Republicans Are Already Fighting in Sign of Chaos to Come

Republicans are already bickering over how to pass major parts of President-elect Donald Trump’s platform.

There is serious disunity regarding how and when to pass Trump’s legislative agenda, Politico reported Wednesday. Senator John Thune told his fellow senators that he wanted to accelerate the president-elect’s plans via budget reconciliation so that both the border policy and tax policy portions can pass within the first 30 days of Trump’s presidency.

Some House Republicans don’t think that’s the right approach, though, as passing border policy so early could make it harder for their committee to pass tax law later on. And then there’s also the fact that Republicans already have some significant disagreements on tax policy in general.

While Republican House leaders Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise have been in Trump’s ear in Mar-a-Lago, dissent has been fomenting in D.C.

“Our members need to weigh in on that. This doesn’t need to be a decision that’s made up on high, OK?” said Texas House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington. “We’re all unified around the objectives, [but] how we roll it out, the tactics and strategies, still under discussion.”

Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene noted that Republicans ought to rebuke Thune if he doesn’t approve the entire bill, while Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy also thinks that reconciliation should be forced through and then they can “maybe do a second version that gets at true long-standing permanent tax reform.”

Republicans have a very slim majority in the House that may make it difficult to pass some of their most extreme plans, as we’re seeing here. Sometimes they fall in line, but they’ve also squandered a congressional majority before—like when they dramatically failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Trump’s first term. Let’s hope they haven’t learned from those mistakes.

Crypto bros rejoice: Trump has selected Paul Atkins to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Paul is a proven leader for common sense regulations. He believes in the promise of robust, innovative capital markets that are responsive to the needs of Investors, & that provide capital to make our Economy the best in the World,” President-elect Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “He also recognizes that digital assets & other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before.”

That “digital assets” part of Trump’s statement is particularly important. Atkins has been a staunch advocate of the cryptocurrency market, even criticizing current SEC Chair Gary Gensler for having too many restrictions on what he thinks is a market that the United States should be dominating instead of regulating. 

Trump changed his tune on crypto very recently. Once referring to the currency as a “scam” and a “disaster waiting to happen,” Trump has more recently vowed to make this country the “crypto capital of the planet.” This switch pleased the crypto industry and led to a surge in the market. Trump’s selection of Atkins will make the market even happier. 

“Paul Atkins at the helm of the SEC will bring common sense back to the agency,” Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse wrote on X in reaction to the nomination. “It’s time to swiftly and definitively end the prohibition era on crypto, restoring freedom of choice, economic growth, and innovation.”

“Paul Atkins’ nomination as SEC Chair is a huge win for financial innovation,” pro-crypto Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis also wrote on X. “President Trump promised to have the most pro-digital asset admin in U.S. history, and I am looking forward to working with both of them to promote innovation and make our economy strong again.”

Atkins, who served as an SEC commissioner from 2002 to 2008, is also notoriously  anti-union, has spoken in favor of “stand your ground” laws, and has been very critical of social activism more broadly.

Donald Trump is now trying to have his Georgia election interference case dismissed because he will be “completely immune” from criminal proceedings when he is president.

The president-elect argued in a legal filing to the Georgia Court of Appeals Wednesday that Fulton County’s case against him for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in the state should be thrown out “well before” he is sworn in as president on January 20, 2025.

Both the state and district court “lack jurisdiction to entertain any further criminal process against President Trump as the continued indictment and prosecution of President Trump by the State of Georgia are unconstitutional,” Trump attorney Steven Sadow argued in the filing.

The Georgia Court of Appeals is currently reviewing Trump’s case, with a hearing scheduled to determine whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be allowed to continue as prosecutor, with oral arguments scheduled for December. Trump successfully managed to delay his Georgia case until after November’s election.

Trump and his co-defendants are accused of launching a fake elector scheme, seizing voting machines, intimidating election workers, and intimidating Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger by asking him to “find” the 11,780 votes Trump needed to win the state in 2020.

If Trump’s motion for dismissal in Georgia is accepted, it will be yet another criminal case in which he escapes any consequences. The president-elect’s federal case for mishandling classified documents was dismissed by his appointee, Judge Aileen Cannon, in July. Special counsel Jack Smith successfully moved to have the remaining deadlines in his federal election interference case vacated last month, effectively ending that case. And the sentencing for his hush-money conviction in New York on 34 felony counts was canceled indefinitely a few weeks ago.

