So the longest federal government shutdown in American history ended last weekend, not with a bang but a whimper. Seven Democrat senators and one Independent voted with the Republicans to reopen the government without securing the goal that Democrats had been fighting for. This has outraged many other Democrats, since it was seen as "pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory," once again.

Donald Trump essentially ignored the entire shutdown, while he threw lavish parties and visited foreign countries (and demolished one-third of the White House, to boot). But Trump's minions were ratcheting up the pressure on Democrats, by limiting how many flights could take off from major airports and going to the Supreme Court -- twice! -- to demand that they had the power to refuse to feed hungry children. All around, Trump is appearing more and more like a cartoonish supervillain.

Speaking of supervillains, the Epstein files scandal returned to the fore, as Democrats released emails showing what Jeffrey Epstein truly thought of Donald Trump ("evil beyond belief" and "i have met some very bad people ,, none as bad as trump. not one decent cell in his body... dangerous.") -- which is rather remarkable, when you consider how evil Epstein was.

Trump's response, as usual, was to flood the zone with distractions. He sicced his Justice Department on any Democrats mentioned in the newly-released Epstein files, and of course Attorney General Pam Bondi immediately did her master's bidding.

The White House also tried to strongarm at least two of the House Republicans who have signed the discharge petition to force the release of all the Epstein files in the Justice Department, even going so far as to bring in Representative Lauren Boebert to the White House Situation Room. This ultra-secure room is usually used for the most serious decisions presidents make, but instead Boebert faced Bondi and the head of the F.B.I., Kash Patel, who both tried to force her to withdraw her signature from the discharge petition. None of it worked -- all four Republicans kept their names on it, and because the House is back in session again (after a seven-week paid holiday), Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn in. The first thing she did afterwards was to provide the pivotal 218th signature on the petition, which is now going to force Speaker Mike Johnson to hold a vote on it next week. Interesting wonky factoid: now that the discharge petition is complete, no representative is allowed to withdraw their name from it. So that vote will happen no matter what.

Even if it does, it probably isn't going to work (other than to ramp up the political pressure on Trump). Even if it passes the House, it's still got to get through the Senate (which is doubtful) and then Trump could just veto it in the end. But holding the vote in the House will guarantee that the story will be front-and-center next week.

Unless Trump starts a war with Venezuela, that is. Which he is apparently now seriously considering, after earlier lying to Congress about whether they were planning to invade or not.

Meanwhile, someone in the White House apparently got the wake-up call from the 2025 elections (which Democrats impressively swept) and there is a scramble now on to figure out how Trump can attempt to claim to be fighting for "affordability" (since the Democrats used the issue so successfully against him). Trump, of course, prominently ran on the issue himself, promising to wave a magic wand and fix everything on "Day One." Affordability (getting inflation down and prices down) was one of his two biggest issues, in fact (the other was immigration). But since he's taken office, all he's done has made things worse. His tariff spree has increased prices on all kinds of things Americans buy, so the White House is finally attempting some damage control on the issue (since they are obviously fearful that Democrats will use it just as successfully in next year's midterms).

Trump being Trump, though, his efforts are scattershot (at best) and will doubtlessly be ineffective. Except for one thing -- they're announcing that tariffs on foods that don't grow in America (like coffee and bananas) will be rolled back. Coffee prices have skyrocketed this year, but Trump will deserve exactly zero credit for "fixing" the problem. He's like a guy who sets fire to your house and then puts it out and wants to be congratulated for dousing the fire -- that he himself lit.

Other ideas Trump has been floating are all over the map:

Lower prices for coffee and fruit. A 50-year mortgage to reduce monthly home payments. Direct checks of $2,000 to many Americans. And a new willingness to welcome skilled foreign labor into the United States.

The Trump administration has begun floating a series of ideas over the past several weeks as it confronts the cold reality that its economic policies are not helping many Americans who continue to struggle with elevated prices and a sense of economic pessimism.

