Anyone paying attention to the news knows the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border is terrible. Anyone who actually visits the border discovers it is worse than that. This is a report on a recent trip to the border in Mission, Texas, where U.S. officials are scrambling to handle thousands of migrants who are crossing the border illegally. The Biden administration’s response to the crisis — which it created — is entirely improvised. Officials are not trying to stop would-be migrants from crossing illegally into the U.S. Instead, they are just trying to accommodate them until they can be sent to cities and towns across the country. And even at that job, they are overwhelmed. A first-person look, plus the reactions of U.S. lawmakers — all Republicans — who care enough about the issue to visit the border.

When the CEO of Delta Airlines took a stand against the new Georgia voting law — declaring it “unacceptable” — a chorus of Americans had the following reaction: Who asked him? Why should an airline executive get involved in electoral politics? Maybe he should concentrate on…flying? Now, Delta CEO Ed Bastian is taking it from all sides for bowing to the woke mob. We’ll look at how one bad decision led to another, and what corporations should do and not do in the woke world. Plus, a look at the Democrats’ huge and unconstitutional voting bill, H.R. 1, with Ohio’s Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

There’s a lot to talk about — about the press. First, the White House press corps, or at least a selected group of ten reporters, delivered an embarrassing performance at President Biden’s first formal news conference. There were baffling omissions, neglected follow-ups, and at least one first-class attempt at presidential flattery. All in all, not a good day. Then there is an extremely important libel case by a conservative group against the New York Times — extremely important because a judge has allowed it to go forward. And in its defense, the Times delivers another embarrassing performance, telling the judge that no reader would assume that parts of its news stories were actual facts! All in all, a mess in the press.

A United States senator vowing to oppose all nominees of a particular race? Could that happen in 2021? The answer is yes. It happened this week, in fact, when Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth declared she would not support any white nominees for any administration positions. (The only exceptions, Duckworth said, would be for white nominees who are also lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer.) Duckworth said she would not stop until the Biden administration picked more Asian-American and Pacific Islanders for cabinet-level positions. After some sweet talk from the White House, Duckworth gave in, but the episode offered a troubling preview of the future of identity politics.

All Americans hope the coronavirus pandemic ends and life can return to normal. But Democrats in Congress are trying to make what they call ‘COVID relief’ permanent. Their ‘COVID relief’ is in fact a series of long-held Democratic policy goals that have nothing to do with the virus, but they want to use the pandemic to make permanent changes in the nation’s welfare system and beyond. Today, a discussion of their not-so-secret ambitions, plus an update on the Lincoln Project. Remember when their ads attacking Trump brought them loving media coverage? Those days are gone.

Much of the daily conversation on social media is consumed by ephemera. Is political Twitter being mean to Taylor Lorenz? Does Pepe Le Pew promote rape culture? And what about Harry and Meghan? It’s all fine to think about, as long as you don’t devote too much mental bandwidth to it and don’t forget that there are some enormous things happening in our politics right now. The fact is, the Biden administration is intent on making far-reaching changes to American life. In this podcast, a discussion of how two Biden initiatives — so-called COVID relief and immigration — can combine to bring enormous changes to our lives and politics.

It’s hard to exaggerate the anger, criticism, and vitriol directed toward then-President Trump last year for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. If for some reason you need a reminder, just search for “Trump” and “blood on his hands.” But now something interesting is happening. In the last few days, among some commentators following the COVID crisis, we’re seeing the beginning of a sense of perspective about the way the Trump administration battled the virus. With a new president, it is now OK to say that the United States has, on balance, handled the pandemic as well or better than many of the world’s most advanced countries. Perhaps now, Americans can get a more evenhanded picture of what happened.

FBI Director Christopher Wray was supposed to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the state of the January 6 Capitol riot investigation. He gave the media the soundbite it wanted, but failed or refused to answer some of the senators’ basic questions about the riot. And it wasn’t a partisan thing. Some Republican members were unhappy, but Wray got the full angry treatment not from a Republican but from Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The bottom line is: The Senate is increasingly frustrated with the FBI’s stonewall of Congress. (It started long, long before the Capitol riot investigation.) Meanwhile, an update on the Biden administration’s stance on the growing immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. A hint — it is increasingly untethered to reality.

The Senate GOP leader came to a Fox News interview prepared to talk about the current president equally prepared to not talk about the former president. But Mitch McConnell ended up making news about Donald Trump anyway. What is the thinking behind McConnell’s statement — less than two weeks after his scathing criticism of Trump — that he would support the former president if he is the Republican Party nominee in 2024? It’s a safe bet McConnell doesn’t believe there is a way in the world Trump will be the Republican Party nominee in 2024. All that, plus McConnell on President Biden’s move to “the progressive route.”

It’s one of the most basic questions of the Capitol riot investigation: What was the rioters’ plan? What did they think was going to happen when they stormed the Capitol on January 6, as Congress certified the results of the Electoral College? There are lots of different answers — remember, thousands of people were there and never went near the Capitol at all — but one revealing look is contained in the Justice Department’s case against members of the Oath Keepers militia. It is an odd, hard to believe story, showing people living in a kind of fantasy world in which they could take the Capitol — while carefully obeying Washington DC’s strict gun control laws and carrying no firearms — and then change the course of U.S. history, and then head home. In this episode, a look inside their very strange plan for January 6.

As expected, Democrats won the vote on constitutionality that began the second impeachment trial of former President Trump. Six Republicans went along with unanimous Democrats in voting that the trial is in fact constitutional. So now it is on to the substance of the case. House Democratic impeachment managers will attempt to prove that then-President Trump incited a crowd to insurrection on January 6, when pro-Trump rioters ransacked the Capitol. Republican senators will have to address that question. What will they say?

The impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump is beginning with a deep divide among senators. Nearly all Republicans believe it is unconstitutional to try an ex-president. All Democrats disagree. Democrats point to a majority of law professors who agree with them — no surprise there — while some conservative scholars and jurists support the Republican position that a Senate trial is not permitted by the Constitution. The bottom line: The conservatives are right. Here are five reasons to support their position, plus a look at the strongest argument on the other side.

New White House press secretary Jen Psaki promised to bring “truth and transparency back to the briefing room.” President Biden promised to be guided by science in his decisions regarding the COVID pandemic. Now both of those vows are being put to the test on the question of reopening schools.

This week, Biden’s new CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, publicly said that 1) schools can reopen safely, and 2) there’s no need for teachers to be vaccinated before reopening. Problem is, that’s not what teachers unions want. So what should the White House do when the science says one thing and a key Democratic constituency says another? Psaki twisted herself into a rhetorical pretzel to come up with an answer, and we discuss.

There were roughly 25,000 National Guard members in Washington for the inauguration of President Joe Biden. The deployment was in large part an overreaction to the Capitol riot of January 6. But now, 5,000 are still here. The inauguration was two weeks ago, it went off without incident, and there is no need for troops in Washington. Yet here they are — along with a tall, razor-wired-topped fence encircling a huge area around the Capitol. Today: Why is there a standing army in Washington? Plus, an update on the COVID relief fight, with a look at just how weak President Biden is, despite his party’s control of the White House, House, and Senate.

Just look at what happened Tuesday night in, of all places, a Zoom meeting of the San Francisco School Board. In that meeting, members voted to strip the names of American historical figures — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and even California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein — from schools in San Francisco. A removal effort that started with Confederate generals, and then moved on to the Founding Fathers, has now moved on to…Dianne Feinstein? Yes, it has. And it shows no sign of slowing anytime soon.

House Democrats will deliver to the Senate a single, hastily-passed article of impeachment against former President Trump. A trial is set to begin two weeks later, on February 9. It will be an event without precedent — the first time in U.S. history that a former president will be tried in a court of impeachment. But does the Constitution even allow a trial for an ex-president? Democrats of course say yes, but the precedent is pretty flimsy, and there is plenty of reason to believe just the opposite. So just why do Democrats think they can go after Trump one last time? A look at a what is sure to be an impassioned, and very weird, argument.

Subscribe to The Daily Memo, Byron’s email newsletter here.

The new Biden administration says it must act quickly, with a flurry of executive orders, because the nation is experiencing not one, not two, not three, but four crises.

“We face four overlapping and compounding crises,” said new chief of staff Ron Klain. “The COVID-19 crisis, the resulting economic crisis, the climate crisis, and a racial equity crisis.”

President Trump will become former President Trump tomorrow. When Joe Biden takes office, Democrats will control the White House, the House, and the Senate. An ambitious agenda lies ahead for the new Democratic administration. And yet there are signs that some Democrats’ obsession with Donald Trump — the condition known as Trump Derangement Syndrome — will be as strong, or perhaps even stronger, after Trump leaves than when he was in the White House. Exhibit A is the fact that Democrats plan to hold an impeachment trial for the president after he has left office. But that is not the only sign of lingering TDS. Look at a new conversation between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, in which the two reached back into the Trump-Russia matter to call for yet another Trump-Russia investigation — even as a new Democratic administration takes office.

Donald Trump is now the only president ever impeached twice. Yes, that says a lot about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, and the Democratic Party’s, obsessive quest to remove him from office. But the impeachment is also the result of a disastrous turn in Trump’s presidency since the November 3 election. The turn was so consequential that it makes sense to divide Trump’s term into the time before November 3, 2020, and then what happened after. With the notable exception of the COVID vaccine, everything Trump did after the election has led to catastrophe for himself, the Republican Party, and the nation. And it all stemmed from one decision: Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the election.

Democrats started trying to remove President Trump from office before he entered office. Now they are proposing to remove him from office after he leaves office. How do you remove an ex-president? He’s already gone. That is the bizarre question posed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s obsessive quest to re-impeach Donald Trump with just a few days left in his term.