Not sure I understand this essay without a reference to gerrymandering. The use of this SCOTUS sanctioned device to create politically safe Congressional races invites extremists from both parties, and I include in that term MAGA members. Crowding out candidates who understand that politics is the art of compromise has harmed Congress immeasurably, resulting in once impossibly extreme right wing initiatives, such as the advancement of the powers of the president. It is gerrymandering that undermines democracy (and causes other kinds of harm). Trump has exploited that at the state level, using his enormous Federal powers to compel Greg Abbott and other Governors to redistrict mid-term. If the Congressional districts were more competitive, it might reduce the MAGA threat.
both parties have used this tool of gerrymandering to acquire better odds of election. Re-districting should occur only after the census. There has been a lot of voter movement these past few years.....
Interesting article. Not particularly surprising. It has been clear that Republicans who break with Trump are going to be in very difficult circumstances.
Two questions for your next Q&A piece:
1) Do you think that Powell will stay on as a Fed board member once he is no longer chair? The norm has been for the chair to resign from the board once his term is up. However, given Trump's antagonism, there is speculation that he will stay on just to deprive Trump of another appointment, at least for a couple more years.
2) Do you see any possibility that Alito and/or Thomas retire from SCOTUS after the mid-terms to free up one or two more seats for Trump appointees? Since there is very little possibility of the Democrats taking control of the Senate, it would give Trump a clear path.
Verlan and Hyrum Lewis reject the idea that “Left” and “Right” emerge from any underlying philosophical essence, worldview, or dialectical unfolding of history. Instead, they argue that the political spectrum is a myth—a misleading mental model that Americans project onto politics rather than a real, coherent ideological structure. How does this "Trump GOP Makeover" fit into the Lewis's "tribal" view of politics? What impact might this have on basic constitutional freedoms like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion?
Totally agree that the middle tends to get killed as parties coalesce, sadly. For context this piece should have included the total attrition in Congress overall and among Democrats. Also how often and how many Democrats break from their pack. It's impossible to tell if the Republican convergence reported here is an anomaly or just business as usual.
No matter what the Republican party does in the future, and no matter how it departs from Trump’s achievements on substance, the Republican party will remain, always and forever, the political entity that carries forward Trump’s “legacy.”
Just to take one example, the Republican party can decide that mass immigration from brown countries is good after all, so long as the nation’s ownership class retains access to a labor pool that funds our social welfare programs without ever benefiting (though those programs do benefit the ownership class more than anyone else). Trump’s in-office opposition to immigration and general hostility to nonwhites won’t matter anymore, because the party will decide that depriving laborers of social benefits, and making the Republican party a viable political force for ever after, is all that matters for the Trump “legacy.”
Once Trump has gone from the scene, and the Republicans proceed to appropriate his “legacy” for whatever purposes happen to suit reactionary social and political purposes at any given moment just as they do to every successful Republican leader from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, their opponents must never fall into the trap of pretending that Trump’s name stands for any discernible trans-partisan political virtues. It never did, and it never will.
I hope you will do a similar deep dive on Democrats who supported Biden's policies, especially with re: TPS (1.3 million added) and the border surge (3-4 million processed, awaiting adjudication, 1-2 million known "gotaways"), and who are still around to reimplement these misadventures when the time comes.
Biden will never be president again though. So wouldn't we need to first look at the next potential Democratic presidential nominees and their immigration policies? And compare where Congressional Democrats stand with those?
I think we should (1) Educate ourselves as what our current laws are and get an agreed upon count of all non-citizens according to status—legal & non; (2)Learn how we got here with legal immigration policies that have swelled numbers and favored certain ethnic groups (when there has never been a mandate for unlimited numbers in the 1965 reform the intent of which was to give worldwide accessibility to the privilege of U.S. citizenship but was subsumed into unlimited family unification) and amnesty laws which hark back to a different time; (3) Determine in our own minds what number of legal immigrants is sustainable commensurate with our goals for health care, housing, education and our current national debt/economic security (4) Figure out why the 1986 I-9/E-verify in exchange for amnesty failed, are we wedded to a large "under the table" workforce to keep the cost of construction and vegetables within reason; (5) What should happen to the large number of migrants who have relied on our lack of enforcement (and DACA): Is it equitable to let them stay and prosper ahead of the millions in a queue who followed the law? If they just ran for luck under the Biden debacle? If they have broken laws--such as SS identity fraud, driving licenses? If they have American children, If they have been here five years? 10 years? on and on … (6) Assuming we want to have a generous but manageable immigration policy, how much “enforcement” can we stomach. There will always be children in bunny hats (and more people all over the world who deserve to live in the peace and prosperity that comes from good governance.)
