Is Epstein what will finally break through?

For years, Democrats have imagined that someday Trump’s dupes might return to reality and turn against him. But what if they could turn against him without returning to reality?

If you were a 2024 Trump voter, the last half-year has given you all kinds of good reasons to reassess your decision.

  • He didn’t reverse inflation like he said he would.
  • He didn’t end the Ukraine War “in 24 hours” like he said he would.
  • His Big Beautiful Bill increases the deficit he said he’d reduce.
  • He never found the millions of dangerous migrant criminals he said existed, so instead ICE is rounding up gardeners and dishwashers and moms.
  • Thanks to his Medicaid cuts, your rural hospital might close soon.
  • His on-again-off-again tariffs make it impossible for you to manage your small business.
  • Even though you worked hard and thought your office was doing something worthwhile, you lost your government job.
  • He fired the people you need to process your application for veterans benefits or Social Security.

And so on. As far as we can tell, though, hardly anybody in MAGA World cares about this kind of stuff. To the extent that Trump has lost support, it’s mainly among independents. Against all evidence, his base voters continue to believe he’s on their side, and everything that indicates otherwise is fake news.

What seems to be breaking through to them, though, is the Trump administration’s handling of information about Jeffrey Epstein, the rich pedophile who died in his prison cell in 2019. The case has exactly zero effect on their lives, but this is what they care about.

What upset them? Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi released a memo claiming there is nothing to see: The famous Epstein “client list” that she said was “on my desk” a few months ago … well, it never existed. (Does her desk still exist? Was she ever really attorney general?) So there is no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties”. And Epstein’s death was a jailhouse suicide, just like the official report said at the time.

The DOJ and FBI say in the memo that no “further disclosure” of Epstein-related material “would be appropriate or warranted.”

So: case closed. If you’ve been obsessed with Epstein, find something else to think about.

Worse, Trump himself has backed up Bondi on Truth Social.

What’s going on with my “boys” and, in some cases, “gals?” They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and “selfish people” are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. … Kash Patel, and the FBI, must be focused on investigating Voter Fraud, Political Corruption, ActBlue, The Rigged and Stolen Election of 2020, and arresting Thugs and Criminals, instead of spending month after month looking at nothing but the same old, Radical Left inspired Documents on Jeffrey Epstein. LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB — SHE’S GREAT! The 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024 — That’s what she is looking into as AG, and much more. One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the “HOTTEST” Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.

But if we shouldn’t “waste Time and Energy” on Epstein, who “nobody cares about”, why have Trump and his people kept talking about Epstein for years?

I feel silly writing about this, because I have never cared about Jeffrey Epstein or the various conspiracy theories about his activities. Apparently, he was a rich man with a lot of rich and powerful friends. He induced a number of underage girls to have sex with him, and perhaps also with his friends. Some believe that he kept evidence of these statutory rapes to blackmail his one-time “friends”, and that their influence is what kept him out of prison so long. He was arrested in 2005 and convicted in 2008, but served an embarrassingly trivial sentence. He was arrested again in 2019 and died in his jail cell a month later. The official report on his death says that he committed suicide, but rampant speculation says that he was murdered to keep him from implicating the people he procured underage girls for.

Honestly, I’ve never cared. I feel sorry for the girls he abused. I’m glad he was arrested and I’m glad his girl-friend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell is in jail. If anybody has solid evidence that he had “clients” who also abused the girls, I’d like to see them punished too. If that group includes prominent Democrats or Hollywood bigwigs, so be it. (That’s an attitude I have towards a lot of alleged crimes: If there’s some kind of evidence, have at it.) But there’s a lot of injustice in the world, and for me this case does not stand high above many others. I have no theory about what “really” happened to Epstein, and no interest in forming one.

But not so in the fever swamps of MAGA. For these folks, Epstein was a real-life case that validated the wild and otherwise baseless conspiracy theories of Q-Anon.

Their core belief is that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters in league with the deep state is operating a global child sex trafficking ring and that Donald Trump is secretly leading the fight against them.

The Satanic cabal supposedly included the Clintons and all sorts of other people. And someday soon, Trump would bring them down by unleashing “the Storm”

when thousands of people will be arrested and possibly sent to Guantanamo Bay prison or face military tribunals. The U.S. military will then take over the country, and the result will be salvation and utopia.

This theory was always nutty, going back to the gun-toting guy in 2016 who showed up at a DC pizza place thinking he was going to liberate the children being held captive in the basement the building didn’t have. And Trump — a known friend of Epstein and a sex offender in his own right — was maybe the least likely person in the world to be cast in the savior role.

But being in a cult means never having to say you’re sorry. Over the years, the repeated failure of Q’s predictions disillusioned a lot of his followers. However, Mike Rothschild, who wrote the book on Q-Anon, says:

QAnon as a movement based around secret codes and clues and riddles doesn’t so much exist anymore. But it doesn’t need to exist anymore because its tenets have become such a major part of mainstream conservatism and such a big part of the base of people that reelected Donald Trump.

For years, Trump has been happy to let these crazies anoint him as their messiah. He “re-truthed” their memes.

More recently, though, the conspiracy theory seemed to be coming back to bite him. Elon Musk claimed to have seen the “Epstein Files” — though what that had to do with the job he was supposedly doing to cut government spending isn’t clear — and said that Trump was in them. “That is the real reason they have not been made public.” Musk deleted that post after Trump threatened his government contracts.

Plus, the MAGA natives were getting increasingly restless. Trump had said he would release whatever files the government had on the Epstein case. His nominees talked about them in their confirmation hearings. So where were they? It was time to produce the evidence that would prove those Q-Anon claims once and for all.

And the answer is … oh, never mind. Nothing to see here. Let’s all go back to some other fantasy, like voter fraud or the migrant crime wave.

Trump has told his base to turn on a dime before, and they have. Appointees like Bill Barr or Jim Mattis are “the best people” until they say something Trump doesn’t like, and then they were always suspect. Elon was a “genius” until he became “crazy”. Deficits are a problem until they aren’t. Any hint of Joe Biden or his family profiting off their government service is “the Swamp”, but Trump and his family making billions from foreigners investing in their crypto schemes is just good business. And so on.

But this time seems like a bridge too far. Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon can’t go there. Dan Bongino is unhappy.

In order to restore peace in MAGA World, Trump will probably have to throw Pam Bondi under the bus, despite the FANTASTIC JOB she’s been doing. It wasn’t him, Trump’s cultists will say to comfort each other, it was her.

But then what? A new AG, one untainted by Bondi’s nothing-to-see-here blunder, does what exactly? Releases something, obviously. But what?

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev is said to have given this advice to then-Vice-President Richard Nixon: If the people believe in an imaginary river, don’t tell them there isn’t one. Promise to build them an imaginary bridge.

It’s time for Trump to deliver his imaginary bridge over the Epstein controversy. How will he do it?

Meanwhile, what should the rest of us do? The worst thing we can do, I think, is get drawn into the argument. The real issues in America today are

  • the continuing march of fascism, and the complicity of Congress and the Supreme Court in subverting American democracy
  • the vast economic inequality in our country, and government policies that keep making it worse
  • climate change

In the face of all that, I have no theory about Epstein and no interest in forming one. Anybody who has evidence of some unprosecuted crime should feel free to pursue their investigation, but I have other stuff to do.

