The new normal at GOP town halls: Crowds lobbing hostile questions at lawmakers Massive demonstrations by constituents are an early indication of how progressive opposition movements are mobilizing. The size and tone of the crowds are feeding Republicans’ worries and Democrats’ view that the GOP agenda, coupled with President Trump’s tone and missteps, have activated voters who may have sat out previous elections. By Kelsey Snell, Paul Schwartzman, Steve Friess and David Weigel  •  Read more »

The tea party on the left flexes its muscle

 Fresh off a big win, Republicans have large majorities in Congress and control the White House. They quickly draw on their political capital to pursue one of the biggest changes to the American health-care system in decades: Getting rid of Obamacare.

But repeal efforts have stalled because, well, Republicans aren't quite sure what to replace it with. Enter a united, fired-up left, which has taken to streets across the nation twice in President Trump's first few weeks in office, and, this week, stormed the town halls of at least two Republican lawmakers.

What's going on here?

This moment looks like a mirror image of the national mood almost a decade ago.

“Democrats have a strong sense of righteousness right now about halting Trump's policy moves — almost in a truly religious sense,” writes The Fix's Aaron Blake.

The common thread between then and now: One party in control of Washington undertaking a massive change to Americans' health care. When Democrats were in Republicans' situation in 2010, they lost control of Congress and haven't regained it since. Republicans must be asking themselves just how close the parallels between 2009 and 2017 are.

By Amber Phillips

Come with me on a very brief time travel trip. It's 2009. Fresh off a big win, Democrats have large majorities in Congress and control the White House. They quickly draw on their political capital to pursue one of the biggest changes to the American health-care system in decades: Obamacare. That summer, Democrats across the nation go home to their districts and are caught off guard by passionately angry constituents — mostly conservative — at town halls, fearful of how the health care law might change their lives. “You are a fraud, and you're sentencing this person to death under the Obama plan,” one constituent told then-Rep. John Dingell of Michigan at the time. Tea party activists in 2013 in front of the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Okay, back to the present moment. It's — well, you know what year it is. Fresh off a big win, Republicans have large majorities in Congress and control the White House. They quickly draw on their political capital to pursue one of the biggest changes to the American health-care system in decades: Getting rid of Obamacare. But repeal efforts have stalled because, well, Republicans aren't quite sure what to replace it with. Enter a united, fired-up left, which has taken to streets across the nation twice in President Trump's first few weeks in office, and, this week, stormed the town halls of at least two Republican lawmakers. People shout to Rep. Jason Chaffetz during his town hall in Utah on Friday. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer) There's more. On Friday, protesters literally blocked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos from entering a school. (She did get inside later.) The video is startling: Click to watch What's going on here? This moment looks like a mirror image of the national mood almost a decade ago. “Democrats have a strong sense of righteousness right now about halting Trump's policy moves — almost in a truly religious sense,” writes The Fix's Aaron Blake. The common thread between then and now: One party in control of Washington undertaking a massive change to Americans' health care. When Democrats were in Republicans' situation in 2010, they lost control of Congress and haven't regained it since. Republicans must be asking themselves just how close the parallels between 2009 and 2017 are. If there’s one thing we’re relearning right now, it’s that issues that directly affect people’s lives — health care, public schools — can get people into town halls and voting booths.

Jared Kushner quietly pulls strings on U.S.-Mexico relations

Back-channel talks by Trump’s son-in-law — now a White House adviser — reveal him to be almost a shadow secretary of state, operating outside the State Department and National Security Council.

• By Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker and Joshua Partlow

Appeals court rules 3 to 0 against Trump on travel ban.

Previously barred refugees, immigrants can continue entering the U.S.

The judges rejected the argument that President Trump’s order should be reinstated for national security reasons and forcefully asserted their ability to serve as a check on his power. Trump reacted angrily on Twitter, posting just minutes after the ruling, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

7 key takeaways from the ruling

The 9th Circuit judges took exception to the administration’s assertion that the president’s order is “unreviewable.” But they are not yet ready to rule on the opposition's argument that the order discriminates against Muslims.

1. The three judges think that they are well within their rights to check the president’s authority on matters of immigration and national security, and the government’s suggestion to the contrary is undemocratic.

2. The court isn’t buying — as Trump has suggested — that the impact of the order was limited to extra vetting for 109 people.

