The Week Ahead August 17, 2025 Joyce Vance Aug 18 This administration is, in many ways, incompetent—and dangerously so. Heather Cox Richardson described the run-up to Trump’s meeting with Putin like this in her newsletter, Letters from an American, Saturday night: “Quickly, though, it became clear that Witkoff’s description of Putin’s offer was wrong, either because Putin had misled him or because he had misunderstood: Witkoff does not speak Russian and, according to former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, does not use a notetaker from the U.S. embassy. Nonetheless, on Friday, August 8, Trump announced on social media that he would meet personally with Putin in Alaska, without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.” That’s the kakistocracy part: government by the most incompetent, ill-suited people. If kakistocracy is the shot, then kleptocracy is the chaser (though it might be the other way around; I can’t quite decide). The corruption—the willingness to pursue personal profit and political gain at the expense of principle—that now defines the former Republican Party is just jaw-dropping. Thanks for being here and for reading Civil Discourse. I hope you’ll share it with friends and consider subscribing if you don’t already. Vladimir Putin, an alleged war criminal, has been indicted for his role in the unlawful deportation and seizure of Ukrainian kids, who are now in Russia. In other words: human trafficking. Yet Trump welcomed him to Alaska with open arms (in a somewhat subservient posture) and not a single Republican leader spoke up. During the Obama administration, Republicans frequently criticized both Russia and the Obama administration's approach to the country. in 2021, then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Russia the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." Republicans, like then-House Speaker John Boehner, argued that President Obama's “reset” policies were too weak in responding to Russian aggression, pointing to events like the annexation of Crimea and Russian interference in the 2016 election. And when Russia invaded Ukraine, Texas Republican Senator Cornyn wrote: “We have a responsibility to support the Ukrainian people as they fight to defend their own sovereignty. Putin has tried to get away with as much as he can, and it would be naive to think that he will stop at Ukraine. Ukraine is on the front line of a crisis, but the security of Europe is also in question. This is not just about Ukraine. This is not just about Europe. This is about America’s credibility and that of our friends and allies around the world and our willingness to stand up for our values and defend our freedoms.” In 2023, Cornyn issued a statement on the first anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, emphasizing that a "victory in Ukraine is a victory for all who value freedom.” This weekend, crickets from the party that used to believe America had a role to play in bringing democracy to the rest of the world. Now, they kowtow to Trump so that they can hold onto power and avoid primary challenges—suggesting they no longer believe fully in democracy even at home. That’s where we start “The Week Ahead” tonight, with increasing concern about Trump’s efforts to present himself as an American strongman who can take over cities and unleash troops on American streets at will. If you missed our conversation earlier today, watch Mary McCord’s outstanding explanation of the differences between the District of Columbia and how Donald Trump is trying to narrow them. It’s an effort to shift Americans’ perspective and tamp down on the inevitable outrage if/when he tries it elsewhere. We can’t let that happen. Outrage is essential. Outrage is quintessentially American in this moment. Mainers using chalk to protest in support of democracy This week again, expect developments squarely at the intersection of law and politics that will have a tremendous impact on the future of the nation. It will be a week to watch court proceedings and decisions closely. Newsom v. Trump: We’re awaiting a ruling from Judge Charles Breyer in the California case over the legal limits on Trump’s efforts to manufacture a fake law enforcement emergency, worsen it by federalizing and deploying National Guard troops, and then claim the federal presence is necessary. As the three-day bench trial came to a close, Judge Breyer asked the lawyers, “Why is the federalized National Guard, even though it's been drawn down, still in place? What is the threat today? What was the threat yesterday? It’s the absence of any limits to a national police force — that’s what I am sitting here trying to figure out.” Trump has reduced the number of troops in Los Angeles but has not given up control of the California National Guard. Recall that initial federalization happened despite no request from Newsom, who—as with every governor nationwide—serves as commander of the state’s Guard. (The sole exception is the District of Columbia, where the president is always the commander.) The issue during the three-day bench trial (other issues in the case are on appeal) was the extent to which the federalized troops could participate in civilian law enforcement