If the MAGA movement wants to tear itself to pieces over this, that’s all to the good. Make popcorn and enjoy the show. But they’ll eventually put their movement back together, and they’ll do it with an explanation that makes as little sense as everything else they do. We can hope that the friction will scrape away a few cultists, who finally realize that Trump has been playing them for fools all along. A few. Probably not that many.

Meanwhile, there are real issues to worry about. I have no time to waste on imaginary rivers or the bridges that might cross them.

July 14, 2025 – 9:38 am Categories: Articles | Comments (9)

Tagged |

The Monday Morning Teaser

Of all the indignities the second Trump administration has put me through, this may be the most annoying: Today I have to write about Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein is the guy who seduced underage girls into having sex, and allegedly shared them with a long list of rich and powerful men that he then blackmailed to keep himself rich and out of prison. How much of that is true is anybody’s guess, as is the list of those rich and powerful men. Epstein’s apparent jailhouse suicide in 2019 has been a mother lode for conspiracy theories, especially in the fever swamps of the MAGA movement. Hardly anybody claims to be Q-Anon any more, but Q-Anon’s belief in a vast conspiracy of elite pedophiles has taken root in MAGA World, and Epstein is the one real-world hook you can hang that theory on.

This week, Attorney General Pam Bondi tried to remove that hook: Never mind, she says. There is no Epstein “client list”, nobody else needs to be charged with anything, and no further release of Justice Department information is warranted. Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

Now, I moved along years ago. I have no theory about what “really” happened to Epstein, and no interest in forming one. But the controversy itself has become news. There’s a real uprising in MAGA World, and Trump telling everyone to settle down and get back in line doesn’t seem to be working. The Trump faithful have ignored real issue after real issue, but this one seems to be more than they can stand.

Anyway, “Is Epstein the issue that will finally break through?” is this week’s featured post. It should be out shortly. The rest of the week’s news — court rulings about birthright citizenship, response to the Texas floods, and so on — will be in the weekly summary, which will appear around noon.

July 14, 2025 – 8:47 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (3)

Colonization

It’s tempting to think that we are living in a new era of lawlessness, but that would fail to capture the change staring us in the face. This is not about the lack of law. It’s about the remaking of the law. What Trump and leaders like him seek is not so much to destroy the law as to colonize it, to possess the law by determining its parameters to serve their interests. For them, the law exists to bend to their will, to destroy their adversaries, and to provide an alibi for behavior which, in a better version of our world, would be punished as criminal.

– Moustafa Bayoumi
“The destruction of Palestine is breaking the world“

This week’s featured post is “Trump only has ICE for you“.

This week everybody was talking about Trump’s bill

The featured post covers how the massive $170 billion appropriation for immigration enforcement could lead to ICE becoming Trump’s Gestapo and immigrant detention centers turning into concentration camps. I understand how alarmist that sounds, but I’m drawing on some pretty reliable folks: Timothy Snyder, Theda Skocpol, and others.

That leaves coverage of the rest of the bill here. Ignoring the implications for democracy, the big thing to know about the bill is that it robs from the poor to give to the rich.

One snarky meme I saw Friday hoped that “Big Beautiful Bill” will be the nickname of Trump’s cellmate some day. I suspect the poster has more faith in God’s justice than I do.

But anyway, the Republicans got it done, without a single Democratic vote in either house of Congress. Up until a few weeks ago, I honestly thought they wouldn’t. The bill hurts so many Republican voters (see the note below on Frontier County, Nebraska) and the GOP’s margins in Congress are so small. I thought that a few more Republicans would vote against a bill they obviously knew was wrong for the country and for their constituents.

Back in May, for example, Josh Hawley wrote an op-ed describing in detail what was wrong with cutting Medicaid. He blamed the GOP’s “Wall Street wing” for a bill that was “both morally wrong and politically suicidal”.

If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care. And hospitals will close. It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.

But he voted for the bill, morality be damned.

Research backs up the point he was making. The University of Pennsylvania’s health economics institute calculated that the bill would lead to 51,000 preventable deaths annually. The idea that Americans die for lack of health insurance has long been denied on the Right, going back to 2012 when presidential candidate Rick Santorum rejected “completely … that people die in America because of lack of health insurance.”

Santorum and others often point to rules that require emergency rooms to care for people regardless of their ability to pay. So no, you won’t die from a car accident because you aren’t insured. But you may skip a regular check-up that would have saved you from a heart attack, or go without the blood-pressure meds that prevent a stroke. Spread over a nation, those cases add up.

It’s hard to know what to do with people like Hawley. They don’t need to be convinced; they know. They just don’t care enough or have the courage to do anything about it. After she provided the deciding vote that got the bill through the Senate, Lisa Murkowski wrote:

But, let’s not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process—a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution. While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation—and we all know it.   My sincere hope is that this is not the final product. This bill needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the President’s desk.

But of course the House passed it without amendment and the President signed it, so the bill Murkowski voted for is now law. As so often happens — remember Mitch McConnell, after voting to acquit Trump in his second impeachment, saying that Trump hadn’t gotten away with anything “yet” — Murkowski hoped somebody else would save the country from Trump, when she had the power to do it and would not.

Lots of last-minute horse-trading happened, including a bunch of Alaska exemptions to nail down Murkowski’s vote, so what does the final bill actually do?

What I believe is the only hospital in Frontier County, Nebraska will close down in response to “anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid”.

These are Trump voters. In the 2024 presidential election, Trump beat Harris 1213-185 in Frontier County. (On the map, Frontier County is the third county from the left in the second row from the bottom.) Frontier County’s congressman and both Nebraska senators voted for the Big Beautiful Bill.

They did it to themselves.

The fig leaf Republicans are wearing is that Medicaid and food stamps will only be denied to able-bodied people who won’t work. However, when states have instituted a work-requirement with a similar explanation, the resulting savings have come mainly from kicking out eligible people who get behind on their paperwork. (Implementing a work requirement means monthly forms verifying that you are working. The working poor tend to have very little free time for filling out forms. Many are poorly educated and have trouble understanding the rules or following the instructions.)

Paul Krugman provides a very well-constructed graphic about Medicaid recipients.

Finally, let’s think about the 3% of recipients who are of working age but don’t work. Let’s assume the worst about them, as Mike Johnson does: They’re lazy bums who sit around playing video games all day.

Do I approve of their lifestyle? No. Do I think that if they get sick they should be left to die? Also no.

Taking away people’s health insurance is not an appropriate form of discipline.

and trade

After Trump’s extreme “Liberation Day” tariff announcements on April 2 panicked global markets, he retreated by announcing a 90-day pause on the tariffs so that trade deals could be negotiated, promising “90 deals in 90 days“.

In fact, no deals have been completed. The administration has made much of “frameworks” of trade deals with China and the UK and Vietnam, but in trade agreements the devil is in the details, which are still being worked out. Georgetown Professor Mark Busch says:

These aren’t real trade deals. These are cessations of hostility. These are purchasing agreements that may or may not appease Trump for maybe a little while, thrown in with some aspirational stuff.

Well, the 90 days run on out Wednesday. But now officials are talking about August 1 as the real deadline. Will TACO Trump chicken out again, or will we see another stock market collapse? Stay tuned.

and the flash floods in Texas

Storms have been unpredictable since the days of Zeus and Thor, so it’s always hard to know exactly where to place the blame for a weather disaster. But Friday’s flash flood of Texas’ Guadalupe River (which so far has resulted in 82 dead, including 28 children, with ten girls from a Christian summer camp still missing) has at least two fingers pointing back towards the Trump administration.

