We’re just days out from our first Morning Memo Live event on the weaponization and politicization of the Justice Department under Trump II. To preview the kinds of topics we’ll be digging into, Josh Marshall joined David Kurtz on Substack Live to talk about the aftermath of the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis.

“There’s no longer any independence between the White House and the Justice Department,” David told Josh. “And it’s been made abundantly clear that what the White House says is what goes.”

Join us on Jan. 29 at the National Union Building in Washington, D.C. to talk about what’s going on at Main Justice, Pam Bondi, Trump’s retribution campaign against his political enemies, and where things go from here.

All TPM members should have a special discount code in their inboxes. And 2 for 1 tickets available now at checkout (even for those who already purchased a ticket!).

We’ll see you there.

As is so commonplace in the land of Trump, the United States, Greenland and really the world are on tenterhooks over an issue that is simultaneously grave and absurd. How far will President Trump go to acquire Greenland and how much is he willing to risk to do it? More specifically, if he is “risking” the future of NATO is that not so much a risk as a goal? When someone asked me recently just what Trump’s beef is with NATO and Europe and the EU more generally, I told them this: Trump sees two classes of states beside what he recognizes as the three global powers: states are either vassals or prey. Since European states aren’t vassals they are inevitably prey. But here’s an issue that I think is more destabilizing than it may appear on the surface.

At approximately 2 p.m. eastern this afternoon David Kurtz and I are going to do a Substack live about the corruption of the DOJ under the second Trump administration. If you’re interested in this topic, please tune in. If you’re a subscriber to The Morning Memo, you’ll get an email notification when the conversation starts. We’ll be discussing this issue and previewing the topics David and a group of experts will be discussing at our event on Jan. 29 in Washington, D.C. Join us.

There’s a point I want to make about this issue of state power as a bulwark against corrupt efforts to overthrow the constitutional order. It’s a small point and it’s perhaps implicit in the discussion to this point. But it’s important so I want to draw it out a bit.

As separate though subordinate sovereignties, the states have a vast pool of sovereign authority, much more than a lot of state officers themselves appear to realize. A lot of that is affirmative authority and authority so deeply embedded in explicit constitutional mandates that it is difficult for even a corrupt judiciary to take from them. But it’s not only affirmative power. It’s also the power to resist and not be pinned down. That well of sovereign power creates a lot of ability to bob and weave, evade and parry against a corrupt assault from a renegade executive.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) went on CNN this morning and among other things said, “I think ICE needs to be totally torn down… People want immigration enforcement that goes after criminals, not the goon squad that has come from Stephen Miller and Trump.” This is where every Democrat should be. Shut down ICE and replace it with a new immigration enforcement agency built on the rule of law and actually enforcing the country’s immigration laws in a humane and lawful way, as opposed to ICE, which has turned into a presidential paramilitary focused on cleansing violence and treating Blue cities like conquered territories.

But these comments are more important as a signal. Gallego came out of the progressive wing of the House Democratic caucus and a pretty blue urban House district in Pheonix. But he made some significant shifts to run and win statewide. Among those was running significantly if not dramatically to the right of most Democrats on immigration issues. The fact that he’s now saying ICE should be “totally torn down” speaks volumes. He sees where the public is on ICE. He certainly knows where Arizonans are on ICE.

We have late word this evening that the Department of Justice has launched a “criminal investigation” of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minnesota Mayor Jacob Frey over a purported “criminal conspiracy” to impeded ICE’s work in the state. Let’s start with the obvious and important fact that the bar that has to be cleared to launch such an investigation is essentially nil. All you need is a couple toadyish and corrupt DOJ appointees and they are currently in oversupply. Getting a criminal indictment let alone a conviction is in a different universe of possibility. The main point of this is simply to generate the headlines you’re seeing this evening (“criminal investigation!”) and perhaps load state and local government with subpoenas or perhaps raids.

There’s a fascinating and kind of hilarious item in Axios today. The headline is: Trump’s immigration erosion worries his team. Reading the piece, it all appears to be a reaction to the fairly obvious point that the highly visible and increasingly brutal ICE raids are not popular. And the American public is beginning to see these “surges” into Blue cities, rightly, not as aggressive immigration enforcement but as something more like punitive expeditions into what Trump views as enemy cities or something like occupied territory.

What I’ve noticed is how top administration leaders and especially the ICE agents on the ground are increasingly leaning into the visions of these “surges” and raids as a kind of cleansing violence, even much more than they were in the early period of this effort back in the summer. They increasingly look less like efforts to rack up deportation numbers ( that may be happening in a more piecemeal fashion across the country ) and more like hyper-violent expeditions targeting all the people who — in the MAGA vision — are getting in the way of Making America Great Again.

As part of a larger effort to find long-term solutions to make sure our members are having a good user experience in The Hive, the forums will be undergoing some much-needed maintenance today, January 16, at 2:15 p.m. ET. During this time, the Hive will be read-only with most features, including the ability to comment, unavailable for about an hour. The updates and maintenance will increase the speed and reliability of The Hive server going forward. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us at siteissues@talkingpointsmemo.com.

We’re under two weeks out from our first Morning Memo Live event featuring a really smart panel of people deeply knowledgeable on the story I care about most: the politicization and weaponization of the Justice Department.

It is the sine qua non of Trump’s drive toward a uniquely American form of authoritarianism. There can be no rule of law without the fair, consistent, and independent enforcement of the law for everyone. But over the past year, Trump has brought the Justice Department under the direct control of (and even into!) the White House and used it as a sword against his foes and shield for his allies.

To talk about this historic shift and the many permutations of it that are still unfolding, I’ll be moderating a discussion with Stacey Young from Justice Connection, which is providing support to current and recent DOJ employees; former assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Zelinsky, who served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and led the prosecution of Roger Stone; and Anna Bower, who covers these issues closely for Lawfare (while fielding occasional Signal messages from Lindsey Halligan).

In addition to the panel discussion, it’ll be a TPM community event with a Q&A and a light reception to follow. Come on out and help us make it a great evening. Details and tickets available here (TPM members should have a special discount code in their inboxes).

You’ve probably seen that the FBI asserted exclusive control over the investigation into the death of Renee Good. This is a bigger deal than I think most people think. If I understand correctly, since this case involved federal officers and a crime scene controlled by federal officers the practicalities of the situation are relatively straightforward. The feds collected the evidence. The shooter is a federal agent. They can say, don’t talk to the locals. And clearly the shooter is happy to oblige. So in this particular case the nature of the incident means the feds have all the stuff and they simply don’t share it. As far as I know the FBI has not claimed any ability to overrule or remove the case from local authority. They’re just making bogus claims about jurisdiction and refusing to share the evidence. And in this case, especially with an increasingly obedient federal judiciary, possession is 9/10s of the law.