{{current_date_full}}

🤳 Want to text me? Join me on Subtext in two steps:
1) Become a Newsweek member 2) Join Subtext here

Good morning,

For a hot second there, after the events of the weekend, I thought we might see a more reflective, more demure Trump administration. The president got mostly good marks in the non-TDS media for how he handled himself on Saturday night, and I thought perhaps he might realize he could bump up his approval numbers a few points if he just acted normal, and conciliatory, for like a week or two. Shows you what I know.

Instead, we're back to the same old B.S. that explains why this White House is failing so badly in the court of public opinion. Just after a botched attack on a dinner meant to celebrate the First Amendment, Trump has decided to use the moment to pick new free-speech fights with two of his longtime nemeses, Jimmy Kimmel and James Comey, after his last attempts to go after the two Jims failed due to (what else?) his own administration's incompetence.

Kimmel and Comey, two of my least favorite public figures, whom I will nonetheless have to defend out of principle. Recall that the White House, via the FCC, tried to nail Kimmel in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death, when he was suspended by ABC/Disney for something dumb/misleading he said about Kirk's assassin. The FCC tried to jawbone ABC into firing Kimmel, but it backfired. This time, they thought they could get him based on a lame joke he made, pre-WHCD, after Melania having the "glow of an expectant widow." Now the FCC is going after ABC's broadcast licenses in a First Amendment fight the government knows it won't win, but is meant to send a message to the other broadcast networks that they'll be next if they step out of line. Not exactly the free speech principles we were meant to be toasting on Saturday. 

Trump's DOJ quickly followed that reductio ad absurdum up with a new grand jury indictment of Jim Comey after the last one, related to alleged false statements he made to Congress years ago, got tossed because the federal prosecutor who filed it was improperly appointed. Rather than give up on this ridiculous prosecution of his long-ago and now utterly irrelevant political enemies, Trump directed the DOJ to find a new way to indict the former FBI director. 

Kash Patel, last seen wandering around the Hilton looking confused, announced yesterday that the FBI had secured a new grand jury indictment against Comey in a completely different matter. Here's how Kash Money described it: "This has been a case that's been investigated over the past, nine, 10, 11 months. These cases take time. Our investigators work methodically. They are career agents, career prosecutors who work these matters. They call the balls and strikes in the field as they see fit." 

An eleven-month investigation of the former FBI boss? Sounds like a lot of resources expended for this. Whatever they found, they must have Comey dead to rights this time. 

Nope. They got a grand jury of yahoos in North Carolina to hand up an indictment over an Instagram post Comey made last year that showed some seashells on a beach arranged into the numbers '8647', which caused a brief and idiotic media frenzy in the moment as MAGA tried to make the case this was Comey threatening the president's life (if you've never worked in food service, '86' is shorthand for when an item is out of stock, or when a customer needs to get thrown out).

It's just so embarrassing. This is the FBI. They just missed another serious attempt on the president's life, and this is how their agents are spending their time? Kash, Todd Blanche, all these people know this case will go nowhere. They're just doing it to satisfy the boss. There is actually an interesting SCOTUS case from the late 60s, Watts v. US, that all but assures Comey will never be successfully prosecuted for this. The case centers around a young man about to be drafted into Vietnam, who said when he was given his rifle "the first man in my sights will be LBJ." He was arrested for threatening the life of the president, but the Court found that his speech did not amount to a true threat but "political hyperbole" protected by the 1A. 

The White House knows all of this, of course. They know they can't jawbone Kimmel out of a job. (Also, who cares about Jimmy Kimmel? When was the last time you heard this guy mentioned outside the context of fighting with Trump?) They know they won't nail Comey over a friggin' seashell Instagram pic. So why do they do this? Why do they expend precious political capital and suck up media attention — at a moment when their numbers are in freefall — to do stuff like this? Why are they printing limited edition passports with Trump’s face on them? Because the boss is vain, petty and vindictive and can't get out of his own way. If you voted for Trump, this is the tragedy of your vote. The focus, attention and capital of an admin hellbent on punishing enemies, building a ballroom, plastering Trump’s face and signature everywhere, and getting us into another Middle East quagmire. When all the voters actually want is some goddamn people in power to show them that they are focused on the cost-of-living crisis in this country.

Speaking of free speech, we have a great and timely conversation on today's show. I just spoke with Sharon McMahon, the civics teacher, author and social-media star who was supposed to be giving the commencement address at Utah Valley University tonight. 