The first finger, of course, is climate change, which raises the likelihood of any sort of extreme weather event.

Rainfall intensity in central Texas has been trending upward for decades, and this week’s rains were enhanced by the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, which made landfall in northern Mexico last week. Barry’s circulation pulled record amounts of atmospheric moisture up to central Texas from the near-record warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

The mix of Barry’s circulation and climate warming helped create conditions of record-high atmospheric moisture content over central Texas – in line with the trend towards increasing atmospheric moisture content globally as the world warms and the air can hold more water vapor.

Trump has consistently played down climate change, occasionally referring to it as a “hoax”. His first administration emphasized “drill, baby, drill”, i.e. producing and burning more of the fossil fuels that cause climate change. In his second administration, he has rolled back nearly every effort President Biden made to set us on the path to a more sustainable economy. The League of Conservation Voters referred to the “big beautiful bill” he signed Friday as “the most anti-environmental bill of all time”, which “will do extreme harm to our communities, our families, our climate, and our public lands.”

Would a full-bore government focus on climate change since 2017, combined with putting the full pressure of the United States on other nations to phase out fossil fuel dependence, have prevented, or at least mitigated, the Guadalupe flood? As with any individual weather event, it’s impossible to say for sure.

But then we get to the second finger. If extreme weather events are going to be more and more frequent — and they are — common sense would lead us to invest more heavily in weather prediction, so that we see these events coming and have more time to get summer-campers out of harm’s way.

But Trump has been doing exactly the opposite. Tuesday — three days before the flood — The Guardian lamented:

As the weather has worsened, there have been fewer federal scientists to alert the public of it. Cuts to the weather service by Trump and the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) have left NWS local forecast offices critically understaffed throughout this year’s heightened severe weather. In April, an internal document reportedly described how cuts could create a situation of “degraded” operations – shutting down core services one by one until it reaches an equilibrium that doesn’t overtax its remaining employees.

Did NWS drop the ball here? Local officials claim they did, predicting 4-8 inches of rain rather than the 12 that actually fell. But maybe mistakes on that scale are inevitable and the local officials are just deflecting blame. Again, who can say?

The point is that this kind of thing is bound to keep happening: As our country’s policies work to increase bad weather events while cutting back on our ability to predict them, more and more often disaster is going to take us by surprise. And sometimes girls at summer camp will pay the price.

and the Fourth of July

Trump hasn’t been in office half a year yet, with 3 1/2 to go. But he has already done so much damage to American democracy that July 4 had a melancholy edge this year. Is the United States still worth celebrating in its current form? And if so, for how much longer?

Jay Kuo tries to reach past his patriotic sorrow:

While the lighthouse shining the way is admittedly hard to make out through the cruel fog that envelopes us, it is out there, sturdy upon the shore, and still blazing brightly. We must trust that we will rediscover its guiding power and, together, steer this ship safely home. We’ll do it together, and in our strong and welcome company we will find the courage and conviction we need.

Jennifer Rubin notes that the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence seem particularly relevant this year.

The signers railed about exclusionary immigration policies that hurt the colonies (“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither”). They inveighed against barriers to trade (“cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”). And they condemned imposing “Taxes on us without our Consent,” which, if we remember that unilaterally imposed tariffs are a consumer tax, also sounds familiar. Tyrants, then and now, seek to dominate and micromanage commerce to the detriment of ordinary people seeking a better life.

And notice the common problem, then and now, when a tyrant attempts to corrupt the rule of law by seeking to intimidate and threaten members of the judiciary (“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices”); seeks to impair due process (“depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”); and even ships people out of the country for punishment (“Transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”). The tyrant playbook has not changed much in nearly 250 years.

Using the military improperly has always been a go-to move for tyrants. “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” (or in our case, the governor of California) and tried to make “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” (by, among other things, threatening to deploy them to silence protests). “Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us” is still going on in Los Angeles. And “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us …”—or in Donald Trump’s case, incited violence, called it an insurrection and then used it as a pretext to send in the military.

and you also might be interested in …

The most thought-provoking thing I read this week was “The destruction of Palestine is breaking the world” by Moustafa Bayoumi, which is the source of this week’s top-of-the-page quote. The “world” Bayoumi is talking about is the post-World-War-II rules-based order, and he sees it breaking on multiple levels. International rules against genocide or using starvation as a weapon of war somehow don’t apply to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Similarly, US laws against supplying weapons to countries that block US humanitarian aid don’t apply to Israel. American principles of free speech don’t apply to people who protest for Palestinian rights.

Along the same lines: Peter Beinart notes how fast the conventional wisdom about Israel in American politics is changing.

The more Democratic elites continue their near-unconditional support for Israel despite overwhelming public opposition, the more vulnerable they will be to a Mamdani-style political insurgency in the next presidential primary.

He warns that Israel/Palestine could become a “moral consistency” issue that holds symbolic value even for many who feel no strong connection to either Israel or Palestine.

But unquestioned support for Israel has become, for many, a symbol of the timidity and inauthenticity of party elites — and that leaves them vulnerable to political insurgents who don’t compromise the values of equality and anti-discrimination.

A depressing read is last Monday’s article in the NYT about the energy strategies of China and the United States: China is leading the world in clean energy development, while the US is pushing fossil fuels. China is building for the future, while the US is trying to hang onto the past.

Tuesday, the federal government was supposed to release $7 billion in money Congress appropriated to fund summer and after-school programs.

But in an email on Monday, the Education Department notified state education agencies that the money would not be available.

The move is probably illegal, but the administration should be able to stall action in the courts until the programs would have ended anyway.

In his members-only editor’s blog, Josh Marshall calls attention to the pro-Trump advertising that is paid for by your tax dollars. Reproducing part of a report from AdImpact, he observes that “The top advertiser in this political cycle so far is the Department of Homeland Security running political ads with taxpayer dollars on behalf of Donald Trump.” The total: $34 million.

Meanwhile, the Social Security Administration sent out an email praising (and lying about) Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. (I received it myself.) “Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors” was the subject line. This claim in particular is just blatantly false:

The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation’s economy.

Actually:

the legislation provides a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for people aged 65 and older, and $12,000 for married seniors. These benefits will start to phase out for those with incomes of more than $75,000 and married couples of more than $150,000 a year.

So if your monthly Social Security check is more than $1000, you’ll pay at least some tax on it. The average benefit is about double that.

Jeff Nesbit posted on X:

Unbelievable. I was a deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Appointed by President Biden. The agency has never issued such a blatant political statement. The fact that Trump and his minion running SSA has done this is unconscionable.

Tesla’s sales are falling, which is a weird thing to stay about a company whose stock has a price/earnings ratio of 170. Investors appear to be buying the story that someday Tesla’s driverless taxis will be huge money-makers. I think I won’t be attending that party.

and let’s close with something refreshing and adorable

Feeling too hot this summer? Need more cuteness in your life? The Cincinnati Zoo offers this video of red pandas playing in the snow.

July 7, 2025 – 11:03 am Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (3)

Trump only has ICE for you

The most dangerous feature of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill is one of its least publicized: ICE becomes a massive federal police force, overseeing a system of “detention” centers that could easily become concentration camps.

