracy site arguing that judges who oppose him could be guilty of "Sedition and Treason." He issued an order attempting to destroy another law firm, Jenner & Block, by seeking to deny it security clearances and access to federal buildings and contracts because it once employed a lawyer who worked on a Justice Department probe of Trump during his first term. The president issued an order mandating proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, seizing a power the Constitution assigns to the states and Congress. He mulled offering financial compensation to those convicted (and pardoned by Trump) for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. And his cryptocurrency business launched a new coin to further enrich him and his family.

Finally, under the heading of miscellaneous weirdness, Trump expressed his wish at a Women's History Month event to "be known as the fertilization president." He complained that a portrait of him in the Colorado state capitol was "purposefully distorted." And, hours after the first reports that four U.S. soldiers had gone missing during a NATO exercise in Lithuania near the border of Belarus, Trump appeared unaware. Asked by reporters whether he had been briefed, he replied, "No, I haven't."

So that all happened.

Consider just one of the items on that list. The Social Security Administration is currently being led by a man who is quite obviously in over his head. He was elevated to this position in a sort of "Saturday Night Massacre" situation at the agency, after President Elon Musk's tech-bro team demanded access to the Social Security database -- the one that keeps all your personal and financial information on it. The leaders refused, on the grounds that doing so would be illegal, so they were all fired. The acting head was appointed instead -- a mid-level guy who was eager to help Musk's minions get at the data (that's why he survived the purge).

This week, after a judge ruled that Musk's minions should not be given access, Leland Dudek had a hissy fit. He threatened to just close down the whole agency, in response. No, really:

"As it stands, I will follow it exactly and terminate access by all SSA employees to our IT systems," [Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Leland] Dudek said. "Really, I want to turn it off and let the courts figure out how they want to run a federal agency."

On Friday, Dudek indicated he was actually talking to the Justice Department about shutting down Social Security -- and potentially halting benefits for 70 million people -- if the court didn't clarify its order.

He later backed down.

Meanwhile, the billionaire running the Commerce Department had an extraordinary take on this idea (which Marie Antoinette would have eaten up like... well, cake):

"Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who's 94, she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up and she'll get it next month," Lutnick, who has an estimated net worth of $1.5 billion, said on the "All-In" podcast.

He suggested that halting Social Security checks might be a good way to root out people trying to defraud the system.

"A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining," he said.

"The easiest way to find the fraudster is to stop payments and listen, because whoever screams is the one stealing," he claimed. "Because my mother-in-law is not calling me. Come on, your mother -- 80-year-olds, 90-year-olds -- they trust the government."

Got that? If Social Security checks suddenly stopped, then the administration of Donald Trump would consider anyone who had the temerity to complain about it to be a "fraudster," since they'd be the only ones making noise. Because to them, Social Security is chock-full of fraud, even though they haven't actually found any yet.

Out in the trenches, the system is nearing the breaking point (if it hasn't already gotten there), due to Dudek changing major policies at the drop of a hat (with no guidance issued to the frontline workers) and Musk firing as many of them as he feels like. Sometimes these policies are then also suddenly reversed, which makes Dudek a perfect fit for the this administration. The guy who is up for confirmation to permanently be the S.S.A. leader, meanwhile, just lied to the Senate -- while under oath -- about knowing any of the Musk minions.

It's not just the S.S.A., of course. Musk has already thrown monkey wrenches into FEMA's recovery efforts, and now they've announced that they want to get FEMA out of disaster aid altogether -- by the end of September. Gee... what could possibly go wrong with that brilliant plan?

Trump continued his efforts to destroy the American economy this week, with announcements that ships not built in America will be charged whopping fees to enter American ports, as well as a 25 percent tariff on all cars and auto parts not made in America. Here's what that's going to mean for American consumers:

But whatever carmakers decide, car buyers can expect to pay more for new and used vehicles. Estimates vary widely and depend on the model, but the increase could range from around $3,000 for a car made in the United States to well over $10,000 for imported models.

. . .

As a result, carmakers will have to pass much of the cost of tariffs on to their customers.

