Trump Makes Huge Fking Mistake 7 Minutes Ago, Instantly Regrets It: "I'm Sorry!" | Anti-Trump Network

Donald Trump just torched one of his biggest campaign promises with a truly baffling announcement. So he went on his own social media platform and somehow made this sound like a badge of honor. He wrote, quote, I will not sign the housing bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House in protest over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing the Save America Act, which is polling in 97% with the Republican Party and very high with the non-politician Democrats. And he goes on, but I think you can probably glean from that gem what the rest of it sounds like. Here's the deal. The housing bill passed the House 358 to 32 and the Senate 85 to 5. These are numbers so lopsided, they are basically unanimous by Washington standards on an issue that Trump literally ran on like over and over on the campaign trail. He said this, we will open up new tracks of federal land for large scale housing construction so that we can get housing on the market. Housing affordability crisis. It's too expensive to build the homes and they're building them and they cost a fortune. Cut to Congress delivers him exactly that, a sweeping, genuinely bipartisan housing package meant to lower prices, speed up home building and rein in corporate landlords who are buying up single family homes. And the second it lands on his desk, he shelves it. At which point here is the new tune that he's been singing. What are your plans for the housing bill, Mr. President? I don't know. I think it's so unimportant by compared to, by compared to the Save America Act. And why? Why sink your own legislative achievement? Why undermine your own promise to your own voters? Because he wants to use it as a hostage to force through an unrelated bill. He is holding your housing costs hostage for political leverage for himself. Now Trump is going to claim that the Save America Act is about voter ID. It's not. At its core, this bill is federal control over how all 50 states register and verify voters. A nationwide proof of citizenship mandate, states forced to hand their voter rolls over to the Department of Homeland Security, and a functional end to mail-in voting outside of just a narrow list of exceptions. It would amount to the federal government consolidating authority that has sat with the states for the entire history of this country and putting that authority in the hands of a White House that has already shown exactly what it wants to do with that power. And just in case there's any doubt, Donald Trump is so ham-handed that he outright admitted it. We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms, if we are foolish, stupid, and unwise. But if we terminate the filibuster, as we should do, and immediately vote for the Save America Act, then we will not lose an election for a hundred years. We do that, we're not going to lose an election for a hundred years. Yeah, so, um, nobody who genuinely believes in free, fair, secure elections tells you that the payoff is a hundred years of uninterrupted victory. That's not a security measure. That is a permanent lock on power. When the architect of a massive voter suppression bill tells you that the point is that his side stops losing in perpetuity, believe him. And that's really the whole story here. Trump is not gearing up to win the midterms on the merits, on the economy that he broke, on wars that he started, on scandals that have erupted, on promises that have been shredded. He knows that he can. Like his approval numbers and the inflation numbers and the mounting number of scandals and crooked deals, none of that is a winning midterm message and he knows it. So instead of making a case to voters, he's just trying to rig the rules of the game before a single ballot is even cast. He wants to gut the filibuster, nationalize election administration, restrict the very ballots that tend to favor the party he's afraid of, and do it all under the friendly banner of election integrity. When a president would rather blow up his own party's housing bill than let a real election happen on a level playing field, that tells you that he's not preparing to win the midterms. He's preparing to make sure that it doesn't matter whether he does. You're watching the No Lie Podcast. Next up is my great interview with Heather Cox Richardson. But just a quick note, I have a new book, The Day After, that is coming out in just a few days. So if you'd like to support my work, please order it. It's going to be right here on the screen in the comments and also in the post description. Or you can go to bryantylercohen.com slash book. And I'll also be on tour. So if you live in New York, D.C., or L.A., now is the time to grab those tickets. There are still tickets left. I know that there's a lot of people who listen from those cities. So again, if you are going to be in Washington, D.C. on July 14th, I'll be with Jim Acosta. If you're going to be in New York on July 15th, I'll be with Don Lemon. And if you'll be in L.A. on July 18th, I'm going to be on with John Lovett. So I'm going to put the link to both the book and the tour tickets in the post description of this video. Or again, you can go to bryantylercohen.com slash book. I would really appreciate if you could show some support for my work, and that is the best way to do so. This is Democracy Watch, Mark. We have a five-alarm fire here, and that is that Donald Trump has now taken aim at one independent election agency where he's done a late-night gutting of a bunch of the Democrats who were on that commission. Can you explain what the deal is here? Yeah, so there's a government agency called the Election Assistance Commission. It was set up in 2002 after the Bush versus Gore debacle, and it is a bipartisan agency of four commissioners, two Democrats, two Republicans, and it is essentially a clearinghouse of information and expertise to states running elections. It's kind of like the technical expertise, everything from certifying voting equipment to providing forms to just technical expertise about how to run elections. Well, in a late-night purging, Donald Trump fired the two Democrats and forced the one Republican on the commission to resign, which means there are now no commissioners. There was already one vacancy. There are now no commissioners on this vital elections agency as we head towards this November. And Brian, this is not just a five-alarm fire in the damage that has been done. This is a blaring siren about what is yet to come. Donald Trump is telling us that he's going to remove from the field the referees so that he can play derby, that he can cheat, and there will be no one there to stop him. Well, my message is we'll be there, and we will stop you. Give me a lay of the land in terms of what Donald Trump now feels, at least, like he's emboldened to do now that these referees are gone. Yeah. Okay. So we got to go back in time, and you and I did a video on this at the time. We've covered it several times since. In March of 2025, he