The Investigation That Had to Wait

The case was already bad enough. A Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent in Ohio was working a multistate child sexual abuse investigation involving allegations tied to teenage girls. It was the kind of case that requires patience, coordination and time, the slow work of building evidence across jurisdictions, locating people, following records and deciding when enough facts exist to move.

There was no shortcut for any of it. Parents could not do that work themselves. Local neighbors could not substitute for federal investigators. The case existed in the part of government most people rarely see: trained agents spending long hours on crimes that are difficult to uncover and harder still to prove.

Then the agent received another assignment. It did not erase the first case or make the allegations disappear. It simply changed what he was expected to spend his time doing.

That is not a minor difference because government arguments about priorities are usually made in numbers—budgets, staffing levels, initiatives, task forces. However, priorities eventually become something much more ordinary. They become someone’s Tuesday afternoon, the phone call an investigator makes, the records he reviews, the witness he interviews, or the case folder that remains closed while he works on something else.

No investigator has two Tuesdays, and no agency has infinite people. When Washington decides that one investigation must move to the front of the line, another one moves backward.

Washington Changed the Assignment

Homeland Security Investigations is not a general-purpose agency with an unlimited bench of investigators waiting for something to do. Its agents work cases involving child exploitation, human trafficking, narcotics, financial crime, transnational criminal organizations, and other offenses that often cross state or national borders.

Beginning in 2025, thousands of HSI personnel were redirected toward immigration enforcement. Later, investigators were also assigned large numbers of leads involving suspected noncitizen voting. According to ProPublica, one cross-border financial-crimes unit was given roughly 15,000 such leads and instructed to prioritize them over existing money-laundering and fraud cases.

Presidents can set law-enforcement priorities. Executive agencies cannot function without them, but priorities are not free. A decision made in Washington eventually lands on somebody’s desk beside work that was already there. Sometimes the most important question is not what government told an investigator to begin. It is what that investigator had to stop doing first.

Subscribe now

Illegal Voting Is Still Illegal

Federal law generally prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for federal office. Credible allegations of illegal voting should be investigated. When the evidence supports prosecution, prosecutors should enforce the law. The harder question is one of scale.

A legitimate government purpose does not automatically justify an unlimited commitment of investigators, analysts, and time. Every enforcement priority still has to answer to evidence. How large is the demonstrated problem? How many resources does it reasonably require? What other work becomes harder when those resources are moved?

That is the stewardship test. Government is not responsible merely for identifying something unlawful, but also for deciding how much public capacity the threat actually warrants.

The existence of a crime does not settle the question of priority. Evidence has to do that. The question, then, is not whether government may investigate noncitizen voting, but how much investigative capacity the evidence justifies.

Leave a comment

The Results Must Inform the Priority

By January 2026, the search had become substantial. About 25,000 leads involved people identified by the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system as potential noncitizens on voter rolls. Another 15,000 went to HSI’s cross-border financial-crimes unit, with instructions to prioritize them over money-laundering and fraud cases. Additional searches generated still more leads, according to ProPublica.

Then investigators began checking what the databases had produced. ProPublica’s analysis of Justice Department data and federal court filings through May 2026 found that federal prosecutors had charged fewer than four dozen people with crimes related to noncitizen voting, with 14 convictions or guilty pleas. In Ohio, where more than 1,000 suspected noncitizens had been referred to the federal government, just two cases had been referred for prosecution, and no one had been charged as of May. Investigators also found inaccurate matches, people who were not registered where federal records suggested they were, and others who had been placed on voter rolls in error but never voted.

A small number of prosecutions does not prove that the investigations were unnecessary. Law enforcement routinely follows legitimate leads that do not produce criminal charges, but results still have to matter.

When government commits substantial personnel to a suspected threat, leadership has an obligation to compare what investigators find with what the effort consumes. Thousands of leads repeatedly producing relatively few prosecutable cases should inform the next decision about staffing, time, and priority.

Government stewardship requires the ability to adjust when evidence changes. A priority should not become permanent merely because someone in power announced it loudly.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

DHS Has an Answer. We Should Hear It.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rejects the argument that HSI has neglected its traditional mission amid these reassignments. The department says HSI has increased its efforts against criminal cartels, gangs, and drug traffickers. They argue, correctly, that large federal agencies can do more than one thing at a time. Reassigning an agent does not prove that every case on that agent’s desk was abandoned. Every delay does not produce an identifiable victim or a crime that can be traced cleanly back to a staffing decision.

However, the stewardship question is more specific. Was the scale of this diversion proportionate to the threat the evidence actually revealed? The standard is not whether some good work continued or whether every reassignment caused visible harm, but whether the government can show that the public benefit justified the opportunity cost.

That is not hostility to enforcement. It is stewardship of enforcement.

Share

Every Priority Has an Opportunity Cost

The easiest way to hide the cost of a government priority is to describe only the work being added. A new initiative gets a name. A task force gets announced. Agents are reassigned. What usually disappears from the announcement is the work those same people were already doing. That is the real arithmetic of government capacity.

An investigator cannot spend Tuesday interviewing a trafficking witness and spend that same Tuesday reviewing voter records. A financial-crimes agent cannot trace money through an international laundering network while using those same hours on an unrelated assignment.

Federal investigators may carry extraordinary authority, but they do not carry extraordinary time. The hours available in a day remain the same. A government budget is not the only place public priorities are written. They are also written in the hours of the people who work for it.

That is why efficiency does not mean simply spending less money or demanding that an agency do more with the same number of people. Efficiency means putting scarce public resources where they accomplish the most public good.

Every priority therefore creates a deprioritization. That does not make prioritization wrong, but it does make honesty about its cost essential. If agents are moved from trafficking, fraud, money laundering, narcotics, or child-exploitation work, then that lost capacity belongs in the accounting too.

Responsible stewardship counts both sides of the decision. It asks not only what government gained by changing the priority, but also what the public gave up to make that change possible.

Subscribe now

The Work Only Government Can Do

There are limits to what Americans can solve privately. Parents cannot conduct a multistate child-exploitation investigation. A neighborhood cannot dismantle a trafficking organization. A small business cannot trace money through an international laundering network. A family cannot investigate a transnational narcotics operation. Those are among the reasons public institutions exist.

The Square New Deal does not argue for endlessly large government. Instead, it argues for government sufficient to do the work only government can reasonably do.

That creates a simple test. Can government still do the job the public cannot do for itself?

If trained investigators are repeatedly pulled away from difficult federal cases to satisfy a political priority whose scale is not supported by the evidence, that is not merely a question of efficiency, but also of capacity.

A capable government can be weakened without eliminating an agency, closing an office, or cutting a single line from a budget. Sometimes all it takes is telling the people who know how to do necessary work to spend their time doing something else.

A government can fail through incompetence. It can fail through neglect. And it can fail by assigning capable people to the wrong work.

Leave a comment

Presidential Priorities Still Require Stewardship

Presidents are elected to make choices. They set enforcement priorities, direct executive agencies, and decide which threats deserve additional attention. Elections would mean very little if every administration were required to govern exactly like the one before it.

The Square New Deal does not ask unelected bureaucracies to govern themselves. It asks something more basic of the president: Treat public power as something held in trust. That means political importance cannot substitute for demonstrated public need.

A Republican president should not be able to commit enormous investigative resources to election fraud merely because election fraud carries enormous political weight with Republican voters. A future Democratic president should not be able to redirect those same investigators toward a favored cause merely because Democrats consider that cause urgent. The rule has to survive the president we support.

Before a major share of investigative capacity is redirected, the administration should be able to answer ordinary stewardship questions. How large is the demonstrated threat? How many investigators are being shifted? What existing work will slow because of that decision? What results would justify continuing at the same scale? When will the priority be reconsidered if the evidence fails to support it? Those questions do not prevent presidents from governing. They require presidents to govern responsibly.

Executive discretion is real, but so is executive accountability. A president may choose the priority. Stewardship requires proving that the priority deserves the resources taken from everything behind it.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

Congress Must Make the Cost Visible

Congress does not need to choose individual investigations. It should not tell agents whom to investigate, whom to charge, or which case file belongs on top of a supervisor’s desk. Yet Congress funds these agencies, authorizes their powers, and oversees how public resources are used. As a result, major shifts in investigative capacity should not disappear inside the executive branch without scrutiny.

Oversight committees can ask basic questions. How many agents were reassigned? Which divisions lost personnel? What work was delayed? What did the new initiative produce? What standard will determine whether the reassignment continues? Those are accountability questions, not operational commands.

If an administration moves substantial federal capacity from one mission to another, the public deserves to know the cost. If the executive branch will not measure the opportunity cost itself, Congress should make it account for that cost.

That is not congressional micromanagement. It is stewardship of the institutions, authorities, and resources the people’s branch created in the first place.

Share

Someone Was Waiting

By May, the Ohio investigator made an arrest in the child sexual abuse case. We do not know from the public record exactly what would have happened if he had never been reassigned, nor can we say that a particular crime occurred because Washington changed his assignment. We cannot know whether an arrest would have happened weeks earlier or whether the investigation would have unfolded differently.

We do know what happened to his time. For a period, an investigator working allegations involving teenage girls was told to spend those hours on something else. His work on the first investigation was interrupted. That is not an accusation about motive. It is arithmetic.

Illegal voting should be investigated, but so too should trafficking, money laundering, organized crime, and the exploitation of children.

Government cannot investigate everything with equal intensity at the same time. That is why public officials have a duty to show that the work they move to the front of the line deserves to be there.

The investigator ultimately made an arrest in the case, but for a while, someone was waiting. Government stewardship begins by admitting that whenever Washington chooses what comes first, it is also choosing what comes second.

Leave a comment

Support Independent Media

If you believe public power should be measured by what it accomplishes—not by how loudly politicians announce their priorities—please subscribe to The Coffman Chronicle and share this article.

This publication is built around a simple idea: government belongs to the people, and the people have every right to ask whether those entrusted with its power are using it responsibly.

If you can afford to support this work with a paid subscription, thank you. It helps keep The Coffman Chronicle independent and gives me the time to keep following the facts wherever they lead.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• Elkind, Peter, Jen Fifield, Doug Bock Clark, Ken B. Morales, and Andy Mannix. “Inside Trump’s Failed Hunt for Noncitizen Voters.” ProPublica, August 14, 2026.

• Heath, Brad, Joshua Schneyer, Marisa Taylor, Sarah N. Lynch, and Mike Spector. “Thousands of Agents Diverted to Trump Immigration Crackdown.” Reuters, March 22, 2025.

• Rosenzweig-Ziff, Dan, Brad Heath, and Kristina Cooke. “Trump Promised a Sex-Trafficking Crackdown. His Justice Department Hasn’t Delivered.” Reuters, August 13, 2026. Updated August 14, 2026.

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “What We Investigate.” Homeland Security Investigations, March 11, 2026. Accessed August 19, 2026.

• United States. United States Code. Title 18, § 611, “Voting by Aliens.” Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives. Accessed August 19, 2026.

The Bicycle Ride That Became a Felony

On June 19, David “Davey” Hearn was doing something remarkably ordinary for a man who had once represented the United States at three Olympic Games. He was riding his bicycle.

The 67-year-old former world champion was partway through a 52-mile ride when he stopped at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Hearn later said he noticed the pool’s new blue coating peeling away and reached into the water to examine a loose piece. Minutes later, police arrested him.

What began as a bicycle ride would eventually become a felony case carrying the possibility of as much as ten years in prison. Hearn pleaded not guilty.

A felony indictment means lawyers, court appearances, and the knowledge that the government has placed your name on a criminal charge that could follow you through the rest of your life. At 67, ten years is not an abstract maximum written in a statute. It is a significant piece of whatever life remains.

Hearn’s Olympic career made the story unusual, but it did not make him more entitled to fair treatment than anyone else. He had once worn USA while representing the country abroad. Now the United States had put his name on an indictment.

The Evidence Changed the Case

Then the government learned more. Information from the Interior Department raised serious questions about the coating itself and the work used to install it. The damage around the Reflecting Pool was not limited to the spot Hearn had touched. The material was failing more broadly, and the evidence increasingly pointed toward problems with the contractor’s work rather than deliberate destruction by one bicyclist.

Prosecutors are not supposed to defend an indictment simply because they already obtained one. Their obligation is to the evidence, including evidence that weakens their own case. Jeanine Pirro’s office eventually moved to dismiss the charge against Hearn.

That did not erase the arrest, the indictment, or the weeks spent under the weight of a felony prosecution, but it meant the government had done something essential: it had reconsidered its accusation when the facts no longer supported the original theory.

That is not weakness in a justice system. It is what justice is supposed to look like. The evidence changed, and the government changed with it, but then another consideration entered the case.

Subscribe now

The President Wasn’t Satisfied

President Trump did not like the decision. He publicly criticized Jeanine Pirro after her office moved to dismiss Hearn’s case and urged that the matter be reconsidered. The White House later asked the Justice Department to examine whether new charges could still be brought in connection with the Reflecting Pool.

That does not mean Trump personally ordered Hearn prosecuted, but after prosecutors concluded that new evidence undermined the original case, presidential displeasure became part of the environment surrounding what happened next. That is where an ordinary prosecution becomes a constitutional question.

If the evidence no longer supports the government’s original charge, when does David Hearn get his name cleared? Is it when prosecutors decide the case should end, when a court dismisses it, or only when the president is satisfied?

Leave a comment

Todd Blanche Said the Quiet Part Out Loud

Then Attorney General Todd Blanche made the institutional problem harder to ignore. Asked whether he would pledge that the Justice Department would operate independently of the White House, Blanche declined. He argued that no attorney general should promise complete independence from the president and said he would continue to act with integrity and prosecute without fear or favor.

On one level, he is right. The Justice Department is part of the executive branch. The attorney general does not run a constitutionally separate fourth branch of government, and presidents may set broad law-enforcement priorities.

However, Blanche went further. Asked whether the president’s views could be considered in individual prosecution decisions, he said they could.

The constitutional question is not whether the president has authority over the executive branch, but rather what happens when presidential authority reaches past broad policy and into the government’s decision about what to do with one particular American.

That is where supervision can begin to look like pressure, and that is where the rule has to become clear.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

The President Sets the Priorities, Not Pick the Defendants.

The Constitution gives the president responsibility for executing federal law, which necessarily includes setting priorities for the executive branch. An administration may decide to put greater emphasis on violent crime, public corruption, antitrust enforcement, narcotics trafficking, or immigration offenses. Elections have consequences, and law-enforcement policy is one of them.

However, there is a difference between deciding what kinds of crimes deserve greater attention and deciding that a particular citizen deserves another prosecution because the president disliked the first result. The Justice Department’s own rules recognize that distinction. They allow appropriate White House communication about broad policy while placing special limits around communications involving pending or contemplated criminal cases.

There is a reason for that wall. A president should be able to say, “Make public corruption a priority.” That is not the same as saying, “Take another look at that man.” One is policy. The other puts the weight of presidential power much closer to an individual citizen.

That is where the institutional line should be drawn. The president may set the priorities. He does not get to pick the defendants.

