Analysis

The Jack Smith Report: What We Know About the Sealed Classified Documents Investigation—And Why It Matters

Published

3 weeks ago

December 24, 2025

Behind closed doors in a secure congressional room this December, former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered testimony that lasted over seven hours. The subject? One of the most consequential investigations into presidential conduct in American history—an inquiry into how hundreds of classified documents ended up at a Florida resort, and what happened when the government tried to get them back.

Yet the American public still hasn’t seen the full story. While Smith’s report on election interference was released in January 2025, Volume II—covering the classified records investigation—remains locked away, caught in a legal battle that reveals much about power, accountability, and the limits of transparency in American democracy.

Table of Contents

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Jack Smith’s investigation uncovered over 300 documents with classified markings at Mar-a-Lago, including materials marked Top Secret
Smith told Congress he had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that crimes were committed
Volume II of Smith’s final report remains sealed by Judge Aileen Cannon, despite the dismissal of charges against Trump’s co-defendants
The case represents the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president in American history
Historical data shows classified document prosecutions typically require evidence of intent and obstruction—both factors present in this investigation

The Investigation That Never Reached Trial

The story begins not with an FBI search, but with missing boxes. In early 2022, the National Archives discovered that 15 boxes of presidential records had been improperly taken to Mar-a-Lago. What seemed like a straightforward retrieval effort evolved into something far more complex when archivists found classified materials mixed among the documents.

By August 2022, after months of negotiations and a grand jury subpoena, FBI agents executed a search warrant at the Florida estate. What they found shocked even seasoned investigators: more than 13,000 government documents, with over 300 bearing classification markings. Some documents were stored in a ballroom, others in a bathroom. Materials marked Top Secret—the government’s highest classification level—sat alongside magazine clippings and personal items.

Jack Smith’s team told lawmakers they had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that President Trump had criminally conspired and developed “powerful evidence” that he broke the law by hoarding classified documents and obstructing government efforts to recover them.

The numbers tell a stark story. Unlike previous classified document cases involving government officials, this investigation revealed systematic resistance to federal efforts at recovery. According to court documents, approximately 48,000 guests visited Mar-a-Lago between January 2021 and May 2022 while these materials were present, yet only 2,200 had their names checked and merely 2,900 passed through magnetometers.

How This Case Differs From Previous Classified Document Investigations

To understand the significance of Smith’s investigation, we need context. The federal government prosecutes classified document mishandling rarely—and only under specific conditions.

As the FBI has outlined, previous cases prosecuted involved some combination of four factors: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, vast quantities of materials exposed in a way that supports an inference of intentional misconduct, disloyalty to the United States, and efforts to obstruct the investigation.

The comparison many make—to Hillary Clinton’s email server investigation—reveals crucial distinctions. Clinton’s case involved 113 emails retrospectively determined to contain classified information, with only three bearing any classification markings, and those markings were ambiguous. Former FBI Director James Comey concluded there was no evidence Clinton intended to violate laws, and critically, no evidence of obstruction.

The Trump investigation presented a different picture entirely. Federal prosecutors documented what they characterized as deliberate efforts to retain materials after repeated requests for their return, misleading statements to attorneys tasked with compliance, and alleged instructions to move and conceal boxes of documents from federal investigators.

The Legal Framework: When Does Mishandling Become Criminal?

Understanding why Smith brought charges requires grasping the legal architecture governing classified information. The classification system, established through executive orders dating back to 1951, creates three levels of sensitivity: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. As of 2017, approximately 2.8 million individuals held clearances to access classified information at various levels—1.2 million with Top Secret access alone.

But classification alone doesn’t determine prosecution. The most serious charge in the Trump case came under the Espionage Act, which criminalizes mishandling information relating to national defense. Courts have consistently held that classified material constitutes strong evidence of national defense information, but the key elements prosecutors must prove are willfulness and intent.

This is where the obstruction allegations became central. Court filings detailed a recorded 2021 conversation where Trump allegedly acknowledged possessing a classified document about military plans that he could have declassified as president but didn’t. Prosecutors also pointed to evidence that when served with a subpoena, rather than complying, Trump allegedly suggested attorneys make false statements and directed an aide to conceal materials.

Six of the original 37 charges related specifically to obstruction—a stark contrast to every other recent high-profile classified documents case involving government officials, where cooperation rather than resistance characterized the response.

The Sealed Report: What We Know and What We Don’t

Jack Smith submitted his two-volume final report to Attorney General Merrick Garland in January 2025, just days before resigning his position. Volume I, covering election interference allegations, was released publicly despite fierce opposition from Trump’s legal team. It concluded that sufficient evidence existed to convict at trial, were it not for Trump’s return to the presidency.

Volume II remains hidden. Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump during his first term and previously dismissed the classified documents prosecution on constitutional grounds, has blocked its release since January 21, 2025. Her stated rationale: protecting the rights of Trump’s former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, should their case be revived.

In December 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals gave Cannon 60 days to decide whether to lift her order blocking the report, with her decision deadline set to expire in February 2026.

But here’s where the situation becomes curious. The Department of Justice dropped all charges against Nauta and De Oliveira in February 2025—ten months before the latest court deadline. Legal experts and Democratic lawmakers have questioned what legitimate basis remains for withholding a report about a case that has been entirely dismissed.

ALSO READ : World battling Against Covid-19 Pandemic

Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, captured the frustration: The Trump administration authorized Smith to testify about his investigation while refusing to release the written record that would explain it. The contradiction is difficult to reconcile with claims of unprecedented transparency.

The Constitutional Questions at the Heart of the Case

Judge Cannon’s July 2024 dismissal of the case raised fundamental questions about special counsel authority that reverberate beyond this single prosecution. She ruled that Jack Smith’s appointment violated both the Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause of the Constitution—a conclusion that contradicted decades of precedent and every other judicial ruling on similar special counsel appointments.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a solo concurrence in the immunity case, endorsed similar reasoning. No other Supreme Court justice joined his opinion, though this may have been procedural rather than substantive disagreement since the issue wasn’t properly raised in that case. Cannon cited Thomas’s concurrence three times in her decision.

The Department of Justice appealed Cannon’s dismissal, arguing that multiple statutes empower the Attorney General to appoint special counsels, and that such appointments have been validated repeatedly by courts over decades. The appeal became moot when Trump won the 2024 election and Justice Department policy precluded prosecuting a sitting president.

Yet the unresolved constitutional question lingers. If Cannon’s reasoning were to prevail, it would call into question not just this investigation but the entire special counsel framework that has existed since the post-Watergate reforms.

What Smith’s Congressional Testimony Revealed

When Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in December 2025 for his closed-door deposition, he came prepared with strong words about the integrity of his work.

Smith stated: “I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election. We took actions based on what the facts and the law required.”

Democrats who attended the seven-hour session described Smith’s testimony as “devastating” to Trump’s claims of political persecution. Republicans maintained the investigation was weaponization of the justice system. Neither side offered specifics about what was discussed regarding the classified documents probe, given Cannon’s prohibition on discussing Volume II findings.

What we do know is that Smith defended controversial investigative tactics, including the acquisition of phone record metadata from nine congressional Republicans. He insisted these records were lawfully subpoenaed and relevant to completing a comprehensive investigation. The records showed only incoming and outgoing numbers and call durations—not content—but Republicans characterized even this as government overreach.

Smith also addressed the Republican criticism of internal FBI communications about the Mar-a-Lago search. Documents released by Senator Chuck Grassley showed that weeks before the search, an FBI agent wrote that the Washington field office did not believe probable cause existed. Yet agents who executed the search found boxes of classified and top-secret documents—precisely what the warrant predicted.

The special counsel’s position was straightforward: if presented with the same evidence again, knowing what he knows now, he would make the same prosecutorial decisions.

The Broader Implications for American Democracy

Step back from the legal technicalities and partisan warfare, and a larger picture emerges. This case tested fundamental principles about accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in ways that will influence American governance for decades.

Consider what we’re witnessing: a criminal investigation into a president’s handling of the nation’s most sensitive secrets, documented in a comprehensive report that may never see public light. Previous special counsel reports—from Kenneth Starr to Robert Mueller to Robert Hur—have all been released, setting expectations for transparency even in politically charged investigations.

The pattern has been consistent: special counsels complete their work, write detailed reports explaining their findings and decisions, and those reports become part of the public record. This transparency serves multiple functions. It allows the American people to understand what their government learned. It provides accountability for prosecutors’ decisions. It creates historical documentation for future generations to understand pivotal moments in American democracy.

With Volume II sealed indefinitely, we lose all of these benefits. The investigation becomes a black box—we know charges were brought, then dismissed, but the full evidentiary record and prosecutorial reasoning remain classified by judicial order, not by the executive branch’s classification system.

What History Tells Us About Classified Document Prosecutions

Looking at comparable cases provides useful context. Over the past 75 years, the federal government has prosecuted classified information mishandling cases with notable selectivity. The pattern reveals prosecutorial discretion focused on the most egregious violations.

David Petraeus, the former CIA director, pleaded guilty in 2015 to mishandling classified materials after sharing black notebooks containing classified information with his biographer. He initially lied to investigators about it. The case resulted in a plea deal with probation and a fine—no prison time.

Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s national security advisor, pleaded guilty in 2005 to removing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives. He also initially lied about it. He received probation, community service, and a fine.

Reality Winner, an NSA contractor, received a 63-month prison sentence in 2018 for leaking a single classified document to a news outlet—the longest sentence ever imposed for unauthorized release of classified information to the media.

The pattern across these cases: intent matters, obstruction matters, and the volume and sensitivity of materials matter. Cases involving cooperation and prompt correction typically result in administrative penalties or light criminal sanctions. Cases involving obstruction, false statements, or national security damage result in serious consequences.

Jack Smith’s investigation alleged both willful retention and systematic obstruction across hundreds of highly classified documents. By the historical standard of how such cases are prosecuted, bringing criminal charges aligned with precedent.

The Political Dimension: Weaponization or Accountability?

Perhaps no aspect of this case has been more contentious than the question of motivation. Trump and his allies have consistently characterized Smith’s investigation as political persecution—the “weaponization” of the Justice Department against a political opponent.

Smith’s defenders point to his career-long reputation as an apolitical prosecutor, his work prosecuting corruption by both Democrats and Republicans, and the extensive evidence documented in court filings. They note that the investigation began under Trump’s own appointed FBI director and that the Mar-a-Lago search came only after months of negotiation and a subpoena that allegedly went unfulfilled.

The timing raises questions on both sides. Smith was appointed in November 2022—days after Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign. Critics see this as politically motivated. Defenders counter that the appointment came after evidence of potential criminal conduct had already emerged, and that special counsel regulations specifically exist to insulate politically sensitive investigations from direct political control.

ALSO READ : Huawei, Tianjin Port jointly build the intelligent horizontal transport system

What’s undeniable is that American voters rendered their own verdict. Trump won the 2024 presidential election despite facing multiple criminal indictments. Whether this represents vindication of his innocence claims or simply political polarization overriding concern about legal jeopardy depends entirely on one’s political perspective.

The Transparency Paradox

We’re left with a paradox that speaks to larger tensions in American democracy. The Trump administration has proclaimed itself the most transparent in American history. Trump himself has repeatedly demanded full transparency regarding investigations into his political opponents—calling for release of documents, testimony, and evidence.

Yet Volume II of the Jack Smith report remains sealed, despite:

The dismissal of all criminal charges
The conclusion of both co-defendants’ cases
The resignation of the special counsel
The end of any active prosecution
The completion of the investigation

Transparency advocacy groups including the Knight First Amendment Institute and American Oversight have pursued legal action to compel release. Their argument is straightforward: with no ongoing prosecution to protect and no defendants’ rights at stake, no legitimate basis exists for continued secrecy about one of the most significant investigations in American history.

Scott Wilkens of the Knight Institute stated: “This is an extraordinarily significant report about one of the most important criminal investigations in American history. There is no legitimate reason for the report’s continued suppression.”

The counterargument from Trump’s legal team and Judge Cannon focuses on procedural and jurisdictional questions rather than engaging the merits of transparency. They argue the special counsel’s appointment was unconstitutional, making any report invalid. They express concern about leaks that could prejudice some theoretical future prosecution.

But these arguments become weaker with each passing month. At what point does the public’s right to know what its government learned outweigh speculative concerns about procedural irregularities and hypothetical future proceedings?

Where Do We Go From Here?

As of late December 2025, several scenarios remain possible:

Scenario 1: Cannon Maintains the Seal
The judge could decide that her January 2025 order should remain in effect indefinitely, keeping Volume II classified unless overturned by an appeals court. This would require the transparency groups to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, potentially extending the fight for months or years.

Scenario 2: Limited Congressional Access
Cannon could allow the Justice Department to provide a redacted version to the four congressional leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, as originally proposed. This would give some transparency without full public release—though the risk of leaks would remain.

Scenario 3: Full Public Release
The judge could lift her order entirely, allowing the Justice Department to publish Volume II as it did with Volume I. This seems least likely given Cannon’s consistent rulings favoring Trump’s positions throughout the case.

Scenario 4: Appellate Intervention
The Eleventh Circuit could lose patience with the delay and directly order release, potentially reassigning the case to another judge. This would be unusual but not unprecedented given the court’s previous rebuke of Cannon during the special master controversy.

Each scenario carries implications that extend well beyond this single case. The resolution will help define how much transparency Americans can expect when their government investigates powerful officials, what protections exist for politically sensitive prosecutions, and whether judicial appointments create conflicts of interest that compromise the appearance of impartial justice.

The Larger Questions

Strip away the partisan noise and legal technicalities, and we’re left with fundamental questions about how democracies hold their most powerful figures accountable:

Can a president be prosecuted for conduct occurring during and after their presidency? The Supreme Court’s immunity decision suggests official acts receive presumptive immunity, but questions remain about what constitutes an official act. Is retaining classified documents after leaving office an official or personal act?

What role should the judiciary play when a judge presiding over a case has been appointed by the defendant? Judge Cannon’s appointment by Trump doesn’t automatically create a conflict of interest, but her rulings have consistently favored his positions in ways that appellate courts have found legally questionable.

How do we balance transparency with the rights of defendants? Even in cases involving powerful political figures, criminal defendants deserve protections. But when those cases are dismissed and no prosecution remains active, does the calculus change?

What happens when different branches of government give competing signals about transparency? Congress demands the report. The judiciary blocks it. The executive branch falls somewhere in between, bound by court orders but facing pressure from lawmakers. Who decides?

These aren’t abstract philosophical questions. They’re practical challenges that will recur as American politics grows more polarized and as more officials face potential criminal liability for their conduct.

Conclusion: The Investigation That Defined an Era

Jack Smith’s classified documents investigation will be studied by historians, legal scholars, and political scientists for generations. It represents the first federal indictment of a former president. It tested the limits of executive power and special counsel authority. It raised profound questions about how democracies investigate their leaders while respecting due process and the separation of powers.

But perhaps most significantly, it demonstrated how political polarization can transform legal accountability into partisan warfare. Half the country sees rigorous enforcement of laws governing classified information. The other half sees politically motivated persecution. These competing narratives exist not in different countries but in the same democracy, consuming the same information yet reaching opposite conclusions.

The sealed Volume II report symbolizes this deeper division. One side demands transparency and accountability. The other demands protection from what they view as illegitimate prosecution. Judge Cannon’s courtroom has become the venue where these competing visions of American democracy collide.

We may not see that report for years—if ever. But its absence speaks as loudly as its eventual release might. In a democracy that prides itself on transparency and the rule of law, the inability to share findings from one of the most consequential investigations in American history represents either prudent judicial restraint or dangerous democratic backsliding.

Which interpretation prevails will depend on factors beyond Jack Smith’s investigation itself—on whether Americans can find common ground about basic questions of accountability, whether judicial processes can maintain legitimacy amid deep political divisions, and whether transparency norms can survive when they conflict with partisan interests.

The Jack Smith report exists. Somewhere in Justice Department files sits a detailed account of what happened with those classified documents, why prosecutors believed crimes occurred, and what evidence they amassed. That American citizens may never read it—despite the dismissal of all charges, the conclusion of all proceedings, and the completion of the investigation—tells us something important about the state of American democracy in 2025.

What it tells us, exactly, depends on where you stand.

About This Investigation

This analysis draws on court documents, congressional testimony, and reporting from multiple news organizations. The sealed nature of Volume II means significant aspects of the investigation remain unknown to the public. All factual claims are sourced from publicly available information or direct testimony from parties involved.

Post Views: 893

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

2025: The Year That Reshaped Our World

Don't Miss

Ben Sasse Diagnosis: Former Senator Battles Stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer at Age 53

Click to comment

Analysis

‘I’m Embarrassed’: ICE Agents Break Silence on Minneapolis Shooting as Trump Doubles Down on Hardline Tactics

Published

6 hours ago

January 15, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Introduction:
“In the wake of the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, a chilling whisper has emerged from within the ranks of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): ‘I’m embarrassed.’ As the Trump administration staunchly defends Agent Jonathan Ross, claiming he acted in self-defense, current and former ICE agents are speaking out—not in support, but in dismay. This incident has become a flashpoint, exposing deep-seated concerns about the agency’s conduct, its operations in Minneapolis, and the administration’s aggressive push to expand its ranks. But what does this mean for the future of immigration enforcement in America?

According to a Washington Post analysis . ICE operations under Trump have intensified, with a 40% increase in arrests in sanctuary cities like Minneapolis. Yet, internal dissent suggests the agency may be spiraling into uncharted—and dangerous—territory.”

1. The Shooting of Renee Good: A Tragic Flashpoint
On January 7, 2026, Renee Good, a 37-year-old American citizen, was fatally shot by ICE Agent Jonathan Ross during an operation in Minneapolis. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) swiftly defended Ross, stating he “dutifully acted in self-defense.” However, eyewitness accounts and leaked internal memos paint a murkier picture. The New York Times reports that Ross fired his weapon within seconds of confrontation, raising questions about the use of lethal force.

Keyword Integration: ICE agent shooting Minneapolis, Renee Good fatal shooting

2. ‘I’m Embarrassed’: ICE Agents Speak Out
Behind closed doors, current and former ICE agents have expressed profound discomfort with the incident. “This isn’t what we signed up for,” one agent told Reuters on condition of anonymity. “The pressure to meet quotas and the lack of de-escalation training are pushing us into situations we’re not prepared for.”

ALSO READ : Eclipse 2023: A Celestial Spectacle to Remember

These concerns echo a broader pattern. A ProPublica investigation revealed that ICE agents in Minneapolis have faced increasing pressure to conduct high-risk operations, often with minimal oversight.

ICE agent conduct, Minneapolis protests

3. Trump’s Hardline ICE Policies: A Recipe for Disaster?
The Trump administration’s aggressive recruitment drive has added fuel to the fire. Since 2017, ICE has hired over 5,000 new agents, many with limited training, according to a Mother Jones report. This rapid expansion has raised alarms about accountability and professionalism.

“We’re seeing a culture of fear—both within the agency and in the communities we serve,” said a former ICE official in an interview with The Guardian . “This isn’t law enforcement; it’s a political tool.”

Keyword Integration: Trump administration ICE policies, Homeland Security controversies

4. The Broader Implications: A Nation at a Crossroads
The Minneapolis shooting is more than a tragedy—it’s a symptom of a broken system. As protests erupt across the city, demanding justice for Renee Good, the question remains: How much longer can ICE operate with impunity?

Data from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shows that ICE operations in sanctuary cities have led to a 30% increase in reports of civil rights violations. Yet, the administration remains undeterred, promising to deploy hundreds more agents to Minneapolis.

Keyword Integration: Minneapolis protests, ICE operations

Conclusion:
The shooting of Renee Good has torn the veil off ICE’s operations, revealing a crisis of conscience within the agency itself. As Trump doubles down on his hardline tactics, the voices of embarrassed ICE agents serve as a stark warning: This path is unsustainable.

Will the administration heed these warnings, or will it continue to sacrifice accountability for political gain? The answer may determine not just the future of ICE, but the soul of a nation.

Post Views: 169

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

ALSO READ : Navigating the Delicate Geitical Balance around Taiwan: Lai Ching-te's Presidential Victory Calls for Moderation from All Sides

Analysis

The Best, Worst, and Most Memorable Moments of the 2026 Golden Globes

Published

1 day ago

January 14, 2026

Abdul Rahman

From Nikki Glaser’s biting monologue to shocking upsets, explore the 2026 Golden Globes’ most unforgettable highlights, controversies, and cultural moments.

The 83rd Golden Globe Awards descended upon the Beverly Hilton on January 11, 2026, with all the glitz Hollywood could muster—and with it came the predictable chaos that makes the Globes less stuffy cousin to the Oscars and more like that smart friend who drinks too much at dinner parties and says what everyone’s thinking. Hosted for the second consecutive year by comedian Nikki Glaser, the ceremony pulled in 8.66 million viewers, a modest 7% drop from 2025, yet generated 43 million social media interactions—proof that the Globes remain more about viral moments than viewership dominance.

This year’s ceremony felt like a bellwether for Hollywood’s ongoing identity crisis: streaming giants battling theatrical legacy, international cinema demanding recognition, diversity gains shadowed by glaring omissions, and an industry trying desperately to appear relevant while Los Angeles burned and political fractures deepened. Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another swept with four wins, while Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet shocked pundits by taking Best Drama over Ryan Coogler’s Sinners—a decision that crystallized this year’s most contentious debates about merit, momentum, and whose stories Hollywood deems worthy of its highest honors.

Let’s dissect what worked, what flopped, and what will reverberate through Oscar season and beyond.

Table of Contents

The Best Moments: When the Globes Got It Right

Nikki Glaser’s Surgical Opening Monologue

If hosting the Golden Globes requires walking a tightrope between roasting and reverence, Glaser’s second outing proved she’s mastered the art of the comedic tightrope walk. Her 10-minute opening salvo spared no sacred cow: Leonardo DiCaprio’s dating preferences (“The most impressive thing is you were able to accomplish all that before your girlfriend turned 30”), the redacted Epstein files (“The Golden Globe for best editing goes to… the Justice Department!”), and CBS News’ recent credibility nosedive (“America’s newest place to see BS news”).

What elevated Glaser beyond cheap shots was her evident affection for the room. As The Hollywood Reporter noted, she delivered “a top-tier monologue ahead of a show that otherwise pretended all’s well with the world.” Her joke about Michael B. Jordan playing twins in Sinners—”When I saw that, I was like Nikki B. Jerkin”—landed precisely because it was both juvenile and oddly charming. She closed by honoring late director Rob Reiner with a Spinal Tap hat and the film’s iconic line: “I hope we found the line between clever and stupid.” They did.

Teyana Taylor’s Triumph and Tearful Advocacy

One of the night’s genuine surprises came when Teyana Taylor won Best Supporting Actress for One Battle After Another, defeating frontrunner Amy Madigan (Weapons) and Wicked: For Good‘s Ariana Grande. Taylor’s performance as revolutionary Perfidia Beverly Hills had been critically lauded but overshadowed in the awards conversation—until it wasn’t.

Her acceptance speech transcended typical thank-yous, becoming one of the ceremony’s most culturally resonant moments. “To my brown sisters and little brown girls watching tonight,” Taylor said, voice breaking, “our softness is not a liability. Our depth is not too much. Our light does not need permission to shine. We belong in every room we walk into.” In an era where diversity gains in Hollywood feel fragile, Taylor’s win and words offered both validation and challenge.

Owen Cooper Makes History at 16

Netflix’s Adolescence—a single-take murder investigation drama that dominated with four wins—produced the evening’s most heartwarming moment when 16-year-old Owen Cooper became the youngest male supporting actor winner in Golden Globes history. The teen’s speech was disarmingly humble: “Standing here at the Golden Globes, it just does not feel real whatsoever… I’m still very much an apprentice.” He closed with a shout-out to Liverpool F.C.: “Bring on 2026. You’ll never walk alone.”

The juxtaposition of Cooper’s youthful sincerity against Hollywood’s practiced polish felt refreshing. His co-star Stephen Graham was caught on camera wiping away tears—a reminder that awards can still feel genuinely meaningful when they recognize emerging talent rather than coronating the expected.

Wagner Moura’s Groundbreaking Win

Brazilian actor Wagner Moura’s Best Actor in a Drama victory for The Secret Agent marked a significant milestone: he became the first Brazilian to win in the category. His speech connected the film’s themes of generational trauma to broader societal healing: “If trauma can be passed along through generations, values can, too. This is to the ones sticking with their values in difficult moments.” He concluded in Portuguese: “Long live Brazilian culture.”

ALSO READ : World battling Against Covid-19 Pandemic

Moura’s win, alongside Brazil’s The Secret Agent taking Best International Feature, signals (perhaps) a genuine shift in how Hollywood’s international voters evaluate non-English cinema—not as exotic “foreign” curiosities but as equal contenders. Whether this translates to Oscar recognition remains the billion-dollar question.

K-pop Breaks Through

In a category debut, “Golden” from Netflix’s KPop Demon Hunters became the first K-pop song to win Best Original Song at the Golden Globes. Songwriter EJAE’s emotional acceptance speech resonated widely: fighting through tears, she described being rejected by the K-pop industry for a decade before this triumph. The moment felt emblematic of how streaming platforms are democratizing global storytelling, even as traditional gatekeepers resist.

The Worst Moments: When the Globes Missed the Mark

The Sinners Snub: A Troubling Pattern

Perhaps no moment encapsulated the Globes’ disconnect more than Ryan Coogler’s Sinners being systematically sidelined. Despite entering with seven nominations and massive cultural momentum—the vampire film set in the Jim Crow South had become one of 2025’s most discussed originals—it left with only Cinematic and Box Office Achievement (a relatively new, lesser category) and Best Score, which wasn’t even televised.

Coogler lost Best Director and Best Screenplay to Paul Thomas Anderson for One Battle After Another—a defensible choice on merit, perhaps, but one that stings when Sinners‘ entire creative team walked away empty-handed. Michael B. Jordan’s dual performance drew raves but no nomination, a conspicuous oversight. As one critic noted, the treatment reflects “a familiar pattern in how Black art is acknowledged in Hollywood, yet still overlooked on these prestigious industry stages.”

The pattern feels uncomfortably familiar: nominate the Black film, celebrate its commercial success (because that’s “safe”), but when it’s time to hand out the major creative trophies, suddenly the work doesn’t quite measure up. Sinners remains a strong Oscar contender, but the Globes’ cold shoulder will make that hill steeper to climb.

Frankenstein and Wicked: The Five-Nomination Shutouts

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, despite five nominations and support from major guilds, went home empty. So did Wicked: For Good, the sequel to 2024’s box-office behemoth. Both films faced the Globes’ genre categorization problem: Frankenstein competed in Drama (where Hamnet and Sinners dominated conversation), while Wicked: For Good fell into Musical/Comedy (where One Battle After Another swept).

The shutouts felt less like snubs and more like mathematical inevitabilities of an awards show that splits films by genre. Still, as Variety observed, it’s jarring when films with genuine guild support—traditionally the best predictor of awards viability—can’t convert a single win.

Television’s Big Three Get Blanked

On the TV side, The White Lotus (six nominations), Severance (four), and Only Murders in the Building (four) all went home empty-handed. These aren’t marginal shows; they’re Emmy winners, cultural touchstones, and viewer favorites. Their collective shutout felt less like careful consideration of merit and more like the Globes’ penchant for chaos—spreading awards around to avoid looking predictable, consequences be damned.

Severance in particular stung. The Apple TV+ series has redefined prestige television with its Orwellian corporate satire, and its erasure felt symbolic of how the Globes prioritize buzz over craftsmanship. Then again, maybe that’s the point: the Globes have never pretended to be serious arbiters of artistic merit.

The Podcast Category’s Identity Crisis

The Globes’ new Best Podcast category—won by Amy Poehler’s Good Hang, which launched in March 2025—immediately sparked confusion. Poehler’s podcast is charming, but it’s barely nine months old. Meanwhile, established juggernauts like Smartless (six years running) and high-profile political podcasts were conspicuously absent from nominations.

The category felt simultaneously overdue (podcasts are massive) and half-baked (why these nominees?). Glaser’s Nicole Kidman AMC ad parody preempting the category was the highlight—which tells you everything about how seriously anyone took it.

Sports Betting Chyrons: The Visual Pollution

A smaller but irritating misstep: Polymarket (a prediction market platform) graphics appearing before commercial breaks, showing odds for upcoming categories. As TVLine groaned, “It’s always an eyesore when sports betting graphics show up during major pop culture moments.” The intrusion felt emblematic of how awards shows increasingly treat audiences as consumers to monetize rather than viewers to entertain.

The Most Memorable Moments: What We’ll Still Talk About

Timothée Chalamet’s First Globe—and That Kiss

After four nominations without a win, Timothée Chalamet finally took home Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy for Marty Supreme, Josh Safdie’s ping-pong drama. The win felt earned—Chalamet’s portrayal of narcissistic athlete Marty Mauser showcased range beyond his usual mopey-prince typecasting. But what made it unforgettable was the kiss he gave Kylie Jenner before heading to the stage, followed by his on-air thank you to her.

In an era when celebrity relationships feel performatively private, the moment felt genuinely tender. Whether it softens Chalamet’s chances at the Oscars (where voters prefer tortured suffering to rom-com swagger) remains to be seen, but for one night, Hollywood’s most mysterious young couple reminded us why we care about celebrities in the first place.

ALSO READ : BITCOIN IS A HUMANISTIC ALTERNATIVE TO TECHNOLOGICAL SALVATION

Rose Byrne’s Reptile Expo Confession

Winner of Best Actress in a Musical/Comedy for If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, Rose Byrne delivered a delightfully bizarre acceptance speech. After thanking her director and cast, she pivoted: “I want to thank my husband, Bobby Cannavale. He couldn’t be here because he’s, um—we’re getting a bearded dragon, and he went to a reptile expo in New Jersey.”

The admission was so charmingly specific that it went instantly viral. Byrne had explained on The Tonight Show days earlier that their sons wanted a bearded dragon, and Cannavale was attending Reptilecon the same day as the Globes. The image of Bobby Cannavale choosing lizards over Hollywood glamour felt like the most honest moment of the night.

Macaulay Culkin’s 35-Year Return

When Macaulay Culkin walked onstage to present Best Screenplay—his first Globes appearance since his 1990 Home Alone nomination—the Beverly Hilton erupted in a standing ovation. Culkin, now 45, leaned into the moment with self-deprecating wit: “I know it’s weird to see me outside the holiday season. Shockingly, I do exist all year round.”

The response spoke to something deeper than ’90s nostalgia. Culkin’s public journey—from child star to tabloid cautionary tale to well-adjusted adult working on his own terms—feels redemptive in ways Hollywood rarely allows. His return was less about the ceremony and more about collective relief that he’s okay.

The Hamnet Upset Nobody Saw Coming

When Chloé Zhao’s Hamnet was announced as Best Drama over presumed frontrunner Sinners, even Zhao looked shocked. Her acceptance speech graciously acknowledged Coogler: “I have to shout out Sinners. Ryan, you’re a master.” The win, while contested, signals Oscars voters might be more receptive to quieter, literary adaptations (Maggie O’Farrell’s novel about Shakespeare’s son) than Twitter buzz would suggest.

Yet the upset also crystallizes awards season’s fundamental unpredictability. Hamnet had strong reviews and Steven Spielberg producing, but it wasn’t dominating precursors. Sometimes the Globes’ international voting body simply… zigs when pundits expect a zag. Whether that’s admirable independence or chaotic incoherence depends on your perspective.

Jean Smart’s Third Win and Political Undercurrent

Jean Smart’s Best Actress in a TV Comedy win for Hacks (her third Globe) came with a trademark quip: “What can I say, I’m a greedy bitch.” But her red carpet interview earlier, where she expressed concern about the country’s political turning point, added subtext. Smart’s ability to balance comedy with conscience felt like a masterclass in using Hollywood platforms wisely.

Throughout the night, politics simmered beneath the surface: celebrities like Mark Ruffalo wearing “Ice Out” pins honoring Renée Macklin Good (killed by ICE), Glaser’s CBS News jab, and acceptance speeches urging “compassion and understanding.” The Globes didn’t become overtly political, but the undercurrent suggested Hollywood knows it’s watching an administration hostile to its values—and hasn’t decided how loudly to push back.

What It All Means for Oscar Season and Beyond

The 2026 Golden Globes reinforced several industry realities. First, Warner Bros. Discovery—amid its contentious sale to Netflix/Paramount—had a blockbuster night with One Battle After Another, Sinners (box office award), and The Pitt dominating. The irony that WBD CEO David Zaslav sat in a room where his company’s sale wasn’t mentioned once speaks to Hollywood’s gift for compartmentalization.

Second, streaming’s dominance continues unabated. Netflix’s Adolescence won four TV awards, KPop Demon Hunters took two film prizes, and Apple TV+’s The Studio and The Pitt (HBO Max) split comedy/drama TV honors. Theatrical cinema is fighting for relevance—Sinners‘ box office award felt almost patronizing, a pat on the head for daring to play in cinemas at all.

Third, the diversity conversation remains maddeningly incomplete. Teyana Taylor, Wagner Moura, and EJAE winning felt significant, but Sinners‘ snubs and the absence of major Black films in top categories suggest progress remains halting. As one analysis noted, while streaming has increased diverse storytelling, awards recognition lags frustratingly behind cultural impact.

Fourth, the Globes’ viewership decline—8.66 million is respectable but trending downward—mirrors broader questions about awards shows’ relevance. Younger audiences increasingly don’t care about industry back-patting, and the ceremony’s 43 million social interactions (up 5% year-over-year) suggest its future might be as meme-generating content farms rather than appointment television.

The Verdict

The 2026 Golden Globes succeeded where it often does: as a chaotic, entertaining, occasionally insightful preview of Oscar season that reminds us why we watch celebrities behave like humans for three hours. Nikki Glaser proved she’s the host Hollywood needs right now—sharp enough to cut, warm enough to charm. The wins for Teyana Taylor, Owen Cooper, and Wagner Moura provided genuine emotional heft. And One Battle After Another‘s sweep positions Paul Thomas Anderson as Oscar frontrunner, though Hamnet‘s upset and Sinners‘ snubs ensure nothing is settled.

But the ceremony also exposed uncomfortable truths: Hollywood still struggles to fully embrace Black-led cinema beyond commercial categories, international films remain ghettoized despite lip service, and the industry’s political convictions feel muted when self-interest intrudes. The Globes are never meant to be profound—they’re the drunk friend who tells uncomfortable truths at parties—but perhaps that’s their value. In showing us both what’s celebrated and what’s ignored, they reveal Hollywood’s priorities more honestly than any Oscar speech ever will.

As awards season accelerates toward March’s Oscars, the 2026 Golden Globes will be remembered for Glaser’s monologue, the Sinners controversy, and the night Rose Byrne chose bearded dragons over bobby pins. Sometimes, that’s exactly enough.

Post Views: 209

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Trump, Hawley & War Powers Act: Congress vs Executive Authority Explained

Published

6 days ago

January 9, 2026

Abdul Rahman

You’ve likely seen headlines about President Trump and a War Powers Act fight that pulled a handful of Republicans into a high-stakes vote. You should know the War Powers Resolution limits a president’s ability to expand military action without Congress, and recent votes by Senators like Josh Hawley and Todd Young turned that law into a live flashpoint between the White House and Capitol Hill.

This dispute matters because it reshapes how much control Congress can exert over future military moves and signals shifting alliances within the GOP. Expect this post to unpack the legal mechanism, the political calculations behind the bipartisan votes, and the broader implications for executive power and party dynamics.

Key Takeaways

The War Powers framework restricts unilateral presidential military action.
Congressional votes by GOP senators altered the political balance on oversight.
The debate will influence future executive-legislative clashes over force.

Overview of the War Powers Act

The War Powers Act defines congressional and presidential responsibilities for introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities, sets time limits for deployments without explicit authorization, and creates reporting requirements to Congress.

Historical Context and Purpose

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War and concerns that presidents had committed U.S. forces to prolonged hostilities without adequate congressional oversight. Lawmakers sought a statutory check on unilateral executive action by clarifying when and how the president must consult and notify Congress.

The statute aims to restore the constitutional balance between the legislative power to declare war and the president’s role as commander in chief. It reflects bipartisan frustration at secret or extended military commitments and intends to force deliberation—either authorization or withdrawal—within defined timeframes.

Key Provisions and Requirements

The Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. That notification must explain the legal basis, scope, and estimated duration of the deployment.

After notification, the Act limits military engagement to 60 days of continuous hostilities, plus a 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress enacts a declaration of war, an authorization for use of military force (AUMF), or specific statutory approval. It also mandates regular reports to Congress and allows Congress to require removal of forces by concurrent resolution (though the constitutional and practical effect of that mechanism has been disputed).

Comparison to the War Powers Resolution

The terms “War Powers Act” and “War Powers Resolution” refer to the same 1973 statute; “Resolution” often appears in political reporting. The statute functions as a resolution passed by both houses and presented to the president, who signed—or in some administrations, contested—its constitutionality.

Presidents from both parties have challenged aspects of the law, citing executive prerogatives and arguing the reporting and withdrawal triggers can interfere with operational flexibility. Congress and the courts have produced limited, mixed rulings on enforcement, which has left practical compliance uneven and often politicized—especially when specific cases, like proposed actions involving Venezuela, prompt votes on related resolutions.

President Trump’s Approach to the War Powers Act

Trump frequently framed the War Powers Act as a constraint on the commander-in-chief role, while also using unilateral military options that tested the statute’s limits. His statements, deployments, and legal posture led to congressional pushback and rare bipartisan votes to assert oversight.

Policy Actions and Statements

Trump publicly criticized the War Powers Resolution, calling it an impediment to presidential authority as commander in chief. He argued that the statute—originally passed in 1973—restricted the executive branch’s ability to act swiftly in foreign crises.

Administrations under Trump notified Congress for some operations within the 48-hour reporting window the law requires, but also pursued strikes and special operations that raised questions about the need for further congressional authorization. His administration emphasized reliance on inherent constitutional authority and authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) when defending actions.

ALSO READ : Top-Rated Electric Cars 2023-2024: Expert Reviews and Rankings for Best EVs in US

Statements from Trump and senior officials prioritized flexibility and speed. That posture influenced how legal advisers framed the administration’s justification for kinetic actions and limited the administration’s willingness to seek new, explicit congressional approvals for some operations.

Significant Presidential Decisions

Trump ordered several high-profile uses of force that highlighted tensions with the War Powers Resolution. The January 2020 strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani prompted Congress to reexamine executive war-making authority.

Operations in Venezuela and targeted counterterrorism strikes in Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere also drew scrutiny. Some of those actions led senators to press for a formal war powers resolution to constrain further military engagement without congressional approval.

On occasion the administration complied with reporting requirements but stopped short of seeking a new statutory authorization tied specifically to the operation. This pattern produced recurring legal questions about when notification satisfies the resolution versus when congressional approval becomes necessary.

Controversies and Criticism

Critics argued Trump’s approach eroded legislative oversight and increased risk of unauthorized, prolonged military engagements. Lawmakers across parties cited specific strikes and special operations as examples where the administration should have sought clearer congressional authorization.

Supporters countered that rapid, targeted actions protected U.S. interests and that existing AUMFs or constitutional authority justified the moves. Still, votes in the Senate—where five Republicans joined Democrats to advance a war powers measure—reflected bipartisan concern over executive overreach in at least some cases.

Legal scholars and members of Congress debated enforcement mechanisms within the War Powers Resolution, noting that courts rarely intervene and that political remedies, such as withholding funding or passing resolutions, remain the primary checks.

Congressional Perspectives and Political Debates

Congressional debate centers on which branch controls the decision to use U.S. military force, how to limit executive flexibility, and which statutory fixes would restore clear authorization and oversight.

Roles of Congress in War Declarations

Congress holds the constitutional power to declare war and to raise and support the armed forces, while the president serves as commander in chief. In practice, Congress has rarely issued formal declarations since World War II, relying instead on Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) and budgetary controls to influence military action.

Members emphasize two practical levers: statutory authorizations that explicitly define scope and duration of force, and appropriations riders that can constrain funding for specific operations. Committees—especially Armed Services and Foreign Relations—conduct oversight hearings, subpoena witnesses, and review classified briefings to assess ongoing engagements.

Judicially, courts have been reluctant to resolve political-branch disputes over war powers, leaving Congress to negotiate internal remedies through legislation, oversight, and political pressure.

Recent Legislative Attempts to Amend the Law

Lawmakers have proposed several statutory changes aimed at clarifying the War Powers Resolution and replacing broad AUMFs. Proposals range from tightening time limits for troop deployments to requiring pre-authorization for significant kinetic strikes and mandating regular congressional reporting on military operations.

In the Senate, bipartisan bills have sought to require specific congressional approval for hostilities beyond short-term emergency responses. Some versions would restore a 60- to 90-day automatic withdrawal timeline absent explicit approval. Others focus on transparency: enhanced reporting, public disclosure of legal memos, and stricter criteria for defining “hostilities.”

Efforts face hurdles: presidents resist measures they view as eroding operational flexibility, and intra-Congress divisions—between hawks wanting fewer constraints and reformers pushing for stronger checks—complicate consensus. Appropriations and procedural rules also affect the odds of passage.

Bipartisan Positions on Executive Military Authority

Republicans and Democrats split on how much authority the president should retain, but crossover exists. Some Republicans, including defense hawks, argue strong executive flexibility is essential for rapid response to threats. Other Republicans, like members advocating for institutional prerogatives, favor restoring congressional authorizations to check unilateral action.

Democrats similarly divide: progressive members push for narrow executive authority and strict congressional reassertion, while moderates sometimes support limited flexibility for counterterrorism and alliance operations. Bipartisan coalitions have formed around transparency measures and sunset provisions that appeal to both oversight-minded legislators and practical-security advocates.

High-profile senators from both parties—who have sponsored reform bills or joined oversight efforts—shape the legislative terrain. Their negotiations typically focus on time limits, reporting requirements, and definitions of “hostilities,” which determine the practical balance between presidential agility and congressional control.

ALSO READ : PM announces Huge Relief Package to tackle Economic Slowdown due to Covid-19 Pandemic

Josh Hawley and Todd Young: Legislative Initiatives

Both senators have sponsored high-profile measures addressing executive power and ethics in government. Hawley has pushed anti-insider-trading legislation and joined limits on presidential war-making; Young has worked with colleagues to invoke congressional authority over military action.

Key Sponsorships and Resolutions

Josh Hawley sponsored the Honest Act variant that sought to ban stock trading by members of Congress and extend the ban to the president and vice president after negotiations added those offices. His vote to advance that measure in committee positioned him as a lone or rare GOP supporter on ethics restrictions, drawing public rebuke from former President Trump.

Todd Young co-sponsored and voted with other Republicans and Democrats on a War Powers Resolution aimed at limiting unilateral presidential military action in Venezuela. Young joined Senators Murkowski, Collins, and others in advancing the measure to assert Congress’s constitutional role in authorizing force.

Both senators also backed related procedural moves to bring these bills to the floor, signaling willingness to cross partisan lines on specific institutional reforms. Their sponsorships combined ethics and war-powers items that altered ordinary Republican caucus dynamics.

Motivations and Public Statements

Hawley framed his anti-trading push as restoring public trust and preventing conflicts of interest, emphasizing transparency and stricter rules for lawmakers’ financial activities. He publicly defended the trade ban as necessary even when it elicited criticism from the Trump administration.

Young argued that the War Powers Resolution was about reasserting Congress’s constitutional prerogative to declare war, citing concerns over executive branch overreach in foreign operations. He described the vote as a check on the use of military force, not a partisan attack on a particular president.

Both senators couched their actions in institutionalist language—protecting democratic norms and institutional integrity—while avoiding rhetoric that directly blamed colleagues. Their statements aimed to appeal to voters concerned with both ethics and separation of powers.

Impact on National Discourse

Hawley’s backing of the stock-trading ban shifted conversations within the GOP about ethics reform, making a previously marginal idea more mainstream and prompting public confrontation with presidential allies. Media coverage highlighted the intra-party split and framed the episode as a test of Republican unity on governance reforms.

Young’s vote on the War Powers Resolution contributed to renewed debate about Congress’s role in authorizing military action, particularly regarding U.S. policy toward Venezuela. The bipartisan nature of the vote strengthened legislative claims to oversight and encouraged further proposals to clarify war-authority limits.

Combined, their initiatives pushed institutional questions—ethics rules and constitutional war powers—into legislative and public arenas, prompting hearings, op-eds, and follow-on bills that continued to shape policy discussions.

Implications for U.S. Politics and Future Policy

Congressional moves to constrain presidential military action and proposals to ban stock trading by officials signal shifting priorities about executive accountability and ethical constraints. The dynamics will shape interbranch relations, legislative agendas, and campaign messaging as lawmakers weigh national security, oversight, and electoral consequences.

Balance of Power Between Branches

Legislative efforts to use the War Powers Act or a War Powers Resolution to restrict a president’s ability to order strikes highlight a renewed assertion of congressional authority over decisions to use force. Senators from both parties, including a handful of Republicans, have voted to advance measures that would limit unilateral executive military action.

That bipartisan movement could normalize congressional consultation or statutory limits on certain categories of force, putting the White House on the defensive when seeking authorization for strikes. For the judiciary, increased litigation is likely if a president claims inherent authority; courts may be asked to resolve questions about justiciability and separation of powers.

Political signaling matters: members of Congress who press constraints can pursue oversight, budgetary levers, or targeted authorizations as alternatives to sweeping executive discretion. Those tools will shape future crises and how administrations craft legal justifications for military options.

Potential Legal and Political Outcomes

Legal outcomes will hinge on litigation contours and judicial appetite to engage separation-of-powers disputes. Challenges to executive action under new or reasserted war-powers statutes could reach federal appellate courts and possibly the Supreme Court, producing precedents on the limits of commander-in-chief authority.

Politically, constraints on presidential war-making may become campaign issues. Opponents could argue that limits hinder rapid response, while proponents will frame them as necessary checks. Legislative bans or reforms—such as clarity on when congressional authorization is required—could survive as law if bipartisan coalitions hold in conference and the president signs or is overridden.

Practical effects include changes to military planning timelines, interagency approval processes, and the use of covert actions or proxy measures. Lawmakers and administrations will likely adapt through clearer statutory definitions, reporting requirements, and built-in sunset clauses to reduce ambiguity and manage political risk.

Post Views: 488