issued an executive order to try to take over federal elections. Remember this? He issued this order saying that I'm going to decree that this will be done with how the proof of citizenship has to happen on forms, and I'm going to do this with respect to voting equipment. It was a massive power grab by Donald Trump to try to take over federal elections. Well, at the core of that was his effort in that executive order to direct the Election Assistance Commission to do those things. So when we talk about him issuing an executive order to grab control of elections, what he actually did was issue an executive order to try to force the Elections Assistance Commission to do his bidding. Well, we blocked that in court. We prevented that from happening. But since then, the EAC continues to do its work. And I think that it is no coincidence that as he issued his second executive order that has also now been blocked in court, he's decided that he wants to remove out of the equation entirely the agency that he was trying to act through. Now, why do I think he's doing this? Because I think he thinks that without them in the way, he will himself out of the White House and Todd Blanche out of the Department of Justice just try to do this stuff themselves. To what extent does the slaughter decision at the Supreme Court, which basically gave Donald Trump carte blanche to interfere in what were previously independent agencies, to what extent does the slaughter decision give Trump the ability to do this, this late night purge? Well, look, you're reading the minds of the White House, which I don't know what that says about you, Brian. Yeah, that's what they said. They said that, look, you know, after the slaughter decision, this is the prerogative of the president and the president wants to fire these agency heads, he's entitled to do so. Now, there is some ambiguity about whether slaughter actually covers these bipartisan balanced agencies, but like that's a fight that will be for another day or month or frankly year before that would even go before, you know, the courts to do anything if they even stood in the way. So that's, that's not an obstacle for now, but there's no question that the slaughter decision was the impetus for the president acting now as opposed to, I suspect, he might have acted earlier. Can you opine on the legality of this move? Do you think that slaughter applies to his ability to be able to gut this bipartisan agency? Look, I think there are several important questions here and they're ones that we're going to have to confront as a democracy and they are not easy ones. The first is, does he have the power to fire commissioners from a bipartisan independent agency? And by that, what I mean is that there are a handful of these agencies like the Election Assistance Commission, like the Federal Election Commission, which governs campaign finance laws in federal elections, that Congress set up intentionally not just to have Democrats and Republicans, but to have equal numbers of them, right? So that, that you could not have partisan advantage. So in the case of the Federal Election Commission, there are three Republicans, three Democrats and you need four votes in order to do anything. In the case of the Election Assistance Commission, two Democrats, two Republicans, you need three votes in order to do anything, right? So there is this question as to whether or not slaughter applies to those agencies. There's a separate question, Brian, which is, if it does, then frankly, do those agencies even survive? Because would Congress really have set up an agency that governs things like certification of election equipment if one party, you know, the party of the president could control it? For decades, Senator Lindsey Graham traveled extensively across the world promoting a vision of the United States as a global leader willing to use its diplomatic influence, military strength and strategic alliances to defend democratic governments and preserve international stability. Throughout his career, Graham argued that American engagement abroad was essential not only for protecting U.S. national security, but also for maintaining the international order established after the Second World War. Whether meeting foreign leaders in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia, Graham consistently defended an interventionist approach to foreign policy. He believed the United States should remain actively involved in global affairs, support democratic allies facing external threats, and, when necessary, employ military force to deter aggression. His position reflected a longstanding tradition within the Republican Party that emphasized strong defense spending, close cooperation with NATO, and a willingness to project American power beyond its borders. Graham became one of Congress' most recognizable advocates for robust U.S. involvement in international conflicts. He strongly supported military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, consistently argued for maintaining pressure on Iran, and repeatedly called for sustained American assistance to Ukraine following Russia's invasion. He also remained one of the Senate's strongest supporters of Israel, describing the U.S.-Israel relationship as a cornerstone of American foreign policy. However, Graham's worldview increasingly contrasted with the political direction of the Republican Party as Donald Trump reshaped its priorities. Trump campaigned on an America-first platform that questioned decades of bipartisan foreign policy consensus, expressing skepticism toward prolonged overseas military commitments and urging allies to shoulder a greater share of their own defense responsibilities. Many of Trump's supporters embraced a more restrained approach to foreign affairs, arguing that the United States should focus primarily on domestic priorities rather than extended international engagements. The contrast placed Graham in a unique political position. Although he became one of Trump's closest allies on Capitol Hill and consistently defended the president on many domestic and political issues, he frequently continued advocating a more traditional Republican foreign policy. On several occasions, Graham publicly encouraged stronger U.S. involvement overseas, even when elements of the president's political base favored a more cautious or isolationist approach. Political analysts have often pointed to Graham as one of the last prominent Republican lawmakers representing the party's traditional national security establishment. His close relationships with military leaders, diplomats, and international allies reflected decades of experience in foreign affairs, while his continued advocacy for American leadership abroad distinguished him from many newer voices within the party. Former colleagues say Graham believed that American influence, backed by military strength and strong alliances, remained the best means of deterring conflict and protecting democratic values. Critics, however, argued that such an approach risked drawing the United States into costly