Despite all the side deals necessary to get it passed, the basic structure of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill never changed from proposal to signing: It cuts rich people’s taxes (with a few crumbs like no-tax-on-tips thrown in for working people), and partially pays for those cuts by also cutting safety-net benefits like Medicaid and SNAP (i.e., food stamps). What those cuts don’t cover gets added to the deficit. So:

  • benefits for rich people
  • cuts for poor people
  • more debt for everyone.

Probably you knew that, and maybe you also heard that there was money for immigration enforcement. But the sheer size of the new anti-immigrant money hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. NPR estimates the total immigration enforcement appropriation as “about $170 billion“. That’s larger than the defense budget of Russia.

The bill includes $45 billion to build Trump’s border wall. (So much for claims that he nearly completed it during his first term or that Mexico would pay for it. He didn’t build much of it and Mexico isn’t contributing a dime.) But the scarier piece of this is the additional $45 billion to build more ICE detention camps. The WaPo reports:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say they plan to use the [$45 billion] to roughly double the nation’s detention capacity to 100,000 beds, giving them more capacity to arrest undocumented immigrants targeted for deportation.

Lincoln Square’s Don Moynihan puts this in perspective.

For context, this is more than the combined budget for all 50 state prison systems. The current budget for the federal Bureau of Prisons is just over $8.3 billion.

There is also money to hire many more ICE agents.

The agency, which currently has about 6,000 deportation officers, would also receive billions of dollars more to hire an additional 10,000 new agents by 2029.

Masked ICE agents kidnapping people off the streets and making them disappear is already a cause for concern. So is the Trump administration’s claim that ICE’s victims should not have due process rights. Now consider the possibility that the majority of these new agents will have less loyalty to the Constitution than to Trump personally. They will be Trump hires empowered to carry out a Trump mission (with the perk that they get to beat up a lot of brown people).

Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol comments:

Last spring, when Dan Ziblatt and I taught a comparative course on democratic backsliding, our study of the Hungarian and German (1920s-30s) cases left me slightly reassured about the United States today.  Hungary is highly centralized, and in Germany the most important state transformation happened just before Hitler was appointed Chancellor, when the previous government nationalized the Prussian police and bureaucracy, removing it from Social Democratic control in federated Germany’s largest state.  Not long after, unexpectedly, Hitler could easily turn the centralized agencies into his Gestapo core.  I thought last year that the USA was somewhat protected against any similar coerceive authoritarian takeover by its federal structure, given state and local government rights to control most U.S. police powers (I presented this argument in my Madison lecture for the Sept 2024 American Political Science Association). 

But now I see that the Miller-Trump ethno-authoritarians have figured out a devilishly clever workaround.   Immigration is an area where a U.S. President can exercise virtually unchecked legal coercive power, especially if backed by a Supreme Court majority and corrupted Department of Justice.  Now Congress has given ICE unprecedented resources – much of this windfall to be used for graft with private contractors Trump patronizes, but lots of to hire street agents willing to mask themselves and do whatever they are told against residents and fellow American citizens.  The Miller-Trumpites are not interested only in rounding up undocumented immigrants.  They will step up using ICE and DOJ enforcements use to harass Democrats, citizen critics, and subvert future elections if they can. 

Jay Kuo draws a worrisome conclusion that I share:

Once you spend that much on internal security, the system—which is profit-driven by the companies providing the apparatus—begins to feed on itself. It will demand ever more bodies in a supercharged prison/industrial complex.

And fascism expert Timothy Snyder is using the C-word:

With the passage of Trump’s death bill, we face the prospect of many great harms, including an archipelago of concentration camps across the United States.

In particular, Snyder worries that the detainees might become slave labor, which makes a perverted kind of sense: As Trump causes a labor shortage by rounding up immigrants, the detained immigrants might be rented out to do things like pick crops.

If these fears seem over-the-top, consider a little history. The Nazi concentration camps were not originally conceived as death mills. Hitler used the Reichstag Fire (in February, 1933) as evidence that a Communist revolution was at hand, and began rounding up his political enemies as Communist co-conspirators. Needing a place to put them, he opened the Dachau concentration camp in March.

At the time, Dachau was just a place political opponents could be kept outside the ordinary legal process. But as time went by, the convenience of having a black hole they could drop people into was just too tempting for the Nazi government. The mission of Dachau and the subsequent camps kept expanding, until they became the horror we now associate with concentration camps.

I find it too easy to imagine history repeating itself. ICE already sees itself as unencumbered by law, and its targets as undeserving of human rights. ICE may not, at the moment, be a Gestapo, and places like the new Alligator Alcatraz in Florida may not yet deserve the Alligator Auschwitz label critics have given it. But what prevents that progression from taking place?

All the visible forces push that way. We have already seen reality drift from the Trump administration’s rhetoric. Supposedly ICE was “making us safer” by rounding up violent criminals. But now they’re grabbing harmless people who are simply raising their children and doing their jobs, like the wife of this Marine Corps veteran and the father of three Marine sons. TracReports estimates that 71.7% of ICE detainees have no criminal record. CBS discovered that a similar percentage of the Venezuelans flown to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison had no criminal record.

Here’s a simple example of ICE’s sense of license: Florida law gives members of the legislature the right to make unannounced inspections of any state-run facility. Five Democratic legislators showed up to inspect Alligator Alcatraz and were denied access. Law? What law?

Imagine that someday you get scooped by ICE, maybe because you have brown skin and Spanish surname, or maybe because some AI has determined that your blog is too critical of Trump. There you are in Alligator Alcatraz or some other camp designed to hold undesirables. The letter of the law favors you, but the lawyers your family hires get the kind of run-around Kilmar Abrego Garcia has gotten. Where does your story go from there?

July 7, 2025 – 8:52 am Categories: Articles | Comments (9)

Tagged , , |

The Monday Morning Teaser

So the Big Beautiful Bill got passed and signed. I have to confess that I underestimated Trump’s ability to intimidate Republicans in Congress, several of whom have publicly admitted that the bill will hurt their constituents. (Immediately after she voted for it, Senator Murkowski said she hoped the House wouldn’t pass it in the form she had voted for. But of course the House did.)

I feel like the basics of the bill have been well covered, at least for those outside the MAGA news bubble: It will benefit the rich by cutting their taxes, hurt the poor by taking away their health insurance and food assistance, and increase the national debt.

But while the increased spending on immigration enforcement has also been covered, I feel like the massive size of the increase — and the negative implications for the future of American democracy — haven’t gotten nearly the attention they deserve. So that’s the subject of today’s featured post: “Trump only has ICE for you”. When you make Nazi comparisons you always risks being written off as an alarmist, but some fairly well known democracy experts are pointing out how the BBB lays the groundwork for a Trump Gestapo and Trump concentration camps. Trump may not be Hitler yet, but when Dachau opened in 1933, Hitler wasn’t Hitler yet either.

That post is basically done and should be out before 9 EDT.

That leaves the rest of the BBB to the weekly summary. Also: the role federal policy played in the Texas floods, the soon-to-run-out 90-day pause on the Trump tariffs, a somewhat sorrowful 4th of July, and a few other things. I’ll try to get that out by noon.

July 7, 2025 – 8:32 am Categories: Morning tease | Comments (3)

The Rot Goes Deeper Than Trump

Just winning the next set of elections won’t fix the underlying problems.

Zohran Mamdani’s surprise victory in New York City’s mayoral primary, and his probable ascension to the office itself, sent shock waves through the Democratic Party and reopened many longstanding debates. Maybe the word “socialist” isn’t as toxic as many think it is. Maybe the party needs younger, newer faces. Maybe a positive vision is at least as important as standing against Trump. Maybe being Muslim or pro-Palestine does not alienate potential Democratic voters. And so on.