Almost all of our politicians (save Trump) have ducked these issues for decades and will continue to do so until we citizens direct them. As best I can tell from most of these comments, everyone wants a pain free, sane immigration policy. I don’t think there is such thing.
I'm going to disagree there, you can have a sane immigration policy. It doesn't have to look like Minneapolis to be effective. Pain free is another story. Of course there will be trade offs. I don't think that Trump actually has a policy except to kick everyone out. Which also isn't going to work. We need immigrants. We need Rs, Ds, Congress, the President, states and local governments to work together to come up with immigration policies that actually work. Where it doesn't take years and thousands of dollars for average people to work through all of the red tape that is our current non-working immigration policy.
I agree that things don't have to be "like Minneapolis" to be "effective." I don't hear anyone (I include "Rs, Ds, Congress, the President, state and local reps" or my fellow citizens) speaking rationally about tradeoffs.
I feel Rosemary is laying out a sane rational to deal with a real problem. It is too easy to polarize and be critical of anything that is not total revolution. I know because I catch myself doing it. I might add that we should give major consideration to the marginalized among us ie. victims of racist policy, ethnic cleansing, etc. (our country has lots of areas for improvement). When we consider 'generous' immigration, we should have done more fore our marginalized U.S. citizens (in my opinion).
The choice to not help our own people is one that our government and we (royal we) have chosen over and over. There will always be trade offs, but we choose to not do more for others.
Since 2000, the number of unauthorized migrants has averaged about 11.5 million. Here is a composite of a seven-source aggregate during that time, beginning with the year 2000 (in millions):
COMPOSITE SOURCES: 1: CONGRESS.GOV; 2: FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM; 3: PEW RESEARCH; 4: MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE; 5: CENTER FOR MIGRATION STUDIES; 6: CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES; 7: OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
The 2022-2025 increase was fueled by strong job growth (stronger than T45's pre-Covid period), strong GDP growth (+3.2x v T45), turmoil in Central America, etc.. Borders were not and have not been open yet Americans nevertheless hired these people since the ROI/ROE were superior to existing alternatives.
The Yale-MIT study which found that the traditional surveys significantly undercounted the number of undocumented has never been debunked. They estimated that in 2018 the number was between 16.7 million and 29.1 million while Pew and other traditional groups stuck with the 11 million figure. Recent data has begun to trend closer to the higher estimates because of the record breaking inflows between 2021 & 2024. The “high” Yale-MIT study number of 22 million and the “low” standard estimates oof 11 million are converging. Pew’s latest estimate (mid 2023) is 14 million, the largest two-year increase in 30 years. Center for Immigration Studies estimates 15.4 million as of Jan. 2025—a 50% increase since 2021. In Dec. 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau acknowledged that its previous estimate were too low. This caused Pew to revise their numbers from 11 million to 11,8 million, “finding” 8 million people they had missed. The foreign born percentage of the U.S. population is higher than it was since the migration which preceded WWI. The world wars resulted in a long period of flat migration, allowing for a long period of assimilation.
I think the immigrant population, both legal and illegal, is unsustainable unless we are willing to reform our safety nets substantially. We cannot have it all. There is no free lunch, etc. etc.
I can lead you to water, but can't make you drink.
I provide seven sources from across the ideological spectrum. Recent studies do not substantiate your assertion; researchers instead contest the Yale/MIT study. Indeed the bulk of primary and peer reviewed research validates my claim.
The rationale regarding the upsurge in the unauthorized migrant population is driven - and substantiated by - domestic economic performance during the Biden administration and destabilized economies in other regions, particularly LatAm.
Unless you can demonstrate by means of data-based evidence beyond a single source that your assertion(s) are correct, further discussion is fatuous. Thus far, you have posted and reposted opinion - for it is not argument - while I have posted evidence - again - across the ideological divide.
Sorry, I do not engage with folks who prioritize beliefs over evidence.
Interesting analysis. Is this based on an implicit assumption that Republican "Trump critic" or "Trump supporter" is a position that is set in stone? Obviously there are a few representatives who seem to consistently hold a "critic" position out of principles - Paul and Massie - but I'm not convinced the rest are so static... they're politicians, after all. As Trump's popularity continues to decline, I wonder if we'll see more breaks from him this year, motivated by midterm fears, and beyond if he continues to become more unpopular as he becomes more a lame duck.
Possible case in point -- since I happen to be a few days late catching up with my emails here -- yesterday we saw Tim Scott's forceful pushback on Trump's social media post. He wasn't mentioned in your Wednesday piece here -- nor would his pushback show up in an analysis of legislative votes -- but it was a notable verbal criticism from a usual verbal supporter. Will there be more new cracks in the wall?
Knowing that with journalists losing a key topic of interest, namely repubs who disagree with Trump make headlines, Gabe, do you see any republicans that are eyeing the opportunity to take the place of grumpy tillis to top the headlines as a strategic move to become a household name?
It's paradoxical that the "total take-over of the GOP" by Trump will happen right as he is no longer in power. It is very unlikely that anyone can hold this coalition together. The people who benefit from GOP control are a small number of the very wealthy who only care about lowest possible taxes and deregulation. Trump has the secret sauce of being able to inspire low-middle income "white-culture-bigots" into the tent despite the fact that GOP policies do nothing at all to benefit them. And his unique ability to flood the zone with threats and bullying is not an act that anyone else is likely to be able to follow. Once the chief mesmerizer is off the stage and/or decrepit, the movement will fragment into disarray.
Congressional Democrats are about 40% more centrist than Republicans. They are not the party setting records for ideological stridency. Of the 135 most non-centrist members of Congress, 118 are Republicans (87%). Of the 25 most non-centrist members of Congress all 25 are Republicans. I can go on...
Not sure I understand this essay without a reference to gerrymandering. The use of this SCOTUS sanctioned device to create politically safe Congressional races invites extremists from both parties, and I include in that term MAGA members. Crowding out candidates who understand that politics is the art of compromise has harmed Congress immeasurably, resulting in once impossibly extreme right wing initiatives, such as the advancement of the powers of the president. It is gerrymandering that undermines democracy (and causes other kinds of harm). Trump has exploited that at the state level, using his enormous Federal powers to compel Greg Abbott and other Governors to redistrict mid-term. If the Congressional districts were more competitive, it might reduce the MAGA threat.
both parties have used this tool of gerrymandering to acquire better odds of election. Re-districting should occur only after the census. There has been a lot of voter movement these past few years.....
One of your best posts. Like others, I think gerrymandering is part of the Congressional gridlock problem.
Well, this is depressing. I've been hoping that Republicans would just implode from overwhelming meanness. Guess that was a pipe dream.
Interesting article. Not particularly surprising. It has been clear that Republicans who break with Trump are going to be in very difficult circumstances.
Two questions for your next Q&A piece:
1) Do you think that Powell will stay on as a Fed board member once he is no longer chair? The norm has been for the chair to resign from the board once his term is up. However, given Trump's antagonism, there is speculation that he will stay on just to deprive Trump of another appointment, at least for a couple more years.
2) Do you see any possibility that Alito and/or Thomas retire from SCOTUS after the mid-terms to free up one or two more seats for Trump appointees? Since there is very little possibility of the Democrats taking control of the Senate, it would give Trump a clear path.
Excellent piece -great reporting.
Gabe, I'd like your opinion on what this total take over could mean for the future of the Republican Party. Where do all the Liz Cheneys go now?
Verlan and Hyrum Lewis reject the idea that “Left” and “Right” emerge from any underlying philosophical essence, worldview, or dialectical unfolding of history. Instead, they argue that the political spectrum is a myth—a misleading mental model that Americans project onto politics rather than a real, coherent ideological structure. How does this "Trump GOP Makeover" fit into the Lewis's "tribal" view of politics? What impact might this have on basic constitutional freedoms like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion?
Totally agree that the middle tends to get killed as parties coalesce, sadly. For context this piece should have included the total attrition in Congress overall and among Democrats. Also how often and how many Democrats break from their pack. It's impossible to tell if the Republican convergence reported here is an anomaly or just business as usual.
There is nothing "business as usual" about this Congress or the federal government under Trump.
No matter what the Republican party does in the future, and no matter how it departs from Trump’s achievements on substance, the Republican party will remain, always and forever, the political entity that carries forward Trump’s “legacy.”
Just to take one example, the Republican party can decide that mass immigration from brown countries is good after all, so long as the nation’s ownership class retains access to a labor pool that funds our social welfare programs without ever benefiting (though those programs do benefit the ownership class more than anyone else). Trump’s in-office opposition to immigration and general hostility to nonwhites won’t matter anymore, because the party will decide that depriving laborers of social benefits, and making the Republican party a viable political force for ever after, is all that matters for the Trump “legacy.”
Once Trump has gone from the scene, and the Republicans proceed to appropriate his “legacy” for whatever purposes happen to suit reactionary social and political purposes at any given moment just as they do to every successful Republican leader from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, their opponents must never fall into the trap of pretending that Trump’s name stands for any discernible trans-partisan political virtues. It never did, and it never will.
I hope you will do a similar deep dive on Democrats who supported Biden's policies, especially with re: TPS (1.3 million added) and the border surge (3-4 million processed, awaiting adjudication, 1-2 million known "gotaways"), and who are still around to reimplement these misadventures when the time comes.
Biden will never be president again though. So wouldn't we need to first look at the next potential Democratic presidential nominees and their immigration policies? And compare where Congressional Democrats stand with those?
I think we should (1) Educate ourselves as what our current laws are and get an agreed upon count of all non-citizens according to status—legal & non; (2)Learn how we got here with legal immigration policies that have swelled numbers and favored certain ethnic groups (when there has never been a mandate for unlimited numbers in the 1965 reform the intent of which was to give worldwide accessibility to the privilege of U.S. citizenship but was subsumed into unlimited family unification) and amnesty laws which hark back to a different time; (3) Determine in our own minds what number of legal immigrants is sustainable commensurate with our goals for health care, housing, education and our current national debt/economic security (4) Figure out why the 1986 I-9/E-verify in exchange for amnesty failed, are we wedded to a large "under the table" workforce to keep the cost of construction and vegetables within reason; (5) What should happen to the large number of migrants who have relied on our lack of enforcement (and DACA): Is it equitable to let them stay and prosper ahead of the millions in a queue who followed the law? If they just ran for luck under the Biden debacle? If they have broken laws--such as SS identity fraud, driving licenses? If they have American children, If they have been here five years? 10 years? on and on … (6) Assuming we want to have a generous but manageable immigration policy, how much “enforcement” can we stomach. There will always be children in bunny hats (and more people all over the world who deserve to live in the peace and prosperity that comes from good governance.)
Almost all of our politicians (save Trump) have ducked these issues for decades and will continue to do so until we citizens direct them. As best I can tell from most of these comments, everyone wants a pain free, sane immigration policy. I don’t think there is such thing.
I'm going to disagree there, you can have a sane immigration policy. It doesn't have to look like Minneapolis to be effective. Pain free is another story. Of course there will be trade offs. I don't think that Trump actually has a policy except to kick everyone out. Which also isn't going to work. We need immigrants. We need Rs, Ds, Congress, the President, states and local governments to work together to come up with immigration policies that actually work. Where it doesn't take years and thousands of dollars for average people to work through all of the red tape that is our current non-working immigration policy.
I agree that things don't have to be "like Minneapolis" to be "effective." I don't hear anyone (I include "Rs, Ds, Congress, the President, state and local reps" or my fellow citizens) speaking rationally about tradeoffs.
I feel Rosemary is laying out a sane rational to deal with a real problem. It is too easy to polarize and be critical of anything that is not total revolution. I know because I catch myself doing it. I might add that we should give major consideration to the marginalized among us ie. victims of racist policy, ethnic cleansing, etc. (our country has lots of areas for improvement). When we consider 'generous' immigration, we should have done more fore our marginalized U.S. citizens (in my opinion).
The choice to not help our own people is one that our government and we (royal we) have chosen over and over. There will always be trade offs, but we choose to not do more for others.
? Biden isn't president
You robitically recite the neo-Nazi Fox talking points lies
Since 2000, the number of unauthorized migrants has averaged about 11.5 million. Here is a composite of a seven-source aggregate during that time, beginning with the year 2000 (in millions):
8.5, 9.4, 9.3, 10.0, 10.3, 10.9, 11.5, 12.1, 11.8, 11.1, 11.2, 11.5, 11.2, 11.5, 11.4, 11.2, 11.5, 11.4, 11.3, 10.8, 11.4, 10.9, 12.1, 13.8, 15.8, 16.4
Composite average: 11.6
COMPOSITE SOURCES: 1: CONGRESS.GOV; 2: FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM; 3: PEW RESEARCH; 4: MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE; 5: CENTER FOR MIGRATION STUDIES; 6: CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES; 7: OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
The 2022-2025 increase was fueled by strong job growth (stronger than T45's pre-Covid period), strong GDP growth (+3.2x v T45), turmoil in Central America, etc.. Borders were not and have not been open yet Americans nevertheless hired these people since the ROI/ROE were superior to existing alternatives.
The Yale-MIT study which found that the traditional surveys significantly undercounted the number of undocumented has never been debunked. They estimated that in 2018 the number was between 16.7 million and 29.1 million while Pew and other traditional groups stuck with the 11 million figure. Recent data has begun to trend closer to the higher estimates because of the record breaking inflows between 2021 & 2024. The “high” Yale-MIT study number of 22 million and the “low” standard estimates oof 11 million are converging. Pew’s latest estimate (mid 2023) is 14 million, the largest two-year increase in 30 years. Center for Immigration Studies estimates 15.4 million as of Jan. 2025—a 50% increase since 2021. In Dec. 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau acknowledged that its previous estimate were too low. This caused Pew to revise their numbers from 11 million to 11,8 million, “finding” 8 million people they had missed. The foreign born percentage of the U.S. population is higher than it was since the migration which preceded WWI. The world wars resulted in a long period of flat migration, allowing for a long period of assimilation.
I think the immigrant population, both legal and illegal, is unsustainable unless we are willing to reform our safety nets substantially. We cannot have it all. There is no free lunch, etc. etc.
I can lead you to water, but can't make you drink.
I provide seven sources from across the ideological spectrum. Recent studies do not substantiate your assertion; researchers instead contest the Yale/MIT study. Indeed the bulk of primary and peer reviewed research validates my claim.
The rationale regarding the upsurge in the unauthorized migrant population is driven - and substantiated by - domestic economic performance during the Biden administration and destabilized economies in other regions, particularly LatAm.
Unless you can demonstrate by means of data-based evidence beyond a single source that your assertion(s) are correct, further discussion is fatuous. Thus far, you have posted and reposted opinion - for it is not argument - while I have posted evidence - again - across the ideological divide.
Sorry, I do not engage with folks who prioritize beliefs over evidence.
You gotta read this. Sam Freedman has written a chilling and detailed profile of Stephen Miller, the dark heart of the Trump regime. https://kathleenweber.substack.com/p/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america
Interesting analysis. Is this based on an implicit assumption that Republican "Trump critic" or "Trump supporter" is a position that is set in stone? Obviously there are a few representatives who seem to consistently hold a "critic" position out of principles - Paul and Massie - but I'm not convinced the rest are so static... they're politicians, after all. As Trump's popularity continues to decline, I wonder if we'll see more breaks from him this year, motivated by midterm fears, and beyond if he continues to become more unpopular as he becomes more a lame duck.
Possible case in point -- since I happen to be a few days late catching up with my emails here -- yesterday we saw Tim Scott's forceful pushback on Trump's social media post. He wasn't mentioned in your Wednesday piece here -- nor would his pushback show up in an analysis of legislative votes -- but it was a notable verbal criticism from a usual verbal supporter. Will there be more new cracks in the wall?
Knowing that with journalists losing a key topic of interest, namely repubs who disagree with Trump make headlines, Gabe, do you see any republicans that are eyeing the opportunity to take the place of grumpy tillis to top the headlines as a strategic move to become a household name?
The Cook PVI national aggregate is D+5 but with districting the electoral system is currently R+7. Talk about rigged.
See this Substack focusing on ideological structure in the Congress:
https://chipmalfunction.substack.com/archive
It's paradoxical that the "total take-over of the GOP" by Trump will happen right as he is no longer in power. It is very unlikely that anyone can hold this coalition together. The people who benefit from GOP control are a small number of the very wealthy who only care about lowest possible taxes and deregulation. Trump has the secret sauce of being able to inspire low-middle income "white-culture-bigots" into the tent despite the fact that GOP policies do nothing at all to benefit them. And his unique ability to flood the zone with threats and bullying is not an act that anyone else is likely to be able to follow. Once the chief mesmerizer is off the stage and/or decrepit, the movement will fragment into disarray.
what do you think the democrats have done these past years???they stick together: they are united in not wanting the Trump administration to succeed.
DO illustrate your unbiased opinion based on fact: do an expose on the democrat party....
Congressional Democrats are about 40% more centrist than Republicans. They are not the party setting records for ideological stridency. Of the 135 most non-centrist members of Congress, 118 are Republicans (87%). Of the 25 most non-centrist members of Congress all 25 are Republicans. I can go on...
https://chipmalfunction.substack.com/archive
DJT’s congressional members have had enough and they are heading for the exit(s).