Share

Public Power Is Held in Trust

This is where the Square New Deal draws its line. The prosecutor does not own the prosecution, the attorney general does not own the Justice Department, and the president does not own federal law enforcement. Each of them temporarily exercises public authority entrusted to an office.

The Justice Department’s own ethics rules say public service is a public trust. Its prosecution principles likewise recognize that bringing a criminal case can impose enormous consequences on a defendant and a family even before a jury ever reaches a verdict. That is why discretion matters.

Prosecutors need room to weigh evidence, credibility, culpability, and the public interest, but discretion is not ownership. It does not transform government power into personal power simply because an official has lawful authority to exercise it.

The Square New Deal standard is straightforward: Public power must be exercised for the public purpose that justifies it. A criminal prosecution exists to enforce the law based on evidence and lawful prosecutorial judgment. It does not exist to satisfy the preferences of the person temporarily occupying the presidency.

The officeholder changes. The obligation does not.

Subscribe now

The Rule Must Protect the Defendant You Cannot Stand

David Hearn is an easy person to sympathize with, but constitutional rules cannot depend on that. Due process is most important when the defendant is unpopular, politically inconvenient, or someone we are already inclined to distrust. The protection cannot disappear because the person standing across from the government has fewer medals, worse politics, or a less compelling biography.

The test, as always, is to apply the same rule to a future president you cannot stand. Imagine a Democratic president publicly criticizing prosecutors for dropping a case against a conservative activist. The White House urges the Justice Department to look again. The attorney general says the president’s views deserve consideration. Would that still feel like ordinary executive supervision?

The answer cannot depend on which party controls the White House. You do not need to like the person standing in the government’s crosshairs to care who is allowed to aim the government at him. A constitutional protection worth keeping has to protect the defendant you would never choose to defend.

Leave a comment

Congress Must Write the Guardrail

The answer is not to pretend the Justice Department can be separated from the executive branch, nor should Congress begin deciding who gets indicted. That would simply move the danger from one political branch to another.

Congress has a different job. It can write durable procedural rules governing political contact about individual federal investigations and prosecutions: who may initiate them, how they must be documented, when they must be disclosed, and what protections apply when prosecutors or investigators believe improper pressure is being applied. The exact mechanism deserves careful constitutional drafting, but the principle does not require much imagination.

A republic cannot depend on every president voluntarily knowing when to stop or every attorney general being personally willing to push back. Eventually, someone will test the boundary. That is why guardrails exist.

The Square New Deal does not ask government officials to be saints. It asks institutions to be strong enough that ordinary human ambition, loyalty, and political pressure cannot quietly become the rule of law.

Congress does not need to choose the defendants. It needs to write the boundary that keeps presidents from doing it.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

The Medals Are Not the Protection

David Hearn represented the United States at three Olympic Games. Decades later, the United States put his name on an indictment. Neither fact determines whether he is guilty. The law and the evidence do.

His medals, his reputation, Jeanine Pirro’s judgment, Todd Blanche’s character, and Donald Trump’s opinion cannot be the protection. The rule has to be the protection, because the next person caught in the government’s machinery will not necessarily be an Olympian. It may be the owner of the hardware store, a fifth-grade teacher, a Republican activist, or a Democratic organizer.

Most Americans will never have a president know their names. Their freedom should not become less secure if someday he does. The president has enormous authority because the office requires it. That authority must remain broad enough to enforce the law and bounded enough that one citizen’s liberty does not turn on presidential satisfaction.

David Hearn’s case should not matter because he once wore USA. It should matter because every American stands beneath the same government power. The president may set the priorities. The law and the evidence must decide the case.

Share

If This Work Matters to You

The rule of law cannot depend on whether we like the person standing in the government’s crosshairs or the president doing the aiming.

If you believe public power should remain public, help keep The Coffman Chronicle independent. Share this article with someone who believes the Constitution has to bind the presidents we support as firmly as the presidents we oppose.

And if you can afford it, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support helps fund the research and writing behind work that asks a simple question of every government official: Whose power is it? The answer should always be the same. Ours.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• Goudsward, Andrew. “Ex-US Olympian Indicted over Alleged Reflecting Pool Vandalism.” Reuters. July 2, 2026.

• Goudsward, Andrew. “Trump White House Asked DOJ to Explore New Reflecting Pool Charges, Sources Say.” Reuters. August 11, 2026.

• Lynch, David J., and Aaron Schaffer. “Cyclist Arrested at Reflecting Pool Is Former Olympian Who Denies Vandalism Claims.” The Washington Post. June 20, 2026.

• Respaut, Robin. “US Attorney General Blanche Publicly Backs Pirro after Trump Criticism over Reflecting Pool.” Reuters. August 16, 2026.

• Singh, Kanishka, and Andrew Goudsward. “US Justice Department Says ‘Flawed’ Work Led to Reflecting Pool Peeling.” Reuters. July 31, 2026.

• United States Department of Justice. “1-4.000 — Standards of Conduct.” Justice Manual. Accessed August 17, 2026.

• United States Department of Justice. “1-8.000 — Congressional and White House Relations.” Justice Manual. Accessed August 17, 2026.

• United States Department of Justice. “9-27.000 — Principles of Federal Prosecution.” Justice Manual. Accessed August 17, 2026.

• United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee. “David Hearn.” Team USA. Accessed August 17, 2026.

You Can Wash Your Hands. You Cannot Inspect the Farm.

A family standing in the produce aisle can make careful choices. They can wash the lettuce, refrigerate the milk, cook the chicken thoroughly, and check whether the eggs in the refrigerator have been recalled.

What they cannot do is inspect the irrigation water on a farm hundreds or thousands of miles away. They cannot walk through a processing plant with a swab kit, test a shipment for Salmonella, compare laboratory results from sick patients in several states, or trace a contaminated ingredient backward through distributors, warehouses, and suppliers. They cannot audit whether the laboratory doing that testing is producing reliable results.

Those are not failures of personal responsibility. They are tasks individual citizens simply do not have the power, access, or information to perform. That is why the United States built a food-safety system.

The farmer has responsibilities. The processor has responsibilities. The grocery chain has responsibilities. Consumers have responsibilities too. However, somewhere between the field and the dinner plate, government performs a different job: inspecting, testing, coordinating, tracing, and warning on behalf of people who cannot realistically do those things for themselves.

That makes food safety a useful test of government efficiency. It is not whether every federal job must survive forever or whether every agency deserves every dollar it has ever received. The issue is whether government can remove pieces of a system protecting the public without first knowing whether the remaining system can still do the job.

Trump Inherited a System That Already Needed Repair

Donald Trump did not inherit a food-safety system operating at full strength. Twelve days before he returned to office, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had failed to meet its domestic and foreign food-facility inspection targets every year since 2018. From fiscal 2018 through 2023, FDA averaged 8,353 domestic inspections a year but only 917 foreign inspections.

The foreign gap was especially stark. Federal law had established an annual target of 19,200 foreign food-facility inspections. The FDA’s best year was 2019, when it completed 1,727, about 9% of that target. The FDA itself considered the statutory target unrealistic, but it had never established a replacement showing how many inspections were actually necessary to protect imported food.

The agency identified limited workforce capacity as its primary obstacle. In July 2024, FDA had 432 food-safety investigators, about 90% of its authorized staffing ceiling. GAO recommended that FDA determine how large its foreign inspection workforce actually needed to be.

This did not begin with a healthy system destroyed overnight. It began with a system whose weaknesses were already documented.

Trump inherited something that needed repair. Washington chose reduction.

Subscribe now

DOGE Chose Reduction Before It Proved Capacity Was Excess

The Trump administration did not ask agencies to look for waste. On February 11, 2025, President Trump ordered agencies to prepare for large-scale reductions in force and directed them, in consultation with their Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team leads, to limit hiring to no more than one new employee for every four who departed, subject to exemptions. The order said its purpose was to eliminate “waste, bloat, and insularity” across the federal bureaucracy.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) followed with a restructuring plan that called for shrinking the department from about 82,000 full-time employees to 62,000. FDA was slated to lose approximately 3,500 employees. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was slated to lose about 2,400 employees.

The administration offered an important assurance. HHS said the FDA reductions would focus on streamlining operations and centralizing administrative functions, and specifically said they would not affect food reviewers or inspectors.

If Washington could remove thousands of positions while preserving the capacity necessary to keep food safe, taxpayers would have every reason to welcome the efficiency, but protecting the person whose job title says “inspector” does not answer the larger question. An inspector does not operate alone.

To know whether food-safety capacity was actually protected, we have to look at the people and systems standing behind the badge.

Leave a comment

A Badge Is Not a Food-Safety System

Protecting inspectors sounds reassuring because inspection is the part of food safety most people can picture: a federal employee entering a facility, examining conditions and checking whether the rules are being followed.

However, inspection is only one link in a longer chain. The FDA cuts removed employees who arranged international travel, visas, and security for inspectors working overseas. They also reached laboratory scientists who analyzed food samples for contamination and communications specialists responsible for warning the public about urgent recalls. Agency leaders became concerned enough about the disruption that FDA moved to hire contractors to replace some of the dismissed support personnel.

Finding a problem is not the same as solving one. A suspicious sample may need laboratory confirmation. Illnesses appearing hundreds of miles apart may have to be connected. Records must be collected and products traced backward through processors and suppliers. An overseas inspector has to reach the facility in the first place. Once dangerous food is identified, somebody has to tell the public quickly enough for families to get it out of their refrigerators. None of those functions becomes unnecessary because the person entering the plant still has a federal badge.

While the administration was entitled to ask whether FDA could perform those tasks with fewer people, preserving the inspector while removing parts of the machinery that make inspection useful does not necessarily preserve food-safety capacity.

A badge is not a food-safety system. The real test was whether the work behind that badge continued.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

Then Necessary Work Started Stopping

The consequences did not remain confined to an organizational chart. In April 2025, the FDA suspended proficiency testing for the Food Emergency Response Network, a system involving roughly 170 laboratories that test food for pathogens and contaminants. The program helps laboratories demonstrate that they can produce accurate, consistent results. Reuters reported that the suspension followed the loss of a quality-assurance officer, an analytical chemist, and two microbiologists at an FDA food laboratory. Planned proficiency tests included detection of Cyclospora in spinach.

Days earlier, the FDA had also suspended work designed to improve consistency among more than 40 laboratories testing milk, cheese, and pet food for highly pathogenic avian influenza. The agency attributed that interruption to staffing losses as well.

Other cuts proved difficult to sustain. FDA moved to hire outside contractors to perform some inspection-support functions after employees handling foreign travel were dismissed. Weeks later, the agency began reinstating more than 20 travel staffers, while food scientists who tested samples for bacteria and studied hazardous chemicals were also told they would be brought back.

Though none of this proves that a staffing cut caused a later outbreak, it does show that work performed for a food-safety purpose was interrupted because the people needed to perform or support it were gone. In some cases, FDA then had to restore employees or seek outside help to recover that capacity.

That creates a straightforward test of efficiency. If removing the worker caused necessary work to stop, what evidence had established that the capacity was excess? While Washington was learning the answer, the workload confronting the food-safety system was moving in the opposite direction.

Share

The Workload Went the Other Direction

The reductions were supposed to make government leaner. The food-safety workload did not become leaner with them.

FDA’s public Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation (CORE) Investigation Table provides a useful comparison because an investigation is posted when CORE begins actively coordinating a response to an outbreak or series of adverse events. Counting investigations posted through approximately mid-August produces a clear pattern: 17 in 2022, 14 in 2023, 12 in 2024, 17 in 2025, and 21 so far in 2026.

The average for the previous four years was 15. That puts 2026 about 40% above the 2022–2025 average by this point in the calendar.

Those investigations are not interchangeable with the total number of Americans suffering foodborne illness. They measure outbreak and adverse-event investigations substantial enough for FDA’s CORE Response Teams to begin coordinating a federal response. FDA’s current table includes investigations involving products ranging from eggs and soft cheese to frozen blueberries and iceberg lettuce.

These numbers do not prove that DOGE cuts caused these outbreaks. Contaminated food has many causes, and outbreaks occurred long before the current administration. However, the numbers do establish the stewardship problem Washington now has to answer.

The government reduced parts of the infrastructure responsible for detecting and responding to food-safety problems. The demand on that infrastructure subsequently increased. Before treating that increase as evidence of anything more, however, we need to make sure Washington did not simply change the way it counts the work.

Subscribe now

We Checked the Measuring Stick

A rising number means little if the government changed what it was counting, so the FDA measure deserves its own test.

CORE’s public Investigation Table was created in 2020 to list outbreaks being actively coordinated by a CORE Response Team. Today, FDA still describes the table as covering outbreak and adverse-event investigations primarily managed by those same Response Teams.

Adverse events are not a Trump-era addition. FDA’s 2022 annual report already counted potential outbreaks, confirmed outbreaks and adverse events, and reported 65 incidents evaluated and 28 responses initiated that year.

The organization did change. CORE became part of the broader CORE+EP structure during the FDA’s Human Foods Program reorganization in October 2024, before Trump returned to office. However, the FDA’s subsequent reports continued using the same basic measures: incidents evaluated, responses initiated, and public advisories issued. In 2023, FDA reported 69 incidents and 25 responses; in 2024, 72 incidents and 26 responses.

The FDA has changed other reporting structures, so you can't casually compare every agency statistic across administrations. However, the increase on the CORE Investigation Table does not presently appear to be the product of a new Trump-era definition of an investigation.

While that does not establish causation, it does mean the warning light cannot simply be dismissed as a bookkeeping change.

Leave a comment

Efficiency Is a Government Duty Too

None of this means government should preserve every job simply because the job already exists. Waste is real. Duplication is real. Outdated systems are real. Taxpayers are entitled to expect agencies to modernize, eliminate unnecessary layers, end contracts that do not deliver, and stop funding programs that cannot justify their public purpose.

That is stewardship too. The Square New Deal cannot demand responsibility from corporations and citizens while treating government as exempt from the same standard. Public money belongs to the public, and spending it carelessly is a failure of duty. However, efficiency has to mean more than subtraction.

A government function becomes more efficient when it delivers the necessary service with fewer resources, lower cost, or better results. Simply reducing the number of employees does not establish efficiency if the work still has to be performed, essential functions stop, or government later has to rebuild the capacity it removed.

Headcount is easy to measure. Protection is harder. The measure of efficiency is not how many chairs government empties. It is whether the necessary service still gets delivered.

That is where the DOGE approach deserves its hardest question. Before deciding how much capacity to remove, did anyone first determine how much capacity the food-safety system needed to perform its mission?

The public record we have examined makes that question difficult to dismiss. The FDA entered 2025 with documented staffing and inspection deficiencies. Cuts followed. Necessary functions were disrupted further. Some capacity then had to be restored.

A smaller government can be a more efficient government, but smaller is not itself a measure of success. The measure is whether the job still gets done.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

The Square New Deal Test: Sufficient Government

That is where the Square New Deal draws its line. The answer is not unlimited government. It is sufficient government.

Food safety distributes responsibility across the entire chain. Growers, processors, importers, distributors, and retailers have a duty to keep food safe. Citizens have duties of their own: safe storage, proper cooking, reasonable hygiene, and attention to recalls.