3. The court thinks that the states of Washington and Minnesota have actual harms they can sue over.

“Specifically, the States allege that the teaching and research missions of their universities are harmed by the Executive Order’s effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries. These students and faculty cannot travel for research, academic collaboration, or for personal reasons, and their families abroad cannot visit. Some have been stranded outside the country, unable to return to the universities at all. The schools cannot consider attractive student candidates and cannot hire faculty from the seven affected countries, which they have done in the past.”

4. The court isn’t sure — at this stage — whether there is proof that the executive order discriminates against Muslims.

5. The court doesn’t think the government needs to immediately reinstate the ban to protect national security.

6. The government says green-card holders aren’t impacted by the order anymore because of guidance from the White House counsel. The court says it can’t take that to the bank.

7. The court wouldn’t even give the government its fallback position — a modification of the earlier judge’s suspension of the ban.

Trump is changing the presidency more than the presidency is changing Trump

Despite all predictions of a more presidential Donald Trump, he is still tweeting at odd hours, calling people names, promoting his family’s business interests, bragging about crowd sizes, and lashing out at anyone who challenges him. His White House seems just as chaotic and discordant as his campaign was. All of which is according to plan, his team says.

• By Jenna Johnson and Karen Tumulty
• Debrief
• 2 hours ago

Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare could help Democrats do what they have been unable to for seven years: sell the American people on the benefits of the health law.

Poll numbers are moving in their direction. Grassroots organizing – from protests to town halls – is en fuego. For years, the national and local media focused on the problems with the rollout of the law. But reporters have begun writing much more, instead, about the people who stand to lose benefits they’ve obtained.

The Obamacare repeal effort was already in unstable condition. Now its status must be downgraded to critical — and completely unserious,” Dana Milbank notes in his column today. “For seven years, opponents of the Affordable Care Act vowed to make its repeal their top concern, warning that the law would turn America overnight into a socialist dystopia. Now these opponents have unfettered control of the government and they aren’t even talking about repealing.”

• In his weekend interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, Trump said that “maybe it’ll take till sometime into next year” for his administration to unveil a new health-care plan. It is, the president said, “very complicated.”
• From Capitol Hill comes new word that Republicans aren’t even talking about a plan. “To be honest, there’s not any real discussion taking place right now,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters Tuesday at the Capitol. Corker, according to the Huffington Post, said he has “no idea” when Republicans might start drafting an alternative to Obamacare, adding, “I don’t see any congealing around ideas yet.”
• 
  
• - Many Republican politicians are speaking pretty openly about the political danger of scaling back coverage. Lawmakers are getting  nervous about facing the kind of contentious town halls that their Democratic counterparts faced in 2009. Several members have already faced  big crowds of angry activists back home. “I’m not sure you’re going to have anyone in Washington with the courage to repeal the ACA,” Maine Gov. Paul LePage said at a town hall meeting last week. “I do not believe for a minute that now that we have exchanges they will take them away.”

-- The tenor of press coverage has shifted dramatically since the election toward emphasizing plusses, rather than minuses, of the law. Check out these 10 headlines from just the past few days:

• McClatchy’s Washington Bureau: “Repealing Obamacare would kill millions of jobs nationwide.”
• CNBC: “Obamacare repeal could crush your retiree medical costs.”
• USA Today: “Hospitals would face higher charity costs without Obamacare.”
• Kaiser Health News (which is picked up by a lot of newspapers): “Hospitals Worry Repeal Of Obamacare Would Jeopardize Innovations In Care.”
• NPR: “Obamacare Helped The Homeless, Who Now Worry About Coverage Repeal.”
• Los Angeles Times: “Trump’s actions on Obamacare threaten to undermine insurance markets.”
• Charlotte Observer: “ACA repeal could cost Mecklenberg and North Carolina millions in health funding.”
• Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Virginia could lose $20 million in public health funds with ACA repeal.”
• Register-Herald of Beckley, West Virginia: “West Virginia to be second most affected state with ACA repeal.” Finally, the conservative-leaning Arizona Republic editorial board has been calling on the GOP to not repeal the law until there is a replacement in place

The most recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that only 20 percent of Americans support repeal alone, while 47 percent oppose repeal altogether and another 28 percent want to wait to repeal the law until the replacement plan’s details are known. The researchers behind the nonpartisan survey relay that a surprising number of people shift their opinions when they hear counter-arguments: “For example, after hearing pro-repeal arguments about the law’s costs to individuals and the government, the share of the public supporting repeal grows as large as 60 percent, while anti-repeal arguments about people losing coverage and the impact on people with pre-existing conditions decreases support for repeal to as low as 27 percent.”