But he's got a long way to go to convince anyone:

Only 30 percent of voters believe President Trump has lived up to their expectations for tackling inflation and the cost of living, according to a recent NBC News poll. That was his lowest mark for any issue respondents were asked about. And a meager 27 percent of voters in a CNN poll in late October said Mr. Trump's policies had improved the country's economic conditions -- less than half of those who thought he had made matters worse.

Trump's poll numbers in general have taken a notable downturn, and his average is now roughly 12-to-14 points underwater in job approval polling. His numbers are even worse in polling on the economy and inflation. Trump even went to a pro football game last week and got soundly booed by the crowd. He has also lost one notable member of his own party, as Marjorie Taylor Greene continues to rip into Trump on affordability, saying in a recent interview:

President Trump and his administration does deserve a lot of credit for lowering inflation and holding it steady, but that doesn't bring prices down, and so gaslighting the people and trying to tell them that prices have come down is not helping, it's actually infuriating people.

People know what they're paying at the grocery store. They know what they're paying for their kids' clothes and school supplies. They know what they're paying for their electricity bills.

. . .

We need compassion and [to] show that we care about the American people, and show that we are in the trenches with them on what they're going through. You don't gaslight them. You don't lecture them, and you don't deny what's happening.

However, denial and gaslighting are Trump's favorite go-to moves. He continues to insist that everything is wonderful, prices are down on everything, and that gasoline is selling for two bucks a gallon. None of that is true, but that's never mattered to Trump. However, this time Trump seems to be losing support even among his own voters:

President Trump has been dining with Wall Street bigwigs. He has embarked on an opulent revamp of the White House at a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills. He has expressed support for granting visas to skilled foreigners to take jobs in the United States. He approved a $20 billion bailout for Argentina, helping a foreign government and wealthy investors at a moment when the U.S. government was shut down.

For a president who returned to office promising to avoid foreign entanglements, make life more affordable and ensure that available jobs go to American citizens, it has been a significant departure from the expectations of his loyal base. And it is starting to open a rift with his supporters who were counting on a more aggressively populist agenda.

It's hard to say for certain, but it certainly feels like Trump's talent for flooding the zone with lies has slipped. Many have noted that he seems to be falling into the same "out of touch" trap that Joe Biden did -- talking up the economy while millions of people are hurting. Even MAGA supporters hear Trump tell them how wonderfully low all the prices for everything is, but then they have to confront the reality at the checkout stand every week. They know prices aren't down.

They're also still waiting to see those Epstein files in full, too. And they're probably not going to be very impressed if Trump decides to invade Venezuela, either.

We have a few Honorable Mention awards to hand out before getting to the main one. The first of these goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who wrote a letter to Trump demanding he explain the difference between the lies he's been telling and the actual data that his own administration has put out. She goes through a short list of questions, on economic claims Trump has recently made. Here is just one of them (the others, on affordability, energy costs, and grocery costs are similar):

You stated that "we have virtually no inflation at all, yet data shows that inflation is at its highest level since May 2024.

a. Why do you believe that there is "virtually no inflation"?

b. Have you recently developed economic policies based on the assumption that there is "virtually no inflation"? If so, which ones?

c. Based on the reality of rising inflation, do you have plans to amend or alter your economic policies to lower costs for the American public? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

This is what Democrats should be doing -- hit Trump (in public, if possible) on the reality of the situation versus his gaslighting, with details.

The other awards-winners are all from the election (as close races are finally settled). Honorable Mention awards go out to a group of progressive candidates (who ran as a bloc) in Aurora, Colorado, who defeated enough members of their city council to give Democrats control. Some of the Republicans who were ousted went along with Donald Trump during the campaign last year as he lied about immigrant gangs being in control of the whole city, so it was a welcome comeuppance indeed.