Government carries the responsibilities that require collective authority and national capacity. Its duty is not to replace personal responsibility or corporate responsibility. It is to perform the portion of the job neither can perform for the country as a whole.

That is the stewardship standard. The Square New Deal does not demand maximum government. It demands sufficient government. Government should be no larger than necessary to perform its legitimate responsibilities, but it must be large enough to perform them.

That turns the argument over food safety away from the sterile question of whether government should always be bigger or always be smaller. The better question is whether Americans are receiving the protection they are paying government to provide.

If the answer is yes, then efficiency deserves credit. If necessary work disappears with the people doing it, government has not yet proved efficiency. It has proved only reduction.

Share

The People Doing Their Jobs Are Supposed to Be Invisible

Most Americans will never know the name of the microbiologist who confirmed a contaminated sample, the epidemiologist who connected illnesses across state lines, or the inspector who walked through the facility before a problem reached more families. They should not have to.

When a safety system works, much of its value is invisible. The warning arrives. The product disappears from the shelf. The outbreak is traced. The family never knows how many people stood between a contaminated field and their dinner table.

That invisibility cannot become evidence that the work is unnecessary. The grower, processor, grocer and citizen each have a duty. So does the government.

Efficiency matters, but so does capacity. Before Washington removes the people and systems protecting the public, it owes the country something more serious than a headcount target.

Leave a comment

Support Independent Media

The Coffman Chronicle exists to follow power, expose the structure, and tell the truth about who gets protected, and who is expected to live with the consequences.

If this kind of independent journalism matters to you, share this piece. And if you can afford to, become a paid subscriber.

Your support helps keep the Chronicle independent, accountable to readers, and focused on the kitchen-table consequences of decisions that too often get buried beneath the daily political noise.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• Douglas, Leah. “FDA Suspends Program to Improve Bird Flu Testing Due to Staff Cuts.” Reuters. April 3, 2025.

• Douglas, Leah. “U.S. FDA Suspends Food Safety Quality Checks After Staff Cuts.” Reuters. April 17, 2025.

• Perrone, Matthew. “FDA Hiring Contractors to Replace Fired Staff Who Supported Safety Inspections.” Associated Press. April 18, 2025.

• Perrone, Matthew. “FDA to Rehire Fired Staffers Who Booked Inspection Trips, but Other Workers Remain in Limbo.” Associated Press. May 1, 2025.

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fact Sheet: HHS’ Transformation to Make America Healthy Again.” Fact sheet. April 2, 2025.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “CORE Outbreak Investigation Table Issued.” Constituent Update. November 18, 2020.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Releases the CORE 2022 Annual Report.” Constituent Update. January 8, 2024.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CORE 2024 Annual Report: Investigations of Foodborne Outbreaks and Adverse Events in FDA-Regulated Foods. March 17, 2026.

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Investigations of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks.” CORE Investigation Table. Accessed August 17, 2026.

• U.S. Government Accountability Office. Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Inspection Efforts to Protect the U.S. Food Supply. GAO-25-107571. January 8, 2025.

• White House, The. Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative. Executive Order 14210. February 11, 2025.

There was Earl Thompson, a retired machinist who distrusted every magazine in the room because they all seemed to feature vegetables on the cover. “Big Broccoli has taken over the media,” he announced one morning, holding up a copy of Healthy Living as evidence.

Denise Alvarez brought homemade cookies every week, despite rarely having an appointment. “I am here for community health,” she explained.

They waited for appointments. They waited for test results. They waited for insurance approvals, prescription refills, specialist referrals and letters confirming that the treatment their doctor had ordered was medically necessary.

Most of them believed that when a physician said something was medically necessary, the medical part of the discussion had already been settled.

The insurance companies regarded that as an opening argument.

“You are here because your husband told you to stop feeding the mail carrier,” the receptionist replied to Denise. “Community health takes many forms.”

Then there was Marvin Bell, who had become so familiar with the self-check-in kiosk that he greeted it by name. “Morning, Cheryl,” he said, tapping the screen.

“It is a touchscreen,” the receptionist reminded him. Marvin leaned closer to the machine. “She knows what she did.”

Everyone laughed, including the receptionist, who had learned that a little nonsense could make a waiting room full of worry feel briefly human.

The clinic served nearly every kind of person Mercy County could produce. Retired factory workers sat beside young parents. Farm families shared armrests with home health aides coming off overnight shifts. There were teachers, cashiers, mechanics, county employees, and people whose jobs changed so often that no insurance company seemed able to keep track of them. They disagreed about politics, religion, football, and whether Denise’s oatmeal cookies technically counted as cookies, but they all understood waiting.

One rainy Tuesday, a resident physician named Dr. Anika Patel stepped into the waiting room and noticed something that had been bothering the clinic staff for years. Half the patients were not there because their health had changed, but because the paperwork had.

A man named Raymond had taken the same diabetes medication for twelve years. His insurer now required another office visit before authorizing another refill.

Dr. Patel opened his chart. “So,” she said, “has your diabetes resolved unexpectedly?” Raymond considered the question. “I was hoping you would tell me.”

Across the hall, a woman with severe arthritis needed a new referral to the same specialist she had seen every three months for six years. A father had taken an unpaid morning off from work so a physician could sign a form confirming that his son still had asthma. An elderly woman had arrived by county bus because her insurer would not cover a home blood-pressure monitor without another evaluation.

The clinic billed for the visits. The insurance companies processed the claims. The patients lost hours, wages, and patience. Every institution could say it had followed the rules. No one could explain whom the rules were helping.

At lunch, Dr. Patel carried a folder into the break room and dropped it on the table. “This is not healthcare,” she said. “This is ceremonial paperwork performed in the presence of a stethoscope.”

Nurse Greene looked at the stack. “Be careful. Ceremonial paperwork is one of the county’s largest industries.”

The clinic administrator, Mr. Feldman, did not laugh. He had spent the morning calculating whether the clinic could afford to keep its addiction counselor for another year. “We get reimbursed more reliably for a five-minute medication visit than for an hour of recovery counseling,” he said.

“That makes no sense,” Dr. Patel replied.

“It makes financial sense.”

“That is not the same thing.”

“No,” Feldman said. “It rarely is.”

Subscribe now

The Pieces That Never Met

Across the waiting room sat Lisa Morgan. Five years earlier, she had undergone back surgery after being injured while stocking shelves at a warehouse. Her surgeon wanted her pain controlled. The pharmacy filled the prescription. Her insurance plan covered pills more readily than physical therapy. The physical therapy office required a forty-dollar copayment per visit, three times a week that Lisa could not afford. The prescription cost eight dollars.

No one intended for her life to unravel. The surgeon made what seemed like a reasonable decision. The pharmacy followed the prescription. The insurer applied its coverage rules. Lisa took the medication because she was in pain and needed to return to work.

Follow-up visits grew shorter. Renewals became easier than difficult conversations. Physical therapy remained expensive. Time off remained impossible. By the time anyone realized Lisa was no longer simply managing pain but had become dependent on the medication, every part of the system had done what it had been designed to do.

Unfortunately, those pieces had never been designed together. Lisa lost her warehouse job. She nearly lost her apartment. Her sister stopped allowing her to watch her nephew alone. For several months, Lisa’s life became a rotating schedule of emergency rooms, temporary treatment programs, and promises that she desperately meant when she made them.

Eventually, a counselor at Mercy County Family Clinic stayed after closing to help her complete an application for a recovery program. A nurse called three facilities before finding an available bed. Denise drove her there because the county transportation service required two days’ notice.

Three years later, Lisa worked part-time at the library and spoke at recovery meetings. Whenever someone described addiction as merely a failure of willpower, she smiled politely. “You ever try leaving IKEA with only the thing you came for?” she asked. No one ever had a good answer.

Lisa did not deny her own choices. Recovery had required her to confront them with painful honesty, but she also knew that personal responsibility could not become an excuse for institutional innocence. A person could be responsible for taking the next step without pretending that every previous step had been hers alone. That is the difference between accountability and abandonment.

Leave a comment

The Meeting

That summer, the Mercy County Council announced a public meeting on healthcare spending, addiction treatment, and the growing cost of emergency services. The meeting was supposed to take place at city hall, but then the building’s air-conditioning system failed for the third time. The county moved the meeting to the clinic cafeteria.

By six o’clock, folding chairs filled the room. Nurses stood along the walls. Patients occupied the tables. Two insurance representatives sat near the rear exit with expressions suggesting they had already identified the quickest route to their cars.

Councilman Harold Briggs opened the meeting. “Government should stay out of healthcare,” he declared.

Nurse Greene raised her hand. “Who pays for Medicare?”

Briggs paused. “Well, naturally, there are exceptions.”

“Medicaid?”

“Another exception.”

“The county ambulance service?”

“That is emergency infrastructure.”

“The tax deduction for employer health plans?”

Briggs shifted in his seat. “This meeting is not about terminology.”

From the back of the room, Earl whispered loudly, “It was until the terminology started losing.”

The council chairman called for order. Another council member, Susan Webb, announced that the solution was to eliminate unnecessary paperwork. The clinic receptionist laughed so hard she nearly inhaled a mint. “You have clearly never met insurance,” she said. Even the council members chuckled.

Then Mr. Feldman presented the numbers. Mercy County was spending millions of dollars responding to medical crises that often began as manageable problems. Emergency-room visits were rising, and ambulance calls involving overdoses had increased. People discharged from treatment programs often waited weeks for follow-up counseling. The county paid for police responses, emergency transportation, temporary housing, court proceedings, and crisis care. It struggled to fund prevention.

“We are paying at the most expensive point in the process,” Feldman explained. “We save money on the front end and receive the bill after the roof collapses.”

Councilman Briggs objected. “The county cannot become responsible for every decision every person makes.”

“No,” Feldman answered. “But the county is already paying for the consequences. The question is whether we want to pay earlier, when help is cheaper and more effective, or later, when the damage is greater.”

The room quieted. It was not a question about whether the county would pay, but about what the people would receive in return.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

What Stewardship Requires

When public comment began, several speakers demanded lower taxes. Others demanded more treatment beds. A pharmacist described spending hours arguing with insurers over medications that physicians had already prescribed.

Then Lisa approached the microphone. She did not ask for pity. She did not blame a single doctor, politician or company. “My addiction was not caused by one bad decision,” she said. “It was built from hundreds of reasonable decisions made by people who only saw one piece of the puzzle.”

The room became still. “My doctors cared. The pharmacists cared. The therapists cared. Even the people writing the regulations probably believed they were protecting someone.”

She looked toward the council. “But caring is not stewardship.”

Councilwoman Webb leaned forward. “What do you mean?”

“Stewardship means being responsible for what your decisions create, not only what you intended.” Lisa placed both hands on the lectern.

“When insurance made physical therapy harder to obtain than pain pills, that decision created something. When the clinic was paid more reliably for a quick prescription visit than for a long conversation about dependence, that created something. When the county funded emergency responses but left recovery programs searching for donations, that created something too.”

One of the insurance representatives began writing notes.

“You do not merely vote on budgets,” Lisa continued. “You vote on incentives. You decide what becomes easy and what becomes difficult. You decide whether the system waits for a person to collapse before it considers that person worth helping.”

She paused. “I had to take responsibility for my recovery. But responsibility cannot travel in only one direction. Patients have duties. Doctors have duties. Companies have duties. Government has duties. When only the person at the bottom carries responsibility, that is not accountability. It is a system protecting itself.”

No one applauded immediately. The words were too serious for that. Then Marvin began clapping. One by one, the others joined him. Even Cheryl’s screen flashed, although Marvin later claimed that was a sign of support.

Share

The Mercy Compact

The council could not rewrite federal healthcare law. It could not command insurance companies across the country, or repair every weakness in the American medical system, but it could govern the authority and money entrusted to it. That was the first principle of the plan the county eventually adopted: public officials were not excused from acting merely because their power was incomplete. They called it the Mercy Compact.

The county guaranteed that any resident seeking addiction treatment would receive an assessment within twenty-four hours and a recovery appointment within three days. It funded transportation so that a treatment bed fifty miles away was not functionally unavailable to someone without a car.

County contracts began rewarding clinics for keeping patients stable rather than merely processing more visits. Insurers participating in county employee plans had to report how often they denied or delayed treatments ordered by physicians.

The clinic hired two patient navigators whose job was not to provide medical care but to guide people through the maze surrounding it. One was Denise. Her official title was Community Care Coordinator. She preferred Secretary of Cookies.

The compact also created a stewardship review board made up of patients, medical professionals, local employers, and county officials. Its purpose was not to run the clinic or replace doctors. It examined whether the county’s rules were producing the results the county claimed to want.

The board’s first report discovered that dozens of patients were missing follow-up appointments because the county bus schedule ended before evening clinic hours. The transportation department adjusted the route. It was not revolutionary legislation. No speeches were delivered on the courthouse steps. A bus simply ran forty-five minutes later. For several families, that was the difference between having healthcare and possessing a theoretical right to schedule it.

The compact required private contractors receiving county money to carry part of the cost when their practices created predictable burdens for the public. Companies could still earn profits. Doctors still made medical decisions. Patients still carried responsibility for following their treatment plans, but no institution could collect the benefit of a decision while automatically transferring its foreseeable costs to everyone else.

Private institutions could deliver healthcare. The people of Mercy County would own the rules governing what public money was expected to accomplish.

Leave a comment

The Republic in the Room

The changes did not cure every illness. Insurance forms continued to reproduce in dark office drawers. The clinic still fought over authorizations. The county budget remained tight. Some patients relapsed. Others missed appointments. One insurance company responded to the new reporting requirement by creating a denial category called “administratively pending,” which everyone recognized as a denial wearing a necktie.

However, the direction of responsibility had changed. Before the compact, patients were expected to navigate every disconnected institution alone. Afterward, the institutions were required to see themselves as parts of the same public system.

That did not eliminate personal responsibility. It made personal responsibility possible.

Lisa began working full-time at the library and continued attending counseling. Raymond received a year-long authorization for his diabetes medication, sparing him eleven unnecessary appointments. The arthritis patient received a standing referral to her specialist. Dr. Patel completed her residency and chose to remain in Mercy County.

Councilman Briggs continued saying government should stay out of healthcare, although he began adding so many exceptions that his position eventually required a binder.

Every Tuesday morning, the waiting room still filled. Earl continued his campaign against vegetable propaganda. Denise distributed cookies under what she described as a “nutritional freedom framework.”

Marvin continued speaking to the kiosk. “Morning, Cheryl.”

The receptionist looked up from her desk. “You understand that machine cannot hear you.”

Marvin nodded solemnly. “Neither could the county council at first.”

Dr. Patel laughed. “So what changed?”

Marvin pressed the check-in button. “We kept talking until somebody became responsible for listening.”

The waiting room settled into its familiar rhythm. A child played beneath a chair. A nurse called the next name. Rain tapped against the windows.

