Self and Others

A man does what’s right when no one is watching. He upholds his commitments to his family and neighbors. He doesn’t lie, cheat, & steal his way through life. Real men serve others. Weak men serve themselves.

– James Talarico

This week’s featured post is “All Americans Need Pride Now“.

Ongoing stories

  • Trump’s assault on American democracy. To me the week’s most disturbing quote was from DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. Testifying before a Senate committee, Mullin was asked (by Chris Murphy) whether he would commit to following court orders. Mullin could not say yes. Instead, he said he would follow orders he believed were legitimate, but not politically biased ones. In other words, he will be the judge of what the law says. That’s not how the rule of law works.
  • Climate change. El Nino continues to build, threatening record heat this summer.
  • Iran. Nothing new to report: Trump keeps saying Iran is defeated and a deal is at hand that will achieve all his goals. Iran keeps refusing to act like it’s defeated. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed and the world’s oil reserves continue to sink.
  • Ukraine. Phillips O’Brien’s biweekly updates continue to be the easiest good way to keep track of this conflict. Ukraine’s growing drone-and-missile campaign is making it increasingly difficult for Putin to claim that everything is OK.

This week’s developments

This week everybody was talking about budgets

The Senate passed the Republicans’ reconciliation bill. It needs to go back to the House now, where there may yet be some snags. Prevailing opinion is that it will wind up on Trump’s desk by the end of the week.

If you remember, originally this was about whether Congress could stop ICE and the Border Patrol from being rogue agencies that terrorize American cities and run concentration camps. But as so often happens, once the train started rolling a lot of other controversial issues got attached to it. So it’s easy to forget that this all started when Trump’s storm troopers murdered Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis. Democrats then proposed tying funding to some common-sense limits, the kinds of limits all other law-enforcement organizations already follow, like not wearing masks and going to a judge to get warrants.

Republicans refused to compromise on this, so the funding had to be dropped from the big appropriation bills that funded the rest of the government and then the rest of DHS. By going the reconciliation route, Republicans no longer needed Democratic votes, so they added a nasty kicker to the bill: It funds ICE for three years rather than the usual one. So if Democrats retake Congress in the fall, they won’t be able to defund this rogue agency. In essence, the reconciliation bill puts ICE beyond the power of the voters.

For a while the bill included money for Trump’s White House ballroom and the fund to pay off the thugs who rioted for him on January 6. But those provisions were too toxic even for Republicans, so they were removed. Acting AG Todd Blanche went so far as to say that the administration was dropping the proposed thug-fund, but he wouldn’t put it in writing, and Democrats failed to get explicit language into the reconciliation bill disallowing the fund. Trump says he still loves the idea, so we’ll see it again, either after he signs the bill or maybe after the fall elections.

But that dispute is about the current year’s budget. By October Congress will need to pass next year’s budget, where Trump wants to raise defense spending from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

Timothy Snyder observes that this kind of increase doesn’t make sense in any conventional frame.

Increasing the military budget from about a trillion dollars to about 1.5 trillion dollars makes no fiscal sense. We can’t pay for it without destroying basic government functions and soaking the American taxpayer. It makes no military sense. It is based upon no doctrinal innovation or review of technology. The “Trump-class” battleships it proposes are archaic, nonsensical, and more than a little embarrassing. The budget proposal makes no managerial sense. The Pentagon has never passed an audit, and Pete Hegseth has proven himself spectacularly unable to manage organizations of any kind. Putting an additional half a trillion dollars under his authority annually is superpower suicide.

It’s not like this is a Sputnik moment and we suddenly realize our potential adversaries are way ahead of us. It’s not like $1 trillion represented a whittled-down military that needs to be rebuilt. It’s also not like there’s an upswelling of public opinion demanding more defense. If you asked Americans what they want the Pentagon to spend $500 billion more on, you’d draw a blank from the vast majority of voters. And virtually nobody would volunteer to sacrifice their own benefits — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. — to pay for a bigger military.

So why then? Snyder has a theory:

The military budget proposal … makes authoritarian political sense. It is designed to popular among the people with guns who Trump imagines will help him control the population at large (and they should realize this, and they should be offended.) It shifts taxpayer money to soldiers and officers in exchange for their personal loyalty to an aspiring dictator. It is a bribe to stay in power as part of an attempt to change the regime of the United States. It is not a military budget but a military dictatorship budget.

and 60 Minutes

The story so far: Skydance Media, controlled by the Trump-allied Ellison family, bought Paramount Global, giving them control of CBS. The merger raised anti-trust issues, so Paramount paid a bribe to Trump (and fired Stephen Colbert after he used the word “bribe” on the air) to let it go through.

The Ellisons then turned CBS News over to Bari Weiss, whose experience was mainly as a opinion writer for print media. So she begins her career in broadcast journalism at the top, as head of the organization made great by people like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. I don’t have to summarize Weiss’ career, because John Oliver already did.

Weiss’ career has centered on claims of “liberal media bias”. So since taking over, Weiss has shifted CBS Evening News to the right, which has been disastrous for its ratings: CBS is never going to win over Fox News viewers, so all they have done is alienate the viewers they already had.

This week, she brought her wrecking ball to 60 Minutes, the most popular news show on television. Of course, she had already messed with 60 Minutes before, in December. Hours before its scheduled airing, she pulled Sharyn Alfonsi’s outstanding report on the CECOT prison in El Salvador that Trump was deporting people to. After the episode was leaked by a Canadian broadcaster, garnering Weiss a lot of bad press, she relented and let the episode air (with a few changes) four weeks later. Stephen Miller demanded that the people responsible for the report be fired, which Weiss at the time did not do.

But a week ago Thursday, heads began to roll, beginning with Alfonsi, but also including correspondent Cecilia Vega, executive producer Tanya Simon, and executive editor Draggan Mihailovich. Last Monday, correspondent Scott Pelley told the executives what he thought about their moves, and was subsequently fired himself. (Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, Anderson Cooper had left the show voluntarily in mid-May.)

Friday, the remaining correspondents — Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim — said they plan to stay on. But their joint statement was hardly a vote of confidence in the new leadership.

We want to express how sorry we are that these principled, fair and honest journalists were treated so shabbily, with such indecency. Tanya deserves to be celebrated, not cruelly cast off. Draggan too. It’s been heartbreaking. But, we have decided to stay on. We feared that our returning might be construed as an endorsement of the existing power structure. That is simply, categorically not the case. Here’s why we’re are staying: We don’t want to see 60 Minutes die.

Pelley gave an interview to the NYT where he fleshed out some of his previous claims of political interference from Weiss.

[A]bout four hours after our deadline, Bari Weiss sends an email to my boss, Tanya Simon. Two of the things in the email include, can we make the protesters look more violent? Now, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t have the quote, but that’s what was communicated to me. And the other thing, Renee Good’s car. You need to describe her as driving toward the officer.

This is not what you see on the video. On the video, you see the officer standing slightly off the front of the car. And you clearly see Ms. Good’s wheels turned completely as far as they will go, away from the officer. But he shoots her in the head, kills her, and says something about her that I can’t repeat in polite company.