But the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is the woman who won the mayor's race in Seattle (in a very close race). Here's her story:

Katie Wilson, a community organizer and first-time candidate who pushed for higher taxes on the wealthy, will be Seattle's next mayor, unseating the incumbent, Bruce Harrell, who conceded on Thursday following one of the tightest elections in the city's history.

Ms. Wilson's election is a Pacific Coast victory for progressive Democrats that matches Zohran Mamdani's rise in New York.

. . .

Ms. Wilson is a co-founder of the Transit Riders Union, an advocacy group behind a number of local measures to expand transit access, increase renter protections and add housing through new and higher taxes on the rich. She had never sought public office before this year, and was prompted to enter Seattle's mayoral race only after the incumbent, Bruce Harrell, became the public face of an effort to block a new tax on high earners to pay for housing construction.

Here's a more in-depth look at the new mayor-elect as well:

Katie Wilson, Seattle's next mayor, is a millennial socialist with scant experience in electoral politics and a persona that may seem incongruent with the vibrant, artsy, tech-forward city she's about to lead.

Ms. Wilson is a wonk, her fans say. A policy nerd, a thrift-store-shopping throwback to the days before Seattle got its Amazon-fueled glow up.

And while her campaign shared a focus on affordability from the left end of the political spectrum with another Democratic Socialist on the other side of the country -- New York City's mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani -- they did not share a vibe.

"They are almost opposite sides of the same coin in terms of personalities," said Joe Mizrahi, a Seattle school board member and secretary general of United Food and Commercial Workers 3000, one of the region's largest unions.

For decades now, Republicans have used "Socialist!" as a scare word, applying it to any Democrat who dared to suggest rich people might need to pay more taxes. But it seems increasingly likely that the smear word has lost its power, as more and more voters actually hear what Democratic Socialists have to say about their agenda and conclude, "That sounds like a good idea!" This is especially true among younger voters.

These are just mayor's races, to be sure. But then again Bernie Sanders started out his political career as a mayor, so it can indeed lead to bigger things. For deepening the progressive bench and for running on economic populism, Katie Wilson is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. We'll be just as interested to see how successful she is at her new job as watching the career of Zohran Mamdani. For now: Congratulations and well done!

[You'll have to wait to congratulate Seattle Mayor-Elect Katie Wilson until she is sworn into office, as our standing rule here is not to provide contact information to campaign websites, sorry.]

There are nine candidates for the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, but we've decided to only hand it out to eight of them.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer only gets a (Dis-)Honorable Mention award, since he did vote against caving on the shutdown, but also because he couldn't keep his caucus together, even after a romp of a victory in the 2025 elections. Schumer is getting plenty of grief for his handling of the situation, including calls from fellow Democrats (although none in the Senate, so far) for him to step down from his leadership position.

But the seven Democratic senators (and one Independent) who did cave certainly deserve this week's MDDOTW award. The ignoble eight are:

• Catherine Cortez Masto
• Dick Durbin
• John Fetterman
• Maggie Hassan
• Tim Kaine
• Angus King [Independent]
• Jackie Rosen
• Jeanne Shaheen

This group certainly didn't manage to get much from the Republicans -- they essentially agreed to what the Republicans had been offering all along. A Senate vote will be held in December on a Democratic bill to extend the Obamacare subsidies. It will likely fail. Even if it does pass, the House may just ignore it. And even if through some miracle it passed both houses, Trump would almost certainly veto it.

Republicans are now scrambling around trying to come up with something to pass in its place, with some sort of gimmick so they can claim they solved the problem (while campaigning for the midterms, next year). But even that is in no way guaranteed -- the easiest thing for them to do would be "nothing" (which they are quite good at doing, in general).

The issue could come back to haunt the Republicans, however, in a big way. If nothing passes, then Democrats will have a second bite at the apple at the end of January -- they could shut the government down again. And next time around, SNAP benefits will be fully funded for the rest of the year, so it won't be available as a bargaining chip for the Republicans (this was included in the bill they passed to end the shutdown).

