Bad Watchdog Season 2 is out.


Weekly Spotlight: His day in court

The Supreme Court has set a date to hear arguments on former President Donald Trump’s potential disqualification from presidential election ballots

Weekly Spotlight logo

The Supreme Court has set a date to hear arguments on former President Donald Trump’s potential disqualification from presidential election ballots

Delivered to our subscribers on Saturdays, the Weekly Spotlight is a roundup of POGO's latest work and announcements. Sign up to get this newsletter delivered to your inbox.

Editor’s Note: There will be no Weekly Spotlight next Saturday. We will be in your inbox again on January 27, 2024.

The Supreme Court has officially set the date — February 8, 2024 — to hear oral arguments on whether former President Donald Trump’s actions disqualify him from appearing on state ballots. The decision the court makes will set a precedent across the country and have significant ramifications for the coming presidential election.

Even as the court date looms on the horizon, Trump refused to sign a pledge in Illinois declaring that he wouldn’t call for the U.S. government to be overthrown. We believe that Trump’s actions three years ago disqualify him from holding office — presidential or otherwise — under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and we want to see the Supreme Court hold him accountable.

In an analysis last year, we made the point that barring candidates because of their ineligibility is a routine occurrence. The application of the 14th Amendment may be rare but vetting candidates for eligibility and enforcing disqualification measures certainly are not.

To understand more about how the disqualification clause is no different — and no less democratic — than any other vetting measure, read a breakdown in a previous edition of one of our other weekly newsletters, the Bridge.


How Biden can bypass Congress on Ukraine aid

The Biden administration is pushing an Army Corps project pitched as mitigating environmental injustice, but critics say it will disproportionately benefit white landowners.

Read More on Responsible Statecraft


“Every year we hear dire warnings about the need to spend more to bolster the industrial base, and then Congress inevitably passes a bigger budget than the year before, but the problem never seems to be solved.”

Dan Grazier, Senior Defense Policy Fellow in Wall Street Journal

“Far too often you see Pentagon leaders making decisions based on talking points rather than actual hard concrete evidence.”

Dan Grazier, Senior Defense Policy Fellow, in The National Desk

“Despite ethics laws and the emoluments provision in the Constitution, Trump received very little pushback, which raises genuine questions about him placing personal and private gain above the public interest.”

Scott Amey, General Counsel, in VOA News

“That’s basic public relations 101. Particularly with this position, they should have been very clear right from the very beginning that this happened and this is who is in charge.”

Dan Grazier, Senior Defense Policy Fellow, in CNN