Those are all worthwhile points to discuss, but I worry that they all revolve around a goal — taking power back from Trump and the MAGA congressmen who hold it now — that is necessary but not sufficient to save American democracy. Too easily, we get lost in the search for a new face or a new slogan or even new policies, but lose sight of the deeper problems that allowed Trump to come to power in the first place.

Remember, we beat Trump soundly in 2020. His ego will never let him admit it, but Trump got his butt kicked by Joe Biden, to the tune of more than 7 million votes. Beating Trump is not an unsolvable problem, and we don’t have to convert the MAGA cultists to do it. All we have to do is win back the voters who already voted against Trump in 2020.

But beating Trump did not end the threat then, and it won’t do it now either. We need to understand why.

Donald Trump, in my opinion, is not some history-altering mutant, like the Mule in Asimov’s Foundation trilogy. I think of him as an opportunist who exploited rifts in American society and weak spots in American culture. He did not create those rifts and weak spots, and if all we do is get rid of Trump, they will still be there waiting for their next exploiter.

I do not have solutions for the problems I’m pointing to, but I think we need to keep them in our sights, even as we look for the next face and slogan and message.

The Rift Between Working and Professional Classes. All through Elon Musk’s political ascendancy, I kept wondering: How can working people possibly believe that the richest man in the world is on their side? Similarly, how can people who unload trucks or operate cash registers imagine that Donald Trump, who was born rich and probably never did a day of physical labor in his life, is their voice in government?

The answer to that question is simple: The people who shower after work have gotten so alienated from the people who shower before work that anyone who takes on “the educated elite” seems to be their ally. In the minds of many low-wage workers, the enemy is not the very rich, but rather the merely well-to-do — people with salaries and benefits and the ability to speak the language of bureaucracy and science.

Actual billionaires like Musk or Trump or Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg are so distant that it’s hard to feel personally threatened by them. But your brother-in-law the psychologist or your cousin who got an engineering degree — you know they look down on you. Whenever they deign to discuss national affairs with you at all, it’s in that parent-to-child you-don’t-really-understand tone of voice. And let’s not even mention your daughter who comes home from college with a social justice agenda. Everything you think is wrong, and she can’t even explain why without using long words you’ve never heard before. Somebody with a college degree is telling you what to do every minute of your day, and yet you’re supposed to be the one who has “privilege”.

The tension has been building for a long time, but it really boiled over for you during the pandemic. You couldn’t go to work, your kids couldn’t go to school, you couldn’t go to football games or even to church — and why exactly? Because “experts” like Anthony Fauci were “protecting” you from viruses too small to see. (They could see them, but you couldn’t. Nothing you could see interested anybody.) Then there were masks you had to wear and shots you had to get, but nobody could explain exactly what they did. Would they keep you from getting the disease or transmitting it to other people? Not exactly. If you questioned why you had to do all this, all they could do was trot out statistics and point to numbers. And if you’ve learned anything from your lifetime of experience dealing with educated people, it’s that they can make numbers say whatever they want. The “experts” speak Math and you don’t, so you just have to do what they say.

Here’s why this is such a big problem for democracy, and how it turns into a liberal/conservative issue: Ever since the progressive era and the New Deal, the liberal project has been for government to take on issues that are too big and too complex for individuals to handle on their own. When you buy a bag of lettuce at the grocery store, how do you know it isn’t full of E coli? Some corporation has a dump somewhere upstream from you, so how can you tell what dangerous chemicals might be leeching into your water supply? How do you know your workplace is won’t kill you or your money is safe in a bank? What interest rates and tax/spending policies will keep the economy humming without causing inflation? Stuff like that.

The conservative answer to those questions is to trust corporations to police themselves subject to the discipline of the market. (So if the lettuce producers keep selling E-coli-spreading produce, eventually people will catch on and stop buying from them and they’ll go out of business.) Historically, that solution has never worked very well. Corporations are too rich and too clever and too chameleon-like for market discipline to keep them in line. But we’ve had regulations for over a century now, so most of the bad-example history happened a long time ago. (We wouldn’t have OSHA today without the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.) The only people who still remember it are themselves experts of some sort.

The liberal alternative is to have what has come to be called an “administrative state”. The government runs a bunch of three-letter agencies — FDA, EPA, SEC, CDC, FCC, and so on, with an occasional four-letter agency like OSHA or FDIC thrown in. These agencies keep track of things no individual has the resources to keep track of, and they hire experts who spend their lives studying things most of us only think about once in a while, like food safety or how much cash banks should keep on hand to avoid runs or what kind of resources need to be stockpiled to deal with hurricanes.

And the liberal administrative state works like a charm as long as two conditions hold:

  • The experts are trustworthy.
  • The public trusts them.

It’s not hard to see that there are problems with both of those propositions. In his 2012 book The Twilight of the Elites, Chris Hayes outlined the ways that the expert class has become self-serving. In theory, the expert class is comprised of winners in a competitive meritocracy. But in practice, educated professionals have found ways to tip the balance in their children’s favor. Also, the experts did not do a good job running the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, and they failed to foresee the economic crisis of 2008. When they did notice it, they responded badly: Bankers got bailed out while many ordinary people lost their homes.

And then there’s the challenge of globalism: It was supposed to benefit everybody, but in practice, working-class people lost good jobs while professional-class people got cheap products made overseas.

On the public-trust side, people have been too willing to believe conspiracy theories about perfectly legitimate things like the Covid vaccine. Trump’s slashing of funding for science and research is a long-term disaster for America, and his war against top universities like Harvard and Columbia destroys one of the major advantages the US has on the rest of the world. But many cheer when revenge is taken on the so-called experts they think look down on them.

In a series of books, most recently End Times, Peter Turchin describes two conditions that historically have led to social unrest, revolution, or civil war: popular immiseration and elite overproduction. In other words: Ordinary people see their fortunes declining, and the elite classes expand beyond the number of elite roles for them to fill. (Think about how hard it is for recent college graduates to find jobs.) So there are mobs to lead, and dissatisfied members of the would-be ruling class trained and ready to lead them.

“Remember objective truth?”

Truth Decay. Democracy is supposed to work through what is sometimes called “the marketplace of ideas”. Different interest groups have their own self-interested spin, but when people with a variety of viewpoints look at the facts, truth is supposed to win out.

If you are younger than, say, 40, you may be surprised to realize how recently that actually worked. There have always been fringe groups and conspiracy theorists, but there were also powerful institutions dedicated to sorting out what really happened and how things really happen. The two most important of those institutions were the press and the scientific community.

Those two institutions still exist, and (with some exceptions) still pursue capital-T Truth. But they have lost their reality-defining power. (Part of the problem is that journalists and scientists are part of the expert class that working people no longer trust.) No current news anchor would dare end a broadcast with “And that’s the way it is”, as Walter Cronkite did every day for decades. And no scientific study, no matter how large it is or where it was done, can settle the questions our society endlessly debates.

So: Is global warming really happening, and do we cause it by burning fossil fuels? The scientific community says yes, and the experts whose livelihoods depend on the answer (like the ones in the insurance industry) accept that judgment. But the general public? Not so much, or at least not enough to commit our country to the kind of changes that need to happen.