But let's just say everything Democrats attempt fails. If the Obamacare subsidies do go away, then Democrats will hammer the issue all year long out on the campaign trail. Fighting for affordability is emerging as the centerpiece for Democrats to run on, and this will fit very nicely into that theme. So by failing to fix the problem now, Democrats may actually increase their chances of winning back at least the House in the midterms.

Even so, this week was disappointing (and that's an understatement). So all the Democrats (and one Independent) who caved and got virtually nothing out of the deal certainly deserve their own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact Senator Catherine Cortez Masto on her Senate contact page, Senator Dick Durbin on his Senate contact page, Senator John Fetterman on his Senate contact page, Senator Maggie Hassan on her Senate contact page, Senator Tim Kaine on his Senate contact page, Senator Angus King on his Senate contact page, Senator Jackie Rosen on her Senate contact page, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen on her Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

Volume 820 (11/14/25)

We are pre-empting our usual talking points this week in order to present excerpts from a very powerful letter. It was written by U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf as a public resignation letter. Wolf is stepping down from the bench because he is so disgusted at what Donald Trump and his administration are doing. The rules of judicial conduct have prevented him from saying all of this until now. But by resigning, he is now free to speak out.

The letter was originally published in The Atlantic, but their site is behind a paywall, so here's another link to it (published by AOL, with no paywall) if you'd like to read the letter in full. We've tried to do minimal editing, but it is a rather long letter so we felt we had to shorten it at least somewhat here, but the whole thing is definitely worth reading.

This is one of the best condemnations of Trump and his minions that we have ever read. Which is why we're pre-empting our talking points this week to bring you Judge Wolf's resignation letter instead.

Why I Am Resigning

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed me as a federal judge. I was 38 years old. At the time, I looked forward to serving for the rest of my life. However, I resigned Friday, relinquishing that lifetime appointment and giving up the opportunity for public service that I have loved.

My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House's assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.

When I accepted the nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, I took pride in becoming part of a federal judiciary that works to make our country's ideal of equal justice under law a reality. A judiciary that helps protect our democracy. That has the authority and responsibility to hold elected officials to the limits of the power delegated to them by the people. That strives to ensure that the rights of minority groups, no matter how they are viewed by others, are not violated. That can serve as a check on corruption to prevent public officials from unlawfully enriching themselves. Becoming a federal judge was an ideal opportunity to extend a noble tradition that I had been educated by experience to treasure.

My public service began in 1974, near the end of Richard Nixon's presidency, at a time of dishonor for the Department of Justice. Nixon's first attorney general, John Mitchell, who had also been the president's campaign manager, later went to prison for his role in the break-in at the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex and for perjury in attempting to cover up that crime. His successor, Richard Kleindienst, was convicted of contempt of Congress for lying about the fact that, as instructed by the president, he'd ended an antitrust investigation of a major company after it pledged to make a $400,000 contribution to the Republican National Convention. The Justice Department was also discredited by revelations that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had obtained and disseminated derogatory information about political adversaries, including Martin Luther King Jr.

. . .

[Note: The letter then outlines his record as a judge, from hearing the case against "Whitey" Bulger to many major political corruption cases.]

. . .

I decided all of my cases based on the facts and the law, without regard to politics, popularity, or my personal preferences. That is how justice is supposed to be administered--equally for everyone, without fear or favor. This is the opposite of what is happening now.

As I watched in dismay and disgust from my position on the bench, I came to feel deeply uncomfortable operating under the necessary ethical rules that muzzle judges' public statements and restrict their activities. Day after day, I observed in silence as President Trump, his aides, and his allies dismantled so much of what I dedicated my life to.

When I became a senior judge in 2013, my successor was appointed, so my resignation will not create a vacancy to be filled by the president. My colleagues on the United States District Court in Massachusetts and judges on the lower federal courts throughout the country are admirably deciding a variety of cases generated by Trump's many executive orders and other unprecedented actions. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly removed the temporary restraints imposed on those actions by lower courts in deciding emergency motions on its "shadow docket" with little, if any, explanation. I doubt that if I remained a judge I would fare any better than my colleagues.

