TN-07 comes in strong for Democrats. No upset, not strong enough to overcome a 22 point Trump district with the Republicans winning by single digits, but an excellent showing for Aftyn Behn (D) and an embarrassing one for Matt Van Epps (R).
Good news for 2026 as Democrats continue to overperform.
But there’s a lot more going on.
POLITICO:
Stefanik accuses Johnson of lying, ‘blocking’ her defense bill provision
The New York Republican wants legislative language cracking down on secret federal investigations into political candidates.
Rep. Elise Stefanik is taking aim directly at Speaker Mike Johnson over signals a provision she has championed won’t be included in the annual defense policy bill the House wants to pass next week — marking a notable and unusual split inside the House GOP leadership team.
Stefanik, a New York Republican who serves as a member of Johnson’s leadership team, said in a social media post Tuesday morning she would help tank the National Defense Authorization Act if it doesn’t incorporate her provision that would require the FBI to notify Congress when it opens investigations into candidates running for federal office.
Running for Governor sure changes your perspective. Running for Governor and losing (and she will lose)? Maybe.
zeteo:
Trump Admin Lawyers Now Warn Boat Strike May Be Illegal, as Hegseth Passes the Buck
‘If the Washington Post is right, then a crime was committed,’ a Trump admin lawyer tells Zeteo, as Pete Hegseth tries to pass the buck.
Trump and Hegseth’s ongoing effort to pin the double-tap strike on an admiral comes as attorneys working in different federal agencies have stressed to senior personnel that it would be likely incredibly illegal to deliberately commit the kind of “no quarter” strike that Team Trump carried out on Sept. 2, two administration officials tell Zeteo. (Both sources are lawyers by trade.) Some of these Trump administration attorneys have cited the Department of Defense’s own Law of War Manual in their frank analysis.
One of these officials says that they gravely described the situation to senior government staff as “a problem,” and not something that can be laughed off.
“I’m not even a military lawyer and I knew that this would be illegal,” the other Trump administration official says. “I have said as much to several colleagues, and would have told people that had I been in a position to know about the operation in advance … There’s defending the homeland, and then there’s criminal behavior.”
“If the Washington Post is right, then a crime was committed,” this official adds.
Just as attorneys in the Trump administration began to wake up to this uncomfortable notion in the past several days, the president’s so-called “secretary of war,” Hegseth, started to shovel the blame for the strike elsewhere.
Washington Post:
Hegseth, with White House help, tries to distance himself from boat strike fallout
As Congress vows accountability, the Trump administration emphasized it was a top military commander — not the defense secretary — who directed the engagement.
When two survivors were detected, the military commander overseeing the operation, Adm. Frank M. Bradley, directed another strike to comply with Hegseth’s order that no one be left alive, people with direct knowledge of the matter told The Post. The Trump administration has said 11 people were killed as a result of the operation.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, acknowledged Monday that Hegseth had authorized Bradley to conduct the strikes on Sept. 2. Bradley, she added, “worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed.”
Mark Hertling/The Bulwark:
Pete Hegseth, Moral Failure, and the Erosion of Military Legitimacy
Congress needs to find out if any laws were broken and who is responsible.
THOSE YEARS TAUGHT ME A TRUTH I have carried ever since: Leaders are shaped by their experiences—and some experiences harden your reverence for standards, while others distort it.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth frequently cites two moments from his Iraq experience as forming his worldview on military justice and rules of engagement. The first is a 2005 rules-of-engagement briefing by a JAG officer that he attended and which he has repeatedly described as excessively restrictive—and, in his view, dangerous. The second is the May 2006 “Tharthar Island” incident in which several detainees were killed after being captured. Three soldiers of Hegseth’s former unit were later convicted, and the brigade commander received a formal reprimand for toxic leadership and command-climate failures.
All these events sparked deep professional debates throughout the Army at the time. For commanders across Iraq and those preparing to go to combat, the cases underscored that a leader, even just through the climate of their command, communicates to their unit the boundaries of lawful actions—and that accountability is essential. In the case of Hegseth’s old unit, others viewed the investigations as unfair or overly legalistic. Secretary Hegseth’s public statements over the past decade reflect a belief that military legal oversight constrains warfighters, that investigations burden troops, and that commanders should be freer—rather than more disciplined—in the use of force.
Tom Nichols/The Atlantic:
Pete Hegseth Needs to Go—Now
A man with such contempt for the military should not run the Pentagon.
Perhaps Hegseth thinks that sinking boats on the high seas is funny. Maybe he just wanted to own the libs and all that. Or maybe he thought he could disrupt the gathering war-crimes narrative, like the school delinquent pulling a fire alarm during an exam. Or maybe he just has poor judgment and even worse impulse control (which would explain a lot of things about Pete Hegseth). No matter the reason, his choice to trivialize the use of American military force reveals both the shallowness of the man’s character and the depth of his contempt for the military as an institution.
Joyce Vance/Civil Discourse:
The Third Circuit Says "No" To Alina Habba as Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey
Having run through and rejected all of the government’s various options for permitting Habba to serve, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order disqualifying her. This case presents a similar issue, although the facts are different, to the one involving Lindsey Halligan’s appointment to be U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. It’s likely that the government will now appeal the case to the Supreme Court. As long as these cases linger, there is uncertainty for both prosecutors’ offices and courts. The government will certainly have to avoid situations like the one where Halligan was the sole person presenting an indictment to a grand jury and the court.
Justice is best served by stability and certainty. It’s unusual for DOJ to inject doubt into its cases unnecessarily. The easiest path forward would be to follow the standard rule and let courts appoint interim U.S. Attorneys while the president moves his nominees forward to Senate confirmation. But this administration has not led with sensibility in this regard. There have also been challenges to the appointment of a California U.S. Attorney and another in Nevada. It’s the government’s move. We’ll watch to see what it does next.