If so, tariffs could add $15,000 to the price of a Ram 1500 pickup, nearly $12,000 to a Toyota Tacoma pickup, $9,000 to a Subaru Forester S.U.V. and $6,000 to a Nissan Sentra sedan, according to estimates by iSeeCars, an online car buying site.

Next week, Trump will be announcing a whole slew of other tariffs, which will affect worldwide trade and also drive prices up for American consumers. Meanwhile, economic indicators are turning down, and one measure of consumer confidence slipped to a 12-year low. For good measure, Trump is trying to strip the right to form Unions from one million federal employees.

But let's move on to the bigger picture. We first noticed the term used in a political cartoon today, and it seems perfectly appropriate. What Donald Trump is in the process of doing is launching America's very own "Cultural Revolution." Chairman Mao would be so proud!

Consider:

Trump kicked people off the governing board of the Kennedy Center and appointed toadies who voted to put Trump in charge of the place. He did this so he could dictate what artists were allowable and which ones to kick out. Based solely on his own artistic tastes, of course.

For good measure, Trump issued a decree that the Smithsonian Institution (and for some odd reason, the National Zoo) will go through an ideological review with Vice President JD Vance in order to get rid of anything in American history that Trump doesn't approve of (which he calls "improper ideology"). This includes apparently trying to put all those Confederate statues back up, just to give one example of what "proper" ideology is, perhaps? The language of it would indeed have made Mao smile... here's just one example:

[The Secretary of the Interior shall] take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times), and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape.

In other words: "Don't mention all that slavery stuff, OK?"

Want more?

It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing. Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn -- not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.

To advance this policy, we will restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness -- igniting the imagination of young minds, honoring the richness of American history and innovation, and instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans.

This is on top of the rest of the government purging any mention of race, gender, sexual orientation, and anything else they consider "woke." This has resulted in some embarrassment for the Pentagon, after they took down pages about the Enola Gay, the Navajo code-talkers from World War II, and the Tuskegee Airmen. This is the equivalent of the Ministry of Truth trying to shove certain concepts down the memory hole. Or the modern equivalent of book-burning, perhaps.

Trump threatened all federal money for the state of Maine, insisting that he would only relent if the governor gave him a personal apology for standing up to him in public. Trump also revoked the security clearances of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris, just to be petty.

Trump's vengeance tour has gotten pretty Orwellian all around, in fact:

The White House is directing federal law enforcement officials to seek sanctions against attorneys or law firms that challenge President Donald Trump's actions in court, a move seen as an escalation of the president's attacks on those who oppose his aggressive policy changes or who have litigated against him in the past.

A White House memo issued late Friday night orders Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem to pursue ethics challenges against lawyers who they accuse of bringing meritless cases or making arguments that are not backed up by fact, including in immigration courts.

The memo told Bondi to consider taking actions against law firm partners for perceived misconduct by junior attorneys and to review cases against the government from the past eight years to look for "misconduct that may warrant additional action."

Here was the official Orwellian explanation for this:

The White House stood by Trump's directive. "President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people. President Trump's only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people," Taylor Rogers, assistant White House press secretary, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to dehumanize and demonize anyone who is not a full citizen who says anything Trump doesn't like. People with valid papers to be here are being "disappeared," for things like writing an op-ed in a college newspaper. Think this is overstated? Judge for yourself:

I ask you to imagine yourself as a 30-year-old doctoral student walking down a street toward a dinner with friends. Suddenly, you are surrounded by six darkly clad plainclothes agents -- with five of them wearing masks that shield their faces below the eyes. The agents grab your phone from your hands. You cry out, "You are hurting me!" as they pull your arms behind you and cuff your wrists, still without providing evidence of their official status.

A bystander hears your scream and begins filming the assault, asking, "Is this a kidnapping?"

"We're the police," says an agent.

"You don't look like it. Why are you hiding your faces?"

You are then perp-walked to an unmarked SUV and hustled inside. (Speaking of terrorism.) This is exactly what happened Tuesday to Rumeysa Ozturk, a student studying child development, hardly a field popular among terrorists. Ozturk is a Fulbright scholar and held a valid F-1 visa, commonly used to allow nonimmigrant foreigners to study full time in the U.S.