Nothing about the room looked powerful. There were no marble columns, campaign banners, or television cameras. There were only people waiting for care and workers trying to provide it inside rules written by institutions most of them would never see, but a republic was never only the building where laws were passed. It also existed wherever the consequences arrived. It existed in the price of a prescription, the length of a bus route, the availability of a counselor, and the difference between a treatment authorized today and a crisis paid for tomorrow.

The people in the waiting room had not demanded that the government control every life. They had demanded that power accept responsibility for what it built.

They had not abolished markets. They had insisted that private profit could not depend on transferring every difficult cost to families, clinics and taxpayers.

They had not denied individual responsibility. They had placed it inside a larger chain of shared duties.

The government had to write rules worthy of the public trust. Companies had to carry the foreseeable costs of their decisions. Citizens had to care for one another and defend the dignity of people whose struggles were easy to judge from a distance.

That was stewardship, not charity from above, not control from the center, not another promise that the right person could repair everything alone. It was a public agreement that freedom required responsibility, that responsibility had to travel upward as well as downward, and that the institutions shaping human life must answer to the people living with the results.

Marvin finished checking in and patted the side of the kiosk. “Good meeting, Cheryl.”

The screen displayed a message. YOUR INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

Marvin pointed triumphantly. “See? That is all the people were asking for.”

Share The Coffman Chronicle

Moral

The Square New Deal begins with a simple principle: every form of power carries a duty of stewardship.

Patients must participate honestly in their care. Medical professionals must protect the people who trust them. Companies must not profit by pushing predictable costs onto families and taxpayers. Government must do more than spend money after a system fails. It must write durable rules that make health, recovery, and human dignity easier to reach before crisis becomes the most expensive option.

Healthcare may be delivered through public institutions, private companies, nonprofit clinics, and local professionals, but the guarantee cannot belong to any of them alone.

The American people already carry the cost. They must also own the promise.

Subscribe now

So we’re done. No analysis. No panel of experts. No twelve-point plan for restoring sanity. This is the Sunday Funnies, where we admit the timeline has defeated us and let the cartoonists explain what the hell just happened.

Subscribe now

Raiders of the Lost Files

For a hoax, it sure has a lot of boxes. Subtlety apparently left in the first truck.

Gone With the Wind

Nothing owns the libs like an electricity bill with a comma in it.

Share

Apocalypse Chow

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as airport catering.

The Hurt Locker Room

Somewhere, due process has quietly backed away from the urinal.

Leave a comment

The GOP Strikes Bait

At this point, the red scare qualifies for Social Security.

And there you have it: another completely normal week in the world’s oldest continuously operating experiment in asking, “Wait, they did WHAT?”

We could offer a thoughtful conclusion about institutions, accountability and the fragile state of American democracy, but frankly, there aren’t enough drugs in the world.

Take this Sunday off. We’ll all need our strength for Monday.

Subscribe now

If somebody asked me to sum up everything I have learned about success in one sentence, this would be it:

It is impossible to fail.

I know how that sounds. People fail at things every day. They lose opportunities, make mistakes, and chase dreams that turn out nothing like they imagined.

I have failed at things, too. Plenty of them.

But those failures are events inside a life. They are not the verdict on a life.

That is what this week’s Along the Way is about.

Your life is the notebook. Your purpose is the pencil. The eraser reminds us that a mistake does not have to become a commandment.

You can make a correction. You can learn from the pages you cannot change. And while there is still an empty line in front of you, you can write the next sentence yourself.

Before this video is over, I also want you to hear what the next page of my own story sounds like.

WATCH: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FAIL

The music you hear in this video belongs to Five Minutes in America, my new storytelling program coming to radio five days a week, five minutes at a time.

These won’t be stories that tell you which political team to join or ask you to spend five more minutes angry at somebody you have never met.

They will take you to kitchen tables, fence lines, bait shops, front porches, and courthouse squares—places where ordinary people reveal who they are.

If that sounds like something you want to hear in America, I am asking you to help me put it there.

Become a paid member of The Coffman Chronicle.

Paid members will hear Five Minutes in America before the stories reach radio. Membership is $8 monthly or $80 annually, and it helps carry these stories from my notebook to the airwaves.

You won’t simply hear the first chapter.

You will be one of the people who helped me write it.

BECOME A PAID MEMBER

Whatever page you are on right now, ask yourself:

Who is holding the pencil?

If this video speaks to you, share it with someone who may be ready to take back the authorship of their own life.

One day, every story ends.

What matters is that the handwriting was yours.

I’m Tony Michaels.

I’ll see you along the way.

Subscribe now

If somebody asked me to sum up everything I have learned about success in one sentence, this would be it:

It is impossible to fail.

We fail at things. We lose opportunities. We make mistakes. We write sentences we wish we could erase.

But those failures are events inside a life. They are not the verdict on a life.

Your life is the notebook. Your purpose is the pencil. The eraser reminds us that a mistake does not have to become a commandment.

You can make a correction. You can learn from the pages you cannot change. And while there is still an empty line in front of you, you can write the next sentence yourself.

In this episode of Along the Way, I also share the first taste of the music for Five Minutes in America—my new storytelling program coming to radio five days a week, five minutes at a time.

These stories won’t tell you which political team to join or ask you to spend five more minutes angry at somebody you have never met. They will take you to kitchen tables, fence lines, bait shops, front porches, and courthouse squares—places where ordinary people reveal who they are.

Paid members of The Coffman Chronicle will hear Five Minutes in America before the stories reach radio. Membership is $8 monthly or $80 annually, and it helps carry these stories from my notebook to the airwaves.

Subscribe now

So let me ask you:

Who’s writing your story?

Tell me in the comments and share this with someone who may be ready to take their pencil back.

I’m Tony Michaels. I’ll see you along the way.

Leave a comment

An Emergency Is Not a Legislature

There is a moment in every argument over presidential power when the policy itself begins to obscure the more important question. The country starts debating whether the president’s proposal is wise, popular, or necessary. Supporters defend the goal. Opponents attack the consequences. Television panels divide into familiar camps. Before long, everyone is arguing over what should happen, and almost nobody is asking the question that comes first in a constitutional republic: Who has the power to make it happen?

That question is becoming especially important as President Donald Trump and his allies continue pressing for changes to the rules governing American elections. The latest suggestion did not originate with Trump, and he did not announce any intention to cancel an election. During an interview, host Wayne Allyn Root proposed something narrower but constitutionally significant: declaring a national security emergency and using it to impose election rules that Congress had not enacted.

Trump did not commit to doing it, nor did he rule it out. Instead, his answer was: “Stranger things have happened.” Some of the election changes under discussion may be popular. Some may be controversial. Congress may eventually enact some of them. States may adopt others. However, there is a line the argument cannot cross simply because the president believes the policy is urgent.

A president does not acquire Congress’s power because Congress failed to give him what he wanted, and calling the disagreement an emergency does not make Congress disappear.

The Policy Question Is Not the Constitutional Question

There are legitimate arguments over voter identification, proof-of-citizenship requirements, and mail voting. Some Americans see stronger identification requirements as basic safeguards while others believe additional documentation can burden lawful voters without solving problems large enough to justify the cost. Mail voting produces the same divide: supporters emphasize access and convenience while critics see vulnerabilities they believe deserve tighter limits.

Those arguments belong in American politics. They belong in state legislatures, congressional hearings, and campaigns where candidates must defend their positions to voters. What they cannot do is answer the constitutional question for us.

A policy does not become presidential merely because the president strongly supports it. Resistance from Congress does not transform executive preference into executive authority.

If someone believes a particular election rule is essential to protecting the vote, procedural objections can begin to sound like excuses for inaction, but constitutional government is built precisely for moments when those in power believe the need is obvious.

The Constitution does not guarantee that every good idea becomes law. Instead, it creates a process for deciding which ideas receive the force of law and which do not. A president may demand legislation, pressure lawmakers, and tell the country Congress is failing. He may even be right, but frustration is not a transfer of power.

Subscribe now

The Constitution Already Assigned the Job

The Constitution did not leave federal elections floating in a pool of unclaimed government power. For elections to the House and Senate, Article I gives state legislatures the initial responsibility for prescribing the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding those elections. It then gives Congress authority to make or alter those regulations by law.

That authority is substantial. Congress has used it to establish national rules involving registration and election administration, and the Supreme Court has recognized that congressional election law can override conflicting state regulations within Congress’s constitutional sphere.

The Elections Clause does not answer every voting question. Voter qualifications are governed elsewhere in the Constitution, and presidential elections are subject to additional constitutional and statutory rules. However, that complexity reinforces the broader point: election authority has already been distributed among institutions.

The Constitution does not grant the president general authority to rewrite election rules whenever the president concludes that the existing ones are inadequate. Congress is therefore not simply another interested party in this argument. Where federal election rules fall within its constitutional authority, Congress is the institution empowered to debate them, enact them, amend them, or refuse them. A president may believe Congress is moving too slowly or that the states are getting it wrong. Neither belief redraws the constitutional map.

The Constitution already distributed the power. An emergency declaration does not change that.

Leave a comment

An Emergency Declaration Is Not a Blank Check

A president can declare a national emergency, but that does not mean the declaration itself confers all the powers the president might want afterward. Under the National Emergencies Act, when a president declares an emergency and intends to exercise statutory emergency powers, federal law requires the president to identify the provisions of law under which those powers will be exercised.

That is the crucial element. The declaration identifies the emergency. Congress supplies the statutory authority. Therefore, if an administration attempted to use an emergency declaration to impose substantive election rules, the first question should not be whether the president can describe the situation as an emergency, but rather what law gives him the power to do this.

If Congress enacted a statute authorizing the action, then the dispute turns to what that statute permits and whether the president remained within its boundaries. If Congress did not grant the authority, declaring an emergency cannot manufacture the missing delegation.

There is also an important difference between an emergency that interferes with the implementation of existing election law and an emergency declaration used to create election law that Congress never passed. A hurricane may destroy polling places. A cyberattack may cripple registration systems. Violence may make normal administration impossible. Those circumstances may require extraordinary administrative tools, and Congress can write for them.

However, preserving an election under existing law is different from using an emergency to impose a policy the legislative process did not enact. Emergency authority is delegated power, not self-created power.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

Congressional Inaction Is Not Presidential Power

This is where the danger becomes easiest to see. Suppose a president asks Congress to enact a national election rule. Congress can pass it, reject it, amend it, or refuse to vote. Every outcome may be frustrating. Some may even be irresponsible. None transfers Congress’s legislative power to the president.

Otherwise, consider the rule we would be creating. If Congress passes the president’s proposal, the president gets the policy he wants. If Congress refuses, the president declares an emergency and gets substantially the same policy anyway.

Congress would retain meaningful authority only when it said yes. Its no would become temporary, its silence would become permission, and its resistance would become the justification for bypassing it.

That is not divided government. That is executive power waiting for the legislature to become inconvenient.

Presidents are allowed to lose legislative fights. The constitutional system assumes they sometimes will. A president can return with a narrower bill, bargain, appeal to the public, or campaign against lawmakers who blocked him. He may believe Congress failed the country. He may be correct. However, failure by one branch does not enlarge the jurisdiction of another.

That principle reaches far beyond election law. If presidential authority expands whenever Congress refuses to act, then immigration, guns, energy, healthcare, taxes, and almost anything else can be recast as an emergency whenever the legislative process produces the wrong answer.

Congressional inaction is not presidential power. The president’s inability to obtain a law cannot become the emergency that allows him to govern as though Congress had passed it. That is not Constitutional representative democracy.

Share

The Courts Are Already Testing the Boundary

This is not entirely theoretical. Trump has already issued an executive order directing federal agencies to make significant changes to election administration, including measures related to mail ballots and citizenship verification. Those actions have produced litigation in federal courts.

In one challenge brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia, a federal district court blocked portions of the order, and the First Circuit refused in July to stay the injunction pending the appeal. The appellate court was considering standing and ripeness arguments at that stage, not resolving every constitutional question raised by the order.

In another challenge, the D.C. Circuit observed that the Constitution gives the president no express authority over the conduct of elections while considering a case involving substantial proposed changes to election procedures. The court nevertheless declined preliminary relief on procedural and timing grounds.

This highlights why the courts alone cannot be the sole source of relief. Courts should enforce constitutional boundaries when proper cases reach them, but lawsuits are a poor substitute for Congress clearly defining those boundaries in the first place.

A republic cannot make federal judges the permanent maintenance crew for every ambiguity lawmakers leave behind. Congress has the power to write the fence.

Subscribe now

Congress Cannot Complain About a Loophole It Refuses to Close

Congress has granted presidents emergency powers for generations because genuine emergencies sometimes demand speed. Some delegation is necessary, but delegated power creates obligations on both sides. Presidents must remain within the authority Congress actually granted, and Congress must maintain the statutes through which that authority flows.

Too often, the second obligation disappears. Lawmakers condemn executive overreach, hold hearings, issue statements, and wait for judges to decide whether a president crossed a line. Then the controversy fades while the underlying ambiguity remains available to the next administration.

That is not stewardship. If Congress believes emergency law might plausibly be stretched far enough to let a president alter substantive election rules without new legislation, then Congress has discovered a weakness it has the power to repair.

The answer is not to abolish emergency authority. It is to define it. The people’s branch cannot defend its power only in press releases. It has to write the law.

Leave a comment

Congress Must Write the Emergency Election Rule

Congress should make one principle unmistakable. A declaration of national emergency, standing alone, does not authorize a president to impose new substantive rules governing federal elections.

If presidents are to possess extraordinary election powers during genuine emergencies, Congress should specify those powers, the circumstances that activate them, and the limits governing their use.

That preserves room for real crises. A hurricane can destroy polling places. An attack can cripple election infrastructure. A disaster can require temporary federal coordination. Emergency authority may help preserve an election when extraordinary circumstances interfere with the enforcement of the law. It should not become a mechanism for replacing the law.

Congress does not even have to settle the current arguments over voter identification, proof of citizenship, or mail voting to draw that boundary. Those fights can continue through the democratic process.

The emergency rule is simpler. If a president wants extraordinary power over federal elections, Congress must grant it clearly enough that lawmakers and voters know what has been authorized. If Congress has not granted it, the president cannot supply the missing authority himself. That is government stewardship: not hoping presidents exercise restraint, but writing restraint into the law.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

The Rule Must Bind the President You Support

There is a simple test for whether we actually believe this principle. Imagine a future Democratic president declaring voter suppression a national emergency and then ordering every state to mail ballots automatically, extend ballot deadlines, expand drop boxes, and suspend state identification requirements. Some Americans would applaud; others would call it an executive takeover of election law. The constitutional question would nevertheless remain exactly the same: Where did the president get the authority?

If a national emergency allows one president to bypass Congress because election rules are supposedly too dangerous to leave unchanged, that precedent does not disappear when the White House changes hands. Presidential power survives presidents.

Conservatives who would reject a Democratic president rewriting election rules by emergency declaration should hesitate before establishing the principle for Trump. Progressives who oppose Trump doing it should oppose a future Democratic president doing the same thing for policies they prefer.mThat is the stewardship test.