Was the Covid vaccine safe, and did it save millions of lives worldwide? Do other vaccines (like the ones that all but wiped out measles and smallpox) bring huge benefits to our society? Again, the scientific community says yes. But that answer is considered sufficiently untrustworthy that a crank like RFK Jr. can get control of our government’s health services and put millions of lives at risk.

Did Trump lose in 2020? By the standards of objective journalism, yes he did. He lost soundly, by a wide margin. The diverse institutions of vote-counting, spread through both blue states and red ones like Georgia and (then) Arizona, support that conclusion. Every court case that has hung on the question of voter fraud or computer tampering has come out the same way: There is no evidence to support those claims. Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems $787 million rather than argue that it could have reasonably believed Dominion’s vote-counting machines were rigged. (Not that they were rigged, but that there was any reasonable doubt about their accuracy.)

But none of that matters. No institution — not even one Trump cultists establish themselves, like the audit of Arizona’s votes — can declare once and for all that Trump lost.

Loss of Depth. Along with the lost of trust in experts and the inability of American society to agree on a basic set of facts, we are plagued by a loss of depth in our public discussions. It’s not just that Americans don’t know or understand things, it’s that they’ve lost the sense that there are things to know or understand. College professors report that students don’t know how to read entire books any more. And we all have run into people who think they are experts on a complex subject (like climate change or MRNA vaccines) because they watched a YouTube video.

Levels of superficiality that once would have gotten someone drummed out of politics — Marjorie Taylor Greene confusing “gazpacho” with “Gestapo” comes to mind — are now everyday events.

Empathy is out. Assholery is in. Remember George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism“? The idea in a nutshell was that if conservative policies produced a more prosperous society, the rising tide might lift more people out of poverty than liberal attempts to help people through government programs. Things never actually worked out that way, but the intention behind the phrase was clear: Conservatives didn’t want to be seen as selfish or heartless bad guys. They also want a better world, they just have a different vision of how to get there.

Later Republican candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney worked hard to build images as good, decent men, reasonable and courteous to a fault. If the policies they supported might lead to more poverty, more suffering, or even more death, that was lamentable and surely not what they intended.

But in 2018, The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer made a shocking observation about the first Trump administration: The Cruelty is the Point. MAGA means never having to say you’re sorry. If people you don’t like are made poorer, weaker, or sicker — well, good! Nothing tastes sweeter than liberal tears.

We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era. There were the border-patrol agents cracking up at the crying immigrant children separated from their families, and the Trump adviser who delighted white supremacists when he mocked a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. There were the police who laughed uproariously when the president encouraged them to abuse suspects, and the Fox News hosts mocking a survivor of the Pulse Nightclub massacre (and in the process inundating him with threats), the survivors of sexual assault protesting to Senator Jeff Flake, the women who said the president had sexually assaulted them, and the teen survivors of the Parkland school shooting. There was the president mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria, the black athletes protesting unjustified killings by the police, the women of the #MeToo movement who have come forward with stories of sexual abuse, and the disabled reporter whose crime was reporting on Trump truthfully. It is not just that the perpetrators of this cruelty enjoy it; it is that they enjoy it with one another. Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to one another, and to Trump.

In the second Trump administration, this tendency has become even more blatant. Consider:

I could go on. It’s hard to look at any list of recent Trump administration actions without concluding that these people are trying to be assholes. It’s not an accident. It’s not a side effect of something else. The assholery is the point.

You might think this intentional assholery would get Trump in trouble with his Evangelical Christian base, because — I can’t believe I have to write this — Jesus was not an asshole. Jesus preached compassion and empathy.

But Evangelicals are making this work out by turning their backs on the teachings of Jesus. Recent books like The Sin of Empathy and Toxic Empathy explain how empathy is a bad thing — precisely because it might cause you to regret the pain that the policies you support inflict on other people.

Where does a recognition of these issues leave us? Don’t get me wrong. I would like nothing better than for a Democratic wave to sweep the 2026 midterms and then give us a non-MAGA president in 2028. But that is the beginning of the change we need, not the end.

What America needs runs far deeper than a new set of political leaders. We need some sort of spiritual or cultural reformation, one that rededicates Americans to the pursuit of truth and the responsibility to be trustworthy. It would cause us to care about each other rather than rejoice in each other’s pain. It would start us looking for leaders who bring out the best in us rather than the worst.

How do we get that reformation started? I really have no idea. I just see the need.

June 29, 2025 – 10:30 pm Categories: Articles | Comments (21)

Tagged , , |

The Monday Morning Teaser – Sunday night edition

A scheduling problem has created a Monday-morning conflict for me, so I’m not going to be putting out the Sift on its usual schedule. There is no weekly summary this week, just a featured post: “The Rot Goes Deeper Than Trump” about the social and cultural failings that Trump exploited but did not create. That will go out soon — on Sunday night rather than Monday morning.

Expect a more normal schedule next week.

June 29, 2025 – 10:30 pm Categories: Morning tease | Comments (1)

Beginnings and Endings

You know where a war begins, but you never know where it ends.

– Otto von Bismarck

This week’s featured posts are “The Court fails transgender youth” and “Questions to ask as a war begins“.

This week everybody was talking about war with Iran

That’s the subject of one featured post.

As an outside observer, it’s hard for me to assess how serious the division in MAGA-world is. Trump campaigned as an opponent of America’s recent wars, and painted Harris as the kind of hawk who might start another one. But then, Trump campaigned on a lot of things that are long forgotten now, like lowering the deficit and cutting prices. Tariffs were all going to be paid by foreigners and the millions of migrants he was going to deport were violent criminals. He wasn’t going to cut Medicaid.

All that is ancient history now, and the pattern has been that a few MAGAts say, “Wait, what?” for a day or two, but then they get back in line.

This flap seems a bit more serious, with folks like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking out against attacking Iran. There’s little love for Muslims in MAGA-world, so nobody is going to mourn dead Iranians any more than they mourn dead Gazans. But still, it’s hard to shake the feeling that this is Netanyahu’s war, and Trump has been manipulated into going along. If you’re already of the opinion that Jews secretly run the world — which is a more popular view in MAGA-world than anybody likes to admit — it all smells bad.

Will the exposure of Trump’s false promises make any difference this time? I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s worth watching.

and the Supreme Court

The other featured post examines one decision from this week: Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care can stand.

Another court, however, did something encouraging:

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from refusing to process and issue passport applications for transgender and nonbinary people in accordance with their gender identity.

And Mahmoud Khalil is free, after being detained for three months for supporting Palestine and criticizing Israel.

and you also might be interested in …

Jay Kuo describes what ICE might look like if the Big Beautiful Bill passes.

The regime is pushing three big initiatives designed to limit oversight, kneecap states that refuse to cooperate, and dramatically increase the number of ICE agents and detention facilities. … To understand this threat, we need to look carefully within the pages of Trump’s “Big, Beautiful” budget. That bill contains a funding increase for ICE of $27 billion dollars, or 10,000 more ICE officers. Trump is planning to use these billions to recruit an army of masked, armed and largely unaccountable agents. This is a break-the-glass moment for our democracy, hiding within the line items of a single, massive bill.

But the bill doesn’t just add more agents. It also earmarks an eye-popping $45 billion for new ICE detention centers—enough to house 125,000 people.

It’s hard to look at that number and realize that it represents the same number of people of Japanese descent who were put inside of 10 internment camps during World War II.