At least she hasn't been shipped off to a hellhole of a prison in some foreign country, without being given the opportunity to contest the accusations against her in any sort of court or hearing. Here's what a federal judge had to say about that this week:

An appellate judge told prosecutors Monday that "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act" than the Venezuelan nationals the Trump administration recently removed from the U.S. to a prison in El Salvador.

Judge Patricia Millett drew the stark comparison during a hearing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where lawyers representing the Trump administration worked to lift a lower court's temporary ban on the deportation of immigrants under a proclamation President Donald Trump recently issued that invoked the Alien Enemies Act.

. . .

"Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act than what has happened here... they had hearing boards before people were removed," Millett said. "Here, there's nothing about hearing boards or regulations and nothing was adopted by agency officials who were administering this. People weren't given notice [and] weren't told where they were going."

Kristi Noem visited that prison in El Salvador this week, and in her own Marie Antoinette way made a fashion statement, as she sported a $50,000 Rolex watch.

And you think all this will only apply to non-citizens? This week Donald Trump said he'd like to send anyone who vandalizes a Tesla or Tesla dealership to that same El Salvador prison for 20 years. Meanwhile, used Teslas have flooded the used-car markets, as more and more people don't want to be seen driving them. Tesla sales in Europe have collapsed 58 percent in the past two months, and are likely down by a big chunk here at home too. Musk wants to go even further and arrest anyone who badmouths his car company.

So what's next? The Cultural Revolution will be followed by a Great Leap Forward? Ask Chairman Mao how that all worked out for him, maybe?

Which brings us to the big story of the week (in our topsy-turvy fashion).

Unless you've been in a coma or hiding under some rock, you've already probably heard all about "Signalgate" -- the first (probably of many) major scandal to hit the Trump administration. In case you haven't, well, go ahead and read the original text messages that caused all the furor (or perhaps an annotated version of them would be helpful).

Here's the best rundown we saw of all the questions that were raised by this stunning incompetence:

• Why are officials trading such sensitive information on a platform like Signal, which doesn't appear to be authorized for such communications?
• How is it possible that someone who wasn't authorized to view them was included and nobody noticed?
• Given that the Signal messages were scheduled to automatically disappear after a period of time, how does that not violate federal records laws that require such communications to be preserved?
• And how does the White House square this apparent national security breach with Trump's long-running criticisms of Hillary Clinton for using a private email server? Trump once said Clinton should be in jail, claiming she endangered national security.

Hillary Clinton had a few choice words for the fiasco (the most prominent of which were "stupid" and "dumb"), which seems fitting.

Of course, even with a gargantuan screw-up in the national security realm -- with information that any idiot should know is of the highest secrecy and classification -- so far, nobody has been held accountable in any way. Even some Republicans are balking at this nonchalance, but most of them have (so far) taken the astonishing position of: "Hey, no big deal... these things happen, right?"

There was one darkly ironic moment in all of this that is a good place to close on for now. Pete Hegseth, mere days before the scandal broke, said the following (for which he is being mocked now): "Under the previous administration we looked like fools. Not anymore." Sure, Pete. If you say so!

There were a few Democrats who stood out this week, in the two hearings where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe had to testify under oath. The first one took place in the Senate, where Senator Jon Ossoff did a good job of making the two squirm. This was before The Atlantic published the full text chain of the chat, though, so they had limited information to work with. They did get both Gabbard and Ratcliffe on the record about a few things, though -- mostly that they both wanted to brush it all off as not being highly-classified national security information (which is pretty laughable).

The House then held its own hearing, this one after the full chat was published (The Atlantic only did so after everyone concerned swore up and down that there was no classified information in the chat, although they still did redact one name of a C.I.A. employee from it, just to be on the safe side).

Armed with the actual texts, Democrats grilled Gabbard and Ratcliffe once again. And a few of them didn't mince any words, such as Representative Joaquin Castro, who had this to say: "The idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified, you all know, is a lie. That's ridiculous. I've seen things much less sensitive be presented to us with high classification, and to say that it isn't is a lie to the country."