We have gone out of our way in our plan from the very beginning to show the protesters for the responsibility that they had. We had already scrubbed the video archives, looking for those scenes. Somehow that wasn’t enough for Ms. Weiss. The video showed that the officer wasn’t standing in front of the car and she wasn’t driving toward him, but that’s what the president said about that, and that’s the way she wanted it described.

Jay Rosen is an insightful observer of journalism. Here’s his take: Maybe CBS looks so chaotic because no two executives are playing the same game.

If you follow the mess at CBS, don’t dismiss the possibility that Ellison thinks he’s been clear about playing nice with Trump, while Bari Weiss thinks she can get by with “Center Right,” while Nick Bilton thinks it’s Mike Wallace all over again— but super digital. All at once.

and the SpaceX scam

Elon Musk’s SpaceX (SPCX) will become a publicly traded company on Friday. This is sketchy for a bunch of reasons.

  • If the stock trades at anything like the asking price, it will be the biggest initial public offering (IPO) ever, raising $75 billion for the company and valuing the full enterprise at $1.75 trillion. That would launch SpaceX into the top 10 corporations by market capitalization, roughly the same size as Saudi Aramco and ahead of both Facebook and SpaceX’s sister-company Tesla.
  • Elon Musk’s stake will be worth over $800 billion, making him the world’s first trillionaire.
  • The asking price wildly overvalues the stock. The company is still losing money hand-over-fist, with a $4.3 billion loss in the most recent quarter. With no profits to go by, investors might evaluate the stock by its revenues. SpaceX’s asking price clocks in at 95 times revenues, compared to 20 times for a hot tech stock like Nvidea.
  • Musk has occasionally used SpaceX as a piggy-bank for Tesla. In 2025 SpaceX bought $131 million worth of Tesla Cybertrucks, representing 6-9% of the total sales of that marketing disaster.
  • Stock exchanges have bent their rules to get SpaceX into their indexes. That means that index funds (which are considered safe investments for retirement accounts) will be forced to buy the stock, no matter how overvalued it is.
  • Due to owning higher-vote shares, Musk will control 80% of the votes in any shareholder decision, so he can do anything he wants with the company. Fine print in the SpaceX prospectus means that minority shareholders have very little recourse if he mismanages the company.

When you put it all together, Musk is essentially defrauding America’s retirees. Here’s how the fraud works: Musk has a small-but-loyal following of investors who think he can do no wrong. By only offering a small percentage of SpaceX’s shares in the IPO, he has created a situation where their opinion of SpaceX’s worth can become the market price. Then, index funds will be forced to buy some sizeable percentage of all the shares available, creating an artificial demand that will pop the stock higher — at least temporarily.

The whole scheme is self-referential: People want to get in on the over-valued IPO, because they anticipate being able to sell at an even higher price to the bigger fools in the index funds.

When the market manipulation is over and the stock collapses, your 401k will be left holding the bag.

At the moment, here’s what you need to do: Check your retirement accounts to see if you have any Nasdaq or Russell index funds. If you do, sell them and move the money to an S&P 500 index, because that index hasn’t changed its rules to let SpaceX in prematurely.

In pro-capitalism propaganda, the great entrepreneurs’ quest for wealth creates more wealth than they can capture for themselves, so all of society benefits. This may have been true at certain points in capitalism’s history, but we’re past that now. Our current oligarchs are so powerful that they not only capture all the value of their innovations, they suck wealth away from the rest of us.

It’s worth noting that Musk has profited in the past by scamming the public. Remember DOGE? Musk was going to save the taxpayers $2 trillion in a single year by finding and eliminating government waste. In reality, he saved nothing.

What did the people in America actually get as a result of DOGE? Chaos at Social Security field offices, uncertainties about veterans’ access to critical care, the end of civil rights enforcement in schools, limited staff to go after corporate billionaire tax cheats, an unstaffed consumer complaint database leaving people vulnerable to bank scams, the end of foreign aid programs that led to the death of hundreds of thousands across the globe, and so much more. And that’s only what we’ve seen so far…as time goes on, we will see the impacts of the loss of expertise and capacity across federal agencies.

But in the process Elon walked away with more government contracts and untold quantities of illegally procured government data. Not a bad return for the $290 million he spent getting Trump elected.

and you also might be interested in …

I usually minimize Trump-acting-out stories, because they happen so often and get a lot of coverage without me. But the last few minutes of his Meet the Press interview with Kristen Welker stand out. Trump makes a series of unfounded claims about Democrats cheating in elections, both his 2020 loss to Joe Biden and this week’s California primary. Welker keeps insisting that he provide evidence for those claims — which he does not have because his claims are false. Trump responds by getting angry, insulting Welker, and leaving the set.

It amazes me the deductions many people never make. If you ask a guy for evidence and he starts sputtering insults, it seems obvious to me that he has no evidence. Similarly, if a detention center keeps out people who are legally entitled to inspect it, they must be up to no good in there. How can anyone deny that?

Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton, who turned against Trump and has consequently been prosecuted, will plead guilty to retaining classified information. Bolton appears to be one of the rare Trump enemies who is actually guilty of something, unlike E. Jean Carroll, James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell, Jack Smith, and a host of other people Trump’s Department of Injustice has been investigating and/or prosecuting simply as harassment.

The cartoon points out the irony of Bolton going down for something that Trump did much worse, but got away with after he won the election and took over the government.

Another crime Trump commits himself is insider trading. This week Trump pardoned a former Republican congressman convicted of insider trading. He made hundreds of thousands by trading stocks based on his inside knowledge of upcoming mergers.

A study says that deploying the National Guard to Washington D. C. has had very little effect on crime.

This doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve been to D. C. recently. The Guard seems to be there for show. I saw some troops deployed on the National Mall in daytime. That’s a high-traffic area that has got to be one of the safest places in the city. However, one night after dinner in a restaurant, I had to walk across the Mall after dark. This actually did make me nervous, though nothing happened. But the Guard was nowhere to be seen.

I concluded that the point of the deployment is for a lot of people to see the guardsmen and think “Trump is protecting us.” If nobody is around to see them, though, they don’t need to be there.

The NYT reports on Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Lebanon. I had thought this was a war crime in itself, but apparently the substance is itself legal, and only becomes illegal when it’s used in populated areas.

The Times does its best to tip-toe around accusing Israel of war crimes, but the photos in the article show white phosphorus plumes with buildings in the background.

After the first half-dozen happened with no political consequences, the Navy’s strikes on boats suspected of smuggling drugs have started to seem normal. It’s easy to forget that these are murders. Now we’re up to 200 or so of them.

Fascinating article about how America’s huge national debt interacts badly with the problems Trump caused in the world economy by attacking Iran. First, Jay Martin explains why the debt is not a problem in normal times:

Countries around the world – Japan, the UK, China, South Korea, and dozens of others – hold roughly $9.4 trillion worth of these American IOUs. They bought them because Treasuries are safe, liquid, and denominated in dollars. For decades, this system worked beautifully. The U.S. borrowed cheaply. Foreign governments parked their savings in a safe asset. Everyone won.

But the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has created a situation where lots of our creditors need to cash out at the same time: Oil exporters like the United Arab Emirates have seen their revenues drop without any corresponding drop in expenses. Oil importers like Japan need to pay more for imported oil. They all need to sell their Treasury bonds to raise cash.

Meanwhile, the US also needs to sell Treasuries because we don’t pay enough tax to cover our spending. (The government is running about a $2 trillion deficit this year. If a Democrat were president, this would be a big deal.)

So what happens when the number of sellers go up and the number of buyers doesn’t? Prices fall. Or (saying the same thing another way) buyers are in a position to demand higher interest rates. And if the world economy seems fragile now, picture it operating with higher interest rates.

There’s tough competition to be the least qualified person in a Trump cabinet meeting, but we’re about to have a new leader: Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence.

Pulte is a third-generation real estate guy and has no experience in intelligence. (The legislation establishing the DNI position lists experience as an essential qualification.) He has been serving as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency where he pleased Trump by cooking up mortgage fraud cases against Trump enemies like Letitia James and Adam Schiff. The James case was dismissed by the judge and Schiff has not been indicted.

We can expect Pulte to do two things as acting DNI: fire a lot of people and use the awesome powers of the intelligence agencies to harass more Trump enemies. We can only imagine how happy China and Russia will be to see America’s intelligence agencies masterminded by this bozo.

Most of us have heard about the leveling off of American life expectancy. Lately it has had some negative years and positive years, but the overall trend has been flat: up only a quarter of a year in the 2010s, compared to an average of 1.75 years per decade in the previous five decades. A variety of explanations have been floated: Covid, deaths of despair, bad diet, and so on.

A recent study looks deeper than the year-by-year mortality stats. It tracks generational cohorts and how their death rates compare to previous cohorts at similar ages. They found something interesting and worrisome: The cohort born in the 1940s had the lowest death rates per year. The 1950s cohort (mine) was only slightly worse, but marked a turn-around.

Among all the findings, the most alarming concerns Americans born after 1970. At the ages these people have already reached, roughly 30 to 49 depending on the cause of death examined, they are already dying at higher rates from heart disease, cancer, and external causes than people born just before them were dying at those same ages. Colon cancer, strongly tied to obesity and diet, is a particular concern, with death rates rising at younger ages beginning with cohorts born around 1955 and worsening from there.

Because the post-1970 generations are still relatively young, they represent a small percentage of total deaths, and so their effect on the nationwide life-expectancy averages hasn’t really shown up yet. But it will. Whether anything similar is happening in similar countries isn’t part of this study, but in recent decades they have been pulling away from the US averages.

and let’s close with a stunt

In honor of the NBA Finals, Jimmy Fallon recaps recent news while using the names of all 30 NBA teams.

June 8, 2026 – 12:39 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Post a comment

All Americans Need Pride Now

It’s the nature of fascism to keep expanding its list of enemies. No matter who you are, they’ll get to you eventually.

“First they came for the Communists …”

Martin Niemoller’s famous poem about the Nazis has been quoted so often it’s turning into a cliche. It describes how a tyrannical regime can peel off its enemies one little group at at time, allowing the rest of society to imagine it is somehow safe — until it isn’t.

When we repeat that poem today, we often imagine that the Nazis had all this planned from the beginning, that they were always going to come for Pastor Niemoller, and were just waiting until they had disposed of all his potential allies first. But quite likely that was not true. Going after one group and then another doesn’t have to be premeditated; it is baked into the fundamental nature of fascism. The list of enemy groups will inevitably keep expanding until the regime falls. Let me explain why.

I’ve been honing my definition of fascism ever since I first applied it to Donald Trump’s movement back in 2015. I wanted to use the word fascist in a meaningful way, rather than just as an insult. So rather than just throw it around, I defined what I meant by it and argued that my definition applied to the case at hand. I decided fascism is:

a dysfunctional attempt of people who feel humiliated and powerless to restore their pride by:

  • styling themselves as the only true and faithful heirs of their nation’s glorious (and possibly mythical) past,
  • identifying with a charismatic leader whose success will become their success,
  • helping that leader achieve power by whatever means necessary, including violence,
  • under his leadership, purifying the nation by restoring its traditional and characteristic virtues (again, through violence if necessary),
  • reawakening and reclaiming the nation’s past glory (by war, if necessary),
  • all of which leads to the main point: humiliating the internal and external enemies they blame for their own humiliation.

Eleven years later, I think that holds up pretty well, and matches closely what we’ve seen from the MAGA movement. Today, I think I’d sum up the fundamental fascist attitude more quickly: “Our nation was great and strong when we were pure. Now we are tainted and corrupt, but if we purify ourselves we will be great and strong again.”

Fascism looking outward is a quest for dominance, while fascism looking inward is a quest for purity.

To MAGA, purity has a number of key elements: white, English-speaking, male-dominated, Christian, and espousing traditional gender roles. Not every individual has to embody all those characteristics, but those factors have to be dominant in society.

But fascism inevitably fails to achieve its goals, because greatness has nothing to do with purity. When failure happens, though, there’s always a way to explain it away: “We just didn’t go far enough.”

We’ve seen this pattern in many places already. Capitalism is not making the bulk of our population prosperous any more, so the solution is more capitalism. Tax cuts haven’t created jobs, so the solution is more tax cuts. Cutting the government’s safety-net benefits hasn’t pushed people into the workforce, so we need more benefit cuts. And so on.

The same thing happens with purity. Trump won in 2024, partly on the idea that “illegal immigrants” were creating all our problems. Across the board, they were “poisoning the blood of our country“”like vermin“.

More specifically, they were criminals, so getting rid of them would solve the crime problem. They took our jobs, so if we got rid of them jobs would be plentiful. In spite of all those stolen jobs, they also bloated our safety-net programs, so getting rid of them would save money. And they were also somehow leveraging all those welfare payments and sub-minimum-wage jobs to bid up the price of housing, so getting rid them will make houses more affordable. They bring drugs and diseases, so getting rid of them will solve those problems. And so on.

So now that Trump has shut down the border and pushed many thousands of immigrants into concentration camps, all those problems should be getting better, right? But (other than the continuation of a long-term decline in violent crime), none of them have budged. We still have crime, under-employment, people on welfare, unaffordable housing, drugs, diseases, and the whole mess. Because in reality, undocumented immigrants had very little to do with any of that.

Of course, the Trump regime isn’t going to say “Sorry, I guess we were wrong.” It will claim, and is already claiming, that the reason an increase in purity hasn’t decreased our problems is that we aren’t pure enough yet.

So we don’t just need to cut out undocumented immigration, we need to cut documented immigration also. We’ve virtually stopped admitting non-White refugees (while seeking out White refugees). On the advancing edge of MAGA, we’re already hearing about “remigration“, i.e., plans to send non-White American residents (and even citizens) back to their ancestral homelands.

And it’s not just racial purity, it’s also purity in the sense of sexual morality. At the moment, the focus of MAGA’s sexual oppression is on trans people. But what happens after they have been suppressed, and America still has problems? If you draw the conclusion that we’re still not pure enough, who do we go after next? Gays and lesbians, I suppose, and then women who have gotten abortions. And promiscuous women. And then straight men and women who don’t act masculine or feminine enough. (You can see a preview of this in the campaign to smear Texas Senate candidate James Talarico.)

What about religious purity? If you buy the bogus argument that America was founded as a “Christian nation”, then all non-Christians are suspect. They already started with Muslims, because many of our external enemies are Muslims. But atheists won’t be far behind. And what if that’s not enough to solve all our problems? Hindus? Jews? Talarico-like Christians who foolishly try to follow the teachings of Jesus rather than Trump? (The Pentagon just reduced its list of recognized religious faiths from 211 to 31, 22 of which are Christian. My faith, Unitarian Universalism, is no longer recognized.)

You see where this goes. Once you’ve committed atrocities in the name of purity, you can’t admit that purity is a bogus value that has nothing to do with America’s problems. If problems haven’t been solved, we just haven’t gone far enough yet.

So here’s the thought I want to raise during 2026’s Pride Month: You may believe that Pride has nothing to do with you. Maybe you’ve never even thought about being a different gender. Maybe you’re happily rooted in a White heterosexual Christian marriage, with 2.3 children and a picket fence. Maybe you think the wave of oppression and bigotry will wash out long before it gets to you.

But it won’t, at least not on its own. Because purity is not a solution, and the further they travel on that road, the stronger the temptation to keep doubling down, to keep finding new enemy groups to purge. If they’re not stopped, they’ll get to you eventually.

So maybe we should stop them now, while they’re mostly just coming for immigrants and Muslims and trans people. Even if we’re not immigrants or Muslims or trans.

If any group of people are classed as subhuman, as vermin or poison, then everyone’s humanity is in doubt. If anyone does not deserve human rights, or can be shipped off to a hellhole without due process, then we’re all in danger.

We need to stand together while we still have people to stand with.

June 8, 2026 – 10:21 am Categories: Articles | Comments (3)

Tagged , , , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

As most of you probably realize, I benefit from a long list of privileges: I’m White, native-born, male, English-speaking, cisgender, heterosexual, educated, and so on. So whenever Pride Month rolls around, I’m confronted with the question: What does any of this have to do with me?

If you’re similarly privileged, you may feel like the attempts to demonize transfolk or roll back the rights of the gay and lesbian community are happening over there somewhere. Sure, it’s a shame, but my life goes on.

This week I want to address that response with reference to the Martin Niemoller poem that begins “First they came for the Communists”. Niemoller’s creeping list of enemies-of-the-state isn’t some historical artifact. Fascist movements need an ever-expanding set of enemies; it’s in the DNA of Fascism. So the fact that they haven’t gotten to you yet doesn’t mean that they won’t. Probably they will, if their regime lasts long enough.

That’s the topic of the featured post, “All Americans Need Pride Now”. If there is any group of people who can be treated as subhuman, as undeserving of human rights, then we are all at risk. Those black holes of subhumanity tend to grow, and to keep sucking more and more of society. Thinking it’s not about you is short-sighted. I’ll try to get that post out by 10 EDT.

The weekly summary has a lot to cover: Republicans in the Senate passed their reconciliation bill, with gestures of resistance to Trump’s worst ideas, but no firm stands against them. The destruction of CBS News continued, with the new Trump-friendly management knocking down its most popular pillar, 60 Minutes. SpaceX is set to go public in a way that will funnel your money into Elon Musk’s pocket. The life-expectancy issue is a scarier than previously thought. Trump faced a number of reversals in court. And a few other things happened. I’ll try to get the summary out before 1.

June 8, 2026 – 8:42 am Categories: Morning tease | Post a comment

No Sift Next Monday

The next new articles will appear on June 8.

May 26, 2026 – 7:08 am Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (3)

Like No One Has Ever Seen Before

The president is suing himself and compensating other people for legal claims that have not been identified from people that we don’t know. We just haven’t seen anything like that.

– Adam Zimmerman

This week’s featured post is “Has Trump finally pushed Republicans too far?“

Ongoing stories

  • Trump’s assault on American democracy. The fund to reward January 6 rioters for their crimes essentially makes Congress and the courts irrelevant. So bad as it is in itself, the precedent it sets is much worse.
  • Climate change. See the closing for a creative response to climate-change-related flooding in West London.
  • Iran war. Trump is always saying that he’s close to an agreement with Iran, so I ignore those claims. But this weekend, some other sources were saying the same thing and laying out some sketchy details.
  • Ukraine. This week, Phillips O’Brien’s update describes how Ukraine’s medium-range strike ability is shutting down the main supply road for Russia’s forces, while it’s long-range strikes are targeting Russia’s oil refineries.

This week’s developments

This week everybody was reacting to Trump’s “thug fund”

I talk about the political implications of this for Republicans in the featured post. But it’s important to take a step back and just see it on its own terms. Trump has found a way to get the US Treasury to pay for his private army of brownshirts.

The striking thing about this “settlement” is that nobody who isn’t answerable to Trump has anything to do with it. Trump’s Justice Department negotiated the agreement with Trump’s IRS, and avoided letting any judge oversee the result. The five commissioners who run the fund will be appointed by Trump, and can be removed by him at will. The fund has no obligation to reveal who it has given the money to.

So the upshot is that Trump, on his own, is removing $1.8 billion from the Treasury and doing whatever he wants with it.

and rumors of a deal with Iran

Maybe it’s real this time, maybe not. The devil is in the details. One thing that seems clear: The terms are nothing close to the “unconditional surrender” Trump said he was aiming for. Axios reports:

The agreement the U.S. and Iran are close to signing involves a 60-day ceasefire extension during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened, Iran would be able to freely sell oil, and negotiations would be held on curbing Iran’s nuclear program, according to a U.S. official.

The thing to watch for is whether Trump just gets back to the pre-war situation, if he falls short of that, or if he makes some gain. That will tell you who won the war. The Strait was open before the war started, and we were already negotiating about Iran’s nuclear program. So if that’s the deal, what did the war accomplish, beyond spending a lot of money, raising gas prices, and depleting our stock of weapons?

Jennifer Rubin:

If this deal holds, there will be no question that Trump’s war amounted to a major strategic failure. Maybe we get an agreement similar to the JCPOA, which would have been in place had Trump not exited the deal. (Getting back in war something you already had is nothing to cheer about.) The agreement would leave the regime (perhaps more radical than ever) in place, deny Israel any permanent end to the Iranian threat, reveal the limits of U.S. influence and power in the region, and, by default, afford China (as evidenced by Trump’s pathetic showing at the summit) increased stature and confidence. Preventing a restart of a war no one wanted and an end to the energy shock Trump provoked can hardly been called “wins.”

But anyway, wait for real details before getting too excited one way or the other.

I have to laugh at the Republican senators warning that we can’t trust Iran to negotiate in good faith. Why would anyone trust Trump to negotiate in good faith? The air attacks that killed most of Iran’s ruling council happened while negotiations were underway in Geneva.

and the Democratic “autopsy”

It’s common for a political party that loses an election to fund some kind of study about why it lost, in hopes that something can change before the next election.

The Democrats funded such a report after 2024, but then didn’t release the results. Recently a partial report surfaced. It’s 192 pages and I admit I have only skimmed small parts of it. It has drawn a lot of commentary, almost entirely negative. The main criticism repeated many times is that the report avoids a lot of significant issues:

  • Biden should have dropped out soon enough for there to be a real nomination process, rather than just a coronation of Harris.
  • The Israel/Gaza situation demoralized a lot of progressive voters.
  • Harris needed a response to the anti-trans message that Trump focused on in the closing weeks.

All the same, I’m not sure I would have focused on any of that if I had written a report, because it’s not likely to matter as much in 2028. I mean, Biden isn’t going to try to run again, we will have a nomination process, and the winning candidate will probably have a different message about Israel or trans rights (not that I know what it will be).

A lot of what is in the report sounds like platitudes: court rural votes better, for example. Or build up the state and local party operations. Great. Tell me how.

An interesting counterpoint to most of the chatter about the report comes from the Strength In Numbers blog, which focuses on data.

When we boot up the data, it’s obvious the main reason Harris lost — and the reason I am going to explore here, at this website, it being a data-driven website — is that 2024 simply had too much inflation-induced anti-incumbent sentiment for the incumbent party to overcome.

The author puts together a model for predicting how an incumbent party should do based on approval of the current president and public optimism/pessimism about the economy. That model predicts Harris should have done slightly worse than she actually did.

So maybe Harris wasn’t such a bad candidate and didn’t run such a bad campaign. Maybe all our 2024 autopsies are trying to analyze factors that made no difference.

and you also might be interested in …

The Ebola outbreak in the Congo comes at a bad time. The Trump regime has cut way back on programs to track and mitigate diseases in Africa.

The only refugees the Trump regime is taking in any numbers are the white South Africans who feel oppressed by the Black-majority government. This week they announced plans for 10,000 more.

But racism is over in this country. John Roberts says so.

Wish I’d said that: Tom Tillis commented on Ken Paxton, who will probably be the Republican nominee for a senate seat in Texas now that he has Trump’s endorsement:

To call Paxton ‘ethically challenged’ is to call Jeffrey Dahmer suffering from an eating disorder.

RIP Barney Frank. I was in the same room with Frank once, at a fund-raiser for another congressman. He predicted 2020 would be a 1964-scale Democratic landslide, which didn’t happen. Biden’s win was convincing, but not LBJ-like.

Trump missed Don Jr.’s wedding in the Bahamas Saturday. I just note the fact and refuse to speculate about the reason.

Tulsi Gabbard will resign as Director of National Intelligence at the end of June. Her stated reason is to support her husband, who has just been diagnosed with cancer. The rumor mill says that she’s out because she can’t get behind Trump’s foreign wars.

It’s tempting to be happy she’s leaving, because she never should have had this position to begin with. But she’s likely to be replaced with someone just as unqualified and less independent.

In a recent CNBC interview, Jeff Bezos said that Trump is “more mature, more disciplined” in his second term.

I have a theory about what has happened to Bezos lately: His first wife was his conscience. And now she’s gone, so he’s just another rich asshole. Meanwhile, she’s using her divorce settlement to do all kinds of good.

and let’s close with something creative

As the climate changes, London’s famous fog and drizzle is more often turning into serious rain. So West London had a flooding problems that it could try to solve with expensive public works projects. Instead, it has brought in beavers, who had been virtually extinct in Britain.

In West London, conservationists got a government license to resettle a family of five beavers in a 20-acre urban park near the Greenford Tube station. It used to be a golf course, with a creek running through it. Within weeks, the beavers dammed up the creek, creating a pond that holds water and stops it from spilling into the city. They also diverted the creek’s flow into smaller tributaries, creating a wetland that better absorbs heavy rainfall — mitigating the risk of flooding downstream.

“They effectively turned this site into a giant sponge that can take heavy rainfall and slowly release water back into the landscape, creating a lot more resilience for flooding,” explains Sean McCormack, a local veterinarian who started the Ealing Beaver Project, named for the London borough of Ealing, where it’s located.

May 25, 2026 – 12:35 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (3)

Has Trump finally pushed Republicans too far?

I hate to even ask this question, because it’s been discussed so often over the years, and the hopes raised have (up until now) always been dashed. But maybe? Maybe?

Way back in 2015, when Trump came down the escalator characterizing Mexican immigrants as rapists, and then a few weeks later denigrated John McCain’s war record, the conventional wisdom was certain that he had gone too far. Outrageousness had always been his shtick, but this was too much. Surely even his supporters would start backing away from him now.

Needless to say, it didn’t happen. It also didn’t happen after he bragged to Billy Bush that he could “grab ’em by the pussy” and get away with it. Or when two dozen women verified that he really did behave that way. Or when a jury unanimously concluded that he had sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.

It didn’t happen when he said he trusted Vladimir Putin more than American intelligence services. Or when his mismanagement of the Covid pandemic expanded the death toll by hundreds of thousands of American souls.

It didn’t happen when he withheld aid approved by Congress in an attempt to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into launching a bogus investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Or when he was impeached for that. Or when he incited rioters to attack the Capitol to reverse the result of the election he lost to Biden. Or when he was impeached for that. Or when he pardoned the rioters of all the crimes they had committed in his name, including hospitalizing over a hundred Capitol police.

Every time, very smart people told us this was it, he had finally gone too far. But it was never true.

So why might it be true now?

The downward slide. Hemingway once said that bankruptcies happen two ways: gradually, and then suddenly. The undermining of Trump’s popularity has been following a similar pattern.

For months, Trump supporters have been getting less and less sure of themselves. Maybe it began with the Epstein Files, which Trump had campaigned on releasing, and then did his best to hide once he got into office. (His Justice Department is still dragging its feet, and Trump keeps flirting with the idea of pardoning Epstein’s primary accomplice — the only one currently in jail for Epstein’s crimes.) Or when the prices he said when come down “on Day One” kept climbing — often due to Trump’s own policies like illegal tariffs and the effect of his war with Iran. Or when he attacked Iran for no discernible reason after running on not starting foreign wars.

That all resulted in a steadily declining approval rating from the general public, to levels unlike anything he had seen before.

That set the stage. But more recently three events have brought it into focus: the White House ballroom, his insider stock trades, and (most of all) the $1.776 billion fund he has illegally created to reward the same violent criminals he pardoned for the January 6 riot.

Primary voters. Probably the last people to leave Trump will be the MAGA faithful who show up to vote in Republican primaries where he has made an endorsement. Recent results have shown him to still be strong there — strong enough to punish Republicans in Congress who step out of line.

So Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) lost his primary on Tuesday after being targeted by Trump for (among other things) pushing to release the Epstein Files. Last week Republican Senator Bill Cassidy also lost his primary five years after voting to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial. Neither Massie nor Cassidy, though, had defined himself as anti-Trump. Both pitched themselves as loyal Trump Republicans who maintained just a smidgen of independence.

But that’s not good enough for Trump, and he clearly retains enough sway with Republican voters to punish elected officials who cross him in any way at all. Tomorrow we’ll get another test: Trump has endorsed Texas’ corrupt attorney general, Ken Paxton, over Senator John Cornyn, who not long ago was in contention to be Majority Leader. Cornyn’s sins are even less tangible than Massie’s or Cassidy’s — he hasn’t been enthusiastic enough about Trump’s agenda to want to scrap the Senate filibuster. Trump also ousted Indiana legislators who refused to redraw their state’s congressional map.

Republicans in Congress. But Republicans in Congress don’t just have primaries to worry about. In spite of gerrymandering, some have to win in competitive districts, where they need votes from independents and maybe even a few Democrats. Senators, meanwhile, have to run statewide. So unless they’re from clearly red states, they also need support from more than just Trump and his most fervent followers.

That’s where you would expect to see the cracks form first — and we’re seeing them in two places: the reconciliation bill trying to move through the Senate, and the war powers resolution attempting to limit the Iran War. In both cases, Republican leaders in Congress adjourned for the Memorial Day recess rather than hold a vote that they would lose.

The reconciliation bill. Remember how this started. After Trump’s masked police (some combination of ICE and the border patrol) terrorized Minneapolis, murdering Alex Pretti and Renee Good, Democrats refused ICE and CBP any further funding without putting some common-sense restrictions on these rogue agencies.

first, federal immigration agents need to remove masks, turn on their body cameras, and wear visible, clear identification. Second, Democrats want to end the roving patrols. This is a nation of laws guided by the Constitution that everyone—including ICE—must abide by. This means that federal immigration officials must stop racial profiling and end random arrests; and agents must obtain a judicial warrant signed by a neutral judge—not an administrative warrant—to enter private property. They also cannot detain Americans for hours or use excessive force against them just for peacefully protesting in support of their neighbors and friends. Third, Democrats are demanding accountability. ICE and Border Patrol squads cannot indiscriminately smash in car windows, use tear gas on protestors, and shoot at people without any accountability.

Republicans refused any meaningful limits on ICE, and resolved to fund the mass-deportation agenda without Democratic votes (the same way they passed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” last year). That was the origin of the current reconciliation bill.

Since then, the bill has become a Christmas tree with all kinds of baubles on it. Trump wanted it to include $1 billion for his White House ballroom — which originally wasn’t supposed to cost the taxpayers anything (beyond the cost of whatever favors Trump offered donors). Senators balked at this, but then were bailed out by the Senate parliamentarian, who ruled that the ballroom funding violated the arcane rules that govern reconciliation bills. Trump then demanded that Majority Leader Thune fire the parliamentarian, which he has not done.

The reconciliation bill doesn’t fund Trump’s corrupt “anti-weaponization” fund, which the Justice Department claims it can create with money from a fund previously established to pay settlements of lawsuits against the government. But there is no settlement in this case. Settlements are overseen by courts, and probably no judge would sign off on what Trump wants.

On May 20—the same day the parties’ jurisdictional briefs had been due—[the judge] issued an order formally closing the case. In her order, she noted that the Justice Department, which has an “independent obligation to uphold the ‘public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources,’” had “neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.”

So if it’s not in the bill, why is the fund a problem for Senate Republicans? The reconciliation process allows the opposing party a chance to offer amendments. Democrats are almost certain to propose an amendment saying that no federal money can be spent on the anti-weaponization fund, or perhaps just that no money be awarded to people who have been convicted of assaulting police officers or committing sedition against the United States. Since those are precisely the people Trump wants to reward, he will demand Republican senators vote against such an amendment. And how will they explain such a vote to their constituents?

That prospect set up a tumultuous private meeting between Republican senators and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is spearheading the anti-weaponization fund effort. Mitch McConnell came out saying this:

So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — Take your pick.

The upshot was that the reconciliation vote wasn’t held before senators left for the Memorial Day recess. Whether any of this can be resolved after they come back in June is still up in the air.

Iran war. We’re now three months into a war that Trump insisted was won on the first day. He has never explained the goals of the war to the American people, and has never gone to Congress for authorization. He just wanted to attack Iran, so he did. Why does anybody need to know any more than that? The reasons he gives may shift from tweet to tweet, but why does that matter?

Democrats have been proposing resolutions to limit the war since it began, but Republicans have been holding them at bay. But defections on the Republican side have been building up, and a resolution asking Trump to withdraw American forces by the end of June looked ready to pass the House Thursday, forcing Speaker Johnson to delay the vote until after the Memorial Day recess.

Of course, Trump could veto that resolution even if it passes, and there aren’t nearly enough votes to override such a veto. So the legal effect of passing the resolution would have been nil. But putting the House on record opposing Trump’s war would be a big deal.

And eventually, Congress will need to appropriate some money to pay for all the bombs and missiles and military deployments. What will happen then?

Where are we? Opposed to the now-he’s-gone-too-far conventional wisdom is the Trump-has-a-floor view that his base of support is unshakeable. What seems to be true is something in between. The process of Trump’s fall should go something like this: He’ll lose the support of independents who voted for him in 2024 (which has pretty much already happened). Then Republican senators and congresspeople will peel off one-by-one, which has been happening slowly for several months. Then the drip-drip of leaking support will become a flood. Eventually, even previously fervent supporters will go silent, or forget that they were ever MAGA.

It won’t happen all at once. There’s even a chance that a deal-on-paper with Iran will reduce the pressure on the GOP congressional majorities to assert themselves, or that some fig-leaf concessions on the ballroom or the weaponization fund will allow the reconciliation bill to pass.

But the erosion is still happening. Long-term, I don’t think it can be stopped.

May 25, 2026 – 11:04 am Categories: Articles | Comments (4)

Tagged , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

This week, Senate Republicans left town for the Memorial Day recess without passing the reconciliation bill they’ve been drafting ever since Democrats refused to fund ICE without reforms. (Reconciliation is a process that circumvents a Senate filibuster, and so would allow Republicans to fund a number of programs on a pure party-line vote.) This bill touches on a number of controversial issues beyond ICE, but what derailed the process was Trump’s corrupt “anti-weaponization” fund to funnel taxpayer money to the violent criminals who invaded the Capitol on January 6.

At the same time, the House looks ready to pass a war-powers resolution calling for limits on the Iran War. Speaker Johnson had to take the bill off the floor to stop it.

Those two actions, together with some very public grousing about the cost of Trump’s gilded ballroom, suggests that (as the midterms approach and the regime makes ever-more-outrageous demands) Trump is losing his ability to dominate Congress.

Now, I hesitate to raise this idea, because we’ve lived through 10 years of speculation that Trump had finally gone too far, and his Republican support was about to crack. But it hasn’t. Is this time different?

That’s the subject of this week’s featured post, which should be out between 10 and 11 EDT.

The weekly summary will look at the rumors of a deal with Iran, Barney Frank, Tulsi Gabbard’s resignation, the progress of the Ukraine War, the Democratic “autopsy” of 2024, and a few other things. It should be out a little after noon.

May 25, 2026 – 8:35 am Categories: Morning tease | Post a comment

Narrow Ideology

We are deeply concerned that what is really being rededicated is a nation to a very narrow and ideological part of the Christian faith that betrays our nation’s fundamental commitment to religious freedom.