Students of fascism also understand that, once such centers are built, they won’t just be used to house undocumented migrants subject to mass deportation. The regime, now caught in a horrific dance with private contractors like Erik Prince who will build and profit from these centers, will come to view them as convenient places to house and then disappear its political opponents, perhaps on their way to one of the many gulags it is now contracting with third countries to establish.

Another provision of the Big Beautiful Bill forces the Post Office to sell off its electric vehicles and charging stations.

The proposal is unlikely to generate much revenue for the government; there is almost no private-sector interest in the mail trucks, and used EV charging equipment — built specifically for the Postal Service and already installed in postal facilities — generally cannot be resold.

The point seems to be to for Republicans in Congress to thumb their noses at people who care about climate change.

Computer science was once the career of the future, but apparently no more.

But if the decline [in computer science majors] is surprising, the reason for it is fairly straightforward: Young people are responding to a grim job outlook for entry-level coders. In recent years, the tech industry has been roiled by layoffs and hiring freezes. The leading culprit for the slowdown is technology itself. Artificial intelligence has proved to be even more valuable as a writer of computer code than as a writer of words. This means it is ideally suited to replacing the very type of person who built it.

The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch comments:

Whether the past few years augur a temporary lull or an abrupt reordering of working life, economists suggest the same response for college students: Major in a subject that offers enduring, transferable skills. Believe it or not, that could be the liberal arts. Deming’s research shows that male history and social-science majors end up out-earning their engineering and comp-sci counterparts in the long term, as they develop the soft skills that employers consistently seek out. “It’s actually quite risky to go to school to learn a trade or a particular skill, because you don’t know what the future holds,” Deming told me. “You need to try to think about acquiring a skill set that’s going to be future-proof and last you for 45 years of working life.”

and let’s close with something nostalgic

Many fans of song parodies and humorous music in general no longer recognize the name of Dr. Demento, whose radio show popularized the genre. He’s shutting it down after 55 years. In the Doctor’s honor, here’s a song I wouldn’t know if not for him: The Cockroach that Ate Cincinnati.

If you are amused by that, YouTube has a Dr. Demento playlist.

June 23, 2025 – 12:25 pm Categories: Weekly summaries | Comments (10)

Questions to ask as a war begins

Saturday night, the United States joined Israel’s air war against Iran. The most significant piece of the US intervention was to do what Israel could not: drop giant bunker-buster bombs on the underground Iranian nuclear research facility at Fordow. The US dropped 14 GBU-57 bombs, the largest non-nuclear bomb in our arsenal. (They are also sometimes referred to as MOPs, massive ordinance penetrators.)

The attack came a week after Israel began bombing Iran, and ended several days of what had appeared to be indecision on Trump’s part. Wednesday, he said: “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.” He suggested a two-week window for negotiations, then attacked in two days. (As several people have pointed out, “two weeks” is Trumpspeak for “I have no idea”. He seems to believe that two weeks is long enough for the news cycle to forget about an issue.) Like so many of Trump’s actions, this has been justified after the fact as intentional misdirection rather than indecision.

In response, the Iranian Parliament has authorized closing the Strait of Hormuz, but has left the final decision up to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. One-fifth of the world’s oil goes through that strait, which sits at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Closing it would raise world oil prices substantially, at least in the short term. So far, markets seem not to be taking the threat seriously.

As I’ve often said, a one-person weekly blog can’t do a good job of covering breaking news, particularly if it breaks on the other side of the world. So you should look to other sources for minute-to-minute or day-to-day coverage.

I also frequently warn about the pointlessness of most news-channel speculation. The vast majority of pundits have no idea what’s going to happen next, so taking their scenarios seriously is at best a waste of time and at worst a way to make yourself crazy.

So if I can’t reliably tell you what’s happening or what’s going to happen, what can I do? At the moment, I think the most useful discussion to have on this blog is to ask the right questions.

What are we trying to accomplish in this war? Failure to get this right has been the major failing in America’s recent wars. Our government has frequently marshaled public support by invoking a wide variety of motives, with the result that we never quite know when we’re done. Our involvement in Afghanistan started out as a hunt for Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership behind 9-11. But it quickly evolved into an attempt to establish a friendly regime in Kabul, combat Muslim extremism in general, test counter-insurgency theories, and prove that liberal democracy could work in the Muslim world. So our apparent early success turned into a two-decade failure.

Similarly in Iraq. Were we trying to depose Saddam Hussein? Chase down the (apparently false) rumors of his nuclear program? Control Iraq’s oil? Try yet again to build liberal democracy in the Muslim world? If all we had wanted to do was replace Saddam with a friendlier dictator, that’s not a very inspiring ambition, but we might have been in-and-out quickly. Instead, the failure to find Saddam’s mythical weapons of mass destruction left the Bush administration grasping after some other definition of victory, and getting stuck in another long-term war with dubious goals.

The early indications about this war are not encouraging. Maybe we’re just trying to make sure Iran doesn’t get nuclear weapons. Of course, Obama had a treaty in place that did just that, which Trump ditched, claiming he could get a “better deal”. This war, apparently, is that “better” deal.

But maybe we want to topple the Islamic Republic. Maybe we once again want to control the oil. Those kind of goals bring back Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn rule“: If we break the country’s government, we own own the ensuing problems until we can fix them. That implies the same kind of long-term commitment we had in Iraq.

Of course, Trump might walk away from such a moral obligation, since he has little notion of morality in any sphere. Then we wind up with a failed state three times the size of Afghanistan, and who knows what kind of mischief might germinate there?

Did our attack work? The answer to this question depends on the answer to the previous question: What does “work” mean?

If the goal was simply to destroy Iran’s current nuclear program, maybe it did work, or can be made to work soon. Trump announced that the attacks were “a spectacular military success” which “completely and totally obliterated” the target sites. But then, he would say that no matter what happened, wouldn’t he? Without someone on the ground, it’s impossible to know.

And without regime change, or without some kind of verifiable agreement in which the current regime renounces nuclear weapons, any such damage is just temporary. Any nation with sufficient money and will can develop nuclear weapons. If Iran comes out of this war with money and will, it can start over.

If the goal is regime change or “unconditional surrender”, the attack hasn’t worked yet and may never. Air war is a poor tool for establishing a new government. I would hope we learned our lesson from Dick Cheney’s famous “we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” comment, but maybe not. I’ve heard commentators cite internal political opposition to the Iranian theocracy as some kind of ally, but It’s hard for me to picture how that works.

Apply the same logic to the United States: I am deeply opposed to the Trump administration and regard it as a threat to the tradition of American constitutional government. But would I favor some Chinese operation to overthrow Trump? No. What if the internal opposition in Iran is like me? Might they have to unite behind their government to avoid foreign domination?

What could Iran do in response? It’s always tempting to imagine that I will take some extreme action and that will be the end of the matter. Probably you’ve seen this yourself in online discussions. Somebody says something stupid, and you come up with some devastating comment, figuring that the other person will slink off in disgrace.

It doesn’t usually work out that way, does it? The other person will strike back at least as hard as you did, and the exchange might go on for days. You never planned on a flame war eating up hours of your time, but there you are.

Same thing here. Iran might close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, sending the price of gas shooting up and the world economy reeling. It might attack American troops stationed in various places around the Middle East. It might launch terrorist attacks in the US itself. (Do you trust this 22-year-old to protect you?)

Even worse is the possibility of the unexpected. We seem to be at a hinge point in the history of warfare, where drones and various other new technologies change the battlefield in ways that are hard to imagine. Ukraine’s attack on Russia’s Siberian bomber bases is a case in point, but there are others.

Traditional symbols of power may be vulnerable, the way that the American battleships at Pearl Harbor were vulnerable to the new technology of air power. Are we prepared for, say, a massive drone attack sinking an aircraft carrier? What about a cyberattack blacking out some major city? If we suffer such an unexpected blow to our prestige and power, will we be able to respond in a rational way?

What will this war do to the United States itself? The War on Terror undermined the consensus against torture, and authorized previously unprecedented levels of government spying on ordinary Americans.

So far, this war looks like another few steps down the road to autocracy. We attacked Iran because Trump decided to. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, by contrast, was authorized by a bipartisan vote in Congress (to the shame of opportunistic Democrats who should have stood against it). That vote was preceded by a spirited public debate and mass protests.

This time, Congress was not consulted in any formal way. And even informally, a few congressional Republicans were informed ahead of time, but played no part in the decision. Democrats were not consulted at all. No effort at all has been made to convince the American public that this war is in our interests.

So far we’ve been treating this war as if it were a reality show involving Trump, Netanyahu, and the Iranian leadership. We’re just spectators. Until, that is, our city blacks out or we can’t afford gas.

June 23, 2025 – 11:23 am Categories: Articles | Comments (12)

Tagged , , , |

The Court fails transgender youth

Equal protection of the laws isn’t what it used to be.

After the 13th Amendment freed the slaves, the nation passed a 14th Amendment to make sure the freed slaves would have rights under the law. It promised every person “the equal protection of the laws”.

It didn’t work, at least not at first. The Supreme Court interpreted that Equal Protection Clause narrowly, and so states were able to pass Jim Crow laws that forced Black Americans to live under a different legal regime entirely. Plessy v Ferguson established the principle of “separate but equal” treatment, where “separate” rules and facilities for Blacks and Whites were very real, but “equal” could be winked at.

In the 20th century, though, the Equal Protection Clause was gradually reinterpreted to mean something very important. There are a number of complicated doctrines that implement this idea, but the underlying concept is simple: If the law treats you differently than it treats someone else, there has to be a reason for it. And the reason can’t just be that the people who make the laws don’t like you.

There has seldom been a more obvious violation of this principle than the recent run of state laws that ban gender-affirming care for trans youth. One such law is Tennessee’s “Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, Senate Bill 1 (SB1)“. Ostensibly, the law intends “to protect the health and welfare of minors”. The law bans a number of treatments that major medical organizations (“American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry” according to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent) recommend for young people experiencing gender dysphoria, i.e., the feeling that the sexual characteristics of their physical body are at odds with their inner sense of who they are.

Legislatures typically have wide latitude to permit or ban medical procedures according to their assessment of patient safety. But the smoking gun here is that the procedures are banned only when used to treat trans youth, only

when these medical procedures are performed for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex or treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.

Using say, puberty-blocking drugs or gender-related hormones like testosterone or estrogen, is perfectly fine and safe for any other purpose parents and physicians might have in mind. But not that one.

Keep in mind here that the affected population — families of trans youth — did not ask for this “protection”. To the best of my knowledge, none of them came to the legislature and said “I want the state to make my child’s medical decisions.” To the contrary, three such families sued to block the law, and countless others are leaving Tennessee (and other states with similar laws) so that they will be free to decide for themselves how to handle what everyone recognizes is a difficult situation.

The push for SB1 came instead from people opposed on principle to the existence of trans people, usually for religious reasons. The purpose is to act on trans youth and their families, not for them. The law itself says:

This state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty.

In other words, Tennessee claims a “compelling interest” in convincing trans youth that they are wrong. Their sex is their sex, and they just need to get used to it.

Anyone who has listened to the public debate over such laws has to realize that the laws are motivated by a desire to make life harder for families of trans youth. If the families choose to remove their children from the state by moving, or the children decide to remove themselves from life by committing suicide, this is not necessarily considered a bad outcome. Obviously, the Tennessee legislature does not intend to offer trans youth “the equal protection of the laws”. SB1’s intention is to bludgeon trans youth, not protect them.

The question for the courts, then, should be how to extend equal protection in a coherent way. Precedents offer clear paths. Typically, these precedents involve the most obvious instances of laws being used against disadvantaged groups: race and sex. Laws that turn on issues of race or sex are given “heightened scrutiny” by the courts, because apparent justifications for the laws have so often turned out to be pretexts for hostile discrimination.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in this week’s case (US v Skrmetti, decided Wednesday) outlines how to use the precedents involving sex.

What does [application of SB1] mean in practice? Simply that sex determines access to the covered medication. Physicians in Tennessee can prescribe hormones and puberty blockers to help a male child, but not a female child, look more like a boy; and to help a female child, but not a male child, look more like a girl. Put in the statute’s own terms, doctors can facilitate consistency between an adolescent’s physical appearance and the “normal development” of her sex identified at birth, but they may not use the same medications to facilitate “inconsisten[cy]” with sex . All this, the State openly admits, in service of “encouraging minors to appreciate their sex.”

But the conservative justices (Roberts writing the majority opinion, plus concurrences by Thomas, Alito, and Barrett) resist not just the characterization of this case as hinging on sex, but also the idea that any injustice is occurring at all: There is nothing about discrimination against trans people that makes laws about them suspect, and so the Court has no excuse to go probing into the motives of the legislature. Courts should apply only “rational basis” review of SB1, requiring only that the legislature offer some rational connection between its actions and some legitimate government purpose. Protecting minors from a possibly dangerous medical procedure is a rational purpose, and so the Court need not look more closely at whether that explanation is a pretext for hostile discrimination. (In fact, the conservative justices dare not look closer, because the proffered explanation is obviously a pretext.)

There is a standard argument for justifying this kind of discrimination, and it has been used many times in the past: You examine previous suspect classes and draw your lines so that those issues appear not to apply. So, for example, laws banning interracial marriage were once not seen as racially discriminatory, because neither Blacks nor Whites could marry a person of a different race. Laws against same-sex marriage didn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, because neither men nor women could marry a person of the same sex. And so on. In retrospect, such arguments are transparent rationalizations for hostile discrimination, but that doesn’t stop judges from continuing to use them. Justice Roberts writes for the majority:

Neither of the above classifications [in SB1] turns on sex. Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex. … SB1 does not mask sex-based classifications. For reasons we have explained, the law does not prohibit conduct for one sex that it permits for the other. Under SB1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes.

So the law doesn’t discriminate against transgender youth, it just separates out the medical conditions that define transgender youth. It protects youth against the risks of such treatments, but only if they seek those treatments for a purpose unique to trans people.

When the Equal Protection Clause was being explained to me years ago, the following example was given: What if a law banned yarmulkes, the skull caps typically worn by Jewish men? You could argue that such a law isn’t religious discrimination, because it applies universally: Neither Jews nor Gentiles can wear yarmulkes. But of course, only Jews want to wear yarmulkes. So a law against yarmulkes is religious discrimination against Jews.

Sotomayor observes:

nearly every discriminatory law is susceptible to a similarly race- or sex- neutral characterization. A prohibition on interracial marriage, for example, allows no person to marry someone outside of her race, while allowing persons of any race to marry within their races.

The religious right is targeting other applications of the Equal Protection Clause, beginning with same-sex marriage. So it seems likely we will be hearing the same rationalizations again soon.

June 23, 2025 – 9:12 am Categories: Articles | Comments (6)

Tagged |