So we've got an Honorable Mention for both Castro and Ossoff, and for the other Democrats who pressed the issue. But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Representative Jim Hines, the ranking Democrat on the House committee. Here's the story of how that went (or you can watch the video of it all):

Instead, Rep. Jim Himes (Connecticut), the top Democrat on the committee, read back the previous day's testimony to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe -- who, along with Vice President JD Vance, national security adviser Michael Waltz and others, had participated in the group chat.

Senators had asked the officials on Tuesday whether the Signal chat included "information on weapons packages, targets or timing," to which Gabbard responded that she couldn't recall, Himes noted.

He then read aloud from a text message from Hegseth that was contained in the fuller transcript published Wednesday morning:

"TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch

1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)

1345: 'Trigger Based' F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME -- also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)

1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)"

Himes looked up: "Do either of the directors want to reflect on their testimony yesterday?"

"My answer yesterday was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof," Gabbard said.

"So … less than two weeks ago, you were on a Signal chat that had all of this information about F-18s and MQ-9 Reapers and targets on strike, and you, in that two-week period, simply forgot that that was there?" Himes asked. "That's your testimony?"

"My testimony is I did not recall the exact details of what was included there," Gabbard said.

Himes then quizzed Gabbard on her familiarity with her office's own classification guidance for information, after she claimed again Tuesday that the information in the Signal chat was not classified.

Himes read aloud from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's classification guidance.

"I'm reading from your classification guidance, and the criteria is 'information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack.' Do you recall what [level] your own guidance would suggest that that be classified?" Himes asked.

"I don't have the specifics in front of me," Gabbard responded.

"Let me help you," Himes said. According to the guidance governing the classification criteria from Gabbard's office, such information "should be classified as top secret," he said.

Himes made it painfully obvious that either Tulsi Gabbard: (1) lied to Congress a day earlier, (2) cannot remember something vitally important that happened two weeks ago, (3) is woefully unqualified for the job she is now in, (4) is a complete blithering idiot, (5) truly doesn't see any problem with what happened -- or, even worse, some combination of these things.

It was a pretty brilliantly scathing takedown, which is why we have to give Representative Jim Himes this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Representative Jim Hines on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

Representative Jasmine Crockett is known for being a Democratic firebrand who is not afraid of using some rather strong language in her outrage.

But she crossed a line this week, which is why she is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Here's what she had to say:

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for his wheelchair in remarks that circulated online Tuesday, drawing sharp condemnation from Republicans.

"Y'all know we got Governor Hot Wheels down there. Come on now," Crockett said at a Human Rights Campaign dinner in Los Angeles Saturday. “And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot ass mess, honey.”

That is more than just cringe-worthy, we have to admit. It crosses the serious line -- in front of the Human Rights Campaign, no less -- of not mocking people for their disabilities.

Sure, Trump has crossed that line before. And Democrats were (quite rightly) outraged by it. And we even agree in a general sense that Democrats probably need to get a little more visceral in the language they use, but this isn't just us "being too woke." This is basic human decency.

Crockett could have just apologized for saying something in the heat of the moment. But instead, she tried to put some rather unbelievable spin on the whole thing:

Reached in the halls of the Capitol, Crockett told Politico her statement "speaks for itself."

But in a post on X several hours later, Crockett said she wasn't thinking about the governor's condition, but "about the planes, trains, and automobiles he used to transfer migrants into communities led by Black mayors, deliberately stoking tension and fear among the most vulnerable."

"At no point did I mention or allude to his condition," Crockett wrote. "So, I’m even more appalled that the very people who unequivocally support Trump -- a man known for racially insensitive nicknames and mocking those with disabilities -- are now outraged."

That just doesn't pass the smell test -- that she would have said the same thing about someone who wasn't in a wheelchair. To be clear: we are not fans of Governor Abbott in any way, and feel he deserves calling out for his own callous and inhuman behavior. But there's a right way to do this and a wrong way to do it.

So for what truly can only be interpreted as making fun of a political opponent for his physical disability, this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is Representative Jasmine Crockett.