The fluidity of those numbers underscores how impactful the coming debate over repeal could be on public opinion.

Democrats think some shared principles will work to their advantage during the coming fight over the law. The newest Quinnipiac University survey, for instance, found that 96 percent of Americans, including 91 percent of Republicans, say it is "very important" or "somewhat important" that health insurance be affordable for all Americans.

Amid deep partisan rancor, Senate confirms Jeff Sessions for attorney general The victory for Trump and Sessions came after a bruising confirmation process for the longtime senator and other Cabinet nominees, which Democrats have used to amplify their concerns about the president’s agenda. By Sean Sullivan and Kelsey Snell  •  Read more »

After pointed questions, fate of travel ban rests with appeals court

A three-judge panel pressed those challenging and defending President Trump’s controversial immigration order. It asked a Justice Department lawyer about the limits on the president’s power, and what evidence was used in temporarily barring refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.

By Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes  •  Read more » Nobody expects Trump to be rooting for the courts to knock down his ban. It is, after all, his signature policy achievement so far, meant to make good on a signature campaign promise to get tough on terrorism. But Trump isn't just sharing his opinion on the ban with us. He's not-so-subtly threatening the entire American court system if they don't side with him, including the above comment he made Wednesday in a speech to law enforcement. Also, he's tweeted a lot about this. Translation, via The Fix's Aaron Blake: “Trump is basically saying: That's a nice reputation you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.” Republicans L-O-V-E Trump's travel ban Here's some data that could help us understand why Trump is willing to throw out norms about separation of powers if it could mean saving his ban. While America is split down the middle on if his ban is a good thing, WaPo's polling guru Emily Guskin found that an incredibly high number of Republicans support it. It's not just the travel ban Republicans like. They are also incredibly supportive of several of Trump's key policies, like a border wall: Vetted, then blocked: A Syrian odyssey A family’s bags had been packed for a flight when the White House announced a ban on Syrian refugees entering the United States. “At first I thought it was a joke,” Mahmoud Khoja said. “I just froze.” By Louisa Loveluck  •  Read more » A Quinnipiac University poll finds that 51 percent of Americans are opposed to Trump’s order suspending travel from seven majority-Muslim countries, while 60 percent oppose Trump’s order to halt refugee travel to the U.S. for 120 days. By a margin of 70 percent to 26 percent, voters oppose Trump’s order to indefinitely block Syrian refugees.

Republicans vote to rebuke Elizabeth Warren, saying she impugned Jeff Sessions’s character In an extraordinarily rare move, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Democrat had breached Senate rules by reading past statements from Coretta Scott King and others critical of Sessions, a senator who is Trump’s attorney general nominee. "She was warned. She was given an explanation,” McConnell said of Warren. “Nevertheless, she persisted.” By Paul Kane and Ed O'Keefe  •  Read more » McConnell gives Warren’s presidential campaign an in-kind contribution Mitch McConnell gagging Elizabeth Warren is one of the best gifts she could have received, and her birthday is not even until June. It solidifies her bona fides as a fighter for progressive causes. By James Hohmann  •  Read more »

DAVID BORDWELL ON DONALD TRUMP

DAVID BORDWELL

Trump has created within the White House a cadre of supplicant–Svengalis who will steer him toward policies I can only regard as despotic. In the first days of his regime, the strategy is clear. He will occupy the forestage, gibbering and gesticulating to grab the news cycle, while behind the scenes a blitzkrieg of intolerance, repression, fear, kleptocracy, and pain will roll across our land. He’s a petty tyrant, but people will be so distracted by the pettiness that they’ll forget he’s a tyrant.

 Most surprising to me is arch Neocon David Frum, with whom I’ve never agreed on anything, writing an eloquent, wide-ranging critique everyone should read.

A president who plausibly owes his office at least in part to a clandestine intervention by a hostile foreign intelligence service? Who uses the bully pulpit to target individual critics? Who creates blind trusts that are not blind, invites his children to commingle private and public business, and somehow gets the unhappy members of his own political party either to endorse his choices or shrug them off? If this were happening in Honduras, we’d know what to call it. 