McMahon's invite to speak on the campus where Charlie Kirk was shot last September was rescinded after a political campaign to cancel her over an Instagram post she made in the wake of that assassination. That post, which did not celebrate his death but, as she told me, simply pointed out various things Kirk had said that was meant to "give context" to her followers about why he was such a divisive figure. This is a great, mini 1A case. On the one hand, it's understandable that UVU, coming off a harrowing school year that started with an act of grisly violence, would not want to further inflame the situation with a controversial graduation speaker. On the other hand, it's a public school that has had its funding threatened by Republican politicians over McMahon's invitation, which one might argue is a pretty clear-cut violation of McMahon's speech protections. Watch for yourself and lemme know what you think.

Today's lesson boiled down: nothing good comes from using Instagram. When in doubt, don't post it.

Sign up for The 1600 in one click here. 🔔

Carlo Versano is Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture. He has in-depth knowledge and experience covering a range of topics and stories over a 20-year career in the news business. Carlo joined Newsweek in 2024 after a stint at The Messenger. Before that, he was an Emmy-winning producer at NBC News. He is a graduate of the University of Richmond and the New School. You can get in touch with Carlo by emailing [email protected].

Subscribe to the 1600 Podcast 🔔
YouTube
Apple
Spotify
iHeartRadio

Sharon McMahon was set to give her commencement speech at Utah Valley University today, but a coordinated campaign upended her plans. McMahon tells Carlo the circumstances that led to the cancellation of her speech on the campus where Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September.

Watch the latest episode here. ⬅

There’s a long-lost tradition, found deep in the annals of British history, of nicknaming monarchs and courtiers by their peculiarities or habits. Some are more flattering than others: Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror, Aethelred the Unready, Edward the Confessor, Roland the Farter. Yes, that last one is real. Look it up. 

After King Charles III’s address to Congress, a historic occasion to mark 250 years of American Independence from British rule, we might have to invent a new one: Charlie the Charmer. 

In this latest edition of Dissected, we cut through Charlie the Charmer’s warm words to expose the real sentiments beneath. No one is safe from Newsweek’s scalpel. Not even a king.

I was inside the House Chamber for King Charles’ big speech yesterday, and lawmakers from both parties appeared genuinely thrilled to witness the moment. A British monarch addressing legislators from a country that gained independence from that monarchy 250 years ago. Not something you see every day in this town.

I spotted Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar clapping throughout the speech and rising for multiple standing ovations. That stood out to me, given her association with “No Kings” protests in the United States.

Another notable takeaway was the absence of current Supreme Court justices. The only current or former member of the high court in attendance was retired Justice Stephen Breyer.

Earlier in the day, I also covered the royal greeting ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House.

The most talked about moment had little to do with the monarchy. President Trump joked that his marriage to Melania Trump would not last as long as his parents’ nuptuals, which spanned more than six decades.

“That’s a record we won’t be able to match, darling, I’m sorry. Just not going to work out that way,” he said.

Some in the crowd laughed, while others appeared stunned. For me, it just felt like another example of this president wrestling with his own mortality on the precipice of his 80th birthday.

Another notable detail: cranes working on the new White House ballroom continued operating during the event. It certainly feels like this ballroom is going to get built, one way or another.

Ron DeSantis dropped a congressional map on Fox News Monday morning that's supposed to hand Republicans four additional House seats in Florida. Sounds clean, right? Except it might blow up in their faces.

The governor's strategy is ruthless: carve up Democratic strongholds, pack them into fewer districts, and flip seats red. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's district gets split three ways. Darren Soto's gets demolished across four. On paper, Republicans gain ground.

But here's where it gets messy. By pushing so aggressively, DeSantis and crew are actually weakening some of their safest Republican seats. Mario Diaz-Balart's once-bulletproof district—a Trump +35 in 2024—suddenly looks vulnerable under the new lines. A +17 swing is a problem when you're supposed to be consolidating power, not creating opportunities for Democrats.

Some Republicans are sounding the alarm. Greg Steube warned that seats won by eight or nine points could shrink to four or five. Daniel Webster called it a "slippery slope." Even GOP strategist Mary Anna Mancuso questioned whether mid-cycle redistricting was worth the chaos.

Then Democrats flipped a Palm Beach County special election in March—the one that includes Trump's Mar-a-Lago. Suddenly, DeSantis' aggressive play looks riskier than planned.

Hakeem Jeffries already promised $20 million to challenge the map. Whether DeSantis' gamble pays off depends entirely on whether Florida looks like 2024 or 2020. Read the full breakdown on how DeSantis' redistricting could backfire on Republicans.

“When I decided, finally, to come out in ’87, it just struck me when I did that … the American people are a lot less homophobic than they thought they were supposed to be. More racist, unfortunately, but less homophobic.”

—Barney Frank, former congressman from Massachusetts, in an interview with Politico as he enters hospice care.

Newsweek is part of the Trust Project, which focuses on honesty, accuracy and fairness in journalism. Read more about our best practices. To get in touch with our newsroom with suggestions on how to point out possible errors, please contact us at [email protected].