[Contact Representative Jasmine Crocketton her House contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

Volume 789 (3/28/25)

We did have some ideas for talking points this week that had to get cut. Such as taking on our Dear Leader for his Cultural Revolution idiocy: "Why not put Donald Trump in charge of the Oscars?!? And the Grammys! And the Emmys! Heck, why not Groundhog Day too?"

And that mother-in-law quote from the billionaire cabinet member (about how anyone who complained if their Social Security check didn't arrive would obviously be a "fraudster") -- that one just begs for some snarky commentary, really.

But instead we are going to go with a single-subject talking points segment this week, on the obvious thing everyone's talking about. The first four of these come from an article in the New York Times, where they went out and asked some actual military pilots -- the ones the security breach truly put at risk -- what they thought of the whole thing. And then at the end we've got another guest to wrap things up, just because.

   Your ego is going to kill somebody

This one is from Lieutenant John Gadzinski, a "retired Navy F-14 pilot who flew combat missions from aircraft carries in the Persian Gulf":

The whole point about aviation safety is that you have to have the humility to understand that you are imperfect, because everybody screws up. Everybody makes mistakes. But ultimately, if you can't admit when you’re wrong, you're going to kill somebody because your ego is too big.

   Putting your crew at risk

This one is from "one Navy F/A-18 pilot, who has flown frequently in missions in the Middle East":

We intentionally don't share plans with people who don't need to know. You don't share what time we're supposed to show up over a target. You don't want to telegraph that we're about to show up on someone's doorstep; that's putting your crew at risk.

   Anyone should know this

Former Air Force fighter pilot Major Anthony Bourke was pretty astonished by it all:

When you disclose operational security, people can get killed. These things are not taken lightly. I have never met anybody in the military who does not know this.

   Mind-boggling

Former Navy F/A-18 pilot Commander Parker Kuldau, who has also flown combat missions in the Middle East, called Hegseth's disclosures "infuriating," adding:

It's so beyond what I would expect from anyone in the military. The idea that the secretary of Defense, who should know better, has done this, is just mind-boggling.

   Any idiot knows this was top secret

And a few generic ones of our own making:

"In what universe would anyone not consider attack plans to be top secret? Any idiot knows this should be classified at the highest possible levels -- at least until the attack is over, for God's sake. Have these people never read a Tom Clancy novel? Have they never watched a war movie at all? Or maybe a spy thriller? To claim that this was somehow all not classified material is simply not believable. If these people truly think that then they should all be immediately fired. Or prosecuted, for that matter. Any idiot knows that what they did was wrong."

   Maybe use TikTok next time?

Had to add just one snarky one.

"Maybe next time they could all use TikTok instead of Signal? I mean, that way it'd make it so much easier for the Chinese to read what's going on! They wouldn't even have to bother with hacking into it that way...."

   It's just dumb

We felt that Hillary Clinton deserved the final word on Signalgate this week, for obvious reasons. Here is just the start to the article she wrote for the New York Times (the rest of it is worth reading too):

It's not the hypocrisy that bothers me; it's the stupidity. We’re all shocked -- shocked! -- that President Trump and his team don't actually care about protecting classified information or federal record retention laws. But we knew that already. What's much worse is that top Trump administration officials put our troops in jeopardy by sharing military plans on a commercial messaging app and unwittingly invited a journalist into the chat. That's dangerous. And it's just dumb.

This is the latest in a string of self-inflicted wounds by the new administration that are squandering America's strength and threatening our national security. Firing hundreds of federal workers charged with protecting our nation's nuclear weapons is also dumb. So is shutting down efforts to fight pandemics just as a deadly Ebola outbreak is spreading in Africa. It makes no sense to purge talented generals, diplomats and spies at a time when rivals like China and Russia are trying to expand their global reach.

In a dangerous and complex world, it’s not enough to be strong. You must also be smart. As secretary of state during the Obama administration, I argued for smart power, integrating the hard power of our military with the soft power of our diplomacy, development assistance, economic might and cultural influence. None of those tools can do the job alone. Together, they make America a superpower. The Trump approach is dumb power. Instead of a strong America using all our strengths to lead the world and confront our adversaries, Mr. Trump's America will be increasingly blind and blundering, feeble and friendless.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant