by Steve Benen | Dec 17, 2025 | Maddowblog, Politics
The unexpected problem started about a month ago. On the afternoon of Nov. 20, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Coast Guard would no longer classify swastikas as hate symbols, instead adopting new guidelines that would label the Nazi-era insignia as “potentially divisive.” The same policy was intended to apply to nooses, too.
The Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security, and after the Post’s report, a DHS official described it as “an absolute ludicrous lie,” “unequivocally false” and “fake crap.”
The evidence suggested otherwise. Indeed, as the public learned of the proposed guidelines and outrage over the change grew, officials did exactly what many predicted they would do: On Nov. 21, less than a full day after the Post’s initial report was published, the Coast Guard reversed course in a move that the newspaper described as “stunning and lightning-fast.” Under the revised policy, swastikas and nooses would be considered “hate symbols.”
That was not, however, the final word on the subject. The Post is now reporting that the reversal has been reversed:
The U.S. Coast Guard has allowed a new workplace harassment policy to take effect that downgrades the definition of swastikas and nooses from overt hate symbols to ‘potentially divisive’ despite an uproar over the new language that forced the service’s top officer to direct that both would remain prohibited.
The new policy went into effect Monday, according to written correspondence that the Coast Guard provided to Congress this week, a copy of which was reviewed by The Washington Post. The manual is posted online and makes clear that its previous version ‘is cancelled.’
The same report, which has not been
by Jarvis DeBerry | Dec 17, 2025 | Opinion, Politics
On the first day of the first Black History Month of his first term, Donald Trump announced: “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.” Whatever confusion the president’s tenses suggested over when America’s most eloquent abolitionist lived, Douglass, dead for 122 years then and almost 131 years now, is due all the posthumous recognition he gets. But when a group tapped by Congress suggested minting a Douglass quarter as part of next year’s semiquincentennial, the administration of the man who thinks Douglass has been amazing said “no,” The New York Times reported this week.
The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee suggested a series of coins, according to the Times, that would tell a story of America that doesn’t stop at the Declaration of Independence or the Revolutionary War but would also include abolition, women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement. But this second Trump administration, dedicated to the proposition that any comprehensive history of the U.S. amounts to godless DEI, has resisted minting coins celebrating the pluribus in our unum — even as it plans a coin celebrating Trump.
“Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.”President Donald Trump on Feb. 1, 2017
In October, the U.S. Treasury shared proposed images for a $1 commemorative coin featuring an image of Trump on both sides. “Heads” showed the president’s profile and “tails” showed Trump with his fist raised, an American flag behind him and the words “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” along the circumference. The administration appears to have since toned
by Steve Benen | Dec 16, 2025 | Maddowblog, Politics
Although the legislation no longer generates the headlines it used to, the Dream Act still has plenty of champions on Capitol Hill. In fact, every year, the proposal’s proponents reintroduce the legislation, knowing full well it can’t pass, but reminding the political world and its intended beneficiaries that some still see it as a priority.
This year, however, the bill lost a high-profile co-sponsor. NOTUS reported:
Ahead of his reelection bid next year, Sen. Lindsey Graham dropped his support for the Dream Act, a bill to help undocumented immigrants that he co-sponsored each time it was introduced for nearly a decade.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin reintroduced the bill earlier this month. Instead of Graham as a Republican co-sponsor, Durbin paired with Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Graham told NOTUS he does not support the legislation because of the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the country.
As a political matter, the development probably won’t surprise many: The South Carolina Republican bears little resemblance to earlier iterations of himself, so it’s hardly shocking to see him walk away from a bill he spent years supporting.
As a practical matter, Graham’s shift probably won’t amount to much, since the Dream Act wasn’t going anywhere anyway.
But the senator’s position is emblematic of a larger reality that might go overlooked: There really isn’t much point to Democrats’ efforts to reach bipartisan deals with Republicans over immigration policy, because GOP officials invariably abandon their own agreements.
The Dream Act is a classic example. In the not-too-distant past, Democrats were content simply to extend citizenship to young immigrants who entered the United States as children and who’ve been on American soil for nearly their
by Steve Benen | Dec 16, 2025 | Maddowblog, Politics
Donald Trump had already made clear he intended to sue the BBC. The question was how much he’d seek in his civil lawsuit.
A month ago, the president said he expected to ask for $1 billion. Soon after, the Republican suggested the figure could be $5 billion. Evidently, he and his lawyers decided to double that figure. The New York Times reported:
President Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion on Monday evening over the editing in a documentary that the British broadcaster said had left the ‘mistaken impression’ that he called for violent action before the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
In a 46-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Mr. Trump accused the BBC of defaming him and violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He demanded $5 billion for each offense.
The Republican’s legal team condemned the BBC as a “disgraced” news organization, which coincided with Trump telling reporters that the network “literally put words in my mouth.”
Trump: “I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth literally they put words in my mouth. They had me saying things that I never said coming out. I guess they used AI…They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6th that I didn’t say.”— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2025-12-15T21:25:36.583Z
He added, “I guess they used AI. … They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say.”
As is too often the case, the president’s comments were wrong. For one thing, the BBC didn’t use artificial intelligence. For another, the network did air a program that edited Trump’s Jan. 6
by Steve Benen | Dec 16, 2025 | Maddowblog, Politics
At attorney representing Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona sent a letter to Secretary of the Navy John Phelan this week that condemned an ongoing Pentagon investigation into the senator in no uncertain terms.
“To be clear: there is no legitimate basis for any type of proceeding against Senator Kelly, and any such effort would be unconstitutional and an extraordinary abuse of power,” the letter read.
Around the same time, the Defense Department said it’s advancing its probe into Kelly anyway. The Washington Post reported:
The Pentagon said Monday night that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is ‘escalating’ his review of Sen. Mark Kelly’s involvement in a video he and other Democratic lawmakers made reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders — an unprecedented use of the military justice system to investigate a political adversary.
In a statement, the Defense Department said it was elevating what had been a ‘review’ to an ‘official Command Investigation’ to be carried out at least in part by the Pentagon general counsel’s office.
If anyone needs a refresher, it was nearly a week after several Democratic military veterans urged service members to reject illegal orders when Hegseth announced an investigation into Kelly, a decorated Navy veteran. The Arizona Democrat is the only member of the group who retired as a captain and served long enough to receive a military pension.
As a result, the senator is not only still required to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but he can also be punished in a variety of ways: The Pentagon could lower his rank, target his pension or, as Hegseth emphasized a few weeks ago, recall Kelly
by Steve Benen | Dec 16, 2025 | Maddowblog, Politics
As a rule, when Donald Trump publishes abhorrent content on his social media platform, the responses from his Republican allies fall into one of three categories. Many pretend they haven’t see what the president wrote, while others say something along the lines of “Americans knew what they were getting into when they elected him.” Others still actually endorse Trump’s incendiary missives.
But when the president responded to the deaths of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, by attacking one of the victims, suggesting the filmmaker brought on his own slaying with his criticisms of Trump, something unusual happened: A variety of GOP voices, including some in Congress, agreed that the president had gone too far in his lack of basic human decency.
In a normal White House, a president would see the pushback from his own ostensible allies and realize he’d made a mistake (although in a normal White House, the comment never would have happened in the first place). In this White House, Trump acted as if he’d never heard the old expression about quitting while behind.
Q: A number of Republicans have denounced your statement on Rob Reiner. Do you stand by it?TRUMP: Well, I wasn’t a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned.— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-12-15T20:48:56.863Z
At an unrelated event in the Oval Office, a reporter reminded the president that “a number of Republicans” had denounced his statement related to Reiner and asked, “Do you stand by that post?”
The smart move would have been for Trump to dodge the question and change the subject. He did not, however, make