----

 a cold eye toward the recent wave of journalists’ expeditions from the Coasts to report on and empathize with the Forgotten American. Nobody from the boondocks I lived in for eighteen years (an in-depth longitudinal study) ever evinced any curiosity about the ideas of the liberals they despised. Frequent visits back home showed no further stirrings of curiosity about the world, just as today I see no efforts to empathize coming from Trump’s jeering mobs. By contrast, many liberals strive to widen the circle of understanding, and this allows them to be played for suckers again and again.

the bulk of the blame lies with the voters. Granted that many suffer from the economic inequality created by globalization. It’s not their fault that the US lacks an educational system and a welfare state capable of absorbing the shocks of such massive technological change. But many Trump voters are not disadvantaged. A Gallup poll found that support from Trump was strongest in areas less damaged by globalization. (Racial bias seems to be a stronger correlative.)

Whatever the causes, there’s no blinking the fact. Between a demagogic voluptuary and a candidate whose moral obtuseness was matched by tactical incompetence, sixty-two million American adults chose recklessly. They acted in a way that was demonstrably mischievous, stupid, ignorant, selfish, bigoted, cruel, and hateful.

Donald Trump’s latest attack on the media is very, very dangerous

WASHINGTON POST, CHRIS CILLIZZA

what Trump is saying is so, so dangerous. He's implying that the media is allowing its own collective biases to get in the way of his efforts to keep the country safe from the threat of terrorism. That the media is, at best, downplaying these attacks because of their own ideological biases and, at, worst, siding with the terrorists. That's staggering stuff — even for Trump.

As Philip Bump notes, it's not the first time Trump has made an insinuation like this one. In June 2016, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub massacre, Trump said this: “People cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on.

The problem is this: For lots and lots of people listening to Trump, his suggestion that the media is complicit in a coverup of terrorist attacks will be taken as fact. They won't seek out context or evidence that, frankly, totally undermines his contention. Because they already believe the media to be bad/biased, they will simply take it as a fact that the media is willfully disrupting the president's efforts to keep the country safe.

By Amber Phillips

President Trump's travel ban could be in legal limbo for months. But if we know where to look in the maze of legalese, we could have a sense of whether the courts will let it be implemented as soon as Tuesday. Here's why: The ban has been on pause since Friday. There are 50+ challenges to the ban, from Boston to Hawaii, but the most sweeping and significant is on the West Coast. A federal Seattle judge — a George W. Bush appointee — put it on hold nationwide almost a week after Trump implemented it, agreeing with Washington and Minnesota attorneys general that the ban could be unduly harming Americans. Some people who were stopped at airports last weekend started traveling again to the United States. On Tuesday,  the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco — will decide whether the Seattle judge's temporary restraining order should stay in place. This is a critical juncture for the ban: It's quite possible that what this court decides ends up being its fate. I'll add that this court is widely seen as one of the most liberal in the nation. The losing side will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. Which means in the next few months, the highest court in the land could tell us whether Trump's temporary travel ban for seven predominantly Muslim countries can resume. Or not. The Supreme Court could also give us an objectively unsatisfying 4-4 split along ideological lines, which it's done before on big cases. If that happens, the 9th Circuit's decision will be the official law of the land. The Supreme Court has been without its ninth member since Justice Antonin Scalia died almost exactly a year ago. It's almost certain that Trump's pick, conservative federal judge Neil Gorsuch, will not be on the bench in time to hear this case. (Remember, this is a temporary travel ban, which expires in 120 days — late May — for most travelers.) So, yes, this legal challenge could take months to complete. But it's possible that a decision Tuesday will signal its fate.

For Trump’s travel ban, a lengthy legal battle lies ahead A federal appeals court ruled that the president’s immigration order will remain suspended, at least until sometime Monday — when both sides have deadlines to present more arguments to a three-judge panel. The administration says the order is needed for national security. By Matt Zapotosky and Robert Barnes  •  Read more » Trump’s blasts at a federal judge raise questions for Gorsuch on independence Democrats are asking whether the Supreme Court nominee, who is likely to be called upon to review what the president already has shown to be a broad reliance on executive power, would be able to stand up to the president who picked him. By Robert Barnes  •  Read more »

Justice Department appeals to restore Trump travel ban

In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the acting solicitor general described a judge’s temporary halt to President Trump’s order on immigration as “judicial second-guessing” and an “impermissible intrusion” on presidential authority. The 9th Circuit denied a request for an immediate reinstatement of the ban and instead asked the state of Washington and the Trump administration to file more arguments by Monday afternoon. While his administration followed the court’s order, the president tweeted an extraordinarily personal criticism of U.S. District Judge James L. Robart.

By Robert Barnes, Matt Zapotosky and Abby Phillip  •  Read more »