Others who have held positions of authority, including former federal judges and ambassadors, have been opposing this government's efforts to undermine the principled, impartial administration of justice and distort the free and fair functioning of American democracy. They have urged me to work with them. As much as I have treasured being a judge, I can now think of nothing more important than joining them, and doing everything in my power to combat today's existential threat to democracy and the rule of law.

What Nixon did episodically and covertly, knowing it was illegal or improper, Trump now does routinely and overtly. Prosecutorial decisions during this administration are a prime example. Because even a prosecution that ends in an acquittal can have devastating consequences for the defendant, as a matter of fairness Justice Department guidelines instruct prosecutors not to seek an indictment unless they believe there is sufficient admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trump has utterly ignored this principle. In a social-media post, he instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek indictments against three political adversaries even though the officials in charge of the investigations at the time saw no proper basis for doing so. It has been reported that New York Attorney General Letitia James was prosecuted for mortgage fraud after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, one of Donald Trump's former criminal-defense lawyers, questioned the legal viability of bringing charges against James. Former FBI Director James Comey was charged after the interim U.S. attorney who had been appointed by Trump refused to seek an indictment and was forced to resign. Senator Adam Schiff, the third target of Trump's social-media post, has yet to be charged.

Trump is also dismantling the offices that could and should investigate possible corruption by him and those in his orbit. Soon after he was inaugurated, Trump fired, possibly unlawfully, 18 inspectors general who were responsible for detecting and deterring fraud and misconduct in major federal agencies. The FBI's public-corruption squad also has been eliminated. The Department of Justice's public-integrity section has been eviscerated, reduced from 30 lawyers to only five, and its authority to investigate election fraud has been revoked.

The Department of Justice has evidently chosen to ignore matters it would in the past have likely investigated. Some directly involve the president.

. . .

As a prosecutor and judge I dealt seriously with the unlawful influence of money on official decisions. However, Trump and his administration evidently do not share this approach. After Trump launched his own cryptocurrency, $TRUMP, his Department of Justice disbanded its cryptocurrency-enforcement unit. The top 220 buyers of Trump's cryptocurrency were invited to a dinner with Trump. Sixty-seven of them had invested more than $1 million. The top spender, Justin Sun, who was born in China and is a foreign national, reportedly spent more than $10 million. Sun also reportedly spent $75 million on investments issued by a crypto company controlled by Trump's family. It is illegal for people who are not U.S. citizens to donate to American political candidates, and the most that anyone can donate directly to one candidate is $3,500. Ordinarily, the Department of Justice would investigate this sort of situation. There is, however, no indication that any investigation has occurred. Rather, a few months after Sun started purchasing tokens from the Trump-family cryptocurrency company, the Securities and Exchange Commission paused its fraud suit against Sun and his companies pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. (Sun and his companies have denied any wrongdoing.)

. . .

There is also the matter of Trump's executive orders. A good number are, in my opinion, unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For example, contrary to the express language of the Fourteenth Amendment, one order declares that not everyone born in this country is a U.S. citizen. Trump's administration also has deported undocumented immigrants without due process, in many cases to countries where they have no connections and will be in great danger. Although many federal judges have issued orders restraining the government's effort to implement those executive orders, some appear to have been disobeyed by members of the Trump administration. Trump has responded by calling for federal judges to be impeached, even though the Constitution permits impeachment only for "high crimes and misdemeanors," such as treason and bribery.

. . .

I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy. I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves.

I cannot be confident that I will make a difference. I am reminded, however, of what Senator Robert F. Kennedy said in 1966 about ending apartheid in South Africa: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." Enough of these ripples can become a tidal wave.

And as Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney wrote, sometimes the "longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme." I want to do all that I can to make this such a time.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground