Commentary

What happens when you turn a political party into a personality cult

It's hard to believe, but apparently "the entire GOP political ecosystem" is now dedicated to the idea that what worked in 2024 is going to work in the coming congressional elections. Every level is focused on "building a turnout operation with the sole focus of identifying, engaging and ultimately persuading 'low propensity' voters," according to Alex Roarty.

In a story in NOTUS today, Roarty reported that operatives have been planning to run the same play "from almost the moment the 2024 campaign ended." By focusing on nonvoters – people "who maybe cast a ballot two years ago but often skip midterm elections" – the aim is "solving a traditional problem for parties in power during midterm elections when their voters become more complacent and turn out in lower numbers than their opposition’s."

Why is this hard to believe? First, because the fundamentals for 2026 are arguably the same as they were in 2024, but dramatically worse, in which public opinion turned sharply against the party in power due to inflation, prices, wages and the economy generally. The obvious difference is the party in power is not the one that Donald Trump and the Republicans ran against two years ago. A new poll puts his overall approval at 30 percent, with 82 percent saying that they expect conditions to get worse over the coming year. Importantly, people keep telling pollsters that they hold the president personally responsible for their misery.

But there's another reason the GOP's "plan to win" is hard to believe – it depends on a paradox. On the one hand, operatives believe that Trump supporters who usually vote are not going to show up. On the other hand, they believe Trump supporters who usually do not vote – "low propensity voters" – will show up to replace Trump voters who are not going to show up. In other words, "the entire GOP political ecosystem" believes that voters won't vote but nonvoters will. Everyone sees this house of cards but no one is ready to admit it. "We kind of compare notes on everything, making sure that we’re all seeing the world the same way. Which we do,” CLF’s Joe Pileggi told NOTUS. “There’s no fragmentation in our thinking.”

I guess unity is the play you make when you don't have a better play.

After all, Republican consultants gotta get paid, too.

It used to be that casual voters supported Democrats during presidential elections, then disappeared until the next one. That gave the GOP the advantage during midterms. Trump changed that. He chased away educated and mostly white middle- and upper-middle class voters, and replaced them with working-class voters who were more racially diverse but less prone to voting. Democrats have had the advantage since. Even the 2022 midterms, when Joe Biden was president, did not produce a red wave. The Republicans took the House but barely.

The economy was in better shape back then. Last week, the Post released a review of 990 races, over three cycles, in 25 states. It found that "turnout is rising in Democratic primaries even when they aren’t hotly contested and the nominee has little chance of winning in the general election." The Post looked at all the Democratic House primaries held so far this year and found that, in more than 90 percent of them, "voters cast more ballots than during 2022, when Republicans flipped the House. So far this year, people cast 12.6 million ballots in Democratic House primaries compared with 8.6 million in GOP primaries" (my italics).

Inside the Supreme Court's willful blindness to Trump's agenda

We understand that politics can bring on self-delusion about reality when it flies in the face of ideological goals, but the Supreme Court's purposeful turn away from the racism behind Donald Trump's immigration policies is both absurd and angering.

In twin decisions this week, the right-leaning majority on the Court allowed Trump to end "temporary protective status" for Haitians, Syrians and eventually others, including Afghans who helped our war efforts, and to eliminate access to asylum procedures at the border for whomever he chooses. They were bad decisions for a variety of reasons, but what really stung were the arguments offered that simply struck away any racial bias in our immigration policies.

Justice Samuel Alito's ruling for the 6-3 majority had to determine legally that race had played no role before removing the humanitarian protections to shield Haitians. His ruling said that Trump's many statements about Haitians were not "overtly racial," and that it was unlikely that race had been a motivating factor in the administration's decision to end the protections.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan suggested Alito was wearing blinders, adding "The statements fairly shout in their racial undertones and overtones alike" and to prove her point, she listed many, including discredited Trump statements that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio had been eating neighbors' pets, that Haiti was a "s-------" country and that he wanted immigrants from Norway instead. Haitian immigration is "like a death wish for our country." Haitians are "poisoning the blood" of the nation. Trump's remarks were "so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print," she wrote. Actually, Trump has invited White African immigrants from South Africa, but the point is all about race.

That Trump has an unwarranted obsession with immigrants and a strong liking for all efforts to remake this into a White Christian Nation are well established. What has become problematic is that in its zeal to support Trump, those six justices on the right apparently cannot see real racial impact in cases that range from immigration to unequal treatment by social services to policing and imprisonment cases to election redistricting issues.

Deportation to Violence
Even mindful that the Court decides how to so narrow the legal cases that it decides to consider, this court is building a distrust with the public for its failure to recognize the practical and very real impact of its rulings.

Haiti is in freefall; this week even a national police figure was kidnapped by rebel gangs. What does Trump or those justices think is going to happen to the hundreds of thousands of Haitians that the White House is panting to put on planes to Port-au-Prince? The whole reason for temporary protective status is to shield refugees from prosecution and social harm.

How does sending Haitians who have lived here for years "home" to chaos comport with the State Department warnings to Americans to stay away from Haiti as a dangerous place?

Alito did acknowledge that "political discourse by prominent public figures is increasingly couched in terms that would have scandalized the public just a short time ago." But he concluded that the administration opposed immigration generally and had not used racial criteria in its decisions.

The same court majority said the same thing in allowing redistricting to eliminate Black-majority voting districts and in settling various recent policing cases. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been outspoken about a "post-racial" era that ignores the reality of college admissions, hiring and promotion practices, Justice department prosecution and punishment practices, mortgage redlining and other cases.

As The Huffington Post noted, Alito doesn't notice bias of any kind unless it is perceived to be anti-Catholic, his own religion, or anti-Christian in its effect. In this week's opinion, Alito said there were neutral reasons for lifting the Temporary Protected Status protections for Haitians, noting that temporary protections had been lifted in more than a dozen countries, including Nepal, Burma, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Cameroon, Nicaragua, Honduras and Venezuela. "Most would regard this as a racially diverse group of countries," he wrote. The plaintiffs contended that they were all "nonwhite."

When the case was argued in April, Alito suggested that "nonwhite" was not a meaningful category. Alito had told the plaintiffs' lawyer, "I don't like dividing the people of the world into these groups." Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who adopted two children born in Haiti, joined Alito's majority opinion along with Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Not What Was Promised
Roll back the clock and remember that what Trump said he wanted to tackle were the presence of undocumented migrants with backgrounds of violent crime. We are way beyond that now, evidenced by the botched campaigns to rebuild huge holding facilities for immigrants rounded up in courtrooms, from workplaces and schools for visa overstays and traffic violations.

The current crop of immigrant law cases concerns legal immigration methods, as ICE and border patrols pursue de-naturalizations, end legal asylum procedures, rush deportation cases through overloaded courts or skip legalisms altogether. The current cases involve humanitarian treatment of migrants and separation of families.

This case will prompt disarray in health care industries, where Haitians have found work, and in urban areas. In New York city, Mayor Zohran Mamdani is already declaring a campaign against rules that "are putting so many people's lives in jeopardy."

It's not limited to courts. Behind the deportation program are ideologies that are specifically racial and nationalistic in the most peculiar way. Support requires actively looking the other way. At the same time, Texas education officials requiring St. James version Bible readings clearly have chosen not to look at the feelings or considerations of non-Christians.

One wonders why Trump is rushing aid to Venezuela after two devastating earthquakes to help the very people he had consistently demeaned as mentally ill criminals until the U.S. military grabbed former leader Nicholas Maduro. Oh yeah, Trump took control of that nation's oil industry, and suddenly we care about the Venezuelans we deported there six months ago.

On this 250th birthday as a nation that proudly displays a Statue of Liberty, we ought to be finding ways to celebrate our diversity, not to trample it.

More dangerous than Trump

JD Vance said on Friday that the U.S. wins “either way” in negotiations with Iran. “If we make the final deal, then great,” Vance told HBO’s Bill Maher. “If we don’t make the final deal, their nuclear program is still destroyed. They’re still much weaker as a country.”

Just hours after Vance’s appearance on HBO, Iran launched attack drones on Bahrain — which hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, a major logistical base for U.S. military operations. Iran also struck an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, its second attack on a ship since Thursday.

So much for Iran being much weaker.

Pressed by Maher on whether Iran’s nuclear program has been destroyed, Vance shot back: “What part of it is not destroyed? The thing that you have to destroy is their ability to enrich uranium, which has been destroyed.”

In fact, Iran still has a stockpile of 60 percent-enriched uranium, which experts concede could be turned into a nuclear weapon.

Vance’s media appearance came two days after he visited the Richard Nixon presidential library and museum in California to talk about his new book on his journey from atheism to allegedly devout Catholicism.

During his visit he defended Nixon for the Watergate break-in scandal that ended his presidency. “I think that his historical legacy is enjoying a bit of a renaissance — but I think deservedly so,” Vance said of Nixon. “If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. Like, the idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy.” It was the “deep state that took down Richard Nixon” — not Nixon’s serious crimes.

Hello? The only conceivable reason Watergate might not bring down a presidency tomorrow or be a 12-hour story is the gargantuan criminality and corruption of the Trump-Vance regime, which puts Watergate in the minor league by comparison.

I raise Vance’s recent bizarro comments because in a few months he’ll be actively campaigning to be the Republican candidate for president in 2028.

He’s a more dangerous demagogue than Trump because he wraps his demagoguery in the apparent thoughtfulness of a graduate of Yale Law School and a serious best-selling author.

I’ve spent the last two days reading his latest book, Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith, a memoir focusing on his 2019 conversion to Catholicism, and can assure you of three things: First, it’s a serious book. Second, Vance’s mind is as vacuous and unprincipled as he is in person. Third, the book isn’t worth reading.

In one of the few mea culpas in the book, Vance writes that it was “boneheaded” of him — “one of the dumbest things I ever said” — to call Kamala Harris and several other prominent Democrats “childless cat ladies who want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” In the book Vance calls the insult, “intentionally (and successfully) provocative rather than illuminating.”

What Vance doesn’t admit to is that, when his remark resurfaced during his early days as Trump’s running mate, he refused to apologize or express any regret for it. “Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats,” he said then — sarcastically — adding that “if you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” which in his view had made the entire Democratic Party “anti-family and anti-child.”

Vance’s intentionally provocative rather than illuminating demagoguery was in evidence again when he insisted during the 2024 campaign that the pets of upright Americans residing in Springfield, Ohio, were being “abducted and eaten” by Haitian immigrants “who shouldn’t be in this country.”

When confronted with irrefutable evidence that Haitian immigrants were not eating pets in Springfield, Vance admitted publicly that he was speaking, shall we say, metaphorically: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” he told CNN.

It’s much the same with Vance’s recent response to the fatal stabbing of Henry Nowak by Vickrum Digwa in the British city of Southampton. After Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment, Vance declared that Nowak would still be alive had Europeans “stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.”

Inconveniently for Vance, Digwa didn’t migrate to Britain. He was born and raised there.

Vance would never have become a senator from Ohio in 2022 were it not for the billionaire tech financier Peter Thiel, who staked $15 million on Vance’s election — a major portion of all the funds that went into Vance’s Senate race.

Before running for the Senate, Vance had worked for Thiel’s California venture capital firm and was part of Thiel’s libertarian community of rich crypto bros, tech executives, back-to-the-landers, and disaffected far-right intellectuals.

Because Thiel had been a major funder of Trump’s 2016 presidential run, he had significant influence with Trump when urging him to pick Vance for his vice president.

Why was Thiel such a devoted sponsor of Vance? Because Thiel saw in his protege a future leader of a political movement to turn the U.S. away from democracy. “For Peter,” said one of the people familiar with his thinking, “Vance is a generational bet.”

Thiel is a self-styled libertarian who once wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Bullshit. Freedom is incompatible with democracy only if you view democracy as a potential constraint on your wealth and power.

Thiel and Vance believe that the only way true libertarians can win in the U.S. is for a Caesar-like figure to wrest power from the U.S. establishment and install a monarchical regime, run like a startup.

The first step, as Vance offered in a 2021 podcast, is to replace “every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state … with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country, and say” — as did Andrew Jackson — that “the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”

The next step is to foment so much division and bigotry inside the U.S. and within other major Western nations that people come to view those on the other side of the political divide as the source of everything that’s wrong with their lives — which Vance has been eagerly trying to do.

That way, they won’t look upward to see that the billionaire robber barons, plutocrats, and oligarchs of this second Gilded Age have grabbed most of the wealth and power for themselves. Hence, average people will trade in democracy for strongman autocracy.

Behind Vance’s demagoguery about the U.S. winning either way in Iran, Nixon being taken down by the deep state, childless cat ladies, the Democratic Party being anti-family and anti-child, Haitian-Americans eating pets, and immigrants threatening Western civilization is a deadly serious plan to unite the far-right of America and Europe and rid much of the world of democracy. If Vance becomes president, he’s intent on furthering the job.

Vance resembles Trump in every way — he lies effortlessly, he’s utterly without principle, and he’s intent on gaining power — except that he’s smarter and more ruthless than Trump.

Take note and beware.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

Trump is sleeping in public and possibly on experimental drugs—but the media is silent

Why did Donald Trump blow up a signing ceremony that would have celebrated the passing of a new housing law that takes aim at the affordability crisis that everyone is talking about? With Congress in session, the bill becomes law whether he signs it or not. So why would the greatest narcissist in the history of presidents pass up a chance to brag about how great he is? Why is he acting like Republican control of the Congress is not his highest priority?

On Wednesday, California Congressman Ted Lieu suggested an answer – that the 80-year-old president no longer has the mental capacity to recognize what's in his own best interest.

"Inflation is up," Lieu said. "Grocery prices are up. Utility costs are up. Housing prices are up. We have a bipartisan housing bill ... There was supposed to be a big signing ceremony today. All of a sudden, Donald Trump decides he’s not coming to sign the bill. Why is that?

"Did he wake up on the wrong side of the bed?" Lieu asked. "Is he unable to stay awake today? What’s causing him to chicken out again? ... Is it the side effects from a drug?

"We don’t know," Lieu said. "This erratic behavior is very concerning. He has trouble staying awake at multiple White House events and Cabinet meetings. He has clearly some weakness in one of his arms. He’s got swelling in his hands. The White House needs to come clean."

Lieu then cited a report by Stat that revealed that the FDA has approved access to an experimental drug on a "compassionate use" basis to one person, who was 79 years old in April and whose case was "personally overseen" by a doctor at the National Institutes of Health.

The drug is called retatrutide. It is administrated by injection once a week. Drugmaker Eli Lilly considers it treatment for obesity, Type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and other ailments. Three sources told Stat that the patient, described as "well-connected," wanted the drug to treat refractory obesity with obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension.

Donald Trump was 79 in April. He falls asleep during public events. He posts to his social media site at all hours. He's had three "annual" checkups in the last 13 months, one that included an MRI for reasons Trump won't explain. The Post reported recently that for his most recent medical exam, he was attended to by no fewer than 22 doctors. Trump has expressed interest in weightless drugs, per the Times. He also has a history of pulling strings to get special access to new drugs, for himself during the covid era, and for friends.

Which brings us back to Lieu. "What we know is a report saying that one person in America got this special new drug. It was a 79-year-old person, very high profile. This drug can only be given to someone under the 'compassionate use' provision, meaning you do that if someone basically has a terminal illness. We need to know did Donald Trump get this special drug from Eli Lilly and did he get it under that provision and if he did, why is that the case?"

If Trump were not a Republican, Lieu's remarks would be part of an already established "narrative" about the travails of an old Democrat who's become so weak that he can't recognize what's in his own interest before an election that threatens to wipe out his party.

But since he is a Republican, Lieu's remarks will sink like a stone.

I don't mean that reporters won't rewrite "the narrative" if Trump, say, falls down the stairs while descending Air Force One. But short of something dramatic like that, I don't see anything changing. That's the conclusion I came to after reading a new piece by political scientist Julia Azari. She said the public and, by extension, the press corps view the aging of presidents not only through a partisan lens but a cultural lens that authenticates Americans.

"Republicans represent groups who are assumed to hold legitimate power; Democrats represent groups who are not," Professor Azari wrote last week in Good Politics/Bad Politics. "Challenging these elements of the status quo runs the risk of violating journalistic norms about neutrality, while affirming the status quo does not. ... So part of what drove the discussion of Biden’s age was that the former president was showing up, flawed, to advocate for policies on behalf of the poor, people of color, LGBTQ Americans. Trump, on the other hand, uses unconventional methods to advocate on behalf of the existing structure of power. For Biden, there was a higher burden to explain and justify. For Trump, some outbursts and rambling can still fit the script. And the messenger is hard to separate from the message."

In other words, Republicans are seen as having been born with the legitimate right to rule while Democrats are seen as having to earn that right, even when, or especially when, they have already earned it. When Biden struggled, he was judged to be old and weak. When Trump struggles, he is not judged at all, because that's just Trump. That framing arises from an old understanding of who counts as real. "Parties and presidents have flattered and favored rural [white] majorities" since the founding, wrote Jason Opal in 2023. "American culture identified farm folk and small towns as the most authentic and virtuous parts of the nation — or, as President Andrew Jackson put it in 1837, 'the bone and sinew of the country.'”

I asked Professor Azari for an interview. I told her that I thought her analysis was the best explanation I have seen on the discrepancy between the Washington press corps' treatment of Old Man Biden versus Old Man Trump. Some Americans are given a place in America on the day they are born, I suggested, while other Americans are always expected to earn their place, even after they already have. Here's her response and the rest of our conversation.

Professor Azari: I think this [framing] is harder to trace to Biden, which leads me to make a controversial statement about Biden (because it's uncool to say anything positive about him). I think Biden sought to convey a sense of humility about the many privileged identities he brought to the leadership of a diverse party. This is someone who pretty seamlessly stepped into the No. 2 role for the first Black nominee and then president! And then he chose Black women for important roles, talked about not just LGBTQ rights but trans rights. He understood the assignment. But he performed awkwardly, and age did not help. The news media has really changed its views about power. I'm not precisely sure why or how. But the narrative tends to be that preserving the status quo equals order, and order is good. Challenging the status quo is disruption and disruption is bad. And so I think that informs what we see in much of the coverage differences, which is in the framing and language.

Within that framing, however, Biden was never going to be given the benefit of the doubt by the press corps, because he had to keep earning the right to be president, because he spoke for groups that were not legitimate from the start. In that framing, to be old is to be weak, to be weak is to represent Black people.

I would phrase the latter part is that to represent Black people (and other marginalized groups) is to ask for power to be redistributed in ways that makes a lot of people nervous.

So empowering Black people disrupts the status quo, which is a white status quo, which is what Trump represents, which is why his getting old isn't as alarming to Republicans or the press corps to it would be if Trump were a Democrat?

Right. I think there's also substantial evidence that Trump's coalition has two main parts: people who think he represents everything they love and equate his angry rants with strength; and people who see him as a useful instrument for their priorities. The former group can just make AIs of him as they wish to see him, and the latter doesn't really care what traits he brings, as long as he keeps appointing people who will enact their agenda through the executive branch. Years ago, I would have varnished this commentary, but I don't really care anymore.

I used to think the press corps would start noticing Trump's age. But your piece suggests that with power and legitimacy comes endless deference with respect to aging. Can you envision a moment when that stops? If he trips and falls on live TV?

Embedded in my thinking is a sense that news media are responsive to perceived demand, so I think as it generates interest and become hard to ignore, we will see coverage. But will we ever see coverage that uses language subtlely to undercut legitimacy the way it did for Biden? That connects it to "hiding something" or the other tropes that were implied? Hard to know. It's also true – and this is what Seth Masket was getting at in his piece – that there's a lot of material about the other ways Trump isn't really qualified or legitimate – the lack of understanding of issues, the lack of deference to Constitutional traditions and text. So you don't really need age to do that work.

I think what the coverage signifies is more important than the coverage itself. We tend to assume that sunshine disinfects – that publicity leads to accountability – but with Trump, there's not much evidence showing that to be true. He had no elective experience before 2016, was impeached twice, faced multiple indictments and a conviction while out of office. What makes us think some bruises or mental slips will matter? But the larger story of what's behind those differences in coverage won't go away after Trump leaves office.

Trump administration is right about one thing

In his clueless and clumsy style, JD Vance has unmasked the cynical corruption at the core of Donald Trump's White House. Speaking at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum on June 25, the vice president said, "As I joked ... backstage, if Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be like a 12-hour news story. The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is crazy."

Was Vance joking? With him as with so many others around Trump, as well as the president himself, the line between egregious ignorance and brazen deception is often hard to discern. Born 10 years after the massive scandal of Watergate ended Nixon's presidency in disgrace, Vance may well be unaware of the historical facts. That may be why he could also say something as stupid and false as claiming that Nixon was forced out by "the deep state."

Actually, Nixon was thrown out of office by the Senate's most conservative Republicans, who warned of his inevitable conviction of high crimes in a pending impeachment trial. Back in those days, "conservative" was not yet synonymous with "crooked."

What Vance unintentionally got right is the seamless congruence between the corrupt presidency he serves and the criminal regime he sought to whitewash. His comments implied that Congress and the media have degenerated precipitously since then — also true. But his grinning indifference to Nixon's felonious, authoritarian presidency should serve as ample warning to the nation about his own character and ambitions.

For the sake of political hygiene, let's assume for a few moments that this repellent politician simply doesn't know what he's talking about (not the first time, in his case). Such historical illiteracy would be unusual for a Yale Law graduate, as historian Timothy Naftali observed, but Vance often sounds strangely mindless.

The scope of Watergate's corruption
Beyond the "third-rate burglary" of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington's eponymous hotel, which exposed the Nixon administration's epic personal and partisan corruption, Watergate ranged across a panoply of criminal schemes — from corporate payoffs, in cash, to the Republican Party and the Committee to Re-elect the President (or CREEP, as it came to be known) to money laundering, witness tampering, bribery, domestic spying and orders to inflict violence on peaceful antiwar protesters.

Through Congressional hearings and investigative journalism, the public came to understand the secret life of the Nixon administration — a pageant of sleaze that had commenced no later than 1969, when the president's top aides set up a secret multimillion-dollar slush fund run out of a back room in a townhouse basement near Washington's Dupont Circle that funneled cash payments to Republican congressional midterm candidates. By the time Nixon was running again in 1972, the townhouse operation had metastasized into several major bribery schemes connected to CREEP.

The ITT Corporation, to take just one of the more notorious cases, coughed up a big donation for the 1972 Republican National Convention to "settle" a Justice Department antitrust probe. (Nixon can be heard on a 1971 White House tape discussing the proper timing of the ITT bribe: "Now this is very, very hush-hush, and it has to be engineered very delicately, and it'll take six months to do properly.") Dairy producer lobbyists agreed to donate millions after Nixon sent his Treasury Secretary John Connally to "shake them down," as the president himself put it. CREEP was also illegally hauling in many millions of dollars from corporations, many of which felt pressured into making contributions.

Why Republicans defended Nixon
Neither Nixon's gangsterish fundraising nor his repeated violations of federal law and the Constitution troubled the Republican right. To them, his resignation represented not a victory for the rule of law but the triumph of everything they hated. He had asserted the will to power and the ideology of authoritarianism against the liberal enemy, whose names he had actually compiled on lists. Many on the Republican right came to view him much more favorably after Watergate than before.

The Trump-Nixon connection
That mangy cohort included young Donald Trump, who openly declared his admiration for Nixon and said the disgraced autocrat "should have burned" the Watergate tapes. They conducted a long, mutually flattering correspondence. With his innate political sense, Nixon predicted that Trump would succeed if he ever ran for office.

Nixon's ruthless amorality was admired, too, by a young Republican named Roger Stone, who got involved in CREEP's "ratf------" dirty tricks and later had Tricky Dick's smirking likeness tattooed between his shoulders. That all came before Stone emerged as the driving force behind Trump's political ambitions. Roy Cohn, the soulless right-wing lawyer who became Trump's role model, was a Nixon crony of much longer standing.

If so many of Nixon's offenses sound familiar, it is because Trump has surrounded himself with such people from the beginning. It is no surprise that they would falsify history to prettify the late miscreant, who narrowly escaped the full consequences of his lawlessness. They will have to do the same thing for Trump someday.

A key voting bloc in a key swing district is signaling a Blue Wave across America

As many of you know by now, I am busy settling into my new desk in my latest home state of North Carolina.

Settling in means changing licenses, license plates, utilities, insurance, and all the punishing bureaucratic stuff designed to make us scream out in pain. Nothing’s as easy as it should be, and I swear to God it is designed that way.

Leaving Wisconsin after 15 years also meant losing my loyal barber.

Ka was as good a guy as I have ever known, and did more with less than any barber in the world. How he turned that tangled mess on the top and sides of my head into something almost presentable I’ll never know.

He was also liberal as hell, which is important to me.

I am one of those people who simply will not give my money to anybody who supports the fascist regime that is wrecking America right now. I have a talent for sniffing these people out. I quickly work the sorry state of the United States into my initial conversation with a prospective contractor or business owner in the first two sentences of my interaction with them.

When they ask how I am doing I will tell them something along these lines, “Not good, man. We got a racist traitor in Washington who belongs in jail, and is instead wrecking our White House. So how are you doin’?”

Then I wait, and if they tiptoe around my rejoinder I point them in the general direction of the door.

Easy peasy.

I realize this isn’t a subtle approach, but New Jersey natives generally aren’t subtle people. Subtlety will only get you run over in the Garden State, where you learn at a young age that the shortest distance between two points is straight ahead.

So after getting scalped by two different wannabe barbers in my new home, I booked an appointment with a woman who came with a strong recommendation from my wife who successfully found a hairstylist who somehow makes her even prettier.

That’s when the sun came out.

I knew the minute I sat in the barber’s chair Nina was my kind of person. In fact she beat me to the punch, because when I gave her the Jersey, “How you doin’?” she answered this way, “I am just waiting to wake up on some beautiful morning and find out he’s gone …”

Yowza. (Unfortunately, he’s still here as of this writing.)

Turns out Nina’s done a lot of traveling like myself and ended up by the sea, because why wouldn’t you? She started her journeys in Northeastern Pennsylvania, though.

Pennsylvania used to be the Republicans’ great white whale. Every fours years they would get tantalizingly close to harpooning a presidential contest and putting the Keystone State’s generous haul of electoral votes in their column only to be left just short.

Democrat Ed Rendell, who served two terms as governor of the place between 2003-2011, famously said this about his state: “Pennsylvania is Philadelphia to the East, Pittsburgh to the West, and Alabama in the middle.”

Well, in 2016, Donald Trump and Alabama won, and Pennsylvania officially became a dreaded swing state. Joe Biden won it in 2020, and Trump won it back in 2024.

As a New Jersey native this just gave me another reason to curse Pennsylvania. It’s pretty much a border rival thing, but Pennsylvania has turned into Ohio East, which will surprise nobody in New Jersey. (NOTE: Here’s where I am losing Pennsylvania and Ohio readers. But, really: JD Vance, Ohio????)

Please don’t take it personally, good people. After all, I’m from Jersey, and let’s face it, nobody gets kicked around more than we do.

Anyway, I have a lot of friends from Pennsylvania, and on Friday I made a new one.

Nina grew up in Easton, Pa., which is hard on the Delaware River. And because it really is a small world after all, I told her that my ex-wife grew up in Phillipsburg, N.J., on the other side of that river. The two towns are rivals and separated by a bridge.

The area is also located in the Lehigh Valley, and one of those swingy political areas, where the party faring well among this sample of voters, will most likely be the party faring well in other places like it across the country.

While Nina was spinning magic on my head, she told a variation of a story I have heard too many times before: many of her family and friends voted for Trump, and that has made their relationship as bitter as an unripened lime.

I told her I was sorry as hell about that, and added that I had lost a lot of friends to this cancer myself. I told her that I have cut ties with them, because defending bigotry, misogyny, and the attack on America were deal-breakers.

I spent several years after the blast in 2016 trying to reason with my friends, but banging my head against the wall hurt a lot less. I left it with them this way: “If you come around, and realize the damage you have done, I’ll be here waiting and we can talk.”

Nobody has come around.

Nina approached this differently. She says she stays in touch with many of the people who have made their sickness our problem. I told her I saluted her patience, and asked this burning question: “How do they like what’s going on now?”

“They hate it,” she said.

That’s when I sat up in my chair at the risk of getting my ear chopped off.

“Oh, really,” I said with surprise.

“They think he is a lying pedophile, and they feel stupid for voting for him.”

“REALLY?????” I shouted, before composing myself.

“Yup. Really.”

Now Nina’s a lot younger than I am, because most people are. She represents a generation who have pretty much only known Trump as their president and attacker. Their sample size is limited, and they don’t carry around the baggage from administrations past — both good and bad.

The people Nina talks to know things are getting more expensive, that we are engaged in yet more unnecessary wars, and that Epstein’s corporate buddies are still free to rape more kids.

Things are getting worse, not better.

So basking in Nina’s heartening report about her friends in NE Pennsylvania, I decided to risk a final question: “OK, it’s great your friends have come around to this evil SOB, but how do you see them voting in November? Will they stay with Republicans or give Democrats a try? Or worse, will they not vote?”

“Oh, they’ll vote,” she said. “They’re pissed. And it won’t be for any Republicans.”

I guess I could learn to like Pennsylvania …

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.

Inside Trump's most pernicious legacy

Jimmy Carter’s campaign motto in 1976 was “Why Not the Best!” declaring everywhere he went: “I want to see us once again have a nation that’s as good and honest and decent and truthful and competent and compassionate and filled with love as are the American people.”

Dictator Donald Trump wants the opposite and is bringing the worst out of America. Here are a few of his metastasizing initiatives:

1. Championed the worst forms of energy – coal, oil, and gas – and depressing solar energy and wind power with restrictive policies, and even paying ongoing wind project companies nearly a billion dollars in your tax dollars to stop construction! Also, he is using many billions of your tax dollars to subsidize the failing nuclear power companies to build more expensive, unneeded, uninsurable, un-investable (by Wall Street), unsafe, boondoggles while his GOP takes large campaign contributions from fossil fuel and nuclear power corporate welfarists.

2. Encouraged the worst corruption of the Pentagon—more waste, contractor fraud and abuse—led by a foul-mouthed buffoon pushing illegal wars, mass deaths, and racism. Hegseth is despised by many high-ranking officers for his misogynistic firings and incompetence.

3. Brought out the worst from his toady Attorney Generals at the Justice Department—firing prosecutors and other lawyers for perceived vengeance. Trump gives orders directly to DOJ officials, thus ending any traditional arms-length independence at that Department. Trump has gotten his Attorney Generals to dismiss over 100 corporate crime cases, to decline enforcement of laws holding polluters and corporate criminals accountable, and made DOJ his personal law firm.

4. Encouraged the worst from the Environmental Protection Agency, whose puppet director believes that more methane, other greenhouse gases, motor vehicle gases, auto factories, and coal pollution are permissible for America’s children to breathe. EPA Director Lee Zeldin should rename his shattered agency and fired scientists “The Trump Anti-Environment Protection Agency.”

5. Suppressed or cancelled programs of scientific truth-seeking while publicizing pseudo-scientists who go far beyond healthy skepticism to peddle quackery about climate violence, pandemics, and vaccines that lead to distrust and disarray among vulnerable people wanting to protect their families. For Trump, climate catastrophes are “a hoax, a scam” and he is giving corporations the green light on dangerous pesticides (especially deadly to little children) which increase the risk of cancer and other lethal diseases. When you lie every talking hour of the day, as Trump does, the truth and facts have no relevance.

6. Trump is self-servingly wrecking the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Further cutting its tight budget via the GOP in Congress, the IRS has a grossly inadequate number of experts skilled in detecting complex corporate tax schemes and evasions totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in TAX ESCAPES per year.

One of those Escapes is the coerced deal Trump imposed on the IRS to give him and his avaricious family immunity from past and contemporary audits and enforcement, worth a gold mine to the bragging tax dodger-in-chief. He has wrecked public trust in his politicized IRS, on which voluntary compliance by American taxpayers is based.

7. Trump has grievously brought out the worst from the Congress, finishing off what is left of the separation of powers, turning Speaker Mike Johnson into a panting lap dog and Senate Majority Leader John Thune into a more staid but ready heel-clicker. Trump has opposed any public hearings and investigative oversight of the Executive Branch, including an inquiry into his illegal firing of 17 inspector generals required to root out waste and fraud from their departments.

In his first term, Trump defied over 125 Congressional subpoenas – an impeachable offense if ever there was one.

8. Trump brings out the worst from major corporations. His dictates—allowing corporations to cheat, steal, harm, pollute, and violate with impunity almost any federal laws, most of which Trump has shelved by taking the federal cops off the corporate crime beat—could fill a large book.. This is especially the case in lifting controls over poisonous corporate pollution and letting large companies decide for themselves how little or no tax they pay to Uncle Sam from their massive profits. Why not? He preaches what he practices as he amasses an ever-greater personal wealth using the White House as a profiteering office for profiteering.

9. Worsening the architecture of the White House and nearby Washington, D.C., are major preoccupations of this egomaniacal dilettante. He illegally tore down the East Wing and is building, without Congressional permission, a huge, garish ballroom to go along with other planned desecrations, such as the 250-foot-high arch. As architect critic Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post writes, he has turned “the reflecting pool from a serene oasis to a police zone,” bungling millions of dollars.

Day after day, thousands of National Guard soldiers are wondering what they’re doing aimlessly patrolling downtown Washington to fill the whims of Trump’s false claims about their ending street crimes in the national capital.

10. The Trumpeteer has brought out the worst in the mainstream media, giving preferential access to uncritical reporters, and restricting or prohibiting access to reporters who are steadfast and straightforward. Trump maliciously sues to extort money from networks like CBS and ABC, while approving mergers and acquisitions of media properties by Trump funders and flatterers expected to censor in his favor.

11. From the people, he has celebrated vice over virtue, greed over charity, obscenity over decency, violence over peace, police and ICE brutality over more effective standards of prudence and restraint by law enforcers. As an open, brazen liar, a delusionary braggart, and peddler of empty promises, Trump has troubled parents who see their youngsters mimic his abuses and foul talk.

12. He pardons hundreds of convicted violent criminals and other fraudsters and says he will pardon more crooks, even urging them to continue their lawless ways because he will pardon them if they are caught. As a convicted felon himself, he knows a criminal when he sees one. .

13. Trump has violated seven of the Ten Commandments and is almost never seen in Church, yet Trump manages to bring out the most extreme hypocrites from the leadership of organized religion, who support his violent, aggressive wars and alliances of mass murder, larger military budgets, and his waiver of prosecuting corporate crooks, because they like his anti-abortion stance.

Twice, he has assailed Pope Leo, who is insisting that Christianity be a religion of love, compassion, and peace.

14. His most fervent mission is to provoke biases and bigotry against recent immigrants and asylum seekers among millions of his voters who believed his lies about these desperate people, fleeing with their children from oppressive regimes and oligarchies long supported by the U.S. government in Central and South America.

Using words like “invasion,” “rapists,” “criminals,” he succeeded in defaming the overwhelming law-abiding and hard-working people harvesting our crops, caring for our little children and elderly, and cleaning up after us every day to feed their families.

Largely unrebutted by a cowardly Democratic Party, Trump’s fabrications threw his MAGA supporters into a frenzy, which he fed daily, obscuring his own employment of hundreds of low-paid, undocumented construction workers in New York and his servants in New Jersey.

Every society has its cruel, greedy, and bigoted inhabitants. Trump grossly exaggerated troubled conditions in the US to embolden these miscreants, then heralded them, gave them access to the White House and Mar-a-Lago, helped them get media coverage, and sell their books. Trump then intimidated or prosecuted those who exercised their freedom of speech rights to criticize or counter Trump’s depraved and baleful lackeys.

He has regaled Silicon Valley’s corporate digital child molesters, taken their campaign donations, flattery, and investments at the expense of curtailing the daily harm they are directly marketing to tens of millions of vulnerable children.

Presidents of our country, with their “bully pulpit” and vast media coverage, set examples in many ways for families. They can bring out the kindness and idealism of many Americans, as did President John F. Kennedy in 1961 when he and Congress launched the Peace Corps. Or they can exhibit to the world the cruelty and viciousness of the Trump/Musk illegal rampage that started with closing the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). With the rupture of the flow of critical medicines, food, medical supplies, and clean water to those in need, the Trump/Musk Axis sealed the fate abroad of millions, mostly infants, children, and mothers, over the next several years, according to expert estimates. (See USAID shutdown has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.)

Long after Trump is impeached and removed from office, his hateful, vengeful drive to bring out the worst from our country will linger and fester. Until, that is, the forces behind expanded goodwill and fair play, peace and justice manifest themselves at the polls, the civic and political arenas, and the civic education and experiences within our repurposed elementary and secondary schools.

History repeatedly teaches us that principles of peace, justice, and opportunity always enjoy overwhelming public support when polled compared to ideologies of corruption, violence, and greed.

So, it is entirely in our hands to bring these preferences into the daily reality of the people, their children and grandchildren, and future generations who deserve better.

Behind the sinister reason the Trump admin is blocking promotions at the Pentagon

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just hijacked more promotions of high-ranking service members, this time blocking career professionals with exemplary records who were on track to become one-star generals and admirals. Not only is Hegseth’s behavior unusual, there is no clear legal authority for what he is doing.

Congress entrusted military promotions largely to the respective promotion boards and Secretaries of the Military Departments, not the Secretary of Defense. Although 10 U.S.C. § 629 empowers the President with removal authority, a longstanding executive order limits the Secretary of Defense’s removal authority to grades below colonel or captain, not the general or admiral promotions Hegseth has blocked. The Pentagon’s own regulations restrict grounds for removing an officer from a promotions list to specific circumstances like moral, mental, or professional deficiencies, none of which were present in Hegseth’s removals.

It’s obvious that a disproportionate number of Hegseth’s blocked, delayed, or demoted officers are women and people of color. However, while mainstream headlines suggest Hegseth is motivated by race and gender animus, an even worse—and more dangerous— likelihood is that he is weeding out those he deems “ideologically incompatible” with how he and Trump plan to use the military.

Hegseth likes to emphasize that “every officer serves at the pleasure of the president,” arguing that Trump’s policy goals require removing commanders “tied to the culture” of previous administrations. He argues that past promotions were based on race and gender instead of qualifications, but military records dispute those claims, and there is no evidence that any promotions he blocked were attributable to anything other than merit.

An unqualified hack defends his own

Hegseth, a former Fox News bobble head, is notoriously unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, which seems to have been Trump’s point in naming him. He was a mid-level National Guard officer, had no senior leadership role in the military, and had no experience anywhere that qualified him to oversee three million personnel and an annual budget of $800 billion.

More dangerous than his lack of qualifications is his bloodlust. As a media commentator, he lobbied aggressively for presidential pardons for service members convicted or accused of notorious war crimes, including Army Lt. Clint Lorance, convicted of murdering two Afghan civilians, and Maj. Matt Golsteyn, who admitted during an interview for the CIA that he and another soldier took an alleged Taliban bomb-maker off base in 2010, shot him, and buried his remains. Trump granted full pardons to both.

In Iraq, Hegseth’s own unit was nicknamed “Kill Company” and he kept a ‘kill board’ that tallied kills, including dead civilians, expressing daring contempt for the military's strict rules of engagement. It’s anyone’s guess what gruesome deeds he got up to. Today, he barks a constant mantra about “war fighters” and “lethality” and sees violence and unrestrained power as a distinct virtue.

Ineptitude with a platitude chaser

Hegseth’s tenure has been marred by a series of high-profile blunders, including the SignalGate security breach, his ‘dirty line’ Pentagon internet setup, and unforced diplomatic errors such as upbraiding NATO allies without understanding the subject matter. Just as Trump governs by spectacle over substance, Hegseth manages by platitude. His attempts to project authority through chest thumping—“Maximum lethality not tepid legality”— like his sophomoric speech to the Generals at Quantico, routinely fall flat and inspire parody.

Hegseth’s embrace of violence over circumspection (“Lethality is our calling card”) while rejecting what he calls ‘stupid rules of engagement’ reveals an almost pathological immaturity. While pushing back against operational restraints, i.e., military rules of engagement, and weeding out generals who don’t suit him, he insists that, under him, there will be “No politically correct wars.”

What he’s really weeding out are legal protocols in order to elevate ‘maximum lethality’ in pursuit of politically incorrect and illegal wars: Trump’s.

History is clear on why the military should never be politicized

Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have tried to put professional militaries under the direct control of their own political movements. Recognizing that an independent officer corps poses an existential threat to one-party rule, in Nazi Germany, Hitler systematically dismantled the autonomy of the traditional Wehrmacht, and required all soldiers to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him rather than to the state or constitution.

In the former Soviet Union, Stalin subjected the Red Army to the Communist Party's political commissar system, embedding party officials at every level of command to monitor ideological conformity. From 1937–38, Stalin’s purges decimated the senior officer corps, to ensure political fealty, even at catastrophic cost to combat readiness on the eve of World War II.

Historical clarity is not confined to Europe. In Maoist China, the People's Liberation Army was not a conventional national military but was the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party. Mao's dictum that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" led to political loyalty campaigns purging those deemed insufficiently loyal. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein constructed an elaborate system of Republican Guard formations and tribal loyalties to prevent any single military institution from possessing enough power to threaten him. Officers were promoted based on personal loyalty rather than merit, and suspected disloyalty was met with execution.

Throughout history, subordinating military professionalism to political fealty, which is what Hegseth is really doing, has produced armies that were reliable instruments of internal repression but dysfunctional when facing real external threats. Since Hegseth and Trump are both fixated on fighting domestic “enemies within” and hope to deploy the military against Americans (internal repression), it’s likely Hegseth’s promotions are less about demographics and more about fortifying top brass willing to break the law, by removing from the ranks those who are likely not so willing.

Sabrina Haake is a political analyst and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.

Trump's Big Brother scheme just got blocked —but the real danger is what comes next

A president, by Constitutional design, has no legal authority or direct role in administering, altering, or conducting elections. Authority over the mechanics of elections is legally split between state governments and Congress, leaving no constitutional role for the executive branch.

That did not stop Trump from commandeering the US Post Office with instructions to deliver mail ballots only to people on Trump-approved, Trump-purged voter lists. Trump’s “ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS” Executive Order, issued March 31, 2026, is his bold scheme to wrest election control from the states, which are Constitutionally vested with that authority, to transfer it to the federal government, which is not. On May 29,an eagerly compliant United States Postal Service issued proposed rules to effectuate Trump’s EO. On June 25, a federal judge ruled that “no federal law permits (Trump) to control mail-in voting through U.S.P.S.”

Trump’s fear of the midterms and the accountability they threaten is palpable. Alongside his unprecedented post office ploy, he has ordered FBI raids and DOJ investigations of democratic voter outreach organizations, as he teases the deployment of armed federal agents to polling places. Sending armed troops to intimidate voters is, for obvious reasons, forbidden by federal law, and has not been done by any US president since the Civil War era.

Trump is complementing these nefarious efforts with an all-out appropriation of state voter rolls, from which he has extracted data to build a master federal data base which has also been ruled illegal.

A federal judge blocks Trump’s Orwellian database

Threatening to cut funding to states that refuse to turn over their rolls, he has already sent federal agents to seize voter records in Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan. It’s plain extortion: To avoid losing federal resources they have already paid into, states must agree to run their voter rolls through the administration’s SAVE database (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, not to be confused with Trump’s SAVE America Act), to verify citizenship. The SAVE database has been expanded, widely tested, and determined to be deeply flawed. In St. Louis County alone, for example, roughly 35% of the people labeled noncitizens were citizens who registered to vote at naturalization ceremonies.

Trump has been using states’ voter roll data to build an illegal, nationwide database of Americans’ private information including home addresses, social security numbers, and other confidential “data-mined” information extracted by Palantir Technologies, a data mining and analytics firm co-founded by JD Vance promoter Peter Thiel. On Monday, a federal judge put a stop to it.

In League of Women Voters v. DHS, US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled that the federal government “knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote” by utilizing an unauthorized voter-screening database. The court found the administration’s actions presented “major violations” of the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

A closer look

In her landmark 75-page ruling, Judge Sooknanan excoriated the Trump administration for ignoring federal privacy laws as it overhauled and expanded the SAVE system into what she characterized as a “faulty citizenship checker.” The worst of her criticism was reserved for how recklessly the administration handled Americans’ personal data to expand the program. She wrote that “agencies were scrambling to comply with (Trump’s March 31) Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections, which directed them to create a system for mass voter verification,” and that in doing so, they “haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.”

She found that the system specifically violated the Social Security Act’s prohibition on disclosing Social Security numbers. The judge sharply condemned real-world consequences, noting that (Republican) states had “partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information.”

She pointed to concrete examples from Texas where naturalized citizens were wrongly flagged and had their registrations canceled or placed under review, but citizens in Texas are not alone. The SAVE system merged Social Security data with immigration files extracted across multiple state and federal platforms, resulting in widespread data flaws and false positive matches. System studies revealed faulty data matching, outdated records, and user compliance failures resulting in high rates of false positives. These flaws are systemic, flagging citizens as non-citizens across dozens of counties in multiple states.

Big brother by any other name

In June of last year, NPR first reported on the federal government’s massive expansion of SAVE into a Big Brother tool; they also reported that DHS, in partnership with DOGE, had not followed public notice protocols required under the Privacy Act before it expanded the system. Such data integration, resulting in a federally sanctioned, nationwide master list, has never before existed.

A centralized national database of Americans’ personal information has long been opposed by privacy advocates. Although political conservatives traditionally oppose mass data consolidation by the federal government, they set aside such objections for Trump. Conservative legislators strongly supported Trump’s expansion of the SAVE program as a tool to prevent non-citizens from voting after Trump and Fox Newsfalsely convinced them that fraudulent voting was widespread. It wasn’t, and never has been.

Judge Sooknanan rejected the Justice Department’s argument that only a small number of voters might be affected, calling it a “red herring.” She reiterated that the APA mandates that a “reviewing court shall. . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, or procedurally defective. Trump’s unauthorized expansion of the SAVE program was all of those things, leading the judge to set aside and nullify the entire system.

Her ruling concluded with a pointed moral declaration: since the federal government is using an unauthorized, faulty-by-design federal database to attack the sacred right to vote, courts should decline to ‘stand idly by’ while that happens.

Sabrina Haake is a political analyst and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the free Substack, The Haake Take.

The never-Trumpers are losing — and the GOP establishment knows it

I keep getting phone calls from politicians wanting to know what I make of the extraordinary victories at the polls this week of young Democratic Socialists. Here’s what I tell them:

The most powerful force in both the Republican and Democratic Parties today is anti-establishment populism. It’s roughly similar to the late 19th century when the Populist Party challenged the dominance of corporate elites, national banks, and railroad monopolies, although this time I believe it will stick.

Among today’s Republicans, this has taken the form of Trump’s MAGA movement against immigrants, Black people, Muslims, “woke,” “DEI,” and especially Democratic “coastal elites” who are supposedly enabling these groups to overtake white Christian America.

Pitted against the Republican populists are “never-Trumpers” who cling to the older Republican virtues of fiscal austerity and isolationism.

Among Democrats, anti-establishment populism has taken the form of a movement against economic elites who are rigging the system against average working people. Its major proponents are Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, and other predominantly young Democratic politicians — such as Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, Janeese Lewis George, the presumptive mayor of Washington, D.C., and a bevy of newly-elected members of Congress from New York — Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and Brad Lander.

Pitted against these economic populist in the Democratic Party are so-called “moderate” and corporate Democrats who pine after the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and seek at most incremental reforms of American capitalism.

In other words, the essential fissure inside American politics today doesn’t run horizontally from “right” to “left,” as those two poles have been defined since World War II.

It runs vertically from bottom to top.

Trump’s MAGA voters in the bottom view themselves through the lens of white Christian nationalism and believe the top has conspired to make them less dominant in American society.

Sanders’s, AOC’s, and Mamdani’s voters in the bottom view themselves through the lens of economic class and believe the top has conspired to rig the economy against them.

Both shifts have left the establishment behind. America’s corporate and financial elites love Trump’s tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks but feel uncomfortable with the white Christian nationalism now at the heart of the GOP.

They’re likewise content to deal with incremental reforms pushed by moderate Democrats but dislike the wealth taxes, rent-controls, single-payer health plans, and other safety-net expansions at the heart of the emerging Democratic Party.

I expect the establishment will fight to regain control of both parties.

One way will be to equate the populists with bigotry and extremism — in the GOP, to condemn the populists as racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and fascist; in the emerging Democratic Party, to condemn the populists as antisemitic and communist.

There’s enough truth in both caricatures to cause many voters to back away from populism altogether.

But I urge cooler heads to see something else in the rising populism within both parties — a potential political alliance against the grotesque inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity that have scarred modern America and fueled the populist anger in the first place.

The share of the U.S. economy going to working people is the lowest it’s been since 1947; the share going to corporate profits, the largest since 1950. One trillionaire and a brute of billionaires are now, in fact, running much of America.

Neither income nor wealth are zero-sum contests in which some people’s success can be achieved only at the cost of other people’s losses. But power is a zero-sum contest. And as power has gone to the top — and is has, whether we’re talking about the top 0.01 percent or 0.1 percent or 1 percent — everyone else has lost agency over their lives.

Both never-Trumper Republicans and “moderate” Democrats are struggling to articulate a message that isn’t just “we’re not Trump.” But given the gross inequalities in American society today, that’s a nearly impossible task.

Both Republican and Democratic establishments would be better served by overtly rejecting racism, xenophobia, and misogyny, as well as antisemitism and communism, while joining with populists to boldly change the system so that none of these were attractive. Make homes affordable, make healthcare accessible, put childcare and eldercare within reach of the average working family, and they won’t be.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

The real plot of the Roberts Supreme Court

The real way to read the immigration decisions the Supreme Court issued yesterday is not to see them solely as losses for immigrants to the United States or the rights of immigrants. They are much larger losses. They are losses for the authority of Congress to have its laws fully executed by a president who doesn’t agree with them.

Markwayne Mullin vs. Al Otro Lado concerns a 1917 law that requires immigration officers to inspect noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry to determine whether they may enter the United States. Congress amended the law in the Refugee Act of 1980 to allow noncitizens fleeing persecution in their home country to apply for asylum as part of this inspection process.

The Act lays out a required set of procedures to guide this process. It says that a noncitizen who seeks admission to the United States “may apply for asylum.” If the noncitizen lacks valid travel documents, the officer “shall order [her] removed” unless she conveys an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution, which in turn requires the officer to “refer” her for further processing of her asylum application.

This system is designed to ensure that the U.S. government considers the application of each person seeking to come into the United States to determine who should be let in, who should be turned away, and who should be allowed to apply for asylum.

But yesterday, the Supreme Court’s majority held that a president may circumvent these requirements simply by having U. S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting foot on U. S. soil — even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.

What happened to the Refugee Act of 1980 and the specific procedures outlined in it? The Supreme Court ignored it.

The other decision released yesterday, Markwayne Mullin vs. Dahlia Doe, concerns another law, part of the Immigration Act of 1990 called Temporary Protected Status. For over a decade administrations have provided humanitarian Temporary Protected Status relief to Haitian and Syrian nationals coming to the United States.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court’s majority held that federal courts may not review the Secretary of Homeland Security’s compliance with that law. But in fact the Immigration Act of 1990 specifically allows judicial review of whether the Secretary adhered to the procedures the law requires — exactly what the plaintiffs disputed.

It would be easy to see these two cases solely through the lens of immigration — and conclude that the Supreme Court’s decisions yesterday simply backed Trump’s and his fanatical underling Stephen Miller’s commitment to block noncitizens from the United States or to force them out. And surely these are the consequences of both of of yesterday’s rulings.

But the decisions are even darker and more dangerous than this. Even in the face of two laws in which Congress instructed the executive branch to do certain things, a majority of the current Supreme Court — the abominable Roberts Court — has bent over backwards to ignore those laws.

This must be seen for what it really is — a systemic effort by the six Republican appointees on the court to shrink congressional authority and enlarge the authority of the executive branch.

If there was any doubt before, there should be none now: The Supreme Court is part of the anti-democracy movement led by Trump and the billionaires behind him.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

The secret report in the White House drawer that could change everything in November

Somewhere inside the White House right now there’s a federal intelligence report sitting in a drawer, and Trump’s lickspittles who put it there are betting you won’t see it before you vote in November.

It’s an assessment of the security of America’s voting machines, produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Reuters revealed last week that White House officials have spent months refusing to authorize its release even as the 2026 midterms come barreling toward us.

The findings are almost comic in their irony, but they could also become the weapon that brings down our democracy this November. I’ll get to that in a moment, but first the backstory.

Tulsi Gabbard launched this whole investigation to dig up proof of Donald Trump’s endlessly repeated lie that voting machines stole the 2020 election from him. What her people reportedly found instead was that some states are running outdated equipment that ought to be patched, and that there’s no evidence anywhere that a single vote was flipped or manipulated.

So the one document that could actually help election officials harden their systems before Election Day has been buried, precisely because it tells the opposite of the story the president wanted told.

And consider who now controls that report. Gabbard stepped down this spring, and last week Trump installed Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, a man who runs the federal housing agency and chairs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has no intelligence background whatsoever, and didn’t even hold a security clearance until days before he walked in the door.

He reportedly showed up early asking for a list of every employee so he could decide whom to fire, floated cutting hundreds of intelligence jobs (a Putin dream for decades), and wondered aloud whether he could carry the President’s Daily Brief home with him.

Trump has been remarkably candid about why Pulte is there, telling reporters that his new spy chief may “find out some things about the rigged elections.”

David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, who works with election officials in both parties, warned that Pulte appears hand-picked precisely because he embraces the same 2020 lies Gabbard chased for eighteen months and never could prove.

Elections lawyer Marc Elias put it more bluntly, calling the appointment a straightforward attempt to seize control of our elections, and Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, called Pulte a “national security threat”.

So, the person who’ll decide whether that voting-machine report ever sees daylight, and what gets done with the weaknesses it describes, is now the president’s hand-picked election man, a guy who at Housing was willing to violate the standards of his office and common decency to dig into Letitia James’ and Adam Schiff’s mortgage records just to make Trump happy that he could then punish them with lawfare.

That by itself would be a scandal in any other administration: a regime that talks about election integrity from sunup to sundown is sitting on the very report that could improve it. But the worry that’s been keeping voting-rights lawyers awake runs in a direction most Americans haven’t yet let themselves imagine.

Back in February, the Guardian’s George Chidi walked through how this could unfold.

After the FBI raided Fulton County’s election office and hauled off 2020 materials, Trump went on Dan Bongino’s podcast and announced that Republicans should “nationalize the voting” and “take over” elections in fifteen places.

That same week we learned Gabbard had quietly trucked voting machines out of Puerto Rico to hunt for vulnerabilities. Set those moves next to each other, as the Campaign Legal Center’s Bruce Spiva did, and the pattern becomes shockingly clear.

“This is not a coincidence,” he said.

Trump’s March executive order declared a national emergency over supposed foreign interference in our elections, invoking a 2018 order called EO 13848 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Miles Taylor, who helped draft 13848 when he was at Homeland Security and is a regular guest on my radio/TV program, told the Guardian they wrote it “to create a mechanism for sanctions, not to empower the director of national intelligence to fiddle with elections.”

But that law lets a president block the use of “property” like voting machines and tabulators that he claims are tainted while an investigation grinds on, and he never has to prove a thing. He can, in other words, selectively seize the machine that registered your vote this November and refuse to release it until long after people are sworn into office.

Disinformation researcher Joohn Choe validated that concern, pointing out that this fall the federal government could start seizing machines across the country, classify the supposed evidence, and then tell judges it can’t reveal what it’s looking for or how long it’ll take because national security forbids it.

“States would not be able to certify what they would not be able to access,” Choe said.

Picture what that would do to a close election. If federal agents declared a swath of digital voting machines (from heavily Democratic parts of swing states or in critical elections) off-limits in the last week of October, you’d get a cascade of emergency court hearings, county election directors scrambling to print and hand-count ballots they never planned for, early voting collapsing in the targeted places, and the results of a handful of razor-thin House races hanging unresolved for weeks.

Trump wouldn’t need to flip a single vote to steal a chamber of Congress; he’d only need to make the counting impossible in the right districts at the right moment, then let the chaos and the lawsuits do the rest.

That’s the scenario Eric Levitz mapped out in a chillingly plausible Vox analysis that’s been circulating among election experts. The old fear was that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and send the military to grab ballots on election night: this version the experts now consider more likely is quieter and far harder to fight.

As Derek Clinger of the University of Wisconsin’s State Democracy Research Initiative put it, Fulton County points toward a seizure of ballots “conducted with the appearance of a legal process,” which is both more probable and tougher to challenge while the clock is running.

Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center told Vox that anyone still doubting this administration is laying the groundwork to interfere in our elections should now have those doubts erased.

And this is where that buried report comes back into the picture. A federal document, stamped with intelligence-community authority and describing machine “vulnerabilities,” is exactly the kind of prop a White House could pull out of the drawer in late October and wave in front of the cameras as the official-sounding justification for declaring machines compromised and votes thus not counted.

No source has yet reported that’s the plan, but that’s sure my read of where these pieces point. And with Trump it isn’t hard to imagine how a report written to chase a lie, then held in reserve, could end up serving as the excuse for the very seizure the experts are warning about.

The Founders saw this coming, which is why they deliberately handed the running of elections to the states rather than to a national executive who might tip the scales. The federal judge who permanently blocked Trump’s March order last fall said exactly that, but Trump and his toadies appear hell-bent on ignoring this court as they have so many others over the past 18 months.

And every strongman of the last century who set out to capture a democracy began by capturing the machinery that decides who won, almost always under the banner of an emergency and an investigation.

When Louise and I lived in Germany in the early 1980s, I spent evenings with older Germans who’d been young in the 1930s, and the thing that haunted me wasn’t the violence they described. It was how ordinary each step felt while it was happening, how every move was cloaked in legal language and official reassurance, right up until the morning they understood the ballot no longer meant anything.

It’s all starting to come into focus: the report in the drawer, Pulte parked atop the intelligence community, the Postal Service rewriting its rules to choke off mail-in ballots in the very states that lean Democratic, the demands for voter rolls, and the gerrymanders.

And all of it springs from the one hard fact that the American people have spent the better part of a half-century rejecting what the GOP is selling:

Without his treasonous deal with Iran to hold the hostages, Reagan never would have become president; without his brother purging 10,000 Black people from the rolls weeks before the 2000 election, George W. Bush would have lost to Al Gore; without Russia and Facebook skewing the messaging toward Trump in 2016, Hillary would have become president.

Fifty years representing $40 trillion in trickle-down tax cuts put on the national debt and then shoveled into billionaires’ money bins while everyone else’s wages flatlined, fifty years of culture-war crusades against queer, Black, and Hispanic people designed to keep working folks fighting each other instead of looking up at who’s picking their pockets: the voters have finally had enough of all of it.

They want their damn middle class back, the one we had before Reagan killed the unions, stopped enforcing anti-monopoly laws, gutted higher education, told us government was the problem, and the morbidly rich among us started pulling away from the rest on the foundations of their tax cuts.

A party with something real to offer ordinary Americans wouldn’t need to seize the machines and gut the mail to hold onto power: the rigging is their confession that they’ve already lost the argument.

The special elections held so far this cycle have mostly gone against Trump, and his earlier schemes to rig the maps and purge the rolls have run into one legal wall after another, which is probably what’s driving these extreme measures.

Even Chuck Schumer says Democrats already have teams of senators and lawyers war-gaming every angle of attack, with people in place “to make sure they count the votes fairly.” The courts and the states still hold the line, but a line only holds when the people behind it are paying attention.

So pay attention, and then act. Call your members of Congress through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and demand that the ODNI report be released now, while there’s still time to patch the systems it describes, instead of being saved as a weapon for October to set aside our votes.

Check your own registration and find your polling place at vote.org, keep an eye on your state’s election rules through openstates.org, and program the Election Protection hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE, into your phone before the fall so you’ll have it the moment something looks wrong at your precinct.

Like the early 2000’s in Russia and Hungary, this is the season when democracies are either defended or quietly lost, and the defending falls to ordinary people like us who refuse to look away.

If this piece helped you understand what’s at stake, share it with the friends and family who still think the midterms will simply happen the way midterms always have, and forward it to someone who can volunteer as a poll worker or an election observer this November.

The more of us who see the drawer they’re hiding this report in, the harder it becomes for anyone to use it against us. Support independent journalism, subscribe and share the Hartmann Report, and let’s make sure every vote in 2026 is cast, counted, and honored.

A teenager, a Nebraska ringleader and a plot to kill Trump

“..to set this off we need an event or events that cause people to realize the revolution has officially begun.” So said an Ohio man arrested last week with several other co-conspirators.

The envisioned “revolution” was not a peaceful protest in the streets but instead a plot to murder more than 40 prominent Americans, including the president and business leaders, in attendance of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) Freedom 250 event hosted on the White House grounds earlier this month. Involving explosive-laden drones and firearms, this coordinated attack would bring in the latest technology and incorporate tactics seen in the other recent assassination attempts — such as the one targeting President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Law enforcement from multiple federal agencies in coordination with local officials, and working off a tip from a concerned mother, disrupted the would-be plot. Federal criminal complaints identify five charged defendants, including a 31-year-old man from Omaha, Nebraska. The Nebraska resident, who reportedly used the alias “Shepherd” in group chats, was allegedly responsible for planning, organizing and directing the potential attack.

At the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology, and Education (NCITE) Center — the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence for the study of terrorism — we were not surprised by the news. Indeed, the disrupted UFC Freedom 250 plot represents a potent mix of the threat streams that are increasingly defining today’s homeland security landscape — which can be aptly described as simply “everything, everywhere, all at once.”

What the UFC Freedom 250 plot underscores about emerging threats

Details shared about the defendants and plot illuminate aspects of the threat networks and tactics behind what NCITE studies: challenges to U.S. homeland security and defense.

First, according to our research, violent threats against public officials continue to increase — a trend which appears to be expanding to other prominent individuals in sectors outside of government. One defendant reportedly told investigators the goal was to kill “capitalist elites,” “billionaires” or politicians who received donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The increased targeting of leaders comes as we observe growing positive sentiments of violent resistance against perceived oppressors and decreasing trust in governing institutions, nationwide.

Second, key segments of the domestic terrorist landscape are mobilized by a patchwork of disparate grievances and sentiments, rather than coherent ideologies. The federal criminal complaints associated with the UFC Freedom 250 plot indicate that network members espoused a wide range of beliefs and theories — especially those of an anti-government, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-technology and anti-corporate nature. Notably, the UFC Freedom 250 event afforded consolidated access to leaders and officials which aligned with these distinct motivations.

Third, enabled by access to encrypted messaging apps as well as gaming and social media platforms, threat actors’ networks based in the United States are increasingly organized around ecosystems rather than centralized discrete organizations. The UFC Freedom 250 conspiracy spans multiple states and involved the use of multiple communication platforms. Federal criminal complaints identify five charged defendants, the group also appears to have included other online participants who were not named in public complaints. This includes both adults and at least one teenager.

Fourth, terrorists and other violent criminals are integrating drones into nearly every stage of the attack cycle. The UFC Freedom 250 conspirators allegedly plotted to deploy drones armed with explosives in and around the event to force an evacuation of the event and then planned to deploy snipers to fire upon “high value targets” within the fleeing crowd. Recent terrorism-related incidents in the U.S. have seen the use of drones to support pre-operational planning and surveillance and as explosive weapons against critical infrastructure.

As the case progresses, the public will learn whether the alleged plotters had achieved concrete progress in their aims — such as developing explosives, acquiring drones or traveling to the planned attack location — and how close they were to execution.

Moving forward

As demonstrated by the evident coordination across the bureau, Secret Service, and half a dozen local police departments, this UFC Freedom 250 plot underscores the need for continued vigilance, community support and strong collaboration across the counterterrorism and homeland security workforce. The plot was disrupted following a tip from one of the defendant’s parents, affirming that humans may still be the best sensors to disrupt mass casualty violence.

Nebraskans can report non-emergency suspicious activity — e.g., usual collection of explosive precursor chemicals, surveillance of potential targets, expressed or implied threats — through the Nebraska Information Analysis Center’s phone hotline or online form.

As emerging technologies, mixed grievances and terrorist ideologies, and online ecosystems continue to accelerate and reshape the threat landscape, Americans cannot afford to wait for the next plot to show us what has changed — we have to stay ahead of it.

Trump isn't the disease — he's the symptom America needs to confront

The president contaminated the Reflecting Pool that's in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Donald Trump had the bottom of it painted blue in celebration of himself, er, America's 250th anniversary. The $14-million paint job is now peeling. Algae is blooming. Efforts to kill it with hydrogen peroxide have made it look like a giant Mark Rothko painting. The Times reported that the White House gave the task of "refurbishing" the pool to a firm tied to a Trump donor.

Paint was seen peeling from the floor of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, weeks after a $14 million renovation that included a new color President Trump called “American Flag Blue.” pic.twitter.com/pCYznXRoFF
— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 18, 2026

Liberal and Democrats sometimes get caught up in abstractions. We often lose people by talking about "institutions" and "oligarchs." So the pool is an appealing metaphor, as is the president's attempt to blame others for his mess. Authorities charged a former Olympian for "vandalizing" the monument. The National Guard was ordered to protect its desecration. (Claiming vandalism, Trump said that the pool would need to be drained again and redone.)

"This story is such a perfect reflection (no pun intended) of Donald Trump’s failures and character flaws that it might have unique power to break through some otherwise impermeable skulls," my pal Marty Longman said in his newsletter, which I recommend.

"Found an imaginary problem, said only they could fix it, didn’t listen to experts, hired buddies who grifted millions, failed miserably, bragged how great it went," Minnesota Governor Tim Walz said on Twitter. "The entire Trump presidency in a nutshell."

I agree, but I think it should be said that the story is a reflection of more than a president who turns everything he touches into "crud," as Paul Krugman told Greg Sargent Monday. A national monument that is being choked with peeling paint and pollution, and that is being "protected" by a perversion of power, reflects something about us. It reveals the inner state of our national character: drained, declining, even diseased, and in desperate need of healing.

I think it's easy to suggest that Donald Trump is the exception to the rule and that what he is doing is not who we are as a people. But it's harder to suggest, because it's more truthful to suggest, that he's the rule itself, and that what he's doing is exactly who we are. After all, we elected him twice. You could say the first time was a fluke. The second time, however, was a choice. A majority chose a pool of corruption, because they themselves have been corrupted.

Usually, liberal don't talk this way, especially liberal pundits like me. We blame Trump for every evil, and see the metaphor of the Reflecting Pool as an opportunity to press our case against him. But we stop short of taking in the whole of what the Reflecting Pool is reflecting, namely that there's something deeply morally rotten when a country like ours can produce, maintain and empower a man like him. We speak of symptoms, but overlook the disease. We speak of strategies, but not about a nation experiencing the crisis of its collective soul.

Talking like this is second nature to me. I was raised among very conservative Protestants. We were weaned on Bible stories about a nation that faced repeated calamity for turning against righteousness. (That "nation" was ancient Israel but the link to America was implicit for us.) Liberals talk about Trump voters who are suffering from the consequences of their choices and hope they will learn from their pain. But we're all part of the same political community and we're all feeling pain. What are the rest of us learning if we are only willing to see Trump in the Reflecting Pool and not ourselves? God's judgment isn't for him alone.

Why are some of us willing to see Donald Trump in the Reflecting Pool but not ourselves? No doubt the answer is partisanship, but it's also myth. We believe deep in our bones that America is special, a superior country above all others. Our sense of patriotism and pride is based on that idea. Therefore, a pool of putrid green water cannot reflect the whole of the people, because Trump is a mistake, a blip in our noble history, a deviation from our values.

Some of his supporters seem to be coming around to that way of thinking. While that's good news for the Democrats and their chances of success in the next election, that's bad news in the long term. If we cannot collectively face the whole truth, and the fact that Trump is not a mutation of the American genome but a faithful expression of it, then it won't be long until we see another of his kind, and when we do, many of us will again be shocked and unable to accept the idea that his very existence is a picture-perfect reflection of who we are.

You know who has no trouble looking into the Reflecting Pool and seeing a picture-perfect reflection of who we are as a people? The children of the immigrants who are being savaged in the name of national pride. A mother in Connecticut is suing ICE for separating her from her children, leaving them in the car, wailing. According to the Courant, the suit "described Martinez’s son as someone who was 'once a bubbly child' who now struggles to sleep through the night. In school, he frequently interrupts class because of his uncontrollable crying. The complaint describes one instance where he sat down outside a classroom, told his teacher that he missed his mom and stayed on the ground crying for almost 20 minutes."

That boy will eventually grow up. He will live a healthy, happy life if he's lucky. But no matter his good fortune, he will never forget what the United States really is. No amount of belief in American exceptionalism is going to change that. Moreover, what our government is doing to the children of immigrants like him cannot be undone. Five hundred literal babies have spent time in ICE custody since Trump returned to power, according to the Marshall Project. (They are among the 6,200 minors that the government has detained since early 2025.) In the future, when these crime victims are looking back, the pain of their memories will be deepened beyond comprehension by the insistence that this is not who we are. Try telling these kids that the American people aren't so bad, that they were just mad about inflation.

I do not expect anyone to take my advice. I am but a humble newsletter writer. Anyway, most of us don't want redemption from the truth. We want relief from the responsibility of doing something about it. Accepting, for instance, that America is the kind of country that will take food away from 770,000 hungry kids, and then making the sacrifices necessary to reversing that crime, is too much for most of us. It feels better to be told by an aspiring leader that a disgusting Reflecting Pool is not a picture of who we really are, and that the true authentic soul of America will reemerge once the right party is in charge. Redemption would require giving up the privilege of America being God's special exception. Accepting that we're just another country in the eyes of God is a loss, and a humiliation, that's too great to bear.

If they win, Trump will punish them. If they lose, Trump will punish them.

The housing bill that sailed through the US Congress this week is going to become law no matter what the president decides to do. On Monday, it passed the Senate by a vote of 85-5. On Tuesday, it passed the House by a vote of 358-32. Even if Donald Trump were to veto it, those numbers suggest the will to override him. The United States might be divided on other issues, but not on affordability. That crisis is unifying. This act of Congress reflects that.

Yet Trump said this morning that he wouldn't sign it until Senate Republicans nuke the filibuster and pass the so-called SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote (in addition to all the other hoops required by state law that you have to jump through to vote.) He apparently believes that the controversial piece of legislation would save him the humiliation of defeat in November. (That is by no means a certainty). He also apparently believes he has leverage. He doesn't. The Constitution states that unless the Congress is adjourned (meaning its session has ended), a bill becomes law in 10 days, signed or not.

According to USA Today, the legislation would ease federal regulations on manufactured homes, which would boost the supply of housing and therefore lower housing costs. It would also bar private equity firms from gobbling up housing stock and jacking up prices. Maybe that would work. I think it's worth a try, as housing has been getting more scarce since the mortgage-backed meltdown of 2008. What I do know, however, is that everyone in Washington should at least pretend to be concerned about the cost of living if they know what's good for them. If the ease by which this bill passed is any indication, everyone does.

Everyone but Donald Trump.

The candor in the AP's news summary underscores a recurring theme of the Trump era: he is very bad at presidenting. Trump "blindsided" the Republicans, the newswire said. "At the same time, he has blocked them from confirming one of his own nominees, asked them to fund parts of his White House ballroom project despite opposition and forced them to defend his Iran war even as they question the strategy and endgame. By rejecting a public bill signing, Trump is also indicating a level of indifference to the affordability issues that are a leading concern for voters going into November’s midterm elections" (my italics).

Weakness is the flipside of indifference. If he doesn't like the bill on the merits, he should veto it. But he won't because he doesn't care about the merits, and he doesn't care about them, because he doesn't care about anything but himself. "Nobody gives a s--- about housing," he reportedly told House Speaker Mike Johnson, according to Punchbowl News, as if the Congress did not have enough votes to force him to face the truth of his nakedness.

Weakness can also be seen in the fact that Trump had signaled support for the housing bill as recently as yesterday. It was only this morning that the Republicans sleep-walked into the president's reversal. "Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency," he said via social media. Perhaps his tantrum was the result of getting advanced word of today's court ruling that "permanently barred" him from pursuing an executive order that requires proof of citizenship to vote. The judge said elections are run by the states. The order violates the separation of powers. It seems Trump believes that if he can't get what he wants from a judge, he can do what he's always done and bully the GOP.

Keep your eyes peeled on the GOP's reaction. Are the Republicans going to keep eating humiliation as the price of power or will they start seeing it as a price too great to bear. I don't want to make too much of that, but at the same time, I don't think there's a clear answer yet. The humiliation is indisputable. French Hill, the GOP sponsor of the housing bill in the House, was literally on stage bragging about the president's support, not knowing that he had posted his notice revoking it. "Let's show the American people what legislating looks like," Hill said. "Let's show the American people how you bring together and do something on an bicameral basis. We did that in conjunction with the president and his priorities."

Whoops.

"He’s having a f------ tantrum,” a senior Republican told NOTUS.

French Hill touts bipartisan Housing Bill, as Trump cancels signing mid-conference: "Let's show the American people what legislating looks like…We did that in conjunction with President Trump and his priorities." pic.twitter.com/xSh2BKWktk
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 24, 2026

Some would say that the Republicans' appetite for humiliation is virtually unlimited, and I am sympathetic to that view. But even now, we can see in the Senate, where the Republicans really, really do not want to nix the filibuster, for fear of what the Democrats might do if they take the chamber in November, a tension that's growing between Republicans who are imagining life without Trump, and a president who can't imagine anything, much less his own party, existing without him. In the months ahead, we're going to see whether Trump is "tightening his grip on the party" or sabotaging it. With this vote, they proved without meaning to that they can succeed without him. If the price isn't high, they might try again.

The Republicans are stuck between voters demanding that Congress act on the cost of living, and a leader believing that "nobody gives a shit about housing" and any other affordability issue. If the Republicans win, Trump will hate them, because that would mean they don't need him anymore. He will punish them for it. But if they lose, Trump will hate them even more, because that would mean they can't do anything for him. He will punish them for that, too. 2026 is shaping up to be, as Roger Stone might put it, the GOP's time in the barrel.

May it be so.

Clarence Thomas went from silent puppet to the most dangerous justice in modern history

Clarence Thomas went more than 10 years without asking a single substantive question from the bench. His silence between 2006 and 2016 prompted commentators to call his courtroom quietude embarrassing, a sign of fatigue and a lack of intellectual candlepower. Even earlier in his career, he had earned the nickname of “Scalia’s Puppet” for his habit of joining majority opinions written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the outspoken and reactionary “originalist” who shared the dais with him until his death in 2016.

But the characterization of Thomas as an inattentive echo of Scalia is wrong. Thomas has always been more extreme and dangerous than Scalia, and his influence has never been greater.

After his bruising 1991 confirmation hearing, Thomas set his eyes on the goal of moving American law backward to the laissez-faire era of the Gilded Age, undoing the regulatory state of the New Deal, weakening the civil rights legislation of the 1950s and ’60s and undermining many of the forward-looking precedent decisions issued by the Warren Court. As Thomas reportedly told two of his law clerks in 1993, he planned to serve until 2034, and until then would continue to make the lives of liberals “miserable.” He has already made good on that pledge: He is now the second-longest serving Supreme Court justice in history.

Thomas has always been more extreme and dangerous than Scalia, and his influence has never been greater.

Thomas is best known for concurrences and dissents that seemed culled from the lunatic fringe when he wrote them, but were later embraced by the majority as the court moved hard right.

On affirmative action, in a 1995 case on government contracting (Adarand Constructors v. Pena), his concurrence denounced “remedial racial preferences” in federal hiring as a form of “racial paternalism.” This was an astonishing choice of words for the nation’s second Black Supreme Court justice, who overcame childhood poverty and after a brief flirtation with Black nationalism, became the beneficiary of affirmative action at Yale Law School. Twenty-eight years later, however, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard), the court ended affirmative action in higher education.

On abortion in a 2000 case (Stenberg v. Carhart) that invalidated Nebraska’s late-term abortion ban, Thomas dissented, arguing that the Roe v. Wade decison was “grievously wrong,” and that nothing in the Constitution “dictates that a State” must legalize abortion. Twenty-two years later, Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization adopted Thomas’ view.

Ditto for the Second Amendment. In Printz v. United States, a 1997 gun-regulation case, Thomas contributed a concurrence arguing that the amendment encompassed a personal right to keep and bear arms rather than simply a right connected with service in state militias, as prior case law had clearly held. Eleven years later, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court recognized the personal right in an opinion authored by Scalia. Thomas went on to expand the personal right in 2022 with his majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a decision that severely handicaps state and local authorities from enforcing gun-control laws.

Thomas is also on record advising the court to revisit its precedent decisions on the right to court-appointed counsel in criminal trials (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963); the right of married persons to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965); the right of adults to engage in private consensual sex (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003); and the right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). He has also called for the court to reconsider 1964’s New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark case establishing First Amendment protections in defamation cases involving public officials and public figures, which is widely considered the lynchpin of freedom of the press in America.

In a recent column published by the influential Scotusblog website, constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky noted that “Thomas is the only justice … who has openly said that precedent deserves little weight in constitutional law.”

Despite his laid-back courtroom demeanor, Thomas has also been an active and loquacious speaker out of court on the right-wing banquet and convention circuit, especially in meetings of the Federalist Society and events hosted by Hillsdale College, the Michigan-based private Christian institution long recognized as a hub for conservative thought leaders and a breeding ground for the right-wing’s ever expanding culture wars.

Supreme Court justices typically attend academic, judicial and bar-related conferences, and initially, Thomas’ public remarks were fairly judge-like, focusing on time-honored topics like judicial independence. But as his stature grew and the court’s lurch to the right accelerated, he shed whatever inhibitions he once had about voicing his personal beliefs, becoming in time a full-fledged and open culture war combatant.

Thomas is now unbound and unrestrained.

In a 2011 address at a law student symposium sponsored by the Federalist Society in Charlottesville, Virginia, he devoted most of his time not to expounding on legal doctrine but to defending his tea party activist wife Ginni against adverse press coverage. He also exhorted his young audience to be wary of the “fundamental changes” wrought by the left that aimed to distort the original meaning of the Constitution. In a 2016 commencement speech at Hillsdale, he went further, urging graduates “not [to] hide your faith and your beliefs under a bushel basket … in this world that seems to have gone mad with political correctness.”

Thomas is now unbound and unrestrained. In a speech on April 15 at the University of Texas, he went “full Monty” in an unhinged broadside against liberals and progressives. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government declaring,” he declared, continuing:

It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God but from government. … [Progressivism] was the first mainstream American political movement — with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War — to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration.

He went on to blame progressives for the 20th century evils of racial segregation and eugenics, insisting that “Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao” were “intertwined with the rise of progressivism.”

All this from an angry and embittered ideologue who is also arguably the most corrupt justice in the Supreme Court’s history, having failed for 13 years to report his wife Virginia’s earnings on his annual financial disclosure forms, and who has been on the gimme end of lavish vacations funded by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.

Thomas celebrated his 78th birthday on June 23. He may not make it to his projected retirement date of 2034, but until he actually steps down, whether voluntarily or post mortem in the fashion of Scalia, there is no telling how much more jurisprudential carnage he will cause or how much more disgrace he will bring to the reputation of the world’s most powerful judicial tribunal.

American media culture enables corruption with sanitized language

This weekend, the right-wing Italian daily Libero, a major conservative newspaper that shares a fair amount of Donald Trump’s politics, ran a one-word verdict on the President of the United States across its front page. The Italian word is coglione. The polite translation is “idiot.” The translation that George Conway and half of social media reached for, and the one the paper plainly intended, is a good deal blunter than that and more dictionary accurate: “a--hole.”

What set the newspaper off wasn’t the war, or the self-dealing, or the cruelty toward immigrants: it was Trump’s lie about a photograph. He pathetically told an Italian network that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had “begged” him repeatedly for a picture at the G7 in Évian, that she’d wanted it so badly he “felt sorry for her” and went along.

Meloni, who until a week ago was Trump’s closest ally in Europe (and the only one who came to his inauguration), called the story “completely fabricated” and said neither she nor Italy ever begs. Her foreign minister cancelled his trip to Washington in protest.

And a conservative Italian newspaper looked at the most powerful man on Earth inventing a petty, humiliating story about a friendly head of state for no reason anyone could name but his own wretched, needy, emotionally-stunted ego and decided that therefore there was exactly one accurate word for him.

A newspaper in Milan, run by people who’d probably vote for him if they had the chance, will say in a banner headline what our own press, knowing far more about this man than they do, still treats as unspeakable.

So let’s do what our major papers won’t, and lay the record out in plain English:

— A jury in Manhattan found Trump liable for sexually abusing the writer E. Jean Carroll, and the federal judge who presided, Lewis Kaplan, wrote in his own ruling that what the jury concluded Trump did amounts to “rape as ordinary people understand the word,” even if it didn’t fit New York’s narrow penal statute.

— We have him on tape, in his own voice, bragging that his fame lets him grab women. And continuously trash-talking female reporters.

— We have the Eric Trump Foundation, set up to raise money for children dying of cancer at St. Jude, quietly paying hundreds of thousands of those donated dollars to his father’s golf courses and steering more than half a million to other groups tied to Trump interests, while donors believed every dollar was going to sick kids.

— We have a “university” that wasn’t a university, shut down after he paid twenty-five million dollars to settle fraud claims from the students it fleeced.

— We have a memecoin he launched days before his inauguration that enriched his family and a handful of insiders by hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, even as the small-dollar believers who bought in on the strength of his name watched the thing collapse by more than ninety percent.

— And we have a shooting war against Iran that began in February, with American bombs and a dead Iranian Supreme Leader, that Congress never voted on and that the Brennan Center for Justice called flatly unconstitutional.

Every one of those facts has been reported, sourced, litigated, and confirmed, and they’re really just the tip of the corruption and criminality iceberg which also includes 34 felony convictions and the apparent sale of pardons. And yet pick up the average front page on any given morning and you’ll find the man at the center of all of it described as “controversial,” or “polarizing,” or “unconventional.”

You’ll read that he “made claims” or “stoked tensions” or “broke with norms.”

Press critic Margaret Sullivan and journalist Aaron Rupar gave this habit a name a couple of years back: they call it “sanewashing,” the steady translation of genuinely deranged, asinine conduct into the calm, gray vocabulary of normal politics, and the Columbia Journalism Review has documented how reporters keep reaching for euphemism precisely when the moment calls for the plain word.

Why do they do it?

— Part of it is the old religion of objectivity, the conviction that a serious reporter never uses a sharp word about a politician no matter what that politician does, as though neutrality between an arsonist and a fire department were the height of professionalism.

— Part of it is fear. Like Putin in his early days, Trump sues, and the corporations that own our biggest networks and newspapers would rather write him a check than fight him in court even when they’d likely win, and every settlement teaches the next editor to soften the next headline. Scholars who study democratic collapse have watched this dynamic up close, and they’ll tell you that newsrooms grow reluctant to use the accurate word for a man precisely as the accurate word becomes most necessary.

— And part of it tracks back a half-century to RNC Chairman Rich Bond telling Republicans to scream “liberal bias” every time a newspaper or reporter told a true story that reflected poorly on Republicans. “Work the refs” was his instruction.

I lived in Germany for a stretch in the 1980s, and one of the things I noticed reading the papers there was how brutally unafraid European journalists were to call a powerful person a fool or a liar to his face, in print, right there in the headline. It wasn’t recklessness. It was memory.

Germans of that generation knew exactly what happens when a press decides that the polite thing, the cautious thing, the access-preserving thing — as had happened there in the 1930s — is to keep describing a dangerous man in reasonable language, until the day comes when it’s too late to describe him any other way.

But today in America, a handful of giant corporations and right-wing billionaires have come to own most of what Americans read and watch, and that concentration now quietly shapes the boundaries of what those outlets will say about the powerful people they both report on and often fear.

The Italians still have a mainstream press scrappy enough, and independent enough, to call a spade a spade. We used to.

The Founders didn’t protect the press in the First Amendment so it could practice stenography. They gave it that protection so it would tell the country the truth, bluntly, when the powerful would rather it didn’t, and so it would be the thing that warned us before the danger arrived rather than after.

A free press that won’t name what’s in front of its own eyes isn’t being fair. It’s failing at the one job the Constitution set aside for it.

New book exposes JD Vance as a fraud

When JD Vance hasn’t been failing in peace talks to end the Iran war, he’s been spending his time going on talk shows to promote his book, “Communion,” all about his conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism.

How he has time to write a book as vice president—and how appropriate that is, considering vice presidents have rarely done so—is another story. This is a book that, like all aspiring presidential candidates, is about setting Vance up to win the highest office in the land, a pretty scary prospect.

On the book itself, I leave it to the scholar Anthea Butler, a professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, who teaches about religion and theology and notes, “Vance’s new book ranks among the worst things I’ve read.”

As has been reported, there’s a United Methodist Church on the cover of this book about converting to Catholicism, and that choice of illustration serves as a metaphor for the ignorance and inauthenticity found within…
Vance appears to be bringing some of his evangelical upbringing and theology to his Catholic faith…That’s why, despite his conversion to Catholicism, Vance still comes across like an evangelical. His willingness to argue Catholic theology, despite his limited knowledge, speaks to his Protestant upbringing..

What I’m going to address more specifically is Vance’s discussion about the book with Ross Douthat, the right-wing New York Times opinion columnist. Douthat, like Vance, converted to Catholicism from Protestantism and has similarly criticized the pope and Vatican teaching. So these are two odd peas in a precarious pod.

Douthat, to his credit, does sometimes ask Vance about contradictions in his writing and thinking when it comes to his conversion to Catholicism. But he too easily lets Vance off the hook when the vice president offers a completely unacceptable answer.

A duplicity on ‘culture wars’

Vance claims in the book, and to Douthat in the interview, for example, that the seeds of his conversion to Catholicism began as he saw conservative Christians focused on the Terri Schiavo case, the woman who, in 1990, was in a vegetative state after cardiac arrest and whose parents battled her husband against taking his wife off of a feeding tube. It was a non-stop media story and a battle between Christian nationalists (including evangelicals and conservative Catholics) and the rest of us.

Vance said this overblown “culture war” issue, like others that are often used by religious fundamentalists to gin up the base and raise money, didn’t speak to him and his life experience as a young man who enlisted in the Marines straight out of high school and was a combat correspondent, a military journalist:

I was about to leave for Iraq. My entire family was terrified that something bad was going to happen to me. My mom was struggling with the worst throes of her addiction problem. My grandmother had just died.
Our economic situation in our family had been bad for a long time. Now it seemed to somehow get worse. And I’m sending money back home to my family and thinking to myself: This Christianity has nothing to say about the struggles in my life.

Vance goes on to say that “it’s important for Christian churches to recognize that there are a lot of kids—whether they’re at college or they’re in the workforce—they’re living the normal struggles of life,” adding that they’re “dealing with heartbreak, they’re dealing with addiction in their family, maybe they’re struggling to find a job.”

Where to begin with this?

First off, why didn’t Douthat ask him why, then, do he and Trump and the religious conservatives of the MAGA base focus obsessively on transgender issues, for example, another “culture war” issue that is completely divorced from the experience of most Americans—including young men struggling with addiction or going into the military—who really couldn’t give a damn about the issue that gins up the religious right base and raised funds for it?

Republicans already got away with treason 4 times — but they won't this time

Republicans have gotten away with it four times now, in a big way. Each time it was because Democrats didn’t realize — until it was too late — the crimes the GOP was willing to perpetrate just to seize and hold power.

This time, for the first time since 1968, it may be different.

In August of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson and Vice President Hubert Humphrey negotiated an end to the Vietnam War with both the North and South Vietnamese. Humphrey was running against Richard Nixon for president in that year’s election and planned to announce the deal in September or early October. He was running ahead and would’ve easily won the presidency with the peace deal.

Unfortunately, Nixon learned of the deal. His people reached out to the corrupt South Vietnamese administration and promised them riches if they’d refuse to go to Paris and sign the peace deal as planned. The FBI had been wiretapping the South Vietnamese and intercepted one of the conversations and handed it over to LBJ.

President Johnson called Everett Dirksen, the head of the Senate Republicans, and pointed out that Nixon was trying to “commit treason.” Dirksen agreed and promised that he’d reach out to Nixon to try to stop it. He failed, and Nixon went ahead and sabotaged the peace deal, leading to another ~24,000 American and ~400,000+ Vietnamese deaths before Jerry Ford ended the war in 1975.

Johnson told Dirksen that he didn’t want Americans to know that Nixon was committing treason to become president because he was afraid it’d shatter our faith in the American system; Dirksen agreed, and the secret went to their graves, only to be revealed to the public 25 years later when the LBJ library published the audiotapes of their conversations.

If Democrats had known, they could have shown up in the streets and stopped Nixon, but LBJ didn’t think there was enough time (he was probably right; Nixon would have just denied it and claimed it was a political hit job, fake news). So Nixon became president and, with his appointments of justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell to the Supreme Court making it majority Republican for the first time since the 1930s, changed the course of American history.

Then it happened again.

In November, 1979, Iranian “students” took the US Embassy and its staff hostage. Two months later, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr was elected prime minister of Iran on a platform of “release the hostages and normalize relations with the United States.” President Jimmy Carter reached out to Bani-Sadr and the two of them began the process of organizing the release of the hostages.

As Bani-Sadr later told The Christian Science Monitor after he fled to America, that year Ronald Reagan was running against Carter for the White House and his campaign reached out to the mullahs, who were the real power base in Iran, and offered them a deal. They had all this US-manufactured military hardware the Shah had bought and they desperately needed spare parts and compatible missiles; Reagan would help cement the power of the radical new regime by selling them the weaponry they needed if they’d just help him become president by hanging onto the hostages until after the election.

Carter and Bani-Sadr knew the mullahs had suddenly turned against releasing the hostages but didn’t learn until 1981 that it was because the Reagan campaign had committed treason to humiliate Carter and win the 1980 election. Reagan became president, illegally sold the Iranians weapons for the next five years (Iran/Contra), and used the money to illegally fund neofascists in Central America. He then declared war on unions, cut taxes on the morbidly rich, cut education funding, and flipped us out of the New Deal that had built the American middle class, leading straight to today’s widespread poverty and oligarchy.

The hostages were released by the mullahs on January 20, 1981 when Reagan put his hand on the bible to be sworn into office — to the minute — by way of sealing the deal.

If Democrats had known before the election, they could have shown up in the streets and stopped Reagan, but nobody learned even the rough details for a year, and it wasn’t until former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes made his confession to The New York Times in 2023 that we finally got solid confirmation from an American source. Reagan’s treason and 1980 election theft, then 43 years in the past, became a one-day story.

And then it happened again.

In 2000, Bill Clinton’s Vice President, Al Gore, was running against Texas Governor George W. Bush and the election was such a squeaker that it all came down to one state: Florida. Which was then run by George’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush.

Jeb ordered his Secretary of State (and the Florida head of George Bush for President) Katherine Harris to obtain a list of mostly-Black and Hispanic felons from George’s Texas penal system and run it against the Florida voter roll. The result was at least 10,000 — and by some estimates as many as 70,000 — mostly Black voters purged from the Florida voter list and unable to vote.

As a result, George W. Bush won Florida — and the presidency — by 537 votes. George’s father’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas (whose wife was taking interviews for positions in George’s White House), was the deciding vote on the US Supreme Court to ignore/violate the 10th Amendment and stop the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court (which would have revealed how Jeb/Harris had rigged the election).

If Democrats had known at the time, they could have shown up in the streets and stopped Bush, but nobody learned even the rough details of the GOP election rigging for several months when BBC reporter Greg Palast broke the story to an international audience and, a year later, a recount done by a group of newspapers found that Gore would, indeed, have won the recount.

All of which brings us to today.

Trump is openly trying to rig this fall’s election, as multiple mainstream outlets have documented. He’s put “election deniers” willing to commit crimes against democracy into critical positions, crippled the two offices in the Executive branch responsible for election integrity, ordered the Post Office to refuse to carry ballots in Democratic-run states with mail-in voting, is positioning ICE agents to intimidate voters, launched a national gerrymandering campaign, and has a handful of other threatened sleazy actions.

Republicans want to outlaw married women voting if they haven’t gone before a judge to change their last names (the SAVE Act), and Trump is trying to build a national voter database — in defiance of the Constitution — so he can help Red states with Blue cities purge their Democratic voters.

Unlike with Nixon, Reagan, or Bush, however, this time we know. We can see this coming. They’re doing much of it right out in the open. And that’s a huge advantage that we all must prepare for.

If it’s true that Trump became president in 2016, as Robert Mueller’s investigation found, because of major help from Putin, then the last legitimately elected Republican president who didn’t commit or at least flirt with treason was Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961).

By coincidence, he was also the last Republican president to reject the influence of America’s oligarchs and instead kept the top 90% income tax rate on oligarchs and actually worked to increase union membership and expand Social Security.

So, get ready. We know in advance at least some of the dirty tricks they’re going to try to pull. Musk and Zuck spinning their social media outlets; Fox, CBS, and CNN under oligarch’s thumbs; ICE disruption; seized ballots; corrupted mail; and now realistic, highly deceptive AI-generated Republican deepfakes are already appearing in the Texas senatorial election.

It’s going to get worse — these guys are now legitimately afraid of suffering the same fate as Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell (who went to prison) — but, once again, this time we can see it coming.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Trump's latest grift is the perfect metaphor for a cheat and loser

Of all the scandals that have beset the nation during the years of the Trump regime, few have so neatly represented the would-be dictator as his despoliation of the Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. The overgrowth of green slime caused by Donald Trump's idiotic attempt to refurbish the pool evokes the disgust most Americans now feel at the mention of his name.

This episode includes all the varieties of Trumpian scandal we now anticipate in regular rotation. Scheduled for completion by the Fourth of July's 250th anniversary, it is a shambles and yet another Trump-sponsored national disaster.

From its inception, this was a typical instance of corruption, which saw the White House deliver a no-bid contract to a firm called Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which just happened to have done similar work on swimming pools at the Trump Organization's Virginia golf club.

With no controls and little oversight, the cost of the contract keeps rising: having promised to spend no more than $1.8 million, Trump has paid over $14 million, and no doubt the price will continue to escalate.

Separately, but similarly, the White House gave a $1.7 million no-bid contract to another firm, Greenwater Services, to clean up the algae infestation in the Reflecting Pool. Like the initial contractor, this outfit also did work at a Trump golf club, in Bedminster, New Jersey. Naturally, its principal owner is a shady businessman, sporting a greasy pencil mustache, who happens to be a wealthy Trump donor, a Palm Beach neighbor of the president, and a conspirator in various bribery and illicit donation schemes.

Aside from the slime and sleaze, the Reflecting Pool fiasco captures the environmental ignorance and narcissistic vandalism that Trump embodies. While the administration might reasonably have tried to remedy the pool's longstanding drainage problems, Trump hired his cronies to coat the bottom with a substance in "American flag blue" that quickly began to peel off, causing more trouble.

Having failed to consult scientists -- whose wisdom he always disdains -- the president made the pool's problems worse by increasing the impact of climate change. Turning the pool dark heated it up and made it even more hospitable to algae growth.As the Cultural Landscape Foundation noted in a lawsuit filed to stop the painting of the pool, it is an "aesthetic injury" -- like so many Trump projects -- that will "fundamentally alter the existing harmony, solemnity and dignity of the current memorial landscape.

Although Trump and his minions have lied repeatedly about the Reflecting Pool, claiming it is crystal clear when everyone can gaze upon the murky results, he now needs someone to blame. Having botched this entire process with embarrassing stupidity and venality, he insists that the renovation scheme failed because of "vandalism." Indeed, he has claimed that numerous vandals have been apprehended.

But the one man arrested so far -- a former Olympic athlete named David Hearn, who merely reached into the pool to touch a detached piece of the coating -- is manifestly innocent. Like others targeted by this impulsive and malignant president, he seems certain to be exonerated.

Not so the White House vandal and his henchmen, however. We will spend many millions and many months cleaning up the destruction he leaves behind.

The one chance to take on Trump's pals before it's too late

The last time Americans faced such overwhelming evidence that the monied interests were screwing them over was the Great Crash of 1929 and ensuing Great Depression, resulting in the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, starting in 1933.

The one silver lining of the current Trump-Musk-Bezos-Ellison-Murdoch-Koch horror show is that most Americans now know beyond any reasonable doubt that they’re on the losing side of a class war, and are justifiably p------

America’s first trillionaire is a vicious white supremacist who’s stirring up hate around the world and backing Republican candidates with big bucks. American billionaires, meanwhile, are openly sucking up to America’s first dictator, spending lavishly on whatever he wants, and gobbling up media outlets so most Americans won’t know what’s going on.

Where has this gotten us? Workers’ share of the nation’s income has now dropped to the lowest it’s been since records began in 1947, while profits’ share is the highest since 1950 (showing up in a rip-roaring stock market).

This is morally wrong. “Income from capital risks replacing income from labor,” Pope Leo wrote in Magnifica Humanitas, his recent encyclical letter.

It’s also undermining our democracy. “America has a choice,” the jurist Louis Brandeis is reputed to have said. “We can have great wealth in a few hands or we can have a democracy, but we cannot have both.”

It’s time for Democrats to take on the class war that’s being waged by the nation’s oligarchy against most Americans by becoming class warriors themselves.

By class warrior I don’t mean resorting to violence or name-calling. I mean recognizing that a billionaire class is bad for America and calling for bold changes to reverse it: taxing great wealth, busting up monopolies, strengthening labor unions, raising the minimum wage, demanding profit-sharing and capital-sharing, ensuring Medicare for all and a universal basic income, and getting big money out of politics.

FDR wasn’t afraid to be a class warrior: “Never before in all our history have [the monied interests] been so unified against one candidate as they stand today,” he thundered in 1936. “They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

But these days, most Democratic politicians are reluctant to take on the oligarchs. Other than Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Zohran Mamdani, who else is loudly doing it?

Instead of being class warriors, many Democratic politicians are class worriers. They openly worry that inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity are out of control — but they won’t fight for what must be done. I’m talking about Third-way “moderate” Democrats who focus on “suburban swing” voters. and Washington-based consultants who urge Democratic candidates to move to the “center.”

Some Democrats are simply class wimps, so afraid of offending the monied interests that fund their campaigns they won’t even support modest reforms.

Even here in California, the putative home of progressive politics in America, too many Democratic politicians are wimping out. California Governor Gavin Newsom publicly opposes the wealth tax initiative now on California’s November ballot, for fear billionaires will leave the state (they won’t). San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie led the opposition to a city ballot measure to expand the city’s higher corporate tax rate on companies whose CEOs make at least 100 times more than their median employees. The measure was narrowly defeated.

This has to change. Unless Democrats stand up to the oligarchs now running this nation, there won’t be any alternative to Trump Republicanism in the future, or any reason for a Democratic Party.

This should be the Democrats’ hour. With inequality at levels never before seen, with a racist trillionaire and scores of billionaires poisoning our politics, with corporate profits at record heights while most American workers struggle harder than ever just to stay afloat, with a Republican majority in Congress slashing Medicaid and food stamps to finance a tax cut for the super-rich, with the looming threat of AI destroying jobs, and with one of the most brazenly corrupt politicians in American history now occupying the Oval Office — with all of this, Democrats should be at least as loud as they were under FDR.

The Democratic Party must seek to return to the American people the wealth and power that the obscenely rich have taken from them. This should be the core Democratic message. It explains the affordability crisis. It reveals the epidemic of corruption. It clarifies corporate welfare and crony capitalism. It shows what must be done.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.