without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. That federal law bars the military, including federalized National Guard troops, from engaging in law enforcement on American streets absent specific authorization, which was not in effect here. Trump’s original order in the state was based on his claim that a “rebellion” was underway—that was how he characterized anti-ICE protests. The judge asked the government whether these events qualified as an “insurrection.” Their milquetoast response was that they had “not made” that argument. Instead, DOJ contends that the president’s determinations of what constitutes a rebellion cannot be reviewed by a court. Judge Breyer’s comments in court seemed to suggest he may not agree. The courts need to thoroughly debunk the claim by the administration that Trump holds some sort of supreme power that exempts him from oversight by the courts, a part of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers envisioned. Judicial review has been a part of that system since 1803. A Supreme Court that has increasingly relied on history and tradition to reach its decisions would do well to keep that in mind when this case reaches it. This week, we’ll await Judge Breyer’s decision. The Epstein Files: The Justice Department has until Tuesday to turn over to Congress all documents and communications in its possession related to the Epstein investigation. A House Oversight Committee issued the subpoena. This follows the DOJ’s failed attempt to obtain permission from federal courts to turn over grand jury material. As we predicted, that material consisted of summary testimony from government witnesses, narrowly limited to the indictments obtained against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The file likely contains much more information—not obtained through grand jury subpoenas—including agents’ reports of witness interviews. Last month, GOP leaders called an early recess to get their members out of D.C. and the Epstein spotlight, as constituents demanded that Trump release the files. Look for that debate to reignite this week. “I don’t think it’s going to go away,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said earlier about the matter. “Maybe our leadership thinks that sticking their head in the sand and running out of town was the right decision. … Once we go back into session, I think this picks up where it left off.” His unlikely partner in making sure that happens is Democrat Ro Khanna from California. Congress returns to Washington on September 2, and by then, we’ll know whether DOJ intends to comply with the subpoena or not; most likely not, or at least with only token compliance. Sunday morning, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy pointed out that Trump’s “takeover of DC policing is just a stunt to distract people (and the press!)” from the Epstein files. He further emphasized that crime in the District had risen during Trump’s first term in office, and then it declined when Biden took over. Alligator Alcatraz: Two weeks ago, a federal judge temporarily blocked additional construction at the Florida detention center for immigrants who lack legal immigration status—or as Trump calls it, “Alligator Alcatraz,” which is a casual cruelty we should not lose sight of. Two environmental groups, Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a lawsuit that was subsequently joined by the Miccosukee tribe, which has traditional use and access to the area where the facility is being built. They obtained a temporary restraining order based on violation of environmental law—this case has nothing to do with the horrific conditions people are being held in. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the public must have an opportunity to comment before projects like this one begin and that didn’t happen here. The temporary injunction expires this week. The Judge has held hearings and will likely decide before then whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which either Florida or the Trump administration, or both, would be able to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The District of Columbia: Of course, we expect more to happen here, including additional proceedings in front of Judge Reyes. Trump issued his initial order requiring Mayor Muriel Bowser to provide him with the “services” of the Metropolitan Police Department on August 11. (That’s the order that stays in place for 30 days unless Congress extends it.) Trump’s 30 days run out on or around September 10, meaning that even before Congress goes back into session, we may begin to see some sort of warm-up in the skirmish between the parties over whether that will happen. If National Guard troops from other states arrive in the District, litigation could arise over whether they can be deployed—and, if so, what role they may play. While we wait on this week’s developments, share a sandwich with a friend. You’ve just read The Week Ahead without a paywall. Paid subscribers make that possible. If you want to help me keep this work available to everyone—and get extra benefits along the way—please subscribe and become a member of the Civil Discourse community. We’re in this together, Joyce