“Luigi Mangione, the man charged with murder in the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, seemed to support Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appeared to harbor frustrations with the medical field, and expressed skepticism toward both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, deleted X posts show.
Mangione, a 26-year-old software developer who reportedly fell out of touch with friends and family after back surgery last year, reposted Edward Snowden’s suggestion that Democrats should nominate Kennedy for president following Biden’s disastrous debate performance in June.”
“There’s only so much the administration can control, however. Although Trump can take notable steps to try to increase fossil fuel production, actual upticks in oil and gas extraction will depend heavily on the private sector and the economics of the industry.
Still, while Trump faces some constraints, he has significant policy levers he can pull to encourage production of fossil fuels. Wright, Burgum, and Zeldin have also signaled they’re prepared to execute on the president-elect’s vision, including changes to drilling on public lands and speedier permitting for oil and gas projects.
“President Trump and his energy team — Mr. Burgum, Mr. Wright, Mr. Zeldin — can go to considerable lengths to make expanded production attractive and relatively easy,” Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan environmental policy professor, told Vox.”
“According to the New York Times, Trump is planning to invoke the Insurrection Act to bring in the military to carry out mass deportations. The law is a key exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military to enforce federal law without the permission of Congress or the Constitution.
Only in rare instances have presidents invoked the Insurrection Act. President George H.W. Bush was the last one to do so amid the 1992 Los Angeles riots that broke out in response to the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. President Dwight D. Eisenhower also notably used the Insurrection Act to facilitate the desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The provision of the Insurrection Act most likely to apply in Trump’s case is one that allows the president to unilaterally activate the military domestically to enforce federal law whenever they determine that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion… make it impracticable [to do so] by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Mirasola said Trump would have a “relatively easy time” making the case that cartels trafficking immigrants across the border constitute an “unlawful obstruction” to the enforcement of US immigration law. Trump has in some ways appeared to begin building his case for invoking the Insurrection Act through his rhetoric on the campaign trail this year by describing an “invasion of criminals” coming across the border.
But Mirasola said it would be harder for Trump to argue that it is impracticable to enforce immigration laws through the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” That’s because presidents have done so for decades, and border crossings are no longer unusually high: They have sharply declined this year and are down even from certain points in the first Trump administration.
However, the law gives the president “sole discretion, in most instances” to determine whether the criteria necessary to activate the military have been met, according to 2022 congressional testimony given by Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Joseph Nunn, the Center’s counsel in the national security program.
Goitein and Nunn also argued that the “vague and broad criteria for invoking the Act, combined with the lack of any provision for judicial or congressional review, render it ripe for abuse.” At that point, their concern was that Trump could have used the Insurrection Act to interfere with the certification of the 2020 election results. The use case is now different, but the potential for overreach is the same.
That is to say, while advocates may challenge Trump on whether the two key criteria for invoking the law have been met, the law gives presidents a wide berth — and the courts little power.
“For all practical purposes, courts have been cut out of the process,” Goitein and Nunn write.”
“Trump talks often about using the DOJ to target his political adversaries and people he views as foes. An NPR report on October 22 found that Trump “made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies.” That includes a threat to, in Trump’s words, “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.”
Trump also accused former Rep. Liz Cheney, a prominent Republican critic of the incoming president, of “TREASON” and threatened “TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.” (Which, if they were to actually happen, would presumably take place in the Defense Department’s legal structure, but could involve some DOJ personnel.)
Trump’s decision to name Gaetz, a staunch loyalist, to lead the Justice Department created considerable alarm. Historically, the White House has obeyed strong norms against interfering with Justice Department prosecutorial decisions, but these norms have no legal force. A Trump loyalist like Gaetz could have torn down this barrier altogether. (If someone like him is confirmed atop the Justice Department, that barrier could still go.)
Trump’s decision to appoint his personal lawyers to top DOJ jobs is equally concerning. Federal lawyers are supposed to represent the interests of the United States, not of any particular politician, while they work for the government. But Trump has selected three people who aren’t simply accustomed to representing his personal interests, but who have also likely collected considerable legal fees from him.
Blanche, Sauer, and Bove’s conventional résumés also mean that, if they use their DOJ posts to pursue Trump’s personal campaign of vengeance, they are likely to be fairly effective in doing so.”
“For millions of families, a spike in health care costs might be around the corner because crucial subsidies are set to expire at the end of next year. Some families will see their premiums rise by thousands of dollars; others might lose their insurance altogether.
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act, which included a provision that enhanced the premium tax credit — a piece of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that subsidized the cost of premiums for some lower- and middle-income families. The Biden-era enhancements, which essentially expanded the number of people who qualify for the tax credit, were originally set to expire at the end of 2022, but Congress extended them through 2025 when it passed the Inflation Reduction Act. (For families at or slightly above the poverty line, the enhanced tax credit subsidizes the full premium. For people making more than 400 percent of the poverty line — people who were previously ineligible for this subsidy — it caps their premiums to 8.5 percent of their income.)
The enhanced premium tax credits contributed to a record number of insured people in the United States. In February 2021, before Congress expanded the premium tax credits, 11.2 million people were enrolled in health coverage through ACA marketplaces. By 2024, that number shot up to 20.8 million people.
There are many reasons for the dramatic increase in marketplace coverage — including the fact that millions of people were disenrolled from Medicaid coverage after Covid emergency measures lapsed and had to turn to other forms of insurance, including the marketplace — but the enhanced premium tax credit played a critical role. Its expansion was the main reason so many more people were able to enroll in health care coverage from the ACA marketplace, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
If Congress allows the enhanced premium tax credits to expire, millions of people will see a noticeable rise in out-of-pocket expenses. Many will likely lose their coverage, and that’s without considering how much more will be at stake if Medicaid gets slashed as well. For low-income families, particularly those who live just above the poverty line, that could be a nightmare.”
““The president has unilateral authority to fire general officers,” says Katherine Kuzminski, the director of the military, veterans, and society program at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank specializing in national security. Under the wide-ranging powers presidents are given by the Constitution as the country’s commander-in-chief, they can remove generals at will over a loss of confidence in their leadership.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, the incoming administration is already laying the groundwork for such firings. Per a draft executive order the publication obtained, the Trump White House is considering establishing a “warrior board” of former generals and military officials who will be dedicated to reviewing current military leaders. Following their review, the panel will reportedly determine which officers they’d like to remove, with the aim of retiring them at their existing rank within 20 days.
Trump has only spoken in sweeping terms about changes to military leadership, so it’s unclear exactly how many high-ranking troops might be fired. However, were the president-elect to follow through on his promises — particularly at a larger scale — they could have a disruptive effect on military operations.
A mass firing would need to be followed with the elevation of lots of new leaders, some of whom might lack the experience of their predecessors. Several national security experts also told Vox they worry about the message a mass firing would send — including the idea that military officials have to express political views in line with Trump’s in order to hold onto their jobs.”
“The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, requires any goods being shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on an American-owned, built, and flagged vessel with a majority American crew. Originally intended to protect U.S. shipbuilding, the Jones Act has made America’s maritime industry less competitive while increasing costs for consumers.
The failures of the Jones Act have disproportionately hurt Puerto Rico. In 2017, when Hurricane Maria ravaged the island, U.S. aid was delayed for more than a week until President Donald Trump signed a 10-day Jones Act waiver. Hurricane relief efforts were yet again stalled in 2022 after Hurricane Fiona. This time a BP tanker with 300,000 gallons of diesel remained idle off of the coast of the island until President Joe Biden granted a waiver for the ship.*
But even aside from disaster relief efforts, the Jones Act has also made energy in Puerto Rico more expensive and less reliable. Despite ambitious plans to source 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, Puerto Rico relies on fossil fuels for 94 percent of its electricity needs. However, since there are no Jones Act–compliant liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers, Puerto Rico can’t just have LNG shipped in from continental U.S. Compliant coal vessels are few and far between too, so Puerto Rico is forced to source a majority of its fossil fuels from foreign nations.”
“Passed in 1969, NEPA requires federal agencies to conduct environmental reviews for major federal actions. The law requires federal officials to consult with relevant agencies about the impact of all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” before submitting statements to the Environmental Protection Agency. Major federal actions include private projects “subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility.”
NEPA has dramatically increased the time and cost of major federal actions. In the case of roads, “the cost to build a mile of Interstate highway had tripled between the 1970s and today” and, “environmental reviews for 60% of federal highway projects took more than six years,” according to Robert W. Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.
The Building Chips in America Act exempts firms receiving CHIPS and Science Act funding from complying with NEPA.”
…
“Marc Scribner, senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, says that “environmental regulations on PFAS or anything else would still apply” to projects exempted from NEPA because it’s merely a process law. The Environmental Protection Agency already has rules substantively regulating PFAS: The agency added seven PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory in January and “two widely used PFAS–PFOA and PFOS–as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act” in April.
NEPA is onerous and superfluous; it increases delays, inflates costs, and stunts innovation for all projects—not just those involving CHIPS-subsidized semiconductor firms. Instead of making exceptions for favored firms and distorting price signals even further, Congress should repeal NEPA in its entirety so that all firms presently subject to it are freed from the red tape of a permission-slip economy.”
“police identified the person of interest as 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, who was spotted at a McDonald’s in Altoona and taken into custody by local police on gun charges. Mangione was found in possession of a ghost gun and suppressor consistent with the weapon seen in video footage of the crime, a fake New Jersey ID matching the one the suspect is believed to have used at a Manhattan hostel and clothing, including a mask, that match those worn by the suspect.”