We do not repair constitutional government by finding a president whose judgment we trust enough to exercise undefined power. We repair it by writing a rule strong enough to bind the president we trust and the president we fear. A power too dangerous for the other side is too dangerous to leave undefined for our own.

Share

An Emergency Is Not a Legislature

Donald Trump has not declared a national emergency over election law, and Wayne Allyn Root’s proposal is not government policy. That is exactly why Congress should pay attention now.

The people’s branch should write the rule while this remains a warning instead of a precedent. An emergency can change the facts, demand speed, and require extraordinary administration, but it cannot change who holds legislative power in trust.

Leave a comment

Support Independent Media

The Coffman Chronicle exists to follow power, expose the structure, and tell the truth about who gets to make the rules, and who is expected to live under them.

If this kind of independent journalism matters to you, share this piece. If you can afford to, become a paid subscriber. Your support helps keep the Coffman Chronicle independent, accountable to readers, and focused on the constitutional fights that too often get buried beneath the daily political noise.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• Congressional Research Service. “States and Elections Clause.” Constitution Annotated, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. Accessed August 12, 2026.

• Congressional Research Service. “Congress and Elections Clause.” Constitution Annotated, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. Accessed August 12, 2026.

• Executive Office of the President. Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections. Executive Order 14399, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125. Signed March 31, 2026; published April 3, 2026.

• Media Matters Staff. “Trump Says ‘Stranger Things Have Happened’ After Wayne Allyn Root Pitches His National Security Emergency Idea on Elections Directly to Him.” Media Matters for America. August 11, 2026.

• Tomazin, Farrah. “Bad Loser Trump Confesses Sinister Election Power Grab.” The Daily Beast. August 11, 2026.

• United States Congress. National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1631: Declaration of National Emergency by Executive Order; Authority; Publication in Federal Register; Transmittal to Congress. Pub. L. 94-412, title III, §301, 90 Stat. 1257. September 14, 1976.

• United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. DSCC et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.. Judgment, No. 26-5193. July 28, 2026.

• United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. State of California et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.. Order of Court, Nos. 26-1774 and 26-1779. July 25, 2026.

The Ship Is Still There

The USS Abraham Lincoln is still at sea. Its flight deck still wakes beneath the roar of jet engines. Sailors move through narrow passageways, stand watches through the night, and keep a floating city working thousands of miles from home.

For the people aboard, the days have accumulated into months, along with missed birthdays, postponed plans, and questions about when the deployment will finally end.

The Navy has missions to carry out, the sailors have orders to follow, and the Lincoln remains where the United States government has told it to remain.

That part is clear. What is less clear is something much larger than the location of one aircraft carrier. America has asked these sailors to keep carrying a mission that has changed around them, expanded around them, and lasted far longer than many of their families expected when the ship first left home.

The sailors know where they are supposed to be tomorrow morning. The harder question is whether Washington knows where this mission is supposed to end.

The Mission Changed While the Ship Stayed

The Abraham Lincoln did not arrive in the Middle East carrying the mission it has today. In early February, the Navy described its carrier strike group as supporting maritime security and stability in the region. Then came February 28th. Operation Epic Fury began, and Super Hornets launched from the Lincoln in support of combat operations against Iran.

By April 6th, U.S. Central Command reported more than 13,000 Iranian targets struck and more than 155 Iranian vessels damaged or destroyed. Ten days later, CENTCOM was publicly describing American forces as enforcing a blockade against vessels attempting to enter or leave Iranian ports. Through it all, the Lincoln remained in the region.

A deployment that began under the language of maritime security had become part of a major war and a continuing blockade. That does not mean every decision was unjustified. Presidents must be able to respond when American forces or the country face immediate danger. No serious defense system can require congressional debate before a commander responds to an incoming attack.

However, responding to danger and sustaining a war are different things. Emergency authority explains the first night. It cannot explain every night that follows.

Subscribe now

War Power Is Held in Trust

The military power of the United States does not belong to the president, Congress, or the Pentagon. It belongs to the American people.

The Constitution divides responsibility for its use because no single office should possess the entire machinery of war. The president commands. Congress decides whether sustained force becomes national policy. The military carries out lawful orders.

That is stewardship. Public power is held in trust. The greater the power, the greater the obligation to define its purpose, limits, and accountability.

There is no greater public power than sending Americans into combat. Power held in trust requires purpose, boundaries, and accountability.

Leave a comment

The Commander in Chief Is Not the Congress in Chief

Article II makes the president commander in chief. Article I gives Congress the powers to declare war, support armies, maintain a navy, and govern the armed forces. Those powers were divided for a reason.

A president must be able to defend American forces immediately, but sustained war requires political consent. The authority to command cannot quietly become the authority to decide, alone, how long a war lasts, how far it expands, or what counts as success.

Command requires speed. War requires consent.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

Congress Knows How to Write the Mission

Congress cannot claim the questions are too complicated. Members have already written competing answers.

In May, a House resolution proposed authorizing force against Iran for defined purposes, including degrading its nuclear program, responding to imminent threats, enforcing a blockade, and protecting passage through the Strait of Hormuz. It also required reporting to Congress.

Other lawmakers moved in the opposite direction. The House passed a War Powers resolution in July directing removal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities while preserving the president’s ability to defend the United States, its forces, and allies from imminent attack. Senators introduced a similar measure on August 6th.

The proposals disagree profoundly about what America should do, but they establish something important: Congress knows the questions. What objectives are authorized? Is the blockade part of the mission? How far may the war extend? How long should the authority last? What requires another vote?

Difficulty is not an excuse for leaving them unanswered. Congress does not have to agree about the war, but it does have to decide whether America is in one.

Share

Congress Has Found a Way to Participate Without Owning the Decision

Congress buys the aircraft, pays the sailors, and appropriates the money that keeps operations moving. Members receive briefings, hold hearings, praise strikes, and criticize decisions they oppose. That is participation, but it falls short of ownership.

Congress has discovered a remarkably comfortable arrangement: it can finance a war without declaring it, criticize a war without ending it, and support the troops without accepting responsibility for the mission it asks them to carry. If the operation succeeds, lawmakers can applaud the military. If it fails, they can blame the president. If it drags on, they can demand answers without supplying one of their own.

Article I was not written to give Congress a front-row seat to presidential war-making. It was written to make the people’s representatives responsible for the national commitment behind it.

Congress has found enough authority to build the carrier, arm its aircraft, and pay every sailor aboard. What it has not produced is a durable law stating what all of that power is supposed to accomplish.

That is not stewardship. It is participation without ownership.

Subscribe now

The Constitution Does Not Require Congress to Agree. It Requires Congress to Decide.

Some members believe the campaign against Iran should continue. Then vote for it. Others believe American involvement should end. Vote for that. Others may favor a narrower mission: defending American forces, protecting shipping, limited strikes against defined threats, or a time-limited blockade.

Write the authority. Debate it. Amend it. Put names beside it. Then vote.

The Square New Deal does not require Congress to reach one predetermined answer. It requires Congress to accept responsibility for the answer it reaches.

That rule cannot depend on who sits in the Oval Office. A rule worth imposing on a president you distrust must also bind a president you trust. Repairing the republic means building a system that does not require that trust.

Leave a comment

Five Thousand People Are Paying for the Ambiguity

In Washington, an undefined mission can sound like a dispute over statutes, resolutions, and executive authority. Aboard the Abraham Lincoln, it looks like another night watch, another missed birthday, another anniversary marked from thousands of miles away, and another family trying to plan around a return date nobody can give them.

Roughly 5,000 sailors and Marines are aboard the carrier. Their families have publicly raised concerns about the deployment’s length, supply problems, sanitation, and the strain of prolonged time at sea.

None of that proves the mission is wrong. Military service carries hardship, but hardship imposed in the name of the country creates an obligation for the civilian government imposing it.

If America needs these sailors to remain there, Congress should be willing to state why in law. The sailors are not asking Congress to stand their watches. They are entitled to expect Congress to stand its own.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

A Nuclear Carrier Can Endure Longer Than a Republic Should Drift

The Abraham Lincoln is built for endurance. Its nuclear propulsion lets it remain at sea for extraordinary stretches. Its aircraft can keep flying. Its escorts can keep sailing. However, endurance is not strategy.

The fact that America can continue a military operation does not answer whether it should. Modern war makes that easier to ignore. A carrier can remain far from public view while most Americans live normally and a comparatively small number of families carry the burden.

That makes congressional responsibility more important, not less. Capability cannot become policy by inertia.

Share

Congress Must Write the Mission

The answer is not automatically to bring the Abraham Lincoln home tomorrow. Perhaps the carrier is still necessary. Perhaps continued military pressure or the blockade remains necessary. If so, then Congress should say so.

The people’s representatives should enact a specific authorization for continuing hostilities against Iran or require unauthorized hostilities to end. That authorization should define the enemy, objective, geographic limits, offensive-force authority, and blockade authority. It should preserve immediate self-defense, require reporting, set a firm expiration date and force Congress to vote again if the mission continues.

There should be no blank check, and no authority broad enough to swallow future conflicts Congress never debated. That is government stewardship when the power at issue is war.

Congress writes the mission. The president commands its execution. The military carries lawful orders. The people retain the power to judge them all. Whatever rule Congress writes must bind the next president too.

Leave a comment

The Sailors Have Done Their Duty

The sailors aboard the Abraham Lincoln did not write America’s policy toward Iran. They did not decide how long the mission would last, how far it would expand, or what political conditions would bring it to an end.

They were given orders, and they carried them out. They launched the aircraft, maintained the engines, worked the flight deck, and stood watches through long nights and longer months away from home. Nobody can reasonably accuse them of failing to do their duty.

The unanswered question belongs in Washington. Has Congress done its own? Perhaps Congress will decide that America’s military mission against Iran must continue. Then write it. State the objective. Define the authority. Establish the limits. Set the expiration date. Put every vote into the public record.

Perhaps Congress will decide that continued hostilities are no longer justified. Then end them. What it cannot responsibly preserve is a third option: war without ownership.

The sailors aboard the Abraham Lincoln have already carried America’s aircraft, weapons, orders, and mission across thousands of miles and months at sea. They should not also have to carry the constitutional responsibility of the elected officials who sent them there.

The sailors have stood their watch. Congress must stand its own. The president commands the fleet, and the people’s branch must decide what it fights for, how long it fights, and when the mission ends.

Leave a comment

Support Independent Media

If this work matters to you, please consider subscribing to the Coffman Chronicle and sharing this article with someone who believes war power should belong to the republic, not to any one president.

If you can afford a paid subscription, it helps keep this work independent and gives me the time to keep following the decisions Washington would often rather leave buried beneath press releases, procedural votes and institutional silence.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated. “Overview of Congressional War Powers.” Accessed August 11, 2026.

• Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated. “President as Commander of Armed Forces.” Accessed August 11, 2026.

• Slayton, Nicholas. “Sailors on the USS Abraham Lincoln Reportedly Dealing with Poor Conditions, Weak Morale, Families Say.” Task & Purpose. August 8, 2026.

• U.S. Central Command. Operation Epic Fury Fact Sheet. April 6, 2026.

• U.S. Central Command. “U.S. to Blockade Ships Entering or Exiting Iranian Ports.” News release. April 12, 2026.

• U.S. Central Command. “U.S. Forces Execute a Blockade on Vessels Attempting to Enter or Exit Iranian Ports.” Video release. April 16, 2026.

• U.S. Congress. 2026 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iran. H.J. Res. 176, 119th Cong., 2d sess. Introduced May 7, 2026.

• U.S. Congress. Directing the President, Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to Remove United States Armed Forces from Hostilities with Iran. H. Con. Res. 89, 119th Cong., 2d sess. Passed by the House July 23, 2026.

• U.S. Congress. To Direct the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Within or Against the Islamic Republic of Iran That Have Not Been Authorized by Congress. S.J. Res. 211, 119th Cong., 2d sess. Introduced August 6, 2026.

• U.S. Congress. War Powers Resolution. Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555. November 7, 1973.

• U.S. Central Command Public Affairs. “USS Abraham Lincoln Supports Operation Epic Fury.” Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. March 1, 2026.

Once upon a time, this was easier. Satire exaggerated reality until it became ridiculous. Reality stayed politely on its side of the line. Everyone understood the arrangement.

That arrangement has been terminated without notice. These days, common sense is less a useful tool than an active impediment. The fake stories sound plausible, the real stories sound like rejected 30 Rock subplots, and somewhere, at this very moment, a journalist is reluctantly typing the phrase “officials confirmed” into a sentence that would have gotten them escorted from the newsroom ten years ago.

So trust your instincts. Distrust your instincts. Stare suspiciously at all five headlines until one of them confesses. Whatever.

Score yourself:

4–5/5: Congratulations. You remain capable of distinguishing reality from fiction despite reality’s increasingly hostile efforts to prevent this.

2–3/5: Perfectly respectable. Your pattern recognition still works; unfortunately, the patterns no longer do.

0–1/5: You believed in a rational universe, and frankly, that seems like the healthier mistake.

No Googling. No cheating. No assuming anything is too stupid to be true.

Let’s play… Truth or Satire?

BRASS TACKS

THE VIRAL HEADLINE

The Trump Administration has declared brass instruments a national security threat.

THE BACKGROUND

“National security” once conjured a fairly predictable collection of subjects: armies, intelligence agencies, nuclear weapons, foreign adversaries, and whatever was happening behind the door marked CLASSIFIED. Increasingly, however, Washington has treated national security as something much broader, one that can encompass factories, supply chains, energy infrastructure, telecommunications networks, computer chips, pharmaceuticals, and whether the United States can manufacture essential goods without relying on another country.

That shift has accelerated as competition with China has intensified. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have argued that America’s dependence on foreign manufacturing can become a strategic vulnerability, particularly when critical products or materials are concentrated overseas. Semiconductors, rare-earth minerals, batteries, pharmaceuticals, steel, aluminum, and copper have all become subjects not merely of economic policy but of arguments about military readiness and America’s ability to function during war, shortages, or disruptions to global trade.

Donald Trump’s second administration has embraced that connection especially aggressively. Its economic agenda has repeatedly treated domestic manufacturing capacity as a component of national power, while pushing companies to move production back to the United States and attempting to reduce American dependence on foreign suppliers. The administration has also shown a willingness to use presidential authority expansively when it believes imports or overseas production weaken strategically important American industries.

That can produce some strange collisions between the language of the Pentagon and the contents of an ordinary shopping cart. Modern supply chains are enormous, complicated things, and materials considered strategically important eventually find their way into products whose connection to national defense is considerably less obvious.

Which means that, apparently, in Washington anything can become a matter of national security if you follow the supply chain long enough. Which brings us, somehow, to the band room.

THE REALITY

The Department of Commerce did not issue an intelligence bulletin warning Americans about radicalized trombones. It issued a tariff proposal. Nobody at the White House appears to have received an intelligence briefing warning that the trombone section was massing along the Canadian border, but the viral headline is built around a real and remarkably literal piece of federal trade policy.

The Commerce Department has proposed adding brass-wind musical instruments and their parts to products covered by Section 232 tariffs involving copper and other metals. The relevant customs classification, HTS 9205.10.00, covers brass-wind instruments—the bureaucratic category containing the trumpets, trombones, tubas and French horns now caught up in a trade mechanism whose statutory justification is national security. The proposal could subject covered imports to an additional tariff of roughly 25%.

There is an important distinction between that and what the headline says. The administration did not formally determine that a trumpet itself poses a threat to national security. Rather, the government is considering brass instruments as derivative products within tariffs designed to protect domestic supplies and production of metals that the administration considers important to national security. In other words, the concern is the industrial supply chain, not the possibility that Yamaha has weaponized the B-flat scale.

And there is an especially strange wrinkle behind how we got here. The United Auto Workers had actually asked the administration to do this. In a May 14th letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the union urged the department to immediately add brass musical instruments to the copper Section 232 tariffs following the announced closure of Conn Selmer’s Eastlake factory. The UAW specifically identified the same tariff codes for brass instruments and their parts and argued that higher tariffs could protect domestic production.

That factory story makes the policy considerably messier. Conn Selmer’s Eastlake plant employed about 150 workers making instruments ranging from school-band horns to professional equipment. Its owner planned to move most production to China despite Chinese-made brass instruments already facing an effective tariff of about 20.4%. Reuters reported that keeping the Ohio operation running would have required roughly $13 million in savings. Conn Selmer’s ultimate owner, meanwhile, is billionaire investor John Paulson, a major Trump supporter who hosted a 2024 fundraiser for Trump that raised about $50.5 million and publicly criticized American companies for moving manufacturing overseas.

So no, the Commerce Department has not concluded that your child’s trumpet is an instrument of foreign sabotage, but yes, the Trump administration has placed brass instruments inside a proposed tariff action conducted under a law explicitly intended to address threats to American national security.

The National Association of Music Merchants has launched a rebuke, urging educators and businesses to submit comments by the deadline. They are also scheduling meetings with Congressional staff, arguing that this unfairly raises costs for schools, families, and those who provide instruments to them.

Band nerds! Unite!

THE VERDICT

Mostly true, with a very important change of key.

The brass section has been identified. Please remain calm and do not make any sudden embouchures. Homeland Security would like to remind everyone that the piccolo remains armed and extremely shrill. Your neighbors, however, absolutely support declaring all brass instruments as weapons of torture.

Subscribe now

AIR FORCE DONE

THE VIRAL HEADLINE

Trump was secreted off Air Force One onto another aircraft via an airport catering.

THE BACKGROUND

“Air Force One” is not technically a particular airplane. It is the radio call sign used by any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the president. The familiar blue-and-white Boeing 747s are specially modified VC-25As, equipped to function as flying command centers with secure communications, defensive systems, medical capabilities, aerial refueling capacity, and other classified protections intended to keep the president functioning during emergencies.

Moving a president overseas is therefore considerably more complicated than putting him on an airplane and closing the door. The Secret Service works with the military, diplomatic personnel, host governments, intelligence agencies, and advance teams to secure airports, motorcade routes, accommodations, and alternate transportation. Details of presidential movements can be withheld or deliberately altered when officials believe revealing them could expose the president to attack.

There is precedent for taking that secrecy considerably further. Presidents have made covert trips into dangerous areas using undisclosed schedules, unusual aircraft, communications blackouts, and deliberate misdirection. Bill Clinton secretly flew into Pakistan aboard an unmarked executive jet in 2000 while another aircraft followed a different route as a decoy. George W. Bush’s 2003 Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad was concealed until he arrived. Barack Obama made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan in 2014, and Joe Biden traveled secretly by train into wartime Ukraine in 2023. Presidential security occasionally requires making the most recognizable person on Earth temporarily very difficult to find.

Donald Trump also faces a longstanding threat from Iran. U.S. officials have tracked Iranian plots against Trump and members of his administration following the 2020 American drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Those concerns have persisted into Trump’s second term and become considerably more acute amid direct military conflict between the United States and Iran. Trump himself has repeatedly said that he considers himself a leading Iranian assassination target.

Presidential travel is already part diplomacy, part military operation, and part extremely expensive traveling circus. Sometimes the circus apparently needs a trapdoor?

THE REALITY

This one is somehow substantially true.

During Trump’s July trip to a NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, the public departure initially looked perfectly normal. Trump had arrived aboard his newly retrofitted, Qatar-donated Boeing 747, but announced before leaving that he would travel to Britain aboard one of the older blue-and-white presidential 747s “for old time’s sake.” Television cameras watched him climb aboard the legacy Air Force One. Reporters and White House personnel boarded as well. The plane prepared to leave, except Trump wasn’t on it anymore.

According to reporting first published by The Washington Post and subsequently detailed by Reuters and the Associated Press, Trump and several aides crossed to the opposite side of the aircraft, where a catering vehicle—the sort normally used to raise food and supplies to an airplane door—was hydraulically lifted into position. They entered the catering vehicle out of public view, descended to the tarmac, and were quietly transported to a smaller Air Force C-32A. Trump then flew aboard that aircraft to RAF Mildenhall in Britain.

Meanwhile, the old Air Force One departed Turkey with journalists, security personnel, support staff, and some White House officials aboard, many of whom reportedly believed the president was still somewhere in the plane. Reporters were instructed to keep their window shades closed. The presidential C-32A flew separately and arrived in Britain shortly before the decoy aircraft. Trump was then returned to the presidential travel operation without the press realizing what had happened. The full maneuver remained secret for about a month.

The reason was not presidential eccentricity, at least, not entirely. The Post reported that U.S. officials were responding to a credible Iranian threat against Trump or his aircraft amid renewed hostilities with Iran. At the time of the trip, Trump publicly acknowledged that Iran wanted him dead but denied that security concerns explained the unusual aircraft arrangements. When reporters later asked why they had been ordered to close their shades during the flight, Trump told them it was probably because they were on a “dangerous flight,” before adding: “But if I go, you go. Right?”

There was just one fairly important detail missing from that reassurance. He had already gone. Maybe it was TACO Tuesday.

THE VERDICT

True. Somehow, extremely true.

Somewhere, the Secret Service is furious that Home Alone 2 was the least complicated Trump airport plot, and we are all left frantically waiting for leaked images of the CIC on all fours under a hotel-style cart or under a serving dome.

Leave a comment

ROOMBA: FIRST BLOOD

THE VIRAL HEADLINE

Roombas now banned by the administration.

THE BACKGROUND

The average American home has quietly accumulated an impressive collection of computers pretending to be appliances. Televisions connect to the internet. Doorbells contain cameras and microphones. Refrigerators run software. Thermostats learn household routines. Toys connect to cloud servers. The conveniences vary, but the underlying bargain is increasingly familiar: ordinary objects collect information about their surroundings and communicate with networks far beyond the home.

That has created an equally strange national-security problem. Intelligence and cybersecurity officials have spent years warning that connected consumer devices can become avenues for surveillance, data collection, cyberattacks, or access to larger networks. Researchers have found vulnerabilities in everything from security cameras and baby monitors to smart speakers and home appliances. The concern is not necessarily that someone in Beijing desperately wants to know when you preheat the oven, but that millions of insecure networked devices can collectively create valuable access points and enormous quantities of data.

Washington’s anxiety has been particularly intense when those devices are manufactured by companies with ties to China. The United States has restricted equipment from Chinese telecommunications giants Huawei and ZTE, targeted surveillance-camera manufacturers Hikvision and Dahua, and repeatedly scrutinized Chinese-made drones from DJI. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, policymakers have increasingly treated the security of communications equipment, software, sensors, and connected devices as part of the country’s larger strategic competition with China.

The Trump administration has pushed that philosophy further, arguing that America’s dependence on foreign technology can create vulnerabilities extending well beyond traditional telecommunications. That concern increasingly encompasses artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, drones, industrial equipment, semiconductors, communications infrastructure, and machines capable of gathering information about the physical world around them.

Which raises an uncomfortable question about the modern American home: How many things in there are watching you back?

THE REALITY

Your existing Roomba has not become contraband, and federal agents are not coming to confiscate it from beneath the couch, but on July 28, the FCC added foreign-produced “advanced robotic devices” to its Covered List after a White House-convened group of national-security agencies determined that such machines posed “unacceptable risks” to U.S. national security or public safety. Officials warned that foreign-made robots could collect information useful for surveillance and intelligence operations, introduce supply-chain vulnerabilities, or potentially be remotely manipulated.

The announcement initially focused attention on considerably more futuristic machines such as humanoid robots, four-legged robotic dogs, and other autonomous mobile systems. Then came the important question: What exactly counts as an advanced robotic device? The government’s definition reaches autonomous ground machines that can navigate or move remotely, perceive their surroundings through sensors, communicate wirelessly, run software controlling their movement, and—with their docking equipment—weigh more than 4.4 pounds. The FCC subsequently confirmed that ordinary robot vacuum cleaners qualify. Robot lawnmowers and other autonomous household machines can fall within the definition as well.

There is, however, a major qualifier hiding inside “banned.” The government did not remotely brick the robot vacuum currently eating your phone charger. Models that already received FCC authorization can continue to be sold, imported, owned, and used. The restriction primarily prevents new foreign-produced models from receiving the FCC authorization necessary to enter the American market, although manufacturers may pursue exemptions or conditional approval. Despite much of the political discussion focusing on China, the rule is based on foreign production, not exclusively Chinese ownership.

That is especially consequential because the robot-vacuum business is overwhelmingly international. Chinese companies including Roborock, Ecovacs, Dreame, Xiaomi, and Narwal are major players, and even Roomba’s creator, iRobot, is now under Chinese ownership. The policy therefore does not amount to an immediate nationwide prohibition on Roombas, but it really does use federal national-security authority to block future foreign-made robot vacuums meeting the government’s definition unless they clear an exception.

THE VERDICT

Mostly true, but your current floor employee has been grandfathered in.

The machines have learned our floor plans, our schedules, and exactly where we dropped the Cheerio. Frankly, they’ve seen too much. They might weaponize the dust bunnies next.

To recap: your smart mower or vacuum knowing your house or lawn intimately? Questionable. Brass instruments? Problematic. Flock cameras on every corner? Patriotic.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS

THE VIRAL HEADLINE

Scientists create OnlyFans account to fund research.

THE BACKGROUND

Some of the most valuable scientific experiments are not really experiments at all. They are exercises in patience. Long-term ecological studies follow the same species, populations, and environments across decades, allowing researchers to detect changes that would be invisible during a conventional two- or three-year project. Questions involving climate, lifespan, reproduction, social behavior, population decline, and evolutionary change often require scientists to keep collecting the same kinds of data year after year.

That makes continuity unusually important. Once a decades-long study stops, researchers cannot simply recreate the missing years later. A lost field season can permanently interrupt a dataset built across generations of animals, while the disappearance of trained staff, established monitoring systems, or institutional knowledge can make restarting considerably harder. Some ecological research projects have consequently become scientific institutions in their own right, surviving generations of graduate students and occasionally the researchers who started them.

Much of that work depends on federal funding. The National Science Foundation has historically been one of America’s principal supporters of basic research, including ecology, evolution, environmental science, and other fields where the immediate commercial payoff may be difficult to identify. That is partly the point. Governments fund fundamental science because private companies generally have little incentive to spend decades answering questions that may be scientifically important without producing an obvious product to sell.

That system has been under extraordinary pressure during Trump’s second administration. Thousands of federal research grants have been canceled or disrupted, scientists have reported delays and uncertainty surrounding future awards, and universities have scrambled to preserve projects and personnel whose funding disappeared. By February 2026, The Guardian reported that nearly 8,000 grants had been canceled across the NIH and National Science Foundation alone, contributing to warnings that the upheaval could damage American research for years.

For scientists whose research requires uninterrupted observations across decades, “we’ll try again when the funding comes back” isn’t necessarily an option.

Desperate times call for increasingly creative grant proposals.

THE REALITY

The marmots are, in fact, on OnlyFans. UCLA professor Daniel Blumstein and his research team created an account called OnlyMarms featuring yellow-bellied marmots from their long-running field research in Colorado. The material is entirely safe for work (unless your workplace has unusually strict policies concerning large ground squirrels) and the researchers are using the platform to attract attention and raise money for continued research. UCLA itself highlighted coverage of the project in July.

This is not a newly invented study built around an extremely good social-media joke. Yellow-bellied marmots around the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory near Crested Butte, Colorado, have been studied continuously since 1962, making the project a rare multigenerational record of wild mammals. Researchers identify and repeatedly observe individual animals, producing data that allow scientists to investigate survival, reproduction, social relationships, personality, responses to predators, and how environmental conditions affect marmot lives over time. Blumstein’s own work with the population stretches back decades.

The team’s research is considerably more serious than its new marketing department. One recent study drew on more than 24,000 hours of observations to examine whether marmots that gave alarm calls more frequently faced different survival outcomes. Other work using the population has explored social behavior, aging, climate, and the consequences of changing environmental conditions. The extraordinary value comes from being able to compare animals alive today with generations observed using related methods years or decades earlier.

OnlyMarms emerged as researchers searched for ways to keep that work funded amid the broader upheaval in federal science support. Rather than quietly watching an irreplaceable longitudinal project become another casualty of disappearing research dollars, the scientists decided to try something unconventional enough to attract public attention. Man, to have been at that brainstorming sess….

So yes: professional wildlife researchers responsible for a scientific dataset stretching back to the Kennedy administration have reached the year 2026 and concluded that one possible path toward keeping it alive involves putting marmots on OnlyFans.

No nudity is involved. Although, technically, none of the marmots are wearing pants.

THE VERDICT

True. Science has entered its influencer era.

Please subscribe responsibly. The marmots have already started describing themselves as “content creators,” and frankly, the fame has changed them.

Bonus: now you can somewhat legitimately say you only visit OnlyFans to support science. Up next, TrunksAndJunk.com and BlueFootBooby.net. (We encourage you NOT to Google either of those, or do so at your own peril.)

Share

28 DAYS LATER

THE VIRAL HEADLINE

AI created more than a dozen viruses not found in nature.

THE BACKGROUND

Generative artificial intelligence is no longer limited to writing paragraphs, producing the exact same flyer for every event, or generating suspiciously enthusiastic customer-service emails. Researchers have increasingly adapted the same basic idea to biology: train models on enormous collections of genetic information, allow them to learn patterns encoded in DNA and proteins, and then use those models to predict or design biological sequences that do not already exist in the training data.

One prominent example is Evo, a family of genomic language models developed by researchers including scientists at Stanford. Instead of learning relationships between words, these models learn patterns across DNA, RNA, and proteins. The original Evo was trained on millions of microbial and bacteriophage genomes encompassing hundreds of billions of genetic “letters,” allowing researchers to ask biological questions in a way that increasingly resembles how people prompt conventional generative AI.

That possibility has obvious medical and industrial appeal. AI-assisted biological design could help scientists identify new proteins, improve gene-editing tools, engineer microorganisms, or develop treatments for infections that have become resistant to conventional drugs. Bacteriophages — viruses that infect bacteria — are of particular interest because researchers have explored using them to kill dangerous bacteria when antibiotics stop working.

