Hello, it's the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

Bluster is such an inherent part of Trumpian policymaking that it can be hard to know what's real and what's merely being said for rhetorical punch. I've struggled with this in particular around Trump's immigration proposals: he's calling for something obviously impossible — rounding up all undocumented immigrants in the country and deporting them — while expanding it to something both larger in scale and in who it will affect.

It's red meat for the base. And, as I've found in my reporting, there's substance to Trump allies' planning for it: they're examining how the military could be used to deport people en masse, and are laying the legal groundwork to use the military not only to protect the border, but to do domestic law enforcement.

In another sense, this is really a continuation of a trend that began with the War on Terror. The southern border and perceived ease with which foreigners could cross it became a huge source of fear. It signified vulnerability to unknown foreign threats and, as you hear in many right-wing circles, a basic failure of American statehood: the inability to protect one of its national borders. It reveals the bigger problem in the War on Terror's view of undocumented immigrants: that they must be regarded first and foremost as a national security threat.

It's all extreme, but there are still gradations. Conservatives (and many liberals) will point out that undocumented migrants are here unlawfully. There's a process to enter and reside in the United States legally; they should take it, the thinking goes, and accept the legal consequences that come with breaking the law.

What makes the Trump planning different is both the level of aggression involved in finding and removing people, and in the categories it's meant to cover: both Trump and Vance, are talking about removing people who are here legally, like Haitians on Temporary Protected Status in Springfield. Trump himself floated "remigration" on Truth Social this week. It's a shift not in scale but in kind.

Here's what else TPM has on tap this weekend:

• Kate Riga previews what to expect this coming week, when Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to file a brief defending his superseding indictment under the Supreme Court's new parameters of presidential immunity.
• Khaya Himmelman outlines the efforts being made to combat the new rules the Georgia Election Board has adopted in recent weeks, as some MAGA members attempt to hijack the board's administrative duties to help delay election certification in the state. 
• Emine Yücel speaks to an expert about the new AI regulation law in California, and how it may serve as a roadmap for federal legislation. 
• Emine Yücel weighs in on JD Vance's recent remarks, describing the Haitian migrants in his home state, who are in the U.S. legally, as "illegal aliens."

Let's dig in. 

Birds fly, grass grows, Trump lawyers try to get the Jan. 6/immunity case dismissed at procedurally inappropriate moments.

This week was no exception, as the team filed a late-night brief (after blowing the 5 p.m. deadline and asking for an extension — ah, college) nominally about the boundaries of discovery the lawyers were seeking from Smith's office. As usual, it became another venue for relitigating arguments to dismiss or delay the case, many of which U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had already rejected. 

Part of the effort is to push off a due date next week, when Smith is scheduled to file his opening brief defending the superseding indictment under the Supreme Court's new (vague) parameters of presidential immunity. Smith's team has already indicated that the filing will include new evidence not included in the indictment. 

Chutkan did not take kindly to these delay attempts earlier this month, instead granting Smith's request to go first on his schedule. I wouldn't expect her to change directions now due to a reheated, hours-late brief from the lawyers who already pretty consistently tick her off.

The Trump-backed Georgia state election board just approved another rule that has the potential to delay election certification and sow chaos in the election administration system — only 45 days away from the upcoming presidential election. 

On Friday, in a 3-2 vote, the board voted to enact a new rule that requires counties in the state to hand count the number of ballots cast. It's a process that experts warn is both inefficient, and error-prone. And, of particular concern, the rule, like the previous two the board has passed, has the potential to delay certification of election results in the state. 

The rule, which will go into effect in time for November's election, requires election workers to hand count the number of ballots cast in addition to a machine tabulation of the results in each precinct. 

Friday's rule comes against the backdrop of a larger effort by the MAGA-controlled state election board to potentially delay election certification. 

On August 6, the board passed a rule that gives the board the power to not certify the results of the election until after a "reasonable inquiry" into any discrepancies in the voting process at the county level has been conducted by election officials. And the second rule, approved on August 19, gives board members power to "examine all election-related documentation before certifying the results." Both rules give board members the chance to delay certification with false claims of voter fraud. 

Last month, the Democratic Party of Georgia and Democratic National Committee, along with Democratic Georgia lawmakers, filed a lawsuit against the state board in response to the passage of these two August rules. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that, according to Georgia law, election officials do not have the power to delay certification. 

Although no legal action against the hand-counting rule has been announced just yet, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the American Civil Liberties Union in Georgia, and Public Rights Project filed a comment objecting to the board's new rule proposals ahead of Friday's vote. 

"Some members of this Board have been quick to dismiss the concerns of election professionals and experts about the serious disruptions its rules will cause. But the Board cannot bury its head in the sand—it has a legal duty to meaningfully consider public comments about the real-world effects of its actions," it reads. 

The Georgia Association Of Voter Registration And Election Officials (GAVREO) similarly sent a letter to the board ahead of Friday's vote, expressing concern about the news rules: "We do not oppose rules because we are lazy or because a political operative or organization wants us to. We oppose rules because they are poorly written, inefficient, would not accomplish their stated goals, or go directly against state law. The proposed rules under consideration are not simply 'common sense' rules that no reasonable person could disagree with."

Republican Attorney General Chris Carr's office pushed back on the board's rule changes, but has not announced legal action against the rule. "As a general matter, the passage of any rules concerning the conduct of elections are disfavored when implemented as close to an election as the rules on the September 20 agenda," a memo from Carr's office reads.  

And Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has consistently criticized the board and the rules, saying most recently, according to CNN: "We're 50 days out before we have our election. In fact, we're really just three weeks before we start early voting, and it's just too late in the cycle."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of artificial intelligence bills into law this week in an attempt to force social media companies to moderate the spread of election-related disinformation and deep fakes.

The trio of bills largely aim to ban, remove or label AI-generated deepfakes and other intentionally misleading content related to elections and candidates as such during specific periods of time. 

The California bills are "game changers," Oren Etzioni, the founder and CEO of TrueMedia.org — a non-profit dedicated to fighting political deepfakes — told TPM. 

But the significant effort to curb AI-generated deepfakes will almost undoubtedly face extensive challenges in court from social media companies and First Amendment rights groups. The creator of the fake Harris campaign video that Elon Musk shared in July already filed a lawsuit in federal court just a day after Newsom signed the bills into law.

Despite the uphill battle the newly minted laws face, if California prevails, the laws will force social media companies to react by building restrictions into their platforms, Etzioni told TPM.

And the Golden State, as home to many leading social media and AI companies, could offer a roadmap for regulators across the country — or more importantly at the federal level — who are hoping to successfully curb the use of deep fakes on their platforms, Etzioni said.

That's Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), talking about the Haitian migrants in the town of Springfield in his home state — the majority of whom are in the country legally.

As Vance points out in his remarks, most of the migrants in question are in the U.S. legally through programs like mass parole due to urgent humanitarian issues and/or temporary protective status, a temporary status given to nationals of specifically designated countries that are confronting an ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. The key word here is legal.

Calling them illegal aliens because you want to attack the candidate that's running against you is not only racist and xenophobic but also an extremely dangerous line to cross. We've seen the results of that very racism and xenophobia play out in real time in Springfield for the past week.