This is special extra edition of TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.
A Friday afternoon in the summer seemed like a good time to step back and field reader questions, but as I sat down to begin writing this news reports started coming of a three-country prisoner exchange involving the detainees the Trump administration removed to CECOT. Under the reported arrangement, most or all of the deported Venezuelans in CECOT will be transferred to Venezuela, and the Venezuelan government will return some American political prisoners. The pace of news in the Trump era never slows.
But for now, let’s get to your questions:
QUESTION: What is the history of deportations to other countries than country of origin? What about to jails in other countries run by US or run by the other country?
I was in court last week across three different days covering the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, and I’ve learned quite a bit more about third country removals than I knew before. U.S. law does provide for third country removals, but the key point is that up to now they’ve been relatively rare. The number that came out in court last week and that I’ve seen confirmed elsewhere is that about 1.6% of deportations historically have been to third countries. That’s obviously a small proportion, but it’s also not nothing.
Where things get more nuanced are the circumstances in which third countries were used. My understanding it that prior to the second Trump administration, deportations to third countries where the deportee had no connection of any kind were much more rare. To your second question, deporting people to prisons in third countries (or to countries that are war zones) was unheard of until this year.
Another big issue here is what due process deportees are entitled to before they’re removed to a third country. The Supreme Court’s decision last month to stay a Massachusetts federal judge’s injunction blocking third country removals without notice and hearing cleared the way for the stalled removals to South Sudan. But it also muddied the waters considerably on what due process is required. We learned this week that a new Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy would allow removal to some third countries with as little as six hours notice and no further due process. We’ll probably get a clearer answer when and if the Massachusetts case makes it back to the high court on the merits, but it’s not looking good.
For those looking for more context, The New Yorker talked to Yale law professor Cristina Rodríguez this week about these issues.
QUESTION: Any procedural options for Senate Dems to grind the Bove nomination to a halt?
Not really. Because Senate rules are so byzantine, I feel like I should add a caveat that Democrats might in theory be able to add a few hours to the process, but I’m not aware of anything in the rules that would allow Democrats to stop the Bove confirmation process in its tracks.
QUESTION: Why hasn’t a senator put a hold on Bove’s nomination? Do holds no longer exist?
I suspect you’re remembering the old days, before the end of the filibuster for judicial nominations. Holds still exist, and they can slow down the process for judicial nominees, but they can’t stop them outright.
If you detect me being hedged in my answers, it’s because the parliamentary specifics are complicated and I don’t want to be imprecise. But I also don’t want to leave the impression that there’s some trickery or clever maneuver that is available to stop this. The battles over Senate rules and the nuclear option were fought a decade or so ago. We’re in a new era.
QUESTION: Why hasn’t anyone gone after Bondi et al. through complaints with the bar associations for violating legal ethics and bar codes?
I know there was a bar complaint against then-acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin in DC that was declined earlier this year, and I see that two Democratic House members this week sent a letter requesting a D.C. bar investigation of Martin. Beyond that, I’m not sure we would necessarily yet know about every pending bar complaint against Trump administration lawyers.
As for Bondi, some of the most egregious and corrupt things Bondi has done — like eroding the Justice Department’s independence from the White House — are not strictly illegal or necessarily violations of legal ethics standards. I mention only to note how limited of a tool bar complaints are.
Ethics rules should be enforced, like they were against some of the lawyers complicit in the 2020 Big Lie. But I think we also saw real limitations there that made them less than a magic bullet; namely, they’re slow. Doesn’t mean they should be ignored! Just wouldn’t pin my hopes to them.
QUESTION: Are there any more whispers in D.C. about Stephen Miller running the show in the White House? Will Congress clutch pearls or do something?
By all accounts, Stephen Miller is an exceptionally influential and powerful White House aide who has succeeded in channeling Donald Trump’s id into key policy areas like mass deportation. Morning Memo, I believe, was among the first to note that the Trump executive order on DOJ weaponization made Miller the White House point person. Miller also embodies Trump’s vindictive tendencies and seems to relish serving in an enforcer role. As for Congress, as long as both chambers are in GOP hands, I don’t see it targeting Miller for investigation.
QUESTION: I have two adult children with severe intellectual disabilities in a group home. Any idea how BBB Medicaid cuts will affect them?
I’m sorry you’re having to grapple with these kinds of questions. I was initially inclined not to try to answer this question because the issue is so important for you and for families like yours that it deserves an expert response. But I wanted other readers to see it, and what I can offer might help orient them.
My sense is that fight here now moves to the states, where the massive reduction in federal funding for Medicaid is blowing holes in their budgets. Each state is going to have to figure out how much of those holes they can fill with their own funding, and then make tough decisions about which benefits they prioritize. That makes it almost impossible to answer your question with any specificity now.
Medicaid recipients in blue states will probably, on balance, fare better than those in red states. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that benefits will be cut across the board, even in blue states. The funding cuts are just too big. But how it looks state to state will probably vary considerably.
QUESTION: My question is about whether Democrats taking over Congress in 2026 is really the best hope. Yes, they could block things, but they couldn’t repeal things or get new things done because of the veto power. At this rate, most of the damage will have been done before they are seated.
I would flip the question around and ask what’s the alternative? Is it not contesting the 2026 midterms? Is it giving up all hope? I agree that there’s no magic bullet. Democrats winning the House won’t solve every problem or stop every Trump transgression or instantly restore the rule of law. I subscribe to an “all of the above” approach. You do everything you can wherever you can to preserve democratic institutions and civil society capacity and then do the long, hard, often slow work of rebuilding what has been lost. Winning elections isn’t the only thing, but it’s an indispensable thing.
Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!