Trump will now almost certainly head into his second presidential term free from any legal judgments and, thanks to the Supreme Court, may be immune from any criminal acts he commits in the next four years. His new administration will be full of people all too willing to skirt the law on his behalf and give him unprecedented power.

Trump just picked the billionaire who did the first private spacewalk for Elon Musk’s SpaceX to head NASA.

Jared Isaacman, a processing card company CEO and close friend of Musk, was nominated by President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday.

“I am delighted to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”

Isaacman thanked Trump on X while previewing some of his plans, writing, “Space holds unparalleled potential for breakthroughs in manufacturing, biotechnology, mining, and perhaps even pathways to new sources of energy. There will inevitably be a thriving space economy—one that will create opportunities for countless people to live and work in space.”

Isaacman’s close business relationship with Musk has raised red flags for some.

“Trump has nominated billionaire Jared Isaacman to be the next head of NASA. Isaacman is a close associate of Elon Musk and lacks government experience. And he has been to space, but only on SpaceX missions,” wrote More Perfect Union on X.

“This is a VERY pro SpaceX pro Elon pick. Isaacman has been financing Spacex missions and is a huge champion of the company,” said Bloomberg Businessweek reporter Max Chafkin.

Musk’s influence in Trump’s inner circle seems to only be growing.

Donald Trump’s choice to run the FBI, Kash Patel, is already demonstrating how he’d use the country’s top law enforcement agency to crack down on his critics. 

Jesse Binall, Patel’s attorney, sent a letter Wednesday to former Trump White House staffer Olivia Troye, threatening legal action against her for her criticism of Patel on MSNBC Monday. The letter accused Troye of fabricating her criticisms of Patel previously lying about intelligence matters and putting U.S. service members at risk. 

Troye and Patel worked in the White House during Trump’s first term as president, and Binall’s letter threatens litigation against Troye unless she retracts her criticisms of Patel, which include calling him a “delusional liar.” 

It’s a clear sign of Trump and Patel’s plans to attack critics of the MAGA agenda, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of the media. Patel has threatened to prosecute members of the so-called “deep state” in addition to the “entire fake news media,” publishing a long enemies list in the back of his 2023 book, Government Gangsters.

Patel has just three years working in the Justice Department as his law enforcement experience, and his appointment has already drawn opposition from senators in both parties, who would prefer that Christopher Wray serve out the rest of his 10-year term as FBI director. Trump’s choice also has opposition from within Trump’s team.

Despite the backlash, Trump has seemingly stood by his choice of Patel, even as his other nominees, such as Matt Gaetz for attorney general and Chris Chronister for DEA chief, have dropped out. For now, Patel only has to get through the Senate to begin Trump’s authoritarian takeover. 

While Pete Hegseth makes his last hurrah on Capitol Hill Wednesday to convince senators that he’s a worthy nominee for Donald Trump’s secretary of defense, the Fox News star’s former colleagues are coming out in droves to flag down his past indiscretions.

One former colleague who preferred to remain anonymous told NPR’s David Folkenflik that the ex-anchor was known to be “handsy” while inebriated and that he once groped her at a Manhattan bar.

Hegseth’s attorney, Tim Parlatore, told the radio network that the allegation was a “false claim.” Fox News denied having any knowledge of the groping accusation.

Ten other current and former Fox employees alerted NBC News on Tuesday that Hegseth’s drinking was concerning. Two sources told the outlet that they had smelled alcohol on Hegseth on more than a dozen occasions while he hosted Fox & Friends Weekend. Another source said they had smelled alcohol on Hegseth as recently as last month.

“Everyone would be talking about it behind the scenes before he went on the air,” one of the former Fox employees said.

Hegseth’s rampant drinking could be the last nail in the coffin for the inexperienced nominee’s chances at Trump’s Cabinet. On Wednesday, Republican Senator Kevin Cramer told CNN that the former anchor needed to offer a promise of sobriety before taking the reins of the Pentagon.

“One of the things I’d love to hear is that he’s committed to not drinking,” Cramer said. “Being familiar with the problems of alcoholism and the dumb things we do when we drink too much, it’d be really nice if he could set that one aside for good, if not at least through his term as secretary.”

Still, Hegseth is under the impression that he’s going to be fine. Speaking with reporters outside Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Hegseth said that Trump was still fully behind him—despite reports that the president-elect is apparently looking at other candidates, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

“He supports me fully,” Hegseth said. “We’re not going anywhere.”

But crossing boundaries with his co-workers would be just one part of the picture behind Hegseth. Last month, a shocking 2017 police report revealed that the Army veteran had been accused of raping an attendee at a Republican women’s conference in Monterey, California. Since those allegations surfaced, Hegseth has admitted to several other scandals, including five affairs that he had during his first marriage.

Even Hegseth’s own mother couldn’t defend the white nationalist–connected conservative, accusing her son in a scathing 2018 email following his separation from his second wife of “using women for his own power.”

“On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself,” Penelope Hegseth wrote in the email, obtained by The New York Times Friday. (Hegseth’s mother has since publicly changed her tune—on Wednesday morning, she appeared on Fox News to beg people to support her son for defense secretary.)

President-elect Donald Trump took to Truth Social Wednesday to deride The Wall Street Journal for reporting on his transition team’s travails.

The Journal had reported the previous evening that Trump’s pick to head the Drug Enforcement Administration, Hillsborough County, Florida, Sheriff Chad Chronister, had withdrawn from consideration. The paper also covered the controversy surrounding Pete Hegseth, Trump’s defense secretary pick, whose future is uncertain as he faces a raft of misconduct allegations.

“The Wall Street Journal is becoming more and more obnoxious and unreadable. Today’s main headline is: ‘Trump’s DEA Pick Pulls Out In Latest Setback,’” Trump wrote.

“With all that’s happening in the World, this is their Number One story of the day,” he complained, before challenging the Journal’s characterization of Chronister’s withdrawal, which Chronister announced on social media Tuesday.

“As the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration,” Chronister posted.

Trump insisted that Chronister “didn’t pull out, I pulled him out, because I did not like what he said to my pastors and other supporters”—seemingly referring to the Hillsborough County sheriff arresting and criticizing a Florida megachurch pastor in 2020 for violating Covid-19 lockdown orders. That incident led “the MAGA corner of the Republican Party” to sour on his pick this week, according to CNN.

Further, Trump chided the Journal for describing the incident as his “latest” challenge. “But, more importantly, what’s my ‘latest’ setback???” Trump wrote. “I just won the Presidency of the United States! They haven’t written a good story about me in YEARS.”

Of course, the reasoning behind the Journal’s word choice becomes evident upon reading the report in question, or any number of news items since Trump’s win earlier this month.

After all, the Journal article covers Chronister’s withdrawal but also details the numerous other scandals bedeviling “some of Trump’s high-profile picks”—such as Hegseth facing scrutiny for sexual misconduct allegations, Matt Gaetz withdrawing from consideration for attorney general “under pressure in the midst of sexual-misconduct and drug-use allegations,” and lawmakers questioning Trump’s other picks, including Kash Patel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barret asked a team of ACLU lawyers advocating for trans rights if trans people had ever really been discriminated against.

The court on Wednesday held oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a landmark case originating from Tennessee that could decide just how far the federal government has to go, if at all, to protect the rights of trans people. In 2023, Senate Bill 1 became law in Tennessee, banning hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors and imposing civil penalties on doctors who don’t fall in line. Skrmetti is challenging S.B. 1, but the conservative justices don’t seem to be having any of it.

“One question I have is, at least as far as I can think of, we don’t have a history—that I know of—we don’t have a history of de jure discrimination against transgender people,” Coney Barrett said during oral arguments on Wednesday morning. “You point out in your brief that in the last three years there might have been these laws, but before that we might have had private societal discrimination.… Is there a history that I don’t know about where we have de jure discrimination?”

By de jure Coney Barrett means “federally mandated,” and she goes on to note that other minority groups have experienced that kind of discrimination, while to her knowledge trans people haven’t.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded immediately. “Historical discrimination against transgender people may not have been reflected in the laws. But I think there’s no dispute that there is a broad history here and it hasn’t just been confined to private actors,” she said. “I think that if you actually looked at the facts there’s a wealth of evidence to suggest that transgender people throughout history have been subjected to violence, discrimination, and maybe lost employment opportunities, housing opportunities.”

Attorney Chase Strangio, the first transgender lawyer to argue in front of the Supreme Court, also later addressed Coney Barrett’s tone-deaf question.

“Transgender people are characterized as having a different gender identity than their birth sex. That is distinguishing,” Strangio said. “I would also point, if I could, to the history of discrimination—and there are many examples—of in-law discrimination, exclusions from the military, criminal bans on cross-dressing, and others.”

Coney Barrett has a history of judicial hostility toward LGBTQ issues, and trans rights specifically. She defended the dissenting justices on the Marriage Equality Act, has argued Title IX rights shouldn’t apply to trans people, and personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Tennessee is just one of 26 states with laws that ban gender-affirming care for minors.

The nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services is open-sourcing cures from anyone with a song.

The FAQ for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” website features a relatively banal assortment of questions, from how to troubleshoot merchandising orders to how to stop recurring donations to RFK Jr.’s defunct presidential campaign. But among the bullet points hides a strange prompt that one wouldn’t expect from a man on the cusp of overseeing the nation’s health policies: an invitation to email him whatever medical therapies you’ve got lying around.

If you “have a cure for something,” the website reads, “please send an email to info@teamkennedy.com.”

The request plays into Kennedy’s larger conspiratorial ideas on modern medicine, effectively equating old wives’ tales and snake oil elixirs with thoroughly researched and studied science-backed treatments.

Kennedy—a virulent vaccine conspiracy theorist who doesn’t believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, insists that WiFi causes cancer, and has shared he has brain-eating worms in his head—has promised to completely reshape America’s approach to public health.

Under Trump’s helm, Kennedy has sworn to remove fluoride from all public water systems—reversing a 1945 public health decision that has reduced cavities and tooth decay in adults and children by as much as 25 percent, according to the American Dental Association.

During the “plandemic,” Kennedy likened 2020 vaccination efforts to the Nazi testing on “Gypsies and Jews,” referring to the jab as “a pharmaceutical-driven, biosecurity agenda that will enslave the entire human race and plunge us into a dystopian nightmare.” As part of Trump’s Cabinet, Kennedy reportedly has plans to strip not just the Covid vaccine but older, irrefutably effective vaccines from the market, as well.

But Kennedy’s vaccine conspiracies aren’t just easily refutable hogwash—they’ve caused legitimate, real-world harm. Prior to a deadly measles outbreak on the Pacific islands of Samoa in 2019, Kennedy’s anti-vax nonprofit Children’s Health Defense spread rampant misinformation about the efficacy of vaccines, sending the nation’s vaccination rate plummeting from the 60–70 percent range to just 31 percent, according to Mother Jones. That year, the country reported 5,707 cases of measles—an illness that was declared eliminated by the United States in 2000 thanks to advancements in modern medicine (read: vaccines)—as well as 83 measles-related deaths, the majority of which were children under the age of 5.

Since their invention, vaccines have proven to be one of the greatest accomplishments of modern medicine. The shots are so effective at preventing illness that they have practically eradicated some of the worst diseases, from rabies to polio and smallpox, from our collective culture—a fact that has possibly fooled some into believing that the viruses and their complications aren’t a significant threat for the average, health-conscious individual.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene experienced a reality check outside the Supreme Court Wednesday morning.

Greene was speaking in front of the building that houses the high court as the justices heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which concerns a legal challenge to Tennessee’s ban against gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

As the right-wing Georgia congresswoman went on a rant, complaining about minors taking puberty blockers “before they’re old enough to join the military, before they’re ever old enough to … be an adult,” she was taken aback by a wave of boos from protesters there for the “Freedom to Be Ourselves” rally in support of trans rights.

According to independent journalist and former New Republic reporter Talia Jane, the crowd was “roughly 4:1 pro-trans rights vs anti” and growing, making Greene and her fellow anti-trans activists a rapidly shrinking minority. In the House of Representatives, however, Greene is now part of a razor-thin Republican majority that will almost certainly attempt to restrict trans rights during Donald Trump’s second term.

Already, Greene and her colleague attention-seeking Representative Nancy Mace are targeting the first transgender person to be elected to Congress, Representative-elect Sarah McBride, ludicrously claiming her use of Capitol restrooms would be tantamount to assault. Inside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, conservative justices holding similar views indicated they would likely uphold the Tennessee law and further restrict rights for transgender people.

Outside of the court, though, Greene and right-wing activists came face-to-face with actual public opinions on trans rights, which include more support for the community than conservatives may realize. It’s a preview of the next four years, with Republicans set to take legal aim at the LGBTQ community in the face of public opposition.