– Rev. Adam Russell Taylor on Sunday’s “Rededicate 250” rally

This week’s featured post is “Is Corruption the Democrats’ Unifying Theme?“

Ongoing stories

  • Trump’s assault on American democracy. It just broke today: Trump’s Justice Department established a $1.7 billion fund to pay “damages” the US owes to Trump’s January 6 brownshirts for harassing them by convicting them of their crimes.
  • Climate change. I lost track of this issue this week. I’ll do better.
  • Iran war. Announcing fake peace deals is getting old, so Trump issuing ominous threats again. The basic situation hasn’t changed: Trump wants Iran to surrender, but he hasn’t defeated them. He talks about a “deal”, but an authentic deal has benefits for both sides.
  • Ukraine. The war is still a stalemate, but seems to be turning Ukraine’s way. Both sides are pummeling each other with missile and drone attacks, but Ukraine is attacking strategic industries while Russia is terror-bombing civilian targets.

This week’s developments

This week everybody was talking about Trump in China

I continue to wonder why media outlets cover what Trump says, given how often it turns out to be meaningless. Trump came out of China boasting of “fantastic trade deals”, but no one can get details and Chinese sources don’t verify those deals.

I was surprised to hear Chinese leader Xi Jinping make a classical Greek reference I had to look up. He warned against a “Thucydides Trap“, which is when a declining power feels that it has to fight a war to keep down a rising power. (Thucydides chronicled the Peloponnesian War between rising power Athens and declining power Sparta.)

The reference implicitly slammed the US as a declining power. Trump did not rise to the occasion.

and Black voting rights in the South

One fact to remember when you read articles about redistricting: Prior to the round that began with Texas, gerrymandering had pretty much balanced out. In 2024, Republican congressional candidates won a small majority in the popular vote, and they got a small majority in Congress.

Now, it’s looking like the Republicans have given themselves a 10-15 seat advantage, which probably won’t be enough to save their House majority in November.

and inflation

[Having just posted two Nick Anderson cartoons in a row, I feel obligated to recommend that you subscribe to his Substack or follow him through Raw Story.]

The inflation rate in April hit a 3.8% annual rate, which is higher than the 3% when Trump was inaugurated in January 2025.

and you also might be interested in …

Trump’s approval rating continues to sink: 37% in today’s NYT/Siena poll, and 38% in the NYT’s polling average. Only 30% think the Iran attack was a good decision.

Austin Ahlman is an independent running for Congress in Nebraska against a Republican incumbent and a Democratic challenger. I knew nothing about him yesterday, but today I know that he can make one hell of a campaign video.

Your tax dollars paid for a Christian nationalist rally on the National Mall Sunday. (Remember when the Trump regime was all about rooting out government waste?) “Rededicate 250” was part of Trump’s one-sided celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Religion Unplugged commented:

The Rev. Adam Russell Taylor, a Baptist minister who heads the progressive Christian organization Sojourners, noted: “We are deeply concerned that what is really being rededicated is a nation to a very narrow and ideological part of the Christian faith that betrays our nation’s fundamental commitment to religious freedom.”

The role of Christianity in early American history is complex and should be presented in a nuanced way: Yes, the vast majority of Americans in 1776 thought of themselves as Protestant Christians. (Catholics who buy into the idea that we were founded to be a Christian nation should be careful: The same argument would say that you also are a second-class citizen.) Patrick Henry, for one, would probably fit in well in an Evangelical church today.

However, a significant number of the Founders (Franklin, Jefferson) were essentially Deists, Thomas Paine was very close to being an atheist, and Washington’s Christianity was vague at best. The Constitution does not mention God, which was a radical statement at the time. Contrast it with the Magna Carta, whose second paragraph begins:

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers …

But the Constitution’s only mentions of religion curb religious excess. (“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”). The Founders were familiar with the destruction wrought over the centuries as various sects of Christians battled for control of the government of England. That’s why they created a secular government for this country, regardless of any of their personal beliefs.

BTW: All the media accounts I’ve seen refer to “thousands” of people in attendance, which is not that big for an event like this. This picture from WaPo (during Marco Rubio’s presentation) shows a lot empty chairs.

Whether you know it or not, somebody you care about is taking anti-depressant drugs under a prescription from their doctor. In their later years both of my parents did, and both described the effects as life-changing. My father in particular had reached the point of despair, but became himself again.

Our quack Secretary of HHS, RFK Jr., would like to change all that. Speaking from a vast wisdom that doesn’t depend on mundane details like medical studies or other tangible evidence, Kennedy says prescribing anti-depressants is a form of “over-medicalization”, which his fevered imagination pictures as a cause of addiction and even violence. He recommends doctors prescribe non-drug remedies like exercise. (Have you ever tried to get a depressed person to exercise?)

Stat News comments:

Kennedy’s willfully uninformed rhetoric on antidepressants is going to cost lives. The similarity to his anti-vaccine chatter is clear: When you bad-mouth effective, lifesaving vaccines, you end up driving people away from lifesaving medical care. Kennedy’s antidepressant rhetoric is not only based on bad science, it fuels distrust in mental health treatments at a time when adolescent depression, anxiety, and suicide rates are at record highs.

The Department of WarDefense has just released a trove of previously classified documents pertaining to UFOs.

I didn’t consider that particularly interesting, but this piece from the WaPo “Awakenings” newsletter is: Belief in UFOs, religion professor Diana Walsh Pasulka notes, is taking on many of the roles traditionally played by religion.

It organizes communities of belief, creates narratives of revelation, offers cosmological meaning and establishes interpretive frameworks through which people understand mysterious experiences and humanity’s place in the universe. … Mistrust of institutions has powered the rise of anti-institutional forms of belief. Religious impulses have migrated into new technological and media environments that bypass gatekeepers.

Historians have been upgrading their opinions of President Dwight Eisenhower. At the time he was often dismissed as a “do-nothing president” who presided over a boring era, providing a backdrop for a charismatic JFK presidency and the socially transformative Johnson presidency.

I wonder if the Trump presidency has raised historians’ opinion of boring government. Yes, Ike didn’t appear to be doing much. But among the things he didn’t do: He didn’t bail out the French after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu. He didn’t roll back the New Deal. He didn’t give in to the temptation to take advantage of our lead in nuclear weapons.

and let’s close with something impressive

This peacock is yet another image from The Guardian’s “Week in Wildlife“.

May 18, 2026 – 1:10 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (5)

Is Corruption the Democrats’ Unifying Theme?

Maybe the reason the government is working so badly for you is that it works so well for him.

Ever since he came down the escalator in 2015, Donald Trump has posed a unique problem for his opponents: There’s so much to run against, how do you focus?

  • Maybe his ongoing attack on democratic governance and the rule of law is the most serious problem. But that can sound legalistic and abstract to a low-information voter. Harris tried to make democracy a major issue in 2024, and it didn’t get traction.
  • Maybe in the long run his gutting of the already-inadequate Obama/Biden response to climate change is the most serious thing. But there you run into a fossil-fuel-company disinformation campaign that has been going on for decades. Lots of Americans just don’t believe in climate change and don’t see why they should make sacrifices to head it off.
  • Maybe we need to turn around his “Promises Made; Promises Kept” slogan and point to all the reasons his supporters should be disappointed: Inflation is worse, not better. The deficit has gone up, not down. Tariffs and deportations haven’t opened up manufacturing jobs for Americans. Quite the opposite of exposing Epstein’s co-conspirators, his Justice Department has been helping hide them. Rather than curb wasteful government spending, he has pushed for expensive vanity projects like a billion-dollar ballroom and the Arc de Trump. After claiming that Harris would get us into another expensive war, he has gotten us into another expensive war.
  • Maybe we should push a class theme: Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” cut billionaire’s taxes and paid for it by cutting food and healthcare benefits for the working poor.
  • Maybe Trump’s personality is the problem: the constant lying, the childish insults, his mistreatment of women, and the way he demands a North-Korea-like level of praise from everyone in his administration. But Trump has a unique teflon-coating in this area. His over-the-top rhetoric channels the free-floating anger many voters feel.

I could go on. But if you don’t focus, if you catalog everything, you sound obsessive. Trump’s counter-narrative is that his critics have Trump Derangement Syndrome, an irrational urge to denounce anything Trump does. (The real TDS, in my opinion, is suffered by the Republicans who abandoned their previous principles to follow Trump: the libertarians who are now pro-autocracy, the deficit hawks who support both cutting taxes and fighting unnecessary wars, the religious leaders for whom Trump’s personal immorality doesn’t matter, and so on.)

The underlying problem is that everything is a distraction from everything else. Picking out one thing seems to imply that the others are acceptable. And that gets us squabbling among ourselves rather than uniting in opposition.

If only there were a theme that was unifying rather than divisive. Is there any aspect of the Trump regime that could serve as a trunk, with all the other objections as branches?

The Hungarian example. Péter Magyar faced a similar problem when he ran against Viktor Orbán, the neo-fascist autocrat of Hungary. Like Trump, Orbán had been an across-the-board negative influence on Hungarian society for many years. But as a result, the people who ought to oppose him did not form any coherent whole. So how could they be united behind a single party or candidate?

Magyar chose to focus on one central issue: corruption. And it worked.

Could it work for us?

Trump’s corruption. There’s a lot to work with here. To start with, there’s the bottom-line result: Trump’s net worth has skyrocketed since he got re-elected. Somehow, being president again has tripled his wealth in less than two years.

How? According to Forbes:

His cryptocurrency ventures, stalled out before the election, exploded after his victory, adding an estimated $1.8 billion to his fortune overall. Another $500 million came in court, where Trump’s legal team succeeded in eliminating a half-billion judgement against him. His once-dormant licensing business surged $400 million, as foreign developers clamored to do business with an American president.

Then there are the bribes channeled through lawsuits. For example, Trump filed a legally baseless lawsuit against CBS, but the parent company Paramount paid $16 million to the Trump Library to settle it — and got approval for its merger with Skydance. ABC had previously settled a similarly frivolous lawsuit for $15 million.

Then there are the indirect bribes, like Qatar giving a $400-million airplane to the Trump Library rather than directly to him, or the government contracts his sons are getting, or son-in-law Jared Kushner doing billions of dollars in private business ventures with the same governments he’s negotiating with for the United States.

This level of corruption has filtered down to his appointees, like border czar Tom Homan, who reportedly was taped taking $50,000 in a bag. (The investigation into Homan was quashed and Pam Bondi refused to answer questions about it in a congressional hearing.) Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem reportedly commissioned her own “palace in the sky” for $70 million.

This week’s self-dealing. But it’s hard to find a more blatant example of corruption than Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Supposedly, this is about the damage he suffered from having his tax returns leaked to the New York Times.

Bear in mind that all presidents since Nixon have released their tax returns voluntarily, for free, because the American people have a right to know how their presidents have been making money. Trump repeatedly had said he would release his returns, but always claimed there was some reason it couldn’t happen immediately.

Who knew that information was worth $10 billion?

Trump also has filed claims against the government for $230 million, concerning fantasized abuses of the investigations into his dealings with Russia and the successful FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago home. (Both were entirely justified. Most obviously the Mar-a-Lago search: Trump illegally kept classified documents after he left the White House and became a private citizen. He told the government he had turned everything in. But the FBI searched for additional classified documents and found them.)

So anyway, these are claims in which Trump as an individual is suing the government he heads. He is effectively controlling both sides of the process — literal self-dealing. In April, a federal judge objected, requiring both “sides” to write memos explaining how this suit belongs in an adversarial process, when the two sides are not adversaries.

Rather than do that, according to both ABC News and the New York Times, Trump planned to “settle” with himself, by using $1.7 billion of taxpayer funds to create a slush fund controlled by Trump that could be used to pay off anyone who claimed to have been damaged by the Biden administration’s “weaponization” of the Justice Department: For example, the violent criminals who assaulted police officers on January 6.

All weekend, the obviousness of this scheme created bad publicity for the Trump regime. But that didn’t stop him. This morning, Trump dropped the lawsuit and the slush fund got created.

How is corruption a unifying theme? Trump’s corruption deserves to be an issue in its own right. It’s unparalleled in American history. (Even past corrupt presidencies typically didn’t enrich the president directly. Grant, for example, wrote his memoirs as he was dying so that his widow could have some money to live on after he was gone.) Any of a dozen or so similar scandals would have sunk any previous administration. (Think about how the Republicans tried to spin Hunter Biden, and what small potatoes all that is compared to Jared, Eric, and Don Jr.)

But Magyar made corruption unifying like this: The government isn’t working for you because it’s not trying to. It’s trying to work for him.

Do you not see what you’re getting from the Iran War? You’re not supposed to. It’s not for you. Tariffs? That was about bullying foreign governments into cooperating with Trump; it was never about you. Inflation? Trump was too busy designing his ballroom (and making sweetheart deals with contractors) to worry about it. Climate change? The big money is with the oil companies, so who cares about your children’s future?

And finally there’s the democracy issue, which is famously difficult to package in a way that reaches the voters we need. To many, it all sounds like politicians fighting turf battles: Who cares about Trump defying court orders or usurping Congress’ power-of-the-purse? How does any of that affect me?

It affects you like this: What Trump has consistently done is bulldoze any power center in government that could stop him from stealing. That’s why there are no independent inspectors general in government departments any more. That’s why cabinet secretaries won’t answer questions in congressional hearings. That’s why he wants to pre-determine elections through gerrymandering and voter suppression. He’s taking power away from anybody who could call him to account for his corruption.

May 18, 2026 – 12:00 pm Categories: Articles | Comments (10)

Tagged , , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

Ever since the Orban regime fell in Hungary, I’ve been wondering what lessons Democrats should learn from Péter Magyar’s campaign. The challenges are similar: Both Orban and Trump are authoritarians with a flood-the-zone strategy: They did so many objectionable things, but a national campaign needs to focus on a theme. Does any one theme provide a trunk to hang all the branches on?

Magyar settled on corruption: Things are bad for you because Orban is running the country for the benefit of himself and his allies, not you.

That’s certainly true of Trump as well, and this week gave us some prime examples of Trump’s corruption. But is it the right theme? The featured post will explore that possibility, as well as catalog the various strands of corruption. It should be out before 11 EDT.

The weekly summary will discuss the summit with China; southern states racing to reinstate all-White congressional delegations, now that the Supreme Court has blessed that plan; inflation; the Christian nationalist rally you paid for Sunday; and a few other things. I’ll try to get that out by 1.

May 18, 2026 – 8:42 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (1)