Post

twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

More from @allenanalysis

Brian Allen

@allenanalysis

Apr 29

🧵THREAD: The Supreme Court ruled today that drawing a congressional district to give Black voters fair representation is unconstitutional racial discrimination.

The Court did not rule that drawing a district to take Black voters' representation away is unconstitutional racial discrimination.

That is the actual ruling.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map. The map created two majority-Black districts in a state where Black Americans make up roughly one third of the population. The Court ruled that the second majority-Black district was an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion.

Now I want to walk you through what this actually means.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. It is the most important civil rights law in American history. It came directly out of the Civil Rights Movement. It was designed to ensure that Black Americans, who had been denied the right to vote for nearly a century after the Civil War, could elect representatives of their choice.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting laws and maps that result in "the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

For 60 years, Section 2 has been the law that lets civil rights plaintiffs challenge maps that dilute the votes of minority communities. It has been used to give Black Americans fair representation in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and across the South.

Today, the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2.

Today, the Supreme Court rewrote what Section 2 means in practice.

Under the new ruling, plaintiffs challenging a discriminatory map will now have to prove that lawmakers intended to discriminate. Intent is famously hard to prove. Lawmakers do not write down "we are doing this to discriminate against Black voters." They write down "we are doing this for partisan advantage."

Under the new ruling, partisan advantage is a legal defense.

Under the new ruling, drawing a district to give Black voters representation is now itself unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Read that one more time.

If a state draws a district to give Black voters fair representation, that is unconstitutional racial discrimination.

If a state draws a district to take Black voters' representation away, that is partisan politics.

The first is illegal under today's ruling.

The second is legal.

Now here is the part I want you to sit with.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, wrote this.

"The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today's decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter. In the States where that law continues to matter, the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting, minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process."

Cracked out.

Read 5 tweets

Brian Allen

@allenanalysis

Apr 28

🚨🧵MAJOR BREAKING : Today, the Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey for posting a picture of seashells.

I want you to read that sentence one more time.

The Department of Justice of the United States has filed two felony charges, each carrying a maximum of ten years in federal prison, over a photograph of shells arranged on a beach.

Here is what happened.

On May 15, 2025, James Comey was walking on a beach in North Carolina. He saw seashells arranged in a pattern. The pattern read 86 47. He took a photograph of it. He posted the photograph to his Instagram account with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."

The number 86 is restaurant slang. It means to remove something from the menu. The number 47 corresponds to Donald Trump's term as the 47th President of the United States.

Republicans interpreted the post as a threat. Comey deleted it the same day. He wrote in writing that he had not realized "some folks associate those numbers with violence" and that he opposed "violence of any kind."

That post is the entire basis of today's indictment.

Eleven months later, today, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment. The charges are knowingly making a threat to take the life of the President, and transmitting that threat in interstate commerce. Each count carries a maximum sentence of ten years.

A federal arrest warrant has been issued for the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Now I want to walk you through what is wrong with this prosecution.

The legal standard for a true threat in the United States was established in 1969, in a Supreme Court case called Watts versus United States. The standard says political hyperbole is protected by the First Amendment. Only statements that a reasonable person would understand as a serious expression of intent to commit violence count as true threats. Political slogans, even harsh ones, do not.

Read 8 tweets

Brian Allen

@allenanalysis

Apr 28

On July 31, 2025, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the new White House ballroom would be "fully funded by President Trump and other private donors — not taxpayers."

The same day, the official Trump administration social media account posted the same words. "Fully funded by President Trump and other private donors — not taxpayers."

On October 22, the President himself posted on Truth Social: "I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!"

Yesterday, six months later, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham announced he is introducing legislation to authorize 400 million dollars of taxpayer money for the same ballroom.

What changed? 🧵

Let me walk you through this.

In July, the project was announced. Two hundred million dollars. Privately funded.

In August, the project was promoted by the President with the phrase "compliments of a man known as Donald J. Trump."

In September, the President told reporters directly: "I'm paying for it."

In October, the President signed a contract with the Trust for the National Mall. The contract was kept secret. The Washington Post had to sue for it under the Freedom of Information Act. The contract authorized the Trust to raise an amount "sufficient to cover all costs," and pays the Trust a fee of 2.5 percent on the money raised, dropping to 2 percent above 200 million dollars. The Trust stands to earn approximately 9 million dollars from the project.

Read 10 tweets

Brian Allen

@allenanalysis

Apr 28

🚨 The United Arab Emirates is leaving OPEC.

After 59 years of membership. After being the cartel's third-largest producer. The country that controls 12 percent of OPEC's oil announced this morning that it is walking out on May 1.

This is not just some routine policy adjustment.

This is the largest geopolitical realignment in the global oil market since the 1973 oil embargo.

Trump is turning Iran into a global superpower capable of rerouting the petro-dollar structure.

Let me walk you through what just happened and why it matters.

OPEC was founded in 1960. The UAE joined in 1967, before the country itself technically existed. For 59 years, the UAE has worked with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the other major oil producers to coordinate global oil supply. They set production quotas. They managed prices. They kept the cartel together through wars, embargoes, financial crises, and a global pandemic.

In March of this year, the Iran war collapsed OPEC's production by 27 percent. Seven point eight eight million barrels per day disappeared from the global market. That is the largest supply collapse in OPEC's history. Bigger than COVID. Bigger than the 1991 Gulf War. Bigger than the 1970s oil crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of the world's oil normally flows, is now under American naval blockade. Iranian shipments are turned back. Saudi shipments are partially routed around the Strait. The UAE has been producing 30 percent below its actual capacity for years, held back by OPEC quotas designed to keep prices stable.

This morning, the UAE announced it is done with those quotas.

Read 9 tweets

Brian Allen

@allenanalysis

Apr 28

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank.

It just published a 30-year study showing immigrants paid 14.5 trillion dollars more in taxes than they received in government benefits.

Every single year. For thirty years. Without exception.

The country was lied to.

Here is what the study found.🧵

In 2023, the most recent year studied, immigrants made up 14.7 percent of the United States population. They earned 17.4 percent of the income. They paid 17.3 percent of the taxes.

That means immigrants pay taxes at a higher rate than their share of the population. They earn more in income per capita than the average American. They generate more government revenue per person than the average native-born citizen.

That is the opposite of what the country has been told for thirty years.

Here is what the study says about the deficit.

Read 10 tweets

Brian Allen

@allenanalysis

Apr 27

On Friday afternoon, every member of the National Science Board received the same email.

It was sent by Mary Sprowls of the Presidential Personnel Office. It was one sentence long.

"On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately."

Twenty-four scientists. One email. Effective immediately.

Here is what the National Science Board does.🧵

Congress created it in 1950. It is the body that oversees the National Science Foundation. The Foundation funds about a quarter of all basic scientific research in America. The Board approves the big spending decisions. The Board sets the rules for grants. The Board reports to Congress and to the President on the state of American science.

Members serve six-year terms. Their terms are staggered on purpose. The design was meant to ensure the Board would always have experts whose service spanned across administrations. So that science policy would never depend on which party held the White House.

The Board is also required by law. It cannot be dissolved by an executive order. Only Congress can dissolve it.

The President fired the people on it anyway.

Here is what else has happened to American science under this administration.

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Brian Allen

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @allenanalysis

Brian Allen

Brian Allen

Brian Allen

Brian Allen

Brian Allen

Brian Allen

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!