It also creates a problem that ChatGPT does not encounter when it writes a bad poem. DNA can become physical. Genetic sequences proposed on a computer can, under the right circumstances, be synthesized in laboratories. Researchers and governments have therefore spent years debating how to screen DNA orders, restrict dangerous biological information, secure powerful models, and prevent useful advances in synthetic biology from becoming tools for creating pathogens. Evo’s developers, for example, deliberately exclude known viruses that infect humans and some other organisms from portions of its training data because of precisely those concerns.

Artificial intelligence has gotten very good at answering the question, “What could come next?” Biologists are increasingly confronted with the follow-up: What could go wrong?

THE REALITY

Scientists have now crossed a significant threshold: AI-designed viral genomes have been turned into functioning viruses in the laboratory.

A team led by Stanford researcher Brian Hie used genomic language models Evo 1 and Evo 2 to design complete bacteriophage genomes. The models generated thousands of candidate genetic sequences. Researchers selected nearly 300, had the DNA synthesized, introduced those sequences into bacterial cells, and waited to see whether the artificial instructions could actually produce working viruses.

Sixteen did. Those 16 viable bacteriophages were not simply copies of viruses scientists had pulled from nature. They were newly generated genomic designs produced by the AI models and then physically created in the laboratory. Some were sufficiently functional that combinations of the AI-designed phages successfully killed strains of E. coli, including bacteria that had developed resistance to naturally occurring bacteriophages.

Now for the extremely important sentence preventing this edition from ending with everyone digging a bunker. Ready? These were bacteriophages, not human viruses. They infect bacteria. The researchers intentionally excluded genetic sequences from viruses known to infect humans, animals, and plants while preparing the models for this work. Even the researchers’ experimental target was E. coli, and the immediate scientific goal is potentially beneficial.

However, the biosecurity concern is not merely something the internet added afterward for dramatic effect after reading the complete works of Robin Cook. The researchers themselves warned that whole-genome generative design raises important biosafety and security questions. In commentary accompanying the work, experts at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security argued that the ability to compose viable viral genomes with generative AI now exists while the systems for governing that capability have not kept pace. Other scientists caution that these bacteriophages have tiny, comparatively simple genomes and that designing substantially more complex viruses remains a much harder problem.

So the headline omits perhaps the most comforting word in the English language right now—bacteriophages—but it does not invent the milestone.

THE VERDICT

True, with a massive, bacteria-sized asterisk.

We taught the autocomplete to biology. Surely nothing narratively significant will follow. Right? In the meantime, perhaps now would be a great time to gather up all of your COVID-era masks and send them through a sanitize cycle just in case.

Leave a comment

So, how’d you do?

If you got all five right, congratulations. You have successfully adapted to an information environment in which disbelief is no longer skepticism but merely the first stage of fact-checking.

If you bombed, take comfort in knowing that your primary mistake was apparently expecting events to proceed according to recognizable rules of human behavior. There are worse character flaws.

Anyway, that’s enough reality for one edition.

Go outside. Drink some water. Look at a tree. Experience something that does not require three independent sources and a federal filing to establish whether it exists. Maybe wear a mask in public….

We’ll be back soon, assuming the distinction between truth and satire continues to matter. At this point, that feels increasingly like an administrative technicality.

Sources:,

• “A Trump pledge is falling flat as Ohio musical instrument plant closes,” Reuters, April 17, 2026.

• “May 14, 2026 Letter on Conn-Selmer,” United Auto Workers, May 14, 2026.

• “Tariffs Explained,” National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM), updated 2026.

• “Trump boarded secret Turkey flight via catering truck due to Iran threat, reports say,” Reuters, August 11, 2026.

• “Why the elaborate ruse Trump used in Turkey isn’t like other secret presidential trips,” Associated Press, August 11, 2026.

• “Trump used elaborate ruse to fly out of Turkey following summit because of Iran threat, report says,” Associated Press, August 11, 2026.

• “Trump flies partway home from Turkey in an old Air Force One, not the new Qatari-gifted jet,” Associated Press via The Washington Post, July 8, 2026.

• “Fact Sheet: FCC Updates Covered List to Include Foreign-produced Advanced Robotic Devices and Power Inverters,” Federal Communications Commission, July 28, 2026.

• “FCC bans foreign humanoid robots, expanding campaign against Chinese tech,” The Washington Post, July 28, 2026.

• “The US government just banned Roombas,” The Verge, July 29, 2026.

• “FCC Adds Foreign-Produced Power Inverters and Advanced Robotic Devices to Covered List,” Mayer Brown, July 29, 2026

• “Russia’s ‘human safari’, Disney-TikTok deal and SpaceX lockup,” Reuters, August 6, 2026.

• “Scientists create OnlyFans account for marmots to fund research – video,” The Guardian, August 7, 2026.

• “‘OnlyMarms’: Marmots are on OnlyFans to raise money for research — and more UCLA media,” UCLA Newsroom, July 27, 2026.

• “Projects,” Blumstein Lab, UCLA, accessed August 11, 2026.

• “Safety fears as scientists make first viruses designed by AI,” The Guardian, August 6, 2026.

• “How AI is Transforming Scientific Discovery While Keeping Humans at the Center,” Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, 2026.

• “Welcome Evo, generative AI for the genome,” Stanford Engineering, December 4, 2024.

• “Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with Evo,” Science, November 15, 2024.

• “World’s first AI-designed viruses a step towards AI-generated life,” Nature, September 18, 2025.

Mexican firefighters are arriving in British Columbia as crews battle a deadly wildfire that has forced about 20,000 people to flee communities near Okanagan Lake.

The Bald Range wildfire has destroyed homes and other properties, killed one person and continued to threaten communities including Summerland and Peachland. About 100 firefighters from Mexico were expected to arrive Tuesday to support local crews, according to AP. Canada has also placed military support on standby as the province deals with more than 100 active wildfires.

The response marks a major escalation in a fire that grew quickly through dry terrain and extreme conditions. Reuters reported British Columbia declared a state of emergency after the Bald Range fire expanded rapidly and prompted evacuation orders west of Okanagan Lake.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

The practical consequence is immediate. Thousands of residents remain away from home, officials have not completed a full damage assessment, and local leaders have warned evacuees not to expect a quick return. AP reported authorities have opened a criminal investigation into the fire’s cause, though the cause has not been determined.

Public reaction has centered on two themes. Many Canadians have thanked Mexican firefighters for joining the response, while local online communities have focused on evacuation updates, smoke conditions and verified emergency sources.

The next step is containment, damage assessment and determining when evacuation orders can safely be lifted.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

A U.S. federal judge has sanctioned Meta in Andrew Forrest’s lawsuit over scam advertisements that used the Australian billionaire’s image to promote fraudulent investment schemes.

The ruling found that Meta failed to preserve electronically stored information it should have kept once litigation was reasonably anticipated. ABC reported that the missing evidence included final versions of scam ads shown to victims and that the judge found the failure prejudiced Forrest.

The decision raises the stakes in a case that already has broader implications for Big Tech liability. Forrest argues that Meta’s advertising systems did more than passively host third-party content. His legal team says the company’s tools helped optimize and personalize fraudulent ads before distribution. ABC reported that Meta has countered that the offending messages were not its doing.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

That distinction matters because Meta has relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a U.S. law that often protects platforms from liability for user-generated content. Reuters reported in 2024 that Judge P. Casey Pitts allowed Forrest to try to prove Meta’s ad systems were not merely neutral tools and may have contributed to the ads at issue.

The practical consequence is straightforward. Meta may face limits on how it can use missing evidence in its defense, and the jury may be allowed to treat certain missing information as unfavorable if the trial record supports that instruction. ABC reported that Forrest is also entitled to fees and costs tied to the sanctions ruling.

Forrest welcomed the decision and said Meta must not be allowed to outrun responsibility. The case now moves forward with the evidence fight reshaping the legal terrain.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Washington, D.C.’s latest crime data shows a mixed public safety picture one year after President Donald Trump sent the National Guard into the capital.

MPD’s year-to-date numbers as of Aug. 11 show total violent crime up 3 percent compared with the same point in 2025, rising from 1,608 to 1,660 incidents. The increase is driven mainly by assault with a dangerous weapon, which is up 40 percent. Homicides are down 32 percent, robberies are down 15 percent and total crime is down 20 percent, according to preliminary MPD data.

That creates a sharper political problem for the White House than a simple up-or-down crime headline. The administration has repeatedly framed the National Guard deployment as a public safety success. But the latest figures show that while several major categories are falling, violent crime overall is not lower year to date.

The deployment began in August 2025 as part of a federal law enforcement surge. AP reported that more than 4,600 military personnel from D.C. and 24 states and territories were still deployed as of Aug. 4, with troops supporting arrest operations while also appearing in tourist-heavy areas and neighborhoods where violent crime is rare.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

The policy stakes are also financial. AP reported that extending the Guard mission into 2029 would cost about $1.4 billion, based on a Defense Department estimate provided to Congress.

The White House says Trump has transformed D.C. into a safer city. Critics argue the data does not prove the Guard caused crime declines, especially because D.C. crime was already falling before the federal surge.

Online reaction has focused less on whether crime matters and more on whether the Guard is being used effectively. D.C. Reddit users questioned the scale of the deployment and whether troops are positioned in areas where violent crime is most common.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

YouTube is tightening the path to monetization for new creators, raising the audience thresholds required to join the core revenue sharing side of the YouTube Partner Program.

Beginning Feb. 1, 2027, new creators applying for ads and Premium revenue sharing will need 8,000 qualified watch hours in the last 365 days or 20 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days. YouTube said the update will not affect creators already in the Partner Program, and the company said thresholds for Fan Funding and shopping products will remain unchanged.

The new numbers double the current eligibility benchmarks listed in YouTube’s help documentation, which require 4,000 valid public watch hours in the last year or 10 million valid public Shorts views in the last 90 days for full YPP eligibility.

YouTube framed the change as part of a broader update to keep the Partner Program aligned with the scale of the creator economy. The company said YPP now includes more than 3 million creators and pointed to more than 200 billion daily Shorts views and more than a billion hours of YouTube watch time on TV each day.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

The practical consequence is that new creators will need a more sustained audience before reaching the platform’s main revenue sharing tier. That could delay earnings for smaller channels, especially those close to the old watch hour or Shorts view requirements.

Reaction has been mixed. Business Insider reported that creator Austen Tosone said the changes could make monetization tougher for small creators. In r/PartneredYoutube, some users described the new thresholds as discouraging for new channels, while others argued the higher bar could reduce low quality Shorts farming and reposted content.

The next deadline is Jan. 31, 2027, when existing creators must accept the new terms to keep earning under the updated program.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

The House Was Already There

The White House was there before Donald Trump returned to it. Its walls had already survived war, reconstruction, expansion, renovation, and generations of presidents, each arriving with their own ideas about what the building needed. Some changed rooms. Some changed grounds. Some oversaw major construction. Eventually, each one left. The house stayed.

Trump’s proposed ballroom is different in scale. The project would add roughly 90,000 square feet to the White House complex, replacing the demolished East Wing with a structure expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Much of that money would come not from Congress, but from private donors. That combination has produced a fight that sounds, at first, like an argument about architecture. It is not.

A federal appeals court has now stopped above-ground construction while a much older question works its way through the courts: how much can a president permanently change about the place he temporarily occupies?

That question is essential because the White House is unlike almost any other home in America. The person living there is extraordinarily powerful, but he is still living in something that was already there.

Private Money Does Not Create Public Authority

The administration has emphasized one fact that sounds reassuring on its face: much of the ballroom is supposed to be paid for with private money. That is a relief to taxpayers, but it does not settle the larger question.

A donor can pay for stone, steel, labor, and architects. A donor can spare the Treasury an expense that Congress might otherwise have to appropriate. However, the source of the check does not determine the source of the government’s authority to use it.

If a wealthy supporter offered to pay for a new wing on a county courthouse, the generosity might be welcomed. It would not give the donor, the county executive, or anyone else permission to begin construction without whatever public authority the law requires.

The White House should not operate under a weaker principle simply because the president has found someone willing to cover the cost. That does not make private donations inherently improper. Governments have long accepted gifts and private support for public purposes. The question is what happens after the money arrives.

If a president lacks authority to undertake a major transformation with public dollars, finding private dollars cannot manufacture the missing power. Congressional authority cannot depend on where the president finds the money. A private check can cover a public expense, but it cannot write a public law.

Subscribe now

The President Is a Steward, Not an Owner

The president’s authority inside the White House is real. He must be able to live there, work there, protect the people around him, and keep the building functioning. Presidents renovate rooms, replace systems, adapt workspaces, and make ordinary improvements without asking Congress to vote on every broken pipe or worn floorboard.

That kind of discretion is not the problem. The boundary appears when control begins to look like ownership. The appeals court described the White House as the “People’s House” and emphasized that the president who occupies it does so temporarily. That is more than a useful phrase. It captures the relationship between public office and public property.

A steward is trusted with something valuable precisely because it belongs to more than the person holding it at that moment. Stewardship carries authority, but it also carries obligation.

A president may preserve what has been entrusted to him. He may make lawful improvements necessary for the work of the office. He may respond to emergencies and security needs that no previous occupant could have anticipated, but temporary custody does not erase the interests of the people who come next. Future presidents have an interest in the building. Congress has an interest in the property entrusted to the federal government. The public has an interest in ensuring that a national inheritance does not become the personal project of whoever happens to hold the keys.

That is the line the ballroom dispute has exposed. Operational control is not the same thing as ownership. Stewardship begins where ownership ends.

Leave a comment

The People’s House Is Federal Property

The word “people’s” is not merely ceremonial. The White House sits on property belonging to the United States, and the Constitution gives Congress broad authority to make rules governing federal property. Congress also possesses legislative authority over the District of Columbia, where the White House stands.

Congress has used that power before. Federal law says that a building or structure may not be erected on federal parkland or public grounds in Washington without express authority from Congress. Congress has also repeatedly involved itself in major White House construction, rebuilding and improvement throughout the building’s history. That history is key because congressional involvement is not some new restriction invented for this president. It is part of the arrangement.

The president controls the executive branch and possesses extraordinary authority over the operation and security of the place where that branch is headquartered, but Congress has its own constitutional responsibilities, and federal property is one of them. That is not an intrusion into presidential power. It is the separation of powers working as designed.

Congress is not a distant neighborhood association telling a homeowner what color he may paint his porch. The White House is not privately owned property, and the president is not spending Saturday afternoon remodeling his personal residence. He is making decisions about federal property entrusted to the government on behalf of the public.

That is why congressional authority is vital even when the president believes an improvement is useful, even when the project serves official functions, and even when someone else has offered to pay for it. The White House may be the president’s residence, but federal property remains the people’s property.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

A Donation Can Pay for Marble. It Cannot Purchase Permission.

Congress has given presidents authority to maintain, repair, and improve the Executive Residence. That authority is necessary. The White House is not a museum frozen in time. Systems fail, security requirements change, and workspaces have to evolve. However, general authority to improve a residence cannot automatically mean unlimited authority to transform it.

The danger becomes clearer if private financing is treated as a substitute for public authorization. Suppose Congress does not approve or fund a major presidential project. The president then raises hundreds of millions of dollars privately and proceeds anyway because taxpayers are not footing the construction bill. Under that theory, private wealth would not merely support a public project. It could become a route around the public institution responsible for authorizing it.

That is the constitutional problem, and it exists regardless of donor motive. The donors may sincerely support the project. They may expect nothing in return. Every check could be written with perfectly clean hands. None of that changes where governmental authority must come from. Private money can change who bears a cost. It cannot change who possesses a power.

Public authority still has to come from public law. A donation may relieve the Treasury of a cost. It cannot relieve the government of the law.

Share

Security Cannot Become a Blank Check

The administration’s strongest argument is not about donors. It is about security. The White House is not simply a historic residence. It is one of the most sensitive working government sites in the world. The president, his family, senior officials, and visiting foreign leaders all pass through a complex that must function under threats most Americans will never see.

Judge Neomi Rao’s dissent takes that reality seriously. She argues that the courts have intruded too deeply into decisions tied to presidential operations and national security, including construction connected to protective infrastructure beneath and around the ballroom site.

That concern deserves more than a shrug. A president cannot be forced to wait for a congressional debate before repairing a compromised security system, the Secret Service cannot publish every vulnerability for public comment, and military and protective officials need room to act quickly, quietly, and sometimes without explaining every detail in public.

However, necessary discretion is not unlimited authority. The preliminary injunction recognizes that distinction. Work necessary to protect the president, secure underground facilities, stabilize the construction site, and address legitimate safety needs may continue. What has been stopped for now is above-ground ballroom construction while the larger question of legal authority remains unresolved.

Security may justify secrecy, speed, and extraordinary executive discretion when hesitation could put lives at risk. It does not follow that every part of a larger construction project becomes unreachable by Congress once a security component is attached to it.

No one needs Congress deciding where the Secret Service installs a barrier or how engineers reinforce a secure facility. A permanent transformation of the White House is a different question. National security requires discretion. It does not require constitutional amnesia.

Subscribe now

Congress Cannot Govern by Injunction

The appeals court has stopped above-ground ballroom construction for now. That does not mean the judiciary should become the permanent building committee for the White House.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was reviewing a preliminary injunction, not issuing a final judgment that no ballroom may ever be built. The legal dispute continues, and further appellate review may follow.

Judge Rao’s dissent raises a legitimate institutional concern: federal judges should not become routine supervisors of presidential construction and security decisions, but the answer cannot be to replace judicial uncertainty with unlimited presidential discretion.

A republic should not depend on preservation groups racing to court every time a president tests the edge of his authority. It should not require district judges, appellate panels, and eventually the Supreme Court to determine project by project how much of the People’s House one temporary occupant may permanently change.

Courts resolve disputes. Congress writes durable rules. If the law leaves presidents enough room to keep pushing until someone files for an injunction, then Congress has left too much of its own responsibility inside the courthouse.

An injunction can stop a project, but it cannot substitute for a legislature. The judiciary can enforce the boundary, but Congress must define it.

Leave a comment

Congress Must Write the Renovation Rule

Congress should not respond to this dispute by trying to approve every paint color, plumbing repair, or security upgrade inside the White House. That would confuse stewardship with micromanagement. The better answer is a law that distinguishes ordinary responsibility from irreversible transformation.

Routine maintenance should remain largely in executive hands. Presidents and the agencies responsible for the White House need broad authority to repair aging systems, modernize workspaces, improve accessibility, replace worn infrastructure, and make ordinary changes necessary to keep the Executive Residence functioning.

Security and emergency work should receive even greater flexibility. The Secret Service, military, and other responsible agencies must be able to reinforce facilities, respond to threats, stabilize damaged structures, and install classified protective systems without turning every urgent decision into a public legislative proceeding.

However, major permanent transformation should cross a different threshold. Demolishing a historically significant portion of the White House, replacing an entire wing, dramatically expanding its footprint, or constructing a major new permanent structure should require affirmative congressional authorization. Congress can define those triggers clearly enough that presidents know the boundary before construction begins.

For privately financed major projects, the law should also require disclosure of who gave the money, how much they gave, and whether they or their companies hold relevant federal contracts or other financial relationships with the government. Legitimate security information can remain protected without making the financial structure invisible.

The public should also know the full cost. A privately financed building can still create taxpayer obligations through security, utilities, staffing, infrastructure, and long-term maintenance.

Most importantly, Congress should make explicit that accepting private money does not itself create authority to build.

The result would be a proportional system: routine stewardship stays with the president, urgent protection stays with the officials responsible for security, and irreversible transformation returns to the people’s representatives.

That is not hostility to presidential discretion. It is proportional stewardship. Private companies may build the ballroom. Private donors may pay for it. The American people must own the rules.

Share The Coffman Chronicle

The Rule Must Bind the Next President Too

The easiest time to demand limits on presidential power is when the president using it is someone you distrust. The harder test comes later.

Imagine a future president whose judgment you admire. That president proposes tearing down another portion of the White House to build something you consider worthy: a civil-rights memorial, a climate pavilion, a new public gathering space, or a technologically advanced presidential wing. Private supporters offer to pay for the entire project. Would congressional authorization suddenly seem unnecessary? It cannot.

If the rule changes depending on who holds the office, then the rule was never really about constitutional authority. It was about whether we trusted the person exercising it. That is not a durable republic.

The same boundary that applies to Donald Trump must apply to the next Democratic president, the next Republican president, and every president who follows them. That is what separates constitutional restraint from partisan opposition. A rule worth defending against a president you distrust must also bind a president you trust.

Repairing the republic does not mean finding a president whose judgment we trust more. It means writing a rule that does not depend on trust. Presidents change. The house does not.

Share

The President Lives There. The People Own It.

The White House has never belonged to the person sleeping upstairs. Presidents have worked there, argued there, celebrated victories there, and absorbed national tragedies there. They have raised children inside its walls, welcomed foreign leaders through its doors, and made decisions that changed the country from rooms later occupied by someone who disagreed with almost everything they believed. Then they left. That departure is part of the place's meaning.

The White House is a residence, an office, a secure government complex, a historic structure, and a national symbol all at once. Those overlapping purposes require presidential flexibility. The person responsible for governing the country cannot be treated like a museum guest afraid to move a chair, but flexibility is not ownership.

Congress does not weaken the presidency by drawing a boundary around permanent changes to the People’s House. It protects the institution from becoming confused with the preferences of whoever happens to occupy it for four or eight years.

The office is temporary. The public inheritance is not. Presidents may change the curtains, repair the roof, and protect the people who live and work inside, but when one president proposes to permanently remake the People’s House, the decision must return to the people.

Presidents receive the keys for a time. The people own it.

Leave a comment

Help Keep the People’s House in the People’s Hands

If this argument matters to you, share it, and if you can afford it, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support helps keep The Coffman Chronicle independent and focused on one question power should always have to answer: Who gave them the authority?

The presidency is temporary. The republic belongs to us.

Subscribe now

Sources:

• Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17—Seat of Government Clause. Constitution Annotated. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

• Library of Congress. Constitution Annotated: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2—Property Clause Generally. Constitution Annotated. Property Clause Generally

• Scarcella, Mike. “US Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s $400 Million White House Ballroom Project.” Reuters. August 7, 2026. US Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s $400 Million White House Ballroom Project

• United States Code. 3 U.S.C. § 105—Assistance and Services for the President. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives. 3 U.S.C. § 105

• United States Code. 40 U.S.C. § 8106—Buildings on Reservations, Parks, or Public Grounds. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives. Pub. L. 107-217, 116 Stat. 1206. August 21, 2002. 40 U.S.C. § 8106

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service et al. Opinion, No. 26-5123, consolidated with No. 26-5134. August 7, 2026. D.C. Circuit Opinion

• U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service et al. Memorandum Opinion Granting Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 25-4316 (RJL). March 31, 2026. Memorandum Opinion Granting Preliminary Injunction

• U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service et al. Memorandum Opinion Clarifying Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 25-4316 (RJL). April 16, 2026. Memorandum Opinion Clarifying Preliminary Injunction

The Senate Agriculture Committee failed to advance the 2026 farm bill after a 10 to 11 vote, leaving one of Congress’s biggest food and agriculture packages stalled until lawmakers return from August recess.

The failure turns the next farm bill fight into a September test over whether lawmakers can separate shared farm priorities from a dispute over SNAP. The bill included provisions backed by farm groups, including year round E15 sales, credit access, crop insurance updates, and farm safety net changes.

The dispute centered on a proposed SNAP cost shift to states. Republicans offered a one year delay and said the broader package was built to support farmers and rural communities. Democrats said the delay was too narrow and pressed for two years, arguing that the proposal still advantaged states with higher error rates over states that had already reduced them.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Chairman John Boozman said the bill reflected more than 100 bipartisan priorities and accused Democrats of delaying needed help for farm country. Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar said she would keep working with Boozman and acknowledged bipartisan provisions in the bill, but said the SNAP language remained unresolved.

Reaction from farm groups was immediate. The American Soybean Association said the vote delays progress toward a five year bill while farmers face rising input costs, low commodity prices, and trade uncertainty. The National Farmers Union said family farmers need a bill that addresses high costs, low prices, conservation funding, and monopoly concerns.

The practical consequence is uncertainty. Farmers, lenders, rural communities, food aid administrators, and fuel interests now head into September without a clear path to a final Senate bill. Boozman is expected to push for another vote after recess, but without a SNAP deal, full Senate passage remains difficult.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Oil prices rose and gold reached a two-month high after President Donald Trump made new demands on Iran, cooling expectations that a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was close.

The Guardian reported that oil climbed as hopes faded for a U.S.-Iran agreement to end the war and reopen the key shipping route. Reuters reported Brent crude reached 88.09 dollars a barrel, while U.S. crude rose to 82.52 dollars, the highest levels since July.

The immediate trigger was diplomatic friction over the terms of any deal. AP reported that Trump rejected Iran’s demand for reparations and instead demanded compensation for U.S. military casualties attributed to Iran. Iran has tied reopening the strait to sanctions relief and other conditions.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

The economic consequence is that markets are again pricing political risk into energy. A prolonged Hormuz dispute could raise fuel and shipping costs, adding pressure before key inflation data and complicating expectations for the Federal Reserve. Reuters reported that the rise in fuel costs added pressure ahead of the U.S. inflation report.

Gold’s rise points to the same concern from a different angle. Investors often move toward safe-haven assets when geopolitical risk and market uncertainty rise.

Social reaction has been strongest among market and energy accounts, not general political users. Indexed posts from OilPrice.com, Iran International, and Walter Bloomberg highlighted higher crude prices, fading deal hopes, and Reuters-reported benchmarks.

The next step is whether U.S., Iranian, or Omani officials confirm a revised pathway for reopening Hormuz. Until then, the story remains both a foreign-policy fight and an inflation-risk story.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected President Donald Trump’s 15 point Gaza roadmap, saying Israeli forces will not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas is truly disarmed.

The statement marks a direct challenge to a U.S. backed plan that was designed to move Gaza into a new phase of postwar governance and reconstruction. ABC News reported that Netanyahu told a cabinet meeting Israel rejects the document and that the military would continue acting against threats to Israeli forces and citizens.

The dispute centers on sequencing.

The Board of Peace roadmap says its goal is Israeli withdrawal, Gaza governance free from Hamas control, and reconstruction under Palestinian administration. The plan is built around the principle of one authority, one weapon, one law.

Reuters reports the roadmap links Israeli withdrawal to phased disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups. It also calls for a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza to oversee civilian governance and for an International Stabilization Force to secure areas as Israeli forces leave.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Netanyahu’s position reverses that logic. Israel is insisting that Hamas disarm first, before any pullback. That creates the practical obstacle now facing mediators. If Israel will not withdraw before disarmament is complete, and Hamas will not fully surrender weapons without linked withdrawal, the next phase can stall.

The political consequence is plain. Trump’s Gaza plan depends on both sides accepting a phased process. Netanyahu’s rejection turns that process into a public test of U.S. influence over Israel and raises doubts about how quickly Gaza can move toward reconstruction, new policing, and civilian administration.

Reaction is already spreading across news and social platforms. Major outlets and journalists on X amplified the rejection, while Hamas called for mediators and the U.S. guarantor to pressure Israel to follow the roadmap.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Rep. Nancy Mace is facing criticism from Democrats and other public figures after saying that every Muslim holding public office in America is a “trojan horse” and a threat to national security and the republic.

Mace, a South Carolina Republican, made the statement in a Friday post on X, according to Fox News. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the comments “disgusting and dangerous” and urged Republicans to denounce what she described as blatant Islamophobia.

The dispute escalated after Mace appeared on CNN, where host Omar Jimenez pressed her on whether she was saying Muslims are threats to the country. Mace denied that wording but continued arguing that Americans should be concerned about Muslim officials, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

The Daily Beast reported that Jimenez pushed back by pointing to the First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI says no religious test can be required for public office, while the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

That constitutional backdrop is what gives the story its broader consequence. Mace’s comments are protected political speech, but the controversy centers on whether a sitting member of Congress is treating Muslim identity itself as evidence of disloyalty or danger.

Social reaction has become part of the story. Jayapal condemned the remarks, California state Sen. Scott Wiener criticized Mace, and commentator Owen Jones accused Republicans of tolerating anti-Muslim rhetoric. Mace responded to criticism by saying that concern about “radical Islamist” violence should not be labeled Islamophobia.

The next question is whether Republican leaders respond. As of the reviewed reporting, no verified statement from House GOP leadership was identified.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

Former U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer Jesse Clark Garcia was sentenced in San Diego federal court to nine years in prison after admitting he opened his inspection lane to drug smugglers tied to the Sinaloa Cartel.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California said Garcia allowed drug-laden vehicles to pass through the Tecate Port of Entry without inspection. Prosecutors said he gave the trafficking organization his duty schedules and lane assignments so drivers could route vehicles through his lane.

The legal consequence is direct. Garcia is going to federal prison for using a border-enforcement position to help move fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine into the United States. DOJ said he admitted facilitating at least 100 kilograms of fentanyl, 107 kilograms of methamphetamine, and 270 kilograms of cocaine.

Prosecutors said Garcia and co-defendant Diego Bonillo used a secret emoji-based code to share lane information with traffickers. DOJ also said Garcia exploited duty-switching policies, falsely cited technical problems during required checks, and received at least $10,000 for each drug-filled vehicle he allowed through.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →

The case stretches back beyond the sentencing. Garcia pleaded guilty in July 2025 to nine felony counts, including conspiracy to import controlled substances and importation-related charges. Bonillo, another former CBP officer, was sentenced in November 2025 to 15 years in prison after admitting he allowed drug-filled vehicles through border inspection lanes.

Law enforcement agencies highlighted the case online after the sentencing, including FBI San Diego posts on X, Facebook, and Instagram.

The next step is prison custody and any post-sentencing legal proceedings. The broader consequence is institutional. The case gives prosecutors a concrete example of how cartel-linked smugglers can exploit trusted inspection-lane access when an officer turns that authority into a trafficking tool.

Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →