The Mailbag returns!

Time for another Q&A with Tristan answering your questions on the top political and legal stories in the news, plus an early look ahead at 2026 and 2028.

It’s been long overdue, but it’s finally time for another Mailbag Q&A. I’ve been answering questions over on the podcast for a couple months now, experimenting with that format — and now I’m aiming to answer questions here and on the pod, starting in the next few weeks.

If you want your question answered, reply with a comment here!

All right, here we go:

BJ McGee - Has the Trump regime obeyed any court orders yet?

Perhaps astoundingly, yes, they actually have on occasion. Not that they deserve a medal or anything. You don’t get medals for doing things that are legally required of you. Do we all get medals for not running a red light?

The trouble is the inconsistency and the flagrant disrespect. The administration has rehired thousands of government employees after courts ordered them to be reinstated. And while compliance has been glacial at times, the administration has restored some areas of slashed government funds, again after judges made them do it. But meanwhile we all know that there are still hundreds of people imprisoned for life in the CECOT prison in El Salvador with no way to challenge the legal basis of their detentions — to take just one of the most egregious examples.

This actually merits a much more thorough review of the cases, the compliance, and the lack thereof. Time for my team and I to get to work (more on that below).

I will keep finding more relics of US Mail nostalgia, but if you have any, send them my way!

CharlieFan75 - I’m happy that Trump lost in court but I don’t understand why Trump taking away a law firm’s security clearance is illegal. How is a security clearance a right? Can you explain?

Good question. There are a few things going on here:

1. There isn’t a “right” to a security clearance per se. However, once granted, certain government privileges cannot be revoked without due process, i.e. without the people or entities affected being given advance notice and a chance to challenge the grounds for the revocation.

2. Executive actions cannot be undertaken on “arbitrary and capricious” grounds and cannot be abuses of power; instead they must be based on objective fact-based policy grounds, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). There is a strong argument that Trump’s targeting of law firms — just because they worked for his opponents or for prosecutors investigating and indicting him — is exactly the kind of abuse of power or “arbitrary and capricious” act that the APA is designed to avoid.

3. Also, while there is not a “right” to a security clearance, the government cannot punish or coerce people based on their speech. By specifically targeting law firms that have opposed him, Trump is violating their First Amendment rights.

MidlandWarrior5 - Do you think the results of the Canadian elections are a good sign for how Democrats will do in the midterm?

While it was certainly a heartening result, the Canadian election probably does not tell us a lot about what will happen in America in the elections to come. The Canadian electorate is significantly further to the left and center than the American one; one poll asked Canadians whom they would vote for if they could vote in the US election last year, and the respondents went for Harris over Trump by 60 to 21, with the remainder unsure or not having a view.

A better bellwether for the midterms? The special elections that were held recently, where the Democrats prevailed in the Wisconsin race for state Supreme Court, and Republicans had shockingly tighter victories in two Florida elections for the House. The Wisconsin race showed a clear blue shift of at least 5-10 points in virtually every part of the state — and the Florida races indicated a 15 point swing toward Democrats.

And another good indicator? Donald Trump’s sagging approval ratings, which are now so bad that his poll numbers are now underwater even in Texas and Florida.

There is a long way to go, of course. But while we’re looking ahead, why don’t we look even further ahead?

Re5istmom56 - Do you think Vance or Trump Jr or someone else will be the Republican nominee for President in 2028?

First off, I do think that Donald Trump Sr. will try to violate the Constitution and run for a third term, and it will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court, at which point there is a non-zero chance that SCOTUS adopts the right-wing loophole argument that Trump could be a VP nominee for someone else (Vance?) and then become president again via resignation (although I think that it is more likely that SCOTUS will reject this attempt to circumvent the Constitution’s two-term limit).

I also think that there will be a segment of otherwise Trump-supporting Republicans for whom this will be a bridge too far — even while most of the MAGA cult will be cheering for Trump to crush representative government completely.

All that said, while right now Vance is the clear choice when Republicans are polled on their preferences for 2028, I do not think he will be the pick in any kind of open primary process. He utterly lacks the charisma and bullying presence that Trump has; when he goes on the trail, he commits at least one completely awkward misstep every single day. Vance is Ron DeSantis, but even more cringy, and his ability to shitpost on Twitter will not be enough to overcome the never-ending visual evidence of his weirdness.

Who else would it be? Don Jr. is equally weird and cringy if not more so. Thoughts of various other Republican politicians, to my mind, miss the boat. Republicans are not selecting their candidates based on traditional qualifications anymore.

So I would think of someone outside the box, as it were. Someone who is not currently in office.

Someone like Tucker Carlson. Or Sean Hannity. Or Jesse Watters. As nauseating as that is to contemplate.

One final personal note, for all of you who enjoy reading these pieces (and I’m so appreciative that you do!).

I want to post even more. Daily, ideally. And I want to be rolling out a regular series of Substack Live shows.

To do all of that, though, I need your help. I can’t do it alone. I have a team of amazing researchers and writers and staff all ready to go — to help me comb through court cases and other material (which is often a LOT of work), to draft pieces, to contact other folks we want to get on the show and coordinate with their teams. And those folks all need to get paid what they deserve.

So consider upgrading to paid support by clicking the button below. It would mean a lot to me — and it would mean